Showing posts with label pornography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pornography. Show all posts
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
Pornography: The Rise And Rise Of Everything - Part 3
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Pornography: Entertainment or Evil? - Part 1
Welcome Everyone,
Pornography: from the Greek word "pornograph", meaning "writings about harlots": a word that is usually shortened to just five simple letters "p-o-r-n-o": a word that has a social stigma attached to it, like leprosy. A word that carries a moral punch, that as soon as you mention it in public, you'll receive frightened looks and nagging fingers!
It is the 21st Century evil, that is bringing down society as we speak, and which - for Britain at least - has caused problems in recent times, after Government minister Jacqui Smith put in an Expenses Claim which included the viewing of two adult films courtesy of her husband. (For those of you outside of the United Kingdom, in 2009 the national newspaper The Daily Telegraph broke a major international news story, about members of the Houses Of Parliament who were falsely claiming money ,for so-called "expenses" which they felt they were entitled to, for their duties. In and of itself, this would not be a problem, as most major organisations let their employees claim for certain expenses. The problem for the MP's, were that there claims were being deliberately exaggerated and falsified in vast amounts, sometimes into figures totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds! Money that belonged to the British public, the tax payers! The story , which ran daily for over three months, with new revelations daily, caused an outcry amongst the public, and major hostility towards any and all politicians. So much, that major claimants included Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, David Miliband, Yvette Cooper, and Peter Mandelson.)
Now, under normal circumstances, if this had been any ordinary member of the public, the charges would have been for fraud, theft, or deception, and would have likely entailed criminal proceedings and a prison sentence. What staggered the British electorate, was that the vast majority of MP's simply apologised and paid the money back, once they had been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, and that was it! In a few cases, they lost their jobs, but that was about it! No legal repurcussions, and hence, a simple slap on the wrist!
Jacquie Smith, the then Home Secretary, was the woman in charge of decisions relating to internal affairs, citizenship and immigration. Her position also allowed her to dictate what we, the public, were allowed to watch at cinemas and at home, via the British Board of Film Classification, and she was against pornography. After the Expenses Scandal, she produced a radio documentary, as mentioned in a previous Blog entry of mine. Sadly, most of it was her views, and her opinions, which were most definitely anti-pornography, with the opposing side not being allowed to give their side of the argument.
As a Blog about extreme cinema from all over the globe, sexual material is something that comes up frequently in movies. From the titillation of 70's Sexploitation films, to the Nudie Cuties of the 1950's, the Cheesecake Pin-Ups of the 40's, and the pornogaphy industry of the late 1980's. Sex sells, more so than ever before. Yet in a world that is increasingly sexual and sexualised, why is pornography still seen in such a horrific light?
And it is this, which led me to write this article.
I am not, personally, a fan of pornography. I am not against it. I don't actively discourage those who work in the industry, nor do I have an axe to grind to those who produce it, create it, endorse it, or are involved in any other aspect of it. What I am against, is the far more seedy end of pornography, where women (or men) are coerced into performing for a video producer, into taking part in something that is clearly illegal, and which the actress (for it is usually the woman) is forced into performing against her free will.
Now, I am not saying that all pornography is like that. And I certainly don't believe that all extreme pornograhy should be banned. However, there have been cases, where the men making the films, are pretty much raping the women in the films, and forcing them to take part in material that is reprehensibly degrading. Take American pornographic film-maker and actor Max Hardcore aka Paul Little! (Oh, the irony!) I've mentioned him before, but he is currently finishing a prison sentence, after being convicted of producing and starring-in films that were classified as obscene, because of their content. His films have included women who are borderline legal in age (16-18) starring in his works; actresses being forcibly coerced into performing hideous acts of depravity, such as eating faeces, or drinking urine, whilst naked; and being dressed-up as pre-pubescent girls, and indulging in hardcore sexual acts against their will, in scenarios that are ultimately window-dressings for child pornography.
Now, I'd like to think, that the people reading this article, irrespective of your gender or age, would agree with me, that no one acting in the pornography industry, should ever be forced into performing against their will. Pornography, for me, should be all about consent! And likewise, no one reading this, would ever condone child pornography of any sort.
Whether an actor (of any gender) is paid thousands or millions is not the point here, but they should be able to give or withdraw their consent at any time, for any reason, even after a contract or verbal/written agreement has been decided upon. At no point should anyone feel that they cannot say "no" if they decide they aren't happy moving forward with the filming of a certain act or event. After all, we're talking about real human being here, and real human bodies. This is not fiction, in which people aren't open to harm or pain. That is, people like you and I! It's something many viewers and users of pornography forget! What you see on screen may be fictional, in the sense of the story or acting, or whatever else, but the cast are real people, with real emotions, and a real need for absolute protection during the making of the material concerned!
So why does pornography cause so many problems, and seem to be on the increase in society?
Normally, as soon as you mention the "p-word", people will give you a dirty look, or wink at, and nudge you. There's almost no inbetween actions. It's one extreme or the other. And the world is divided very clearly, between those against pornography and those for it. Yet, no one appears to aim to look at the industry and try to make comment on the area in the middle. I am not implying that views should sit on the middle of the fence, but there does need to be much more balance in how people look at such an emotive subject. Pornography doesn't have to be one thing or the other. It is possible, I believe, to view the subject dispassionately, and retain your emotional views under wraps, whilst still being free to condemn or accept parts of the industry.
