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 ...
"Isn't that good enough reason to ban it, or at least demand extensive cuts? But have we - that is to say, the hesitant, fumbling, comfortably cushioned, value-free Leftish elite who now govern us - got the guts? I doubt it."
All it has to do is “insult” Islam
The biggest problem for Britain is not that people would be interested in seeing this crap...but that the government would be in a position to ‘ban’ it in the first place. And what a strange and corrupt notion of appropriate government action with this can be approved for general consumption, but the like of Michael Savage are banned from entering the country. I love England, but the entire country seems to be rotting from the core.
“What DOES it take for a film to get banned these days?”
Easy. Make it critical of muslims.
it's your job, suck it up and see the movie. or don't write about it!
there are scenes in movies that make me queezy and that takes a lot given what i have seen in real life. Deliverance, The Accused, and Casino come to mind right off the bat.
True.
Very true.
This is absurd. Have you seen pornography lately? I guarantee you nothing in this movie is 1/2 of what is readily available in free porn these days.
Maybe this will end his disgusting "career".
These movie people pride themselves on pushing the envelope.
Can the liberal/libertarian/artistic freedom crowd at least acknowledge that a movie like this would not have been allowed years ago? And that the standards keep changing, and going in the direction of more explicit displays?
In 1969, the movie “Midnight Cowboy” got an “X” rating. It would probably be rated PG-13 today. There was nothing explicit in that movie. There was a lot of bad language, and a sympathetic portrayal of a motorcycle bum type character. By today’s standards, that movie wouldn’t have caused controversy. But by the standards of the day, it was considered bad enough to get that X rating. X was not necessarily supposed to be explicit nudity or sex, it was supposed to be anything not suitable for children.
And as this article points out, the whole concept of movie ratings is dissolving in the age of the DVD. Yes many children will see this in their homes when it comes out on DVD. That’s a whole other debate, about how to shield kids from all this stuff that is produced ine name of “artistic freedom”.
Seeing as it is from Lars von Trier, I won’t be seeing it. I’ve walked out of TWO of his movies bored to tears.
I get kind of queasy about the thought of banning films. I don’t go to movies much because I don’t want to support the filth/leftist agenda that is so pervasive. I speak with my money, and just don’t view or let my children view these kinds of films.
They won’t even have to wait for it to come out on DVD, they’ll watch it at home from a pirated website. Of course, they are probably downloading even far worse.
You don't have to put your hand in a pot of boiling water in order to "know" that it will burn you.
it's your job, suck it up and see the movie. or don't write about it!
Just because it is your job doesn't mean you cannot draw the line as to what you will and wont do and speaking out about something you think is wrong. He may get fired, but, oh well, that is the price you pay sometimes.
and Casino come to mind right off the bat.
No pun intended? ;)
I don’t care much about banning movies, but that reminds me of a movie trend that I dislike. Why did the amount of profanity increase, in movies, within the past 30 years? I don’t want to see a movie, if I know that it was rated “R” because of profanity.
Oooo, an anti Christian movie, how daring...
I double dog dare you to make a similar film about Mohammed.
Reminds me of the unredeemably tasteless The Thief the cook, his wife and her Lover” from 20 years ago.
One of four movies I have ever walked out on.
Another fatuous piece of celluloid envelope-pushing
that might have been successful in the jaded atmospherics
of Hitler’s Germany, but nowhere else.
Peter Greenaway was the director.
Lars von Trier made the proverbial “big splash” years ago
with a piece of nonsense called “Breaking the Waves”.
I saw a half hour of it and returned the Videotape.
The other two films I stopped watching , and now I can’t see why, were “The Fixer”, with the late Alan Bates, and
“Black and White in Color”, and both were probably quite good, but irritated me no end when I tried to watch them.
Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” nearly made the banned list simply through denial of distribution. Other than pro-Christian or anti-abortion themes, everything else seems acceptable, even for prime-time TV distribution. On TV recently during what used to be the “children’s hour,” I’ve seen movie depictions of self-administered male oral sex, anal sex, plain old BJs, horrific mutilations and every ugly, nasty, stomach-turning sickness the immature imaginations of movie producers can dream up.
>> This is absurd. Have you seen pornography lately? I guarantee you nothing in this movie is 1/2 of what is readily available in free porn these days. <<
I dunno; I just read the wiki article on it. I hope you’re dead wrong. If you’re not, God help us.
a movie, any movie, will strike different people in different ways. you need to see it, test it, experience it before you can make your own conclusion.
and yes, the pun was intended. even thinking about that scene makes me quiver.
Actually, the most scandalous thing is that this movie was paid for by a grant from the Danish taxpayers.
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.