Topic: Funny Ratings Info

[northbloke]

Not with an explicit scene acted by a "consenting" seven year old, they don't.

I'm not going to take sides, but this is a pointless argument - there are numerous strict child employment and protection laws in this country that prevent a scene you describe existing that have nothing to do with censorship or classification.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Let's say a film-maker makes a film about a girl being repeatedly raped. There's no story. It's just one room, one shot, one girl getting raped multiple times for 75 minutes. The only soundtrack is her screaming and crying. Acting? Maybe. Hard to tell. You're saying such a "film" should even be allowed to exist?

Jon, the problem with censorship wouldn't be the clear cases where (hopefully) the wide majority would agree that this shouldn't be presented to the wide public.
The problem starts when these censors want to dictate what the public is allowed to see, read, say, think.

Or to turn your example in the other direction:
Let's say we have a fictitious group of people who, for which reason ever, rule a complete country. These people now say that the books by Ernest Hemingway, the pictures by Chagall, Munch, Picasso, all movies were jews and/or homosexually orientated people are involved are considered to be degenerated art and therefore have to be burnt.

Really, when being able to choose between your example and mine, I'd always pick yours. Who wouldn't?
The question is not if I would want to see a movie were nothing else happens but someone being raped, but what else they wouldn't let me see.
Germany is still a very good example for an overzealous censoring where the FSK-board dictates what we are allowed to see. Hell, they even established an unofficial rating above FSK-18, the so-called "Index" here you will find movies of which the board thinks they are inappropriate for the German public. On this index you will find movies like the original cut of "From Dusk Till Dawn", which unto this day is not publicly available in Germany. Or, until very recently (Oct. 2011), films like "Soldier Blue" and "Scarface" (!!)

[Jimmy]

The problem starts when these censors want to dictate what the public is allowed to see, read, say, think.

This is what I say since the beginning, but Jon had decided to play the "make him looks ridiculous and perverted" game by throwing over the top exemples who are yes in bad taste but had no reason to be not shown to the public.

Not with an explicit scene acted by a "consenting" seven year old, they don't.

See what I mean?
I never said that a movie like the one presented in the Sam scenario would be acceptable with anything else than make believe scene, but against Jon you go over the top and act as if I would have wrote that a scene with a child sexually abused for real will be ok for me in a film...

Honestly Jon that kind of tactic is more tasteless than everything I have wrote in this thread...

[Najemikon]

Jimmy, if you think that was my intention, then you're more far gone than I thought. I did have more respect for you than to try and make you look "perverted". Read the official BBFC statement yet? No? Probably not. You're too damn blinkered.  Sam suggested that extension of my example to see where your boundaries lie and frankly it seems that if you could make it inside the law, then you would indeed make it.

I'm not going to take sides, but this is a pointless argument - there are numerous strict child employment and protection laws in this country that prevent a scene you describe existing that have nothing to do with censorship or classification.

Agreed, I do realise that, hence why my first example was an elongated, horrific and violent rape scene between adults with no narrative support. Jimmy saw nothing wrong with that, so this was merely a hypothetical point to ask where boundaries should be. Sadly it seems, not even there. Basically, if the making of the film is legal, doesn't matter a damn what it looks like. Thank goodness the BBFC disagree and their regular consultations with the public support them.

Let's say a film-maker makes a film about a girl being repeatedly raped. There's no story. It's just one room, one shot, one girl getting raped multiple times for 75 minutes. The only soundtrack is her screaming and crying. Acting? Maybe. Hard to tell. You're saying such a "film" should even be allowed to exist?

Jon, the problem with censorship wouldn't be the clear cases where (hopefully) the wide majority would agree that this shouldn't be presented to the wide public.
The problem starts when these censors want to dictate what the public is allowed to see, read, say, think.

Or to turn your example in the other direction:
Let's say we have a fictitious group of people who, for which reason ever, rule a complete country. These people now say that the books by Ernest Hemingway, the pictures by Chagall, Munch, Picasso, all movies were jews and/or homosexually orientated people are involved are considered to be degenerated art and therefore have to be burnt.

