What DOES it take for a film to get banned these days?

U K Daily Mail ^ | Last updated at 1:09 PM on 20th July 2009 | Christopher Hart

[frogjerk]

I've thought about your post and here are my comments:

this is a movie. it is someone's vision of art. it is open to interpretation. it's not real.

I say B.S. The creator of this "film" is a God-hater trying to offend. He says he doesn't think of the audience when he makes his "films" which is a bunch of baloney because why would he then market the thing and then show it to an audience? The "director" uses the excuse that anyone who disagrees and says his "film" is garbage somehow doesn't get it. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder but that doesn't mean that the beholder isn't mentally unstable.

anyone who plays a video game or sees a movie or reads non-fiction and thinks it's real is not based in reality.

This "filmmaker" has put on film graphic sex scenes (simulated? we don't know) and simulated violence. Simulated means to make the likeness of to seem as if real. Objectively speaking it is not real but made to seem as if real. So what's the object of this film? To become a topic of discussion? What is the redeeming value of this subsidized piece of trash? To offend and to burn disgusting images into our minds. Basically, this is giving this "director" a piece of your mind. Like you implied earlier, the scene in Casino is disturbing, meaning that it is basically burned into your skull for a long period of time. I don't think this is good for anyone to become numb to violent or sexual situations which will happen if one is exposed to it on a regular basis.

Here is a problem with the reasoning that I think many who object to critics (or anyone) trashing a movie they haven't yet viewed: On the one hand one states that the critic should not comment on the "film" because he has not seen it. On the other hand if someone is offended when they see the "film" they will be told that they knew what they were getting into and shouldn't be offended. You (not you personally) cannot have it both ways and this sort of reasoning is disingenuous

That being said, I am not for banning films but I am for proper and consistent rating standards to inform the public at large about content.

The term "reasonable person" comes to mind when discussing such issues. A term we use everyday in law across the United States. When we start meddling with what "reasonable person" means the whole apple cart will be tipped over and a mess will ensue.

The highest art is always the most religious, and the greatest artist is always a devout person.

Abraham Lincoln

[nufsed]

ping me when it opens in the states.

[frogjerk]

Your point being what? That there should only be one way to interpret a work of Art?

No.

Hamlet was written by Shakespeare. Some productions are well done, others not so much. Like I said in a previous post, beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that doesn't mean the beholder isn't totally insane (like the "artist" that created the piece of garbage that is the subject of this thread).

Judgments are made by society all of the time. Some are not good and are changed over time (Slavery, discrimination, etc...) and some stay consistant throughout time (illegality of murder, rape, contributing to the delinquency of minors, etc...). I believe (And I believe history backs me up) that no matter how hard groups and persons try to push the envelope there will always be a standard that will be consistent throughout time due to the imprinting of the natural law on humanity by God.

Moral relativism: to what is it relative? This is why it is no good.