Cinematic Violence: Can Anything Be Justified?

[colinr0380]

Since my family gets the Daily Mail (the shame! ) it was particularly amusing to see the paper reporting in the days following the broadcast just how disgusting the programme was and then proceed to reproduce, in a four or five page feature, detailed colour pictures of the most digusting and unacceptable parts along with a detailed transcript of the entire episode. (I particularly remember that the paper got very incensed by Morris putting his children to bed in drawers of a filing cabinet to make certain that they would be 'safe' from paedophiles, a section of the show that didn't seem particularly controversial when set against a lot of the other stuff!) Surely a late night broadcast of the programme, even if it was repeated again even later at night, had less power to corrupt than hundreds of thousands of copies of a daily newspaper delivered across the country, and which presumably could be left strewn around train stations, buses, parks, used to wrap chips in, etc?

It was almost as if the journalists were aiming to infuriate their readership into protest by making sure they did not miss any controversial element, no matter how small, of a programme that they would not have otherwise encountered by their own choice. :-k

But that, as I'm sure Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand (or Frankie Boyle most recently) would attest, could never happen again.

If you're not familiar with Brass Eye, you need to know upfront that every single celebrity and politician was under the impression that they were contributing to a serious campaigning documentary, and that Phil Collins was utterly oblivious of the fact that the name "Nonce Sense" means something else when read aloud (hilariously, he threatened to sue when he found out).

I thought the one from the drugs episode was great too, getting celebrities to campaign against Cake, a "totally made up drug"!

[Diamond]

I'm not going to try to justify Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, Sweet Movie, or A Serbian Film, none of which I have even seen, but clearly the child pornography laws that exist today are too broad. Even Angelina Jolie's film Cyborg 2 counts as "child pornography" as she made the sex scene when she was 17.

[MichaelB]

I thought the one from the drugs episode was great too, getting celebrities to campaign against Cake, a "totally made up drug"!

And not just celebrities - for my money, the single funniest moment in any Brass Eye edition was the one in which Margaret Thatcher's former press secretary Bernard Ingham was persuaded to deliver an anti-drugs message in nonexistent but authentic-sounding teenage slang. This was hilarious on multiple levels, not least his blinkered arrogance in assuming that potentially drug-crazed teens would pay a blind bit of attention to anything he had to say in the first place.

And David Amess MP's contribution comes a very close second - his contribution to the gaiety of the nation is still preserved in Hansard (scroll down to the bottom and the section marked 'Drugs'). As of course it should be.

(The entire 'Drugs' edition is available here).

[aox]

I'm not going to try to justify Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, Sweet Movie, or A Serbian Film, none of which I have even seen, but clearly the child pornography laws that exist today are too broad. Even Angelina Jolie's film Cyborg 2 counts as "child pornography" as she made the sex scene when she was 17.

She most likely got a release from her parents as Thora Birch did for American Beauty.

[Diamond]

aox wrote: She most likely got a release from her parents as Thora Birch did for American Beauty.

Indeed, Thora's parents signed the contract - and were on the set while it was made - but Thora was only topless. Angelina acted like she was having sex.

Angelina got emancipated shortly before filming so she would have signed her own contract. That's discussed in the link in my post above. By the way, if her parents had arranged for this technically illegal film shoot with their daughter, they would have been open to a sexual exploitation charge under Title 18 Chapter 110 Section 2251 part (b) of federal law.

[bigP]

Yes, here in the United States child pornography laws were expanded under President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft to prohibit "virtual" child porn, in other words works that "convey the impression"of a minor engaging in explicit conduct. Apparently, in Michigan this means child porn can include YouTube videos of children with no explicit sex in them at all.

It seems all roads lead back to Chris Morris - 7mins 35 seconds in
Sorry to dredge up old news, and I have little to add to what has already been said about the stupidity of such a ridiculous charge (and of the stupidity the guys video), but I am instantly brought back to this episode of Morris and Brooker's Nathan Barley. Whilst the subject matter may differ, the form is almost identical to that of this new story.

It's almost getting to the point of everytime a controversial and nonsensical news story pops up, I'm glancing over at the Chris Morris back catalogue.

[tarpilot]

Sorry to dredge up old news, and I have little to add to what has already been said about the stupidity of such a ridiculous charge (and of the stupidity the guys video)

It's marginally less old now, as the guy just got jailtime

[antnield]

BBFC report on why they've rejected The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence).

[mfunk9786]

Is it bad that I kind of want to see that, just because it sounds like the ultimate trainwreck?