Really, when being able to choose between your example and mine, I'd always pick yours. Who wouldn't?
The question is not if I would want to see a movie were nothing else happens but someone being raped, but what else they wouldn't let me see.
Germany is still a very good example for an overzealous censoring where the FSK-board dictates what we are allowed to see. Hell, they even established an unofficial rating above FSK-18, the so-called "Index" here you will find movies of which the board thinks they are inappropriate for the German public. On this index you will find movies like the original cut of "From Dusk Till Dawn", which unto this day is not publicly available in Germany. Or, until very recently (Oct. 2011), films like "Soldier Blue" and "Scarface" (!!)

You see this is the point I've been trying to promote. The BBFC are nowhere near as stringent as that and don't try to control what an adult can watch. Their policy is quite simple: if you're an adult, you can make your mind up yourself. They draw the line at sexualised violence that isn't supported by the story, such as what my example might be. See the link in one of my previous posts to their 2010 report. After the introduction, they explain the two films they couldn't allow through uncut, one of which was A Serbian Film. Out of interest, did that make it into Germany?

That's two films in the whole of 2010.

Really, read that section of the report. It's only a couple of pages and demonstrates just how open and progressive they are. There would be no problem at all with a From Dusk Till Dawn or Scarface these days, and if we were discussing the kind of control and censorship of the old US Hay's code or the British Mary Whitehouse years, you'd hear a very different argument from me.

[Jimmy]

Basically, if the making of the film is legal, doesn't matter a damn what it looks like.

This is what you don't want to understand Jon.

If something is legal there are definitely no reason to not make it available, doing the opposite is censorship Jon.

This isn't a question of bad taste or moral. This is a question of legallity...

Personally I don't want to go back in time and see, by exemple, a banishment of sex on film without a doctor to explain because someone things this had no social value.

A good exemple I could tell you is a movie like Executions, yes I have it but I find this a lot more objectionable and tasteless than any of the two exemples we talked about previously. In your scenario the film is done by consenting adults, in Sam's scenario the hard part would be done using special effects (I never said it would be legal if a real child would be rape). One last thing the movie is legal and got an 18 rating uncut on DVD in your country...

I don't know but watching real people being kill with no narrative for two hours seem worst to me than a rape "fantasy" theme film between adult or a fake child rape scene.

one of which was A Serbian Film. Out of interest, did that make it into Germany?

No the only place where it is available uncut is in Sweden.

[Jimmy]

Thinking more about it Jon I think we would never agree on this... So before we go too far or annoyed the other too much

Can we agree on some facts :

1. Rating to control what someone can watch is censorship,
2. the british rating board is less extreme than 20 years ago,
3. each countries had a different version of what is or isn't acceptable,
4. moral value isn't a good indicator of good taste,
5. if something is legal it is legal,
6. the rating is a tool to determine what age group can watch and nothing else,
7. someone isn't mentally deranged because of what he watch or his fantasy,
8. no one is force to watch everything because he can.

So can we shake hands on this

[Najemikon]

Basically, if the making of the film is legal, doesn't matter a damn what it looks like.

This is what you don't want to understand Jon.

If something is legal there are definitely no reason to not make it available, doing the opposite is censorship Jon.

This isn't a question of bad taste or moral. This is a question of legallity...

Personally I don't want to go back in time and see, by exemple, a banishment of sex on film without a doctor to explain because someone things this had no social value.

A good exemple I could tell you is a movie like Executions, yes I have it but I find this a lot more objectionable and tasteless than any of the two exemples we talked about previously. In your scenario the film is done by consenting adults, in Sam's scenario the hard part would be done using special effects (I never said it would be legal if a real child would be rape). One last thing the movie is legal and got an 18 rating uncut on DVD in your country...

I don't know but watching real people being kill with no narrative for two hours seem worst to me than a rape "fantasy" theme film between adult or a fake child rape scene.

one of which was A Serbian Film. Out of interest, did that make it into Germany?

No the only place where it is available uncut is in Sweden.

It's interesting you should mention Executions. I saw it many years ago and yes, it is horrific. Some of the images are seared into my mind! But it's very important to note that it is effectively a documentary or at least crude video journalism. I can honestly say I learnt something from watching that! Still, I bet it caused a few discussions. It's not a very good documentary and so comes very close to glorifying the footage.

