Posted on 07/21/2009 11:08:53 AM PDT by BenLurkin
As censors approve a movie that plumbs grotesque new depths of sexual explicitness and violence, one critic (who prides himself on being broad-minded) despairs...
A film which plumbs new depths of sexual explicitness, excruciating violence and degradation has just been passed as fit for general consumption by the British Board of Film Classification.
They have given the film an 18 certificate. As we all know, this is meaningless nowadays in the age of the DVD because sooner or later, thanks to the gross irresponsibility of some parents, any film that is given general release will be seen by children.
You do not need to see Lars von Trier's Antichrist (which is released later this week) to know how revolting it is.
I haven't seen it myself, nor shall I - and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.
Here is the 'plot' of Antichrist, with apologies in advance. But since this is coming to a cinema near you soon - and then a DVD, a website and a late-night TV channel - you might want know about it.
A couple are having sex. Graphically close-up. While they are doing so, their toddler falls to his death from a balcony.
The husband and wife go to stay in a log cabin to recover from their grief. There, horrors the likes of which I have never witnessed unfold in graphic detail. Eventually, the husband strangles her and escapes through the woods, where he is surrounded by hundreds of children with blurred faces. The end.
Now the anonymous moral guardians of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), in their infinite wisdom, have passed this foul film for general consumption.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
On a cable station last week, I caught “Stanley and Livingston” (Spencer Tracy) and “Beau Geste” (Gary Cooper & Brian Donlevy-who should’ve have gotten an oscar). Try some of these oldies-I’ve forgotten how good they are!!
England’s long had a film censor board.
They gave The Wild One and Animal Farm (animated) both X ratings on their original release in the 1950s.
I don’t know what age one had to be to see a British X (16+?)
I hear they were real late to permitting explicit penetration in adult entertainment (like 1990s).
And they cut famous American horror films.
They also used to have outright bans on some titles.
look up the “video nasties” controversy of the 1980s and 1990s (right as Al Gore was making political press with the PMRC).
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/press/19990101f.html
The BBFC has classified THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE as ‘18’ without cuts.
The notoriety of the film may owe a lot to its original rejection by the BBFC in 1975. It was passed for viewing in Europe, the USA, Australia and other countries. It received a GLC licence in the 1970s and was most recently shown in central London in 1998 under a licence from Camden Council. There is, so far as the Board is aware, no evidence that harm has ever arisen as a consequence of viewing the film. For modern young adults, accustomed to the macabre shocks of horror films through the 1980s and 1990s, THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE is unlikely to be particularly challenging. Unlike more recent examples of the genre, violence in THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE is throughout implied rather then explicit. By today’s standards, its visual effects may seem relatively unconvincing.
Possibly the most notorious feature is the relentless pursuit of the ‘Final Girl’ throughout the last half hour or so of the film. The heroine in peril is a staple of the cinema since the earliest days. It is nonetheless legitimate to question the unusual emphasis THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE places on the pursuit of a defenceless and screaming female over such an extended period. The Board’s conclusion, after careful consideration, was that any possible harm that might arise in terms of the effect upon a modern audience would be more than sufficiently countered by the unrealistic, even absurd, nature of the action itself. It is worth emphasising that there is no explicit sexual element in the film, and relatively little visible violence.
Andreas Whittam Smith - President
Robin Duval - Director
I don’t see a lot of movies, so I may be wrong about this — but I feel that the profanity trend may have diminished. Movies like Iron Man or The Dark Knight had virtually no profanity. On the other hand, I recently re-watched some movies from the 1980’s (Ferris Bueller, etc.) and I was really surprised at the gratuitous language. I think the urge back then was to appear “cool” by having a foul mouth. Nowadays that is such old hat, that there is no perceived benefit to swearing, so it gets dropped (somewhat).
Also Ferris was about teens who actively try look cool.
I was thinking the same thing. I don’t know what is out there in the wilder edges of porn, but I can’t imagine that it goes to the extreme lengths depicted in this movie. I can understand why most people didn’t like it.
Neither would a black guy drinking from the same water fountain as a white guy. Your point?
Unfortunately, I cannot grant that. If you look to the past, movies like I Spit on Your Grave and Mother’s Day were available at theaters, probably at more theaters than will show this. Antichrist will be a niche product that few will ever see, but almost certainly will not be as offensive as the likes of Cannibal Holocaust and Caligula, both of which were distributed to theaters in this country. That is not to mention Emanuelle in America, which most people would find incredibly offensive given the scene with the horse. Censorship is significantly stronger now than it was at the height of this country’s decadence, the mid to late 70s and very early 80s. The central difference is the change in theaters entirely. While giving a film like Midnight Cowboy an X rating is interesting, it had little to no effect on its distribution. Now, with most theaters belonging to chains (whereas in the 70s most theaters were independent, and drive-ins were still common), it is difficult to get an NC-17 movie screened in many areas, and any film the MPAA would require to have a harsher rating would have zero possibility of release at ninety percent of the theaters in the country.
“What DOES it take for a film to get banned these days?”
Easy answer.
Just show the cult of death for what it is - a world-domination movement cleverly disguised as a religion, and you’ll be banned.
Just show the little baby in the womb, and you’ll be banned.
But if you want to destroy the moral principles that have held people together in a civilization, go right ahead, because the censors will not stop you.
I don’t know whether Caligula was available at Border’s Bookstores but I know that Emanuelle in America was. There are many explicit titles available at Border, Best Buy, Fry’s, and more.
42nd Street’s most rotten grindhouse cinema is now commonly available at the big box stores.
And they don’t carry an “X” anymore, they are just released as “uncut and unrated”.
And Lars Von Treir is a big arthouse fav. He’ll probably see him movie in perpetual reruns on Bravo or IFC.
Does this guy have an internet connection?
If he wants to see freaky unforgettable, seared in your memory, how-the-hell-can-they-do-that stuff, its as easy as a click.
I don’t pay much attention to film critics in general, less so when they admit up front that they have not seen it.
It strains the critics credibility (IMHO) when, having not seen the film, he states that it is “A film which plumbs new depths of sexual explicitness, excruciating violence and degradation”
Wouldn’t you need to see the movie to state that?
I disagree. This is where moral relativism destroys society and this is one reason why I am not a libertarian. Morality, objectively speaking, is an absolute and there are most certainly absolute rights and wrongs.
this is a movie. it is someone's vision of art. it is open to interpretation. it's not real.
anyone who plays a video game or sees a movie or reads non-fiction and thinks it's real is not based in reality.
I agree with your sentiments, but the bottom line is that whatever will make money will be allowed.
It is MY responsibility to insure my kids don’t see it. At least, not at my house.
Innocence doesn’t last nearly long enough.
I will think about your comment and reply later.
Moral Relativity has nothing to do with it. There are hundreds of interpretations of something like Hamlet.
You prove my point.
Your point being what? That there should only be one way to interpret a work of Art?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.