[domino harvey]

That "film" sounds abhorrent beyond belief. Jesus Christ, Society

[mfunk9786]

Since when is Tom Six a member of our human society?

[domino harvey]

Haha, fair point

[Mr Sausage]

As appalling as that film sounds, I'm still more appalled that the UK has government sponsored censorship.

[this movie] is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers.

Reminds me of something Christopher Hitchens said: if censored works are indeed inherently corrupting, as censors always claim, then it is the censors who repeatedly watch them who are the most corrupted and therefore the most unfit to decide who should watch what.

[knives]

What makes this especially distasteful for me is that if the quality of the movie is like the first one than it will be more laughable than terrible. I've seen more effective FX in John Waters' films. Also I can't imagine this being worse than Salo which was passed uncut, admittedly for DVD though. That said I guess this will save UK viewers from intense boredom.

[Peacock]

Salo was passed theatrically as well.
And that's quite a different case as it deals with fascism, consumerism etc; while Tom Six has never given any indication that he wants to do anything beyond shock (and make money). I like the Hitchens quote, but I think the BBFC are pretty liberal in their classifications, the only things being banned these days are extreme torture porn flics... No great loss.

[MichaelB]

As appalling as that film sounds, I'm still more appalled that the UK has government sponsored censorship.

We don't. The BBFC is a private and entirely independent organisation - in fact, because it has no formal industry links, it's arguably more independent than the MPAA.

The reason people think it's "government-sponsored censorship" is because the 1984 Video Recordings Act requires all British video releases to be vetted by the BBFC prior to release - but the government has absolutely no say in the actual vetting process, and indeed has tacitly confessed their impotence on more than one occasion in the face of tabloid pro-censorship campaigns.

Incidentally, these are the feature-length films (all straight-to-DVD releases, or at least that was the original intention) that the BBFC have rejected outright over the last five years:

Grotesque
The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)
Lost in the Hood
Murder Set Pieces
My Daughter's A Cocksucker
NF713
Struggle in Bondage
The Texas Vibrator Massacre

...but one film that they did not reject, interestingly enough, was A Serbian Film. True, they cracked down very hard indeed on it, taking out around 4 minutes across 49 cuts (apparently a sixteen-year record for a non-pornographic title), but they clearly respected the film enough to think that it wasn't completely irredeemable. Intriguingly, the single scene that was most heavily cut wasn't the most notorious one (which was only lightly trimmed - and I argued in my review that it actually made the scene harder to watch because the laughably fake baby was no longer visible) or indeed any of the scenes involving children but the one where

Spoiler

a woman is choked to death by her rapist's penis

, which accounted for more than a quarter of the excised footage.

[MichaelB]

Salo was passed theatrically as well.
And that's quite a different case as it deals with fascism, consumerism etc; while Tom Six has never given any indication that he wants to do anything beyond shock (and make money).

...and Pier Paolo Pasolini was unarquably one of the major cultural figures of the mid-twentieth century and Tom Six has yet to show any talent at all besides coming up with the one gross-out idea. If I hadn't drawn the short straw and got the Sight & Sound reviewing gig on The Human Centipede (which required me to produce a synopsis as well as a review), I'd have switched it off well before the halfway mark - or at least fast-forwarded it to see if Six did anything interesting with the "centipede" once created. (He didn't).

I like the Hitchens quote, but I think the BBFC are pretty liberal in their classifications, the only things being banned these days are extreme torture porn flics... No great loss.

The Hitchens quote is also undermined by the fact that the BBFC does indeed provide counselling for any examiners who find that watching (for instance) extreme S&M porn for several days in a row is too much for them. I think this particular perk was introduced after a legal appeal effectively legalised hardcore porn in Britain back in 2000 - which meant that the BBFC suddenly had to deal with a flood of the stuff.

[mfunk9786]

How did I miss My Daughter is a Cocksucker?

[MichaelB]

How did I miss My Daughter is a Cocksucker?