And that's the problem with the fantasy scenarios or the stuff that actually is forced to be cut. By sexualising violence, they glorify the act into a fetish and it becomes nothing more than a pornagraphic exercise for the sake of it. The story can only support it so far.

It's why Last House On The Left is still my least favourite film. The scene where the two girls are tortured and forced to perform sex acts on each other is awful, but it is at least supported by the story. The gang are shown to be enjoying it, therefore the viewer can consider the scene in balance, regardless of how awful the situation. But then the camera focuses too much on the girls. The gang are out of frame and it seems to go on too long. Now we're being taken out of the story and asked to consider the act itself and how we react to it.

Now fair enough in that case, that the point may very well have been to force the viewer the question themselves, but Craven still pushes too far for my liking.

A clearer example is one I've often quoted: Straw Dogs. Susan George is raped twice and the BBFC famously cut one of the scenes. If you think about it, why did we need to see her raped twice? Once was enough for the story, we get the idea. Surely another scene is just perverse. However the film is now uncut because they came to understand that it was an important point in the story and reflects the state of the characters relationship with her useless husband. Peckinpah bridged the gap where Craven didn't have the skill to be so subtle.

Thinking more about it Jon I think we would never agree on this... So before we go too far or annoyed the other too much

Can we agree on some facts :

1. Rating to control what someone can watch is censorship,

An accurate, but moot point. Unless you want so much freedom kids would have full unrestricted access to extreme adult material. This is 'positive' censorship. "Birth of a Nation" is a more general indication of why someone always needs to be paying attention though as well.

2. the british rating board is less extreme than 20 years ago,

Very much so, but interestingly, I don't think they were ever as bad as the moral codes that throttled the US in the 40s.

3. each countries had a different version of what is or isn't acceptable,

Yes, it's largely a matter of culture. There is a lot of common ground, but I do believe we have the best balance in the UK which is why I embrace their methods.

4. moral value isn't a good indicator of good taste,

Oooh, difficult. You reacted badly earlier to my term about protecting the "vulnerable", but what I meant was that groups of society rely on someone maintaining a consensus so they can't be exploited. It's not about people who can't protect themselves or need a thicker skin, it's about being able to demonstrate respect. We have a very diverse community here in the UK and intolerance doesn't have to be illegal, but it is always immoral.

5. if something is legal it is legal,

Laws have to be strict and tested, so there will always be a grey area. That's why it's important to understand that the BBFC continually work with the public to find out what "we" want in that grey area. So, it's never been illegal to have sex before marriage, but decades ago, showing that on film would have caused public outrage. Opinion changes, the law hasn't, but the advice gets updated so the grey area isn't unfairly restricted. Which is why we find ourselves in a very tolerant time.

6. the rating is a tool to determine what age group can watch and nothing else,

Predominantly, yes, 99.999% of decisions are based on what audience the film-maker is aiming at and the question of having to cut because of moral/legal grounds rarely comes up (just twice in 2010). Even very excessive swearing, sex and/or violence will get you an 18, not a ban. And again, they work with public opinion (example, Spider-Man had a new rating created for it). That said, the rating is intended as a rough guide. It's supported by more detailed information so an informed decision can be made. Especially for parents who might not have the opportunity to watch material for themselves.

7. someone isn't mentally deranged because of what he watch or his fantasy,

I agree, if they are an adult. And that's why the guidelines have to be very clear.

8. no one is force to watch everything because he can.

Again, it's not about those who can make that informed decision for themselves, it's about those who can't. And I stress again the point that effectively there has been no noticeable restriction on what's available anyway. It's mainly advice.

So can we shake hands on this

I appreciate you making this effort. We never will agree. I'm glad I'm comfortable with the state of censorship, because I honestly think you'll never see it rescinded and the current attitude of the BBFC is the fairest and most progressive. I think that will prove to be important in the coming years.

I know you think I was rambling, but my point about the Internet earlier was because I believe the current arguments over privacy, the extreme amount of piracy and the haphazard controls over content, are going to force governments to seriously consider some kind of rating control similar to what we have in the Video Act. The next generation of parents will kick up a stink and the free Internet will be shackled. We'll be having the same arguments about websites soon!

[Jimmy]

Reference : We'll be having the same arguments about websites soon!

