von_geisterhand

Hm, nicht, daß es jetzt wirklich so wichtig wäre, aber mal ehrlich:
Wenn das hier die Schnitte sind, die "Hellraiser" von dem Monstrum, das Kinder, Jugendliche und ihre sozialethische Orientierung unheilbar ver- und zerstören kann (und das seit über 20 Jahren) und einem zukünftigen Grabbelkistenbewohner bei Saturn, den jede türkische Mutti und jedes ausgebüxte Kleinkind in Händen halten darf, trennen, dann sollte man mal in sich gehen und zugeben, daß der Film heutzutage ohne Weiteres ungeschnitten als FSK 16 durchgehen sollte.
Über Franks Ende bin ich bereit zu diskutieren, aber der Rest ist doch wirklich unbedenklich.
Aber nein, Zucht und Ordnung brauchen das.

EDIT: Und das gilt im doppelten Maße für die Schnitte der FSK16-Fassung von "Hellbound: Hellraiser 2". Okay, vielleicht wäre hier ein glattes 18 für die volle Fassung okay, aber wie man auf die Idee kommt, Julias ganze Geburtssequenz herauszuschneiden, weiß ich eh nicht.
Das ganze System ist wirklich sehr darauf angelegt, vielen Bürokraten möglichste viel Arbeit zu beschaffen, ohne dabei auf Dinge wie Vernunft, Kunstgefühl oder den gesunden Menschenverstand zurückzugreifen.

Und schau, am Wochenende läuft "From Dusk till Dawn". Nach 23 Uhr und trotzdem geeignet für jedes Schulkind. Weil man sich ja nicht trauen darf, etwas zu zeigen, was vielleicht jemandem missfallen könnte oder von dem sich jemand ge- bzw. überfordert fühlt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11846906

This is one of the two current issues regarding censorship floating round my head these days and being insistent enough for me to want to blog about them. The other subject is the fact that "Call of Duty: Black Ops" was "flash-indexed" and may well become illegal to sell in Germany pretty soon* (and is already on difficult legal ground), which might well make mne want to write a longer post on the inanity of the German "moral authorities" and the idiocy that is the § 131 of German law.
However, I do not play a great deal of computer games and am not even certain if I have ever played any "Call of Duty"-game full stop, so maybe I should rather discuss things I know a lot about and feel directly affected by every day. (Even if several of the points that need to be made in terms of films also apply to the discussion of computer games).

Actually, my argument is terribly simple: The version of "A Serbian Film" that will appear on UK screens will be missing 4 minutes and 11 seconds of footage, which probably everybody will agree is a significant portion of a normal-length feature film. Why is this footage missing? Because somebody, who believes that they know better than you what is acceptable to you has decided that this material is unacceptable.
This has nothing to do with protecting the youth, as the film would be rated as (18) uncut as it is now, this is supposedly about keeping the moral and order of the country intact. And that's bullshit. The BBFC does not protect the moral fibre of the country and "A Serbian Film" is as little out to undermine what is right and proper as, say, "The Evil Dead" was 30 years ago. This is simply about the comfort level of the members of the BBFC and about their feeling of superiority.
Is "A serbian film" likely to shock viewers? Well, I consider myself a bit of a connoiseur of extreme films and judging by all I have read about the film, yes, I expect that I will be shocked if I ever get the chance to view the uncut version. But I know that and I expect that and, let's be honest here, I want that. Nobody is standing in front of rollercoasters, either, telling you that you cannot go on there because you might throw up after. You go on the rollercoaster because you want to feel your guts and its contents take a round-trip of your whole body, because it makes you feel exhilerated in a way the merry-go-round simply cannot and if you are sick in the process, that is the risk you take. Or not, if you decide that it looks too much for you. But you make that decision yourself and don't let it be made by somebody whose experiences with food, movement and rollercoasters might well be totally different from yours.

*I do realise that a lot of what I complain about here could easily be countered by "Well, there are ways to circumvent the law and get what you want through other channels.". That may be so, but somehow I feel that "Well, you can always turn to crime" is not a satisfying solution in any supposedly civilised society.

One of the more interesting films I saw recently was "This film is not yet rated", a documentary by Kirby Dick, who you might remember as the director of "Sick: The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist" (not really a film you are bound to forget if you've seen it).

The subject of "This film is not yet rated" (which, incidentally, is not rated by the MPAA) is... the MPAA. And the fact that it's a private organisation with no (official) government backing but some very interesting connections to the major film studios and some just-as-interesting lobby groups. Now, if you think that the MPAA's decisions don't really affect you because you don't live in the US, you might want to consider that point-of-view. For a start, there is the fact that the big US studios have taken to produce/distribute non-American films as well, just as obviously any decision that affects what films are made in the US also affects a market Hollywood has a monopoly on. As the film quite rightly points out, you will never know what films you never got to see just because somebody (possibly a member of the MPAA) decided it wasn't a good idea to make that film.

The starting point for the film is that while the MPAA is the main body who decides what is and what isn't suitable for the big screen, they are remarkably secretive when it comes to the identities of their raters as well as what actually makes them rate a film "NC-17" as opposed to "R". Well, when dealing with independent films, they are... So Kirby Dick (and a private investigator) set out to put a face to the MPAA. But that's not even the interesting bit.
Far more fascinating is how different the MPAA's judgment of scenes is when there is, say, a heterosexual sex scene onscreen from the rating for (a film containing, say,) a sex scene involving two men. Or a couple of African descent. (No, seriously.) Or anything else that deviates from what they see as "right and proper". If you ever wanted an evil, bigoted and secret(ive) organisation, there you have it.

But after hearing Mark Kermode's review of "Brüno" I feel even less inclined to watch it than I was before. Up to now I had felt about the film the same way I felt about "Borat": Yes, it looks funny and cringe-inducing but I don't know if I really need to watch it on the big screen. With the slight difference that "Borat" obviously tackled issues like racism and people who need very little prodding before revealing their prejudices, while "Brüno" probably deals with homophobia somewhere along the way, except... none of the trailers and excerpts I have seen so far really mention/imply that. What they do stress very much are Brüno's outrageous outfits, ridiculous celebrity ideas (That adoptive child named "O.J.") and vigorous usage of the word "dildo". Yea, verily, apparently this film is most outrageous, edgy and controversial, not afraid of offending and not pulling any punches. Whoah!
Oh,by the way, when we say "not afraid of offending everybody", this does not include the large and very affluent number of Michael-Jackson-fans, for whose benefit (and purses) we shall remove a sequence that might remind them of what Mr. Jackson's public image was three weeks ago.
Which smells to me like an attempt at having your cäke and eäting it.
(oh, and I have just had a look at the dubbed trailer.
Point 1: Dubbing does your film no favours when you are dealing with supposedly "real" people.
Point 2: I am disappointed that Brüno did not get to speak in the austrian dialect. Come on, guys, if "Dead like me" can do it, so can you.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/11/15/blasphemous-poetry-given-ams-go-ahead-91466-22262751/

Mr. Green isn't happy about that.
Mr. Black (South Wales West AM) says that he "of course has every right to object to the contents of this book but he does not have the right to prevent other people reading it or listening to its author read from it". And that Mr. Green isn't invited to the reading anyway.

I wish I had some Green & Black's.