Film Forum and Reviews

Being a teenager in the 90's, I sat and watched while James Ferman, then head of the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) refused to release for home viewing films such as A Clockwork Orange and The Exorcist. With the onset of the Noughties, and Fermans departure, came a new outlook on film censorship.

Ratings were amended (like the 12A certificate created to get more bums on seats with movies that were aimed at kids but had scenes of violence such as Lord Of The Rings) and films that had sat in vaults without a home release came flooding out.

Films like Performance, I Spit On Your Grave, In The Realm of the Senses and The Exorcist are now available on DVD. Less and less films are being cut for theatres.

While I dont agree with censorship, I believe certain subjects should fall under some scrutiny. Religion plays a heavy part. I feel it would be wrong for a film to criticise a form of religion without offering an opposing argument. I also feel that racial overtones need to be looked at. If a cohesive and logical argument is offered explaining why these views are put across, then there may be some leeway.

As for violence, it seems that anything goes nowadays. Gore, in horror films for example, seems limitless now. Violence towards women and children in films is a hotspot. I'm guessing that the classifiers look for merit, whether its integral to the plot and not just exploitation.

I'm sure people have views on what should and shouldnt be seen. Let me know, and try and include some examples of where you think certain films should or shouldnt have been cut

Interesting topic this, and one that to me I feel quite passionately about..

ON the one hand, I am glad that films are extending the boundaries more and more...For one it makes for great viewing, secondly, IMO kids are overprotected nowadays. Back in the day you'd have a child of 12 working down the bloody coal mines - they were taught at a young age what life is all about and how reality isn't all golden. Sometimes I see parents not exposing their kids to certain topics of society that they eventually have to learn for themselves. The same is with films...kids should get a fair picture and if that means seeing the disgraceful treatment of jews during WW2, for example, then so be it!

However, on the other hand, kids are easily influenced and you hear these freak stories about how they have acted on what they have seen or have heard. For instance, I read the other day about a kid who tried to be superman, jumped out of the window and killed himself - because obviously he can't fly! This new film, 'Never Back Down' (about Mixed Martial Arts), I think will be a great example of how a wide range of kids will be influenced into the 'fighting is cool' way of thinking. The loser gets his ass handed to him on a plate by a trained fighter, but then after three months of training beats the crap out of him and gets the girl. What's more, the scenes are in the street! This film will only contribute to the violence that goes on in our society at a time when anti-social behaviour is the buzz word in England.

Religion, well that's a different thing entirely, and I am even worried about discussing such an issue because political correctness in this country is so ridiculous that I'm not even sure how to be PC anymore. It seems that as each year passes by another word is added to the 'not allowed' list! I am meandering off topic here...!!!

Spot on Paul. I agree, kids are overprotected, but then again, they will pretty much get their hands on whatever they want eventually.

I think theres certain subjects that are taboo, and in all fairness religion doesnt enter into too many films. Its a very subjective subject, everyone has a different view. I think I'll stay away from it aswell though!

Views have changed so much. All kinds of scenes are kept in now. In the aftermath of 9/11 there has been a glut of Hollywood action movies. I think the US, the most prolific maker of these types of movies, just took a step back. I dont think it has anything to do with censorship per se, but it does say a lot about American film-making today.

I'd love to hear of any examples people have of movies released in the Noughties that they know have been cut...

Censorship
OED censor ...... official with power to surpess books, films etc. Censorship is a term applied to the arts but generally speaking it is an act by the state to prevent us doing something. But why should the state (or anybody) stop me doing what I like when and where I like? Should I not be free to drive across red traffic lights without stopping, get drunk and drive a lorry, carry a firearm or operate a chainsaw in a bus queue? Clearly, these things are inherently physically dangerous and ought to be prevented. But the issue becomes complex when dealing with things not inherently and immediately harmful. Should I be prevented from publishing a book encouraging incest and the best way to go about it, making a film admiring (endorsing) Pol Pot's efforts at socialsim. Why should I be prevented from defecating in public, leaving aside public health issues it doesnt harm anyone, does it?
So it is clear that society should have laws preventing harm and that 'the state' is the best body to enforce those laws on a societal level. But what is 'harm' ?
John Stuart Mill - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill - developed the HARM PRINCIPLE. He addressed the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that Mill develops further than any previous philosopher is the harm principle. The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself. Mill excuses those who are "incapable of self-government" from this principle, such as young children or those living in "backward states of society". It is important to emphasize that Mill did not consider giving offense to constitute "harm"; an action could not be restricted because it violated the conventions or morals of a given society. (Extract from Wikipedia).
A film censor, at least in the UK, ostensibly operates only under JSM's harm principle. But what of giving offense to people ........ more to follow.

i have no against on censorship thing..especially on violence..it must have some limitations due to the kids who may view it through DVD's now..