Well, this is why the BBFC rejected it, if anyone's interested:

Spoiler

My Daughter’s A Cocksucker is an explicit sex work featuring a number of very similar scenes in which young women perform acts of fellatio on men (shot so their faces are not seen) while frequently looking into the camera and asking questions of the viewer such as ‘are you proud of me now Daddy’, 'Am I a good little cocksucker daddy?', 'My older sister isn't as good as this, is she daddy? Mommy taught me well', 'Am I good enough to teach the little sister?' and 'are you jacking off to your little princess?’. The female performers also make comments to the viewer such as 'Daddy always likes it when I choke' , 'Daddy told me to do it just like this' and 'Daddy always said a wet blow job's the best blow job'. The context makes it clear that ‘Daddy’ is being used to refer to a familial relationship and not as mere term of endearment for an older lover. The Board’s judgement is that in this work the dialogue encourages the male viewer to be aroused by, among other things, the idea of instructing and watching his daughter in the act of fellatio. This effect is potentially heightened by the implication that the daughter also finds this paternal interest arousing. The Board has concluded that such sequences constitute ‘material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example, paedophilia, incest or rape)…’ The work also features a number of sequences (including in the ‘bonus scene’, which does not feature dialogue of the nature described above) in which women gag and choke during ‘deep throat’ fellatio while their heads are firmly held by the male performer, preventing them from easily ending the activity. The evident discomfort of the female performer is presented as, at best, an irrelevance or, at worst, as a feature designed to heighten the arousal of some viewers. In the view of the Board these sequences also constitute ‘material […] likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity’. It is therefore the Board’s carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults and supplied to them only in licensed sex shops, would be inconsistent with the Board’s Guidelines, would risk potential harm and would be unacceptable to the public. The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, it concluded that a central concept of the work was unacceptable and that the cuts required to remove all the unacceptable content would be extensive.

[Mr Sausage]

We don't. The BBFC is a private and entirely independent organisation - in fact, because it has no formal industry links, it's arguably more independent than the MPAA.

The reason people think it's "government-sponsored censorship" is because the 1984 Video Recordings Act requires all British video releases to be vetted by the BBFC prior to release - but the government has absolutely no say in the actual vetting process, and indeed has tacitly confessed their impotence on more than one occasion in the face of tabloid pro-censorship campaigns.

Ah, my mistake.

I actually assumed it was government based because if the BBFC refuses to pass something it becomes illegal to supply it in the UK, something that I find appalling on principle, even if it is only reserved for things I'd never actually want to watch.

[mfunk9786]

How did I miss My Daughter is a Cocksucker?

Well, this is why the BBFC rejected it, if anyone's interested:

Spoiler

My Daughter’s A Cocksucker is an explicit sex work featuring a number of very similar scenes in which young women perform acts of fellatio on men (shot so their faces are not seen) while frequently looking into the camera and asking questions of the viewer such as ‘are you proud of me now Daddy’, 'Am I a good little cocksucker daddy?', 'My older sister isn't as good as this, is she daddy? Mommy taught me well', 'Am I good enough to teach the little sister?' and 'are you jacking off to your little princess?’. The female performers also make comments to the viewer such as 'Daddy always likes it when I choke' , 'Daddy told me to do it just like this' and 'Daddy always said a wet blow job's the best blow job'. The context makes it clear that ‘Daddy’ is being used to refer to a familial relationship and not as mere term of endearment for an older lover. The Board’s judgement is that in this work the dialogue encourages the male viewer to be aroused by, among other things, the idea of instructing and watching his daughter in the act of fellatio. This effect is potentially heightened by the implication that the daughter also finds this paternal interest arousing. The Board has concluded that such sequences constitute ‘material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example, paedophilia, incest or rape)…’ The work also features a number of sequences (including in the ‘bonus scene’, which does not feature dialogue of the nature described above) in which women gag and choke during ‘deep throat’ fellatio while their heads are firmly held by the male performer, preventing them from easily ending the activity. The evident discomfort of the female performer is presented as, at best, an irrelevance or, at worst, as a feature designed to heighten the arousal of some viewers. In the view of the Board these sequences also constitute ‘material […] likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity’. It is therefore the Board’s carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults and supplied to them only in licensed sex shops, would be inconsistent with the Board’s Guidelines, would risk potential harm and would be unacceptable to the public. The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, it concluded that a central concept of the work was unacceptable and that the cuts required to remove all the unacceptable content would be extensive.

Oh, that's how

[Peacock]

We don't. The BBFC is a private and entirely independent organisation - in fact, because it has no formal industry links, it's arguably more independent than the MPAA.

The reason people think it's "government-sponsored censorship" is because the 1984 Video Recordings Act requires all British video releases to be vetted by the BBFC prior to release - but the government has absolutely no say in the actual vetting process, and indeed has tacitly confessed their impotence on more than one occasion in the face of tabloid pro-censorship campaigns.

Ah, my mistake.

I actually assumed it was government based because if the BBFC refuses to pass something it becomes illegal to supply it in the UK, something that I find appalling on principle, even if it is only reserved for things I'd never actually want to watch.