It's done since forever. The idea of the web being a free for all is an illusion and rightfully so...

Tons of illegal websites are closed everyday (or had their access blocked in certain country), in fact this is quite easy to do.

You won't get any argument from me everytime they close something illegal... as long as it isn't censorship like when insex.com was shut down by the US Department of Homeland Security for no reason.

now the site belongs to a Dutch company and is sure not safe for work, in fact it can be extreme for some people (no idea if you can access it in the US).

[Najemikon]

  Yeah, I can access it! 

It's done since forever. The idea of the web being a free for all is an illusion and rightfully so...

Yeah, but even so, it relies on different attitudes of ISPs and up until the last couple of years, the Internet was a cult and everyone involved from users to web developers and ISPs, understood that. Now the world and his granny use the web and they have no idea what's lurking under the surface! For a long time I wanted to defend the illusion, but now that social network bullying is on a dramatic rise and sites like Chatroulette are so open to abuse, I find that harder. It's only a matter of time before there is a public-facing and accountable "Internet Police" and I think there will be an attempt at a dramatic change.

[Jimmy]

Yeah, I can access it!  

Was my warning enough for the contents

sites like Chatroulette are so open to abuse, I find that harder.

Jon stop going there
What I've read about this website was enough to scare me to death and I ain't easilly scare

It's only a matter of time before there is a public-facing and accountable "Internet Police" and I think there will be an attempt at a dramatic change.

Maybe you will be surprise but I am for the end of the anonymity on the web by the introduction of some kind of password that will trace everything you do on the web. Seem extreme at first but it isn't different than camera on the street to prevent the criminality and, to be honest, something like this is needed since the day the average Joe got access to the web...

Like I said often if you are beyond reproach you have nothing to fear from the autority

[Achim]

Pardon me for skipping the last few posts of the argument.

What I find curious is, that it appears that Jimmy bases his view of the BBFC of their much stricter and tougher rulings 15-30 years ago whereas Jon and Sam are more aware of the way more cooperating BBFC of recent years.

The BBFC see to ban films like Evil Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre which are now available uncut. From wht I an tell the BBFC is indeed mainly looking at legality of content, such as animal cruelty (they only cut required to Cannibal Holocaust). Things seems to have change dramatically around 10 years ago.

From the litte I get to know things in Germany have improved as well in recent years, but I doubt they are anywhere near to the UK.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

From the litte I get to know things in Germany have improved as well in recent years, but I doubt they are anywhere near to the UK.

Fully agree,
wish we had the current BBFC over here in Germany as FSK-board.
We'd have a lot less cuts then.

What I find curious is, that it appears that Jimmy bases his view of the BBFC of their much stricter and tougher rulings 15-30 years ago

If I understood Jimmy's point correctly his vie is based on a complete denial of rating boards as such, as long as they don't restrict themselves to just giving ratings.
But AFAIK the BBFC is currently doing exactly this, it just restricts itself to giving ratings and recommendations which scenes are to be omitted to get a lower rating. The decision on what to do with these recommendations is left to the studios. So currently there's no "real" censoring in GB.

[samuelrichardscott]

Do the FSK have a good website, or is there a good German website to find info on cuts?

I just added Heartstopper to Rewind:
http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=19855

I found the German releases are cut (see bottom of page) but couldn't find any full details. OFDB is usually my first port of call but they only note it is cut, not what is cut.

[DJ Doena]

Do the FSK have a good website, or is there a good German website to find info on cuts?

I just added Heartstopper to Rewind:
http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=19855

I found the German releases are cut (see bottom of page) but couldn't find any full details. OFDB is usually my first port of call but they only note it is cut, not what is cut.

There is www.Schnittberichte.com as a primary source and the English version of that can be found under www.Movie-Censorship.com. But the latter is not nearly as complete as the former.

But you could try google translate to get the basic gist.

For example, here's the difference of the uncut version and the FSK-16 version of The Running Man:

http://www.schnittberichte.com/schnittbericht.php?ID=57125
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.schnittberichte.com%2Fschnittbericht.php%3FID%3D57125

[samuelrichardscott]

Ah yes, I did check those sites also. I always check Schnittberichte! Great site.

Thanks.