If any of you have seen the film THE GOOD OLD NAUGHTY DAYS / POLISSONS ET GALIPETTES (2002, Michel Reilhac and Cecile Babiole), you will see that before cinema, there was pornogaphy! The film is a collection of adult shorts of varying lengths, including animated sequences, originally shown to patrons awaiting time with a lady in various Parisian brothels of the early 1900's. Although it's very funny at times, it's also extremely hardcore, despite being over 100 years of age. Bestiality was common. Oral, anal, threesomes were all quite common and blase by comparison! Material depicting nuns and monks getting up to all kinds of sexual shenanigans, maids and their bosses, postal workers, everyone and anyone was doing it, and doing it in as many ways as they could. If you don't like the gynaecological detail of modern pornography, but desire something more than traditional tits-and-ass, then this is a very eye-opening historical film to own, and I heartily recommend it! Just be warned, that if you import it, it may well breach your own countries laws on obscene material, so please be very careful! You import this at your own risk!
If, as that film demonstrates, that pornography is nothing new, maybe there is something to be said for pornography having a valid existance in today's society. Before film, there was literature, and pornography existed even back as early as 1785, with the Marquis De Sade's mammoth opus THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM, which in turn, was filmed and reworked into a controversial commentary on Fascism by Pier Paolo Pasolini as SALO, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM (1975). One hundred years later, and you had the erotic novel/diaries MY SECRET LIFE written by "Walter", which - over some 1100-plus pages - lists in graphic detail every sexual depravity the author got up to, from his pre-pubescent years, through to his death! It can be legally read or downloaded and printed here as an 8mb-sized PDF file.
As such, pornography is nothing new! Not by a long shot! Nor was it new to record details - extensive and graphically-described details - for others to access; for others to purchase for their own edification. Yet, the production and selling of pornography as we know it today, in the form of magazines and DVD's/Blu-Ray discs is considered a modern phenomenenon, that needs to be stomped-on and stamped out!
In the second part of this extensive, multi-part article, I will examine modern pornogaphy, and the social issues it raises. We shall examine why people have a love-hate relationship with porn, examine those involved in the making of it, both infront and behind the camera, and ask why pornography has become the mass cultural event that it has.
Thank You for reading! See you soon!
Pornography: from the Greek word "pornograph", meaning "writings about harlots": a word that is usually shortened to just five simple letters "p-o-r-n-o": a word that has a social stigma attached to it, like leprosy. A word that carries a moral punch, that as soon as you mention it in public, you'll receive frightened looks and nagging fingers!
It is the 21st Century evil, that is bringing down society as we speak, and which - for Britain at least - has caused problems in recent times, after Government minister Jacqui Smith put in an Expenses Claim which included the viewing of two adult films courtesy of her husband. (For those of you outside of the United Kingdom, in 2009 the national newspaper The Daily Telegraph broke a major international news story, about members of the Houses Of Parliament who were falsely claiming money ,for so-called "expenses" which they felt they were entitled to, for their duties. In and of itself, this would not be a problem, as most major organisations let their employees claim for certain expenses. The problem for the MP's, were that there claims were being deliberately exaggerated and falsified in vast amounts, sometimes into figures totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds! Money that belonged to the British public, the tax payers! The story , which ran daily for over three months, with new revelations daily, caused an outcry amongst the public, and major hostility towards any and all politicians. So much, that major claimants included Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, David Miliband, Yvette Cooper, and Peter Mandelson.)
Now, under normal circumstances, if this had been any ordinary member of the public, the charges would have been for fraud, theft, or deception, and would have likely entailed criminal proceedings and a prison sentence. What staggered the British electorate, was that the vast majority of MP's simply apologised and paid the money back, once they had been caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar, and that was it! In a few cases, they lost their jobs, but that was about it! No legal repurcussions, and hence, a simple slap on the wrist!
Jacquie Smith, the then Home Secretary, was the woman in charge of decisions relating to internal affairs, citizenship and immigration. Her position also allowed her to dictate what we, the public, were allowed to watch at cinemas and at home, via the British Board of Film Classification, and she was against pornography. After the Expenses Scandal, she produced a radio documentary, as mentioned in a previous Blog entry of mine. Sadly, most of it was her views, and her opinions, which were most definitely anti-pornography, with the opposing side not being allowed to give their side of the argument.
As a Blog about extreme cinema from all over the globe, sexual material is something that comes up frequently in movies. From the titillation of 70's Sexploitation films, to the Nudie Cuties of the 1950's, the Cheesecake Pin-Ups of the 40's, and the pornogaphy industry of the late 1980's. Sex sells, more so than ever before. Yet in a world that is increasingly sexual and sexualised, why is pornography still seen in such a horrific light?
And it is this, which led me to write this article.
I am not, personally, a fan of pornography. I am not against it. I don't actively discourage those who work in the industry, nor do I have an axe to grind to those who produce it, create it, endorse it, or are involved in any other aspect of it. What I am against, is the far more seedy end of pornography, where women (or men) are coerced into performing for a video producer, into taking part in something that is clearly illegal, and which the actress (for it is usually the woman) is forced into performing against her free will.
Now, I am not saying that all pornography is like that. And I certainly don't believe that all extreme pornograhy should be banned. However, there have been cases, where the men making the films, are pretty much raping the women in the films, and forcing them to take part in material that is reprehensibly degrading. Take American pornographic film-maker and actor Max Hardcore aka Paul Little! (Oh, the irony!) I've mentioned him before, but he is currently finishing a prison sentence, after being convicted of producing and starring-in films that were classified as obscene, because of their content. His films have included women who are borderline legal