Is this so appalling? Reading the BBFC's decisions to ban the films Michael mentions, I'm not sure they have any benefit in existing. Lost in the Hood is a porn film where men drive in cars hunting for men lost in poor neighborhoods, they then abduct them, rape them, and go on to find more. "My Daughter-" has already been described. The others are all similarly repugnant - surely films like these are harmful? I suppose you could argue they are cathartic and prevent people doing these acts in real life, but it's pretty iffy, and equally arguable that they encourage these people that these fantasies are achievable in real life...

[MichaelB]

The wording of the 1959 Obscene Publications Act makes it very hard to secure a successful prosecution for obscenity in Britain, as two key tests have to be passed:

1. The general purpose of the film must be to deprave and corrupt (so it's not enough to have just one or two contentious scenes).
2. The film must have insufficient artistic merit to get away with (1).

A Serbian Film arguably would meet the "artistic merit" test, which is presumably why the BBFC wasn't concerned about the prospect of a successful obscenity prosecution.

[colinr0380]

We don't. The BBFC is a private and entirely independent organisation - in fact, because it has no formal industry links, it's arguably more independent than the MPAA.

The reason people think it's "government-sponsored censorship" is because the 1984 Video Recordings Act requires all British video releases to be vetted by the BBFC prior to release - but the government has absolutely no say in the actual vetting process, and indeed has tacitly confessed their impotence on more than one occasion in the face of tabloid pro-censorship campaigns.

Ah, my mistake.

I actually assumed it was government based because if the BBFC refuses to pass something it becomes illegal to supply it in the UK, something that I find appalling on principle, even if it is only reserved for things I'd never actually want to watch.

Apparently the BBFC was originally set up as a way of showing that the film industry was willing to regulate itself, so that the government didn't need to step in and crack down. Although there have always been threats to do so by various government ministers spurned into action by various lobbyists - and this is one of the reasons why the right wing Daily Mail go through cycles of getting up in arms about supposedly lax standards of censorship, as best shown by the whipped-up controversy over Crash which amongst the demonising of the film itself involved an associated smear campaign giving out details of BBFC examiners and 'exposes' about BBFC practices.

(Re: Salo. Just in case you think that the Daily Mail let that pass, there was an article run in 2000 condemning the BFI for releasing the film uncut to cinemas which included the usual 'shocked and horrified' quotes from various politicians and calls for heads to roll)

The BBFC have moved much more to a classification than censoring role (along with an appropriate name change!) but even with an official certificate awarded, local authorities can still choose whether to ban (e.g. Crash is still ostensibly banned in the Borough of Westminster, and I think Monty Python's Life of Brian is still theatrically banned in certain areas) or on the other end of the spectrum to allow younger audiences in. For example the BBFC made the 12 certficate, introduced in cinemas in the wake of teen-aimed films like the Tim Burton Batman (which despite this got a 15 certificate on its first home video release), optional with the change into a 12A (Advisory) certificate for the release of the first Spider-Man film - so parents if they felt their children were up to it, could take children below the age of 12 to that film. It really turned the 12 certificate into the UK equivalent of the US PG-13, although home video releases are still strictly classified '12 and over'.

So it certainly takes a lot to be banned nowadays, however I can't fault the BBFC's decision in terms of the current political climate calling for more repression in general not being particularly conducive to releasing scandalous material. The one person who will likely be thrilled with all this though would be Tom Six - it's certainly going to help give his film more notoriety than it ever would have gotten otherwise, especially if it follows in the footsteps of his 'high concept, ironically no follow through' first film.

[Mr Sausage]

Is this so appalling? Reading the BBFC's decisions to ban the films Michael mentions, I'm not sure they have any benefit in existing. Lost in the Hood is a porn film where men drive in cars hunting for men lost in poor neighborhoods, they then abduct them, rape them, and go on to find more. "My Daughter-" has already been described. The others are all similarly repugnant - surely films like these are harmful? I suppose you could argue they are cathartic and prevent people doing these acts in real life, but it's pretty iffy, and equally arguable that they encourage these people that these fantasies are achievable in real life...

Yes, it is appalling. It's just one of those things I despise on principle, regardless of whether this or that institution is only being mildly repressive. I just don't think any human adult can claim to be good enough to decide for every other human adult what they can and cannot see. Such institutions are more corrupting than any movie they choose to ban.

It's too easy to ignore the loss of your ability to choose when it favours the choice you would have made anyway. That's a trap I intend not to fall into. I don't know why anyone would ever want to see Human Centipede II (or any of the other titles mentioned), but I am not happy that people are being told they are not allowed to make that choice for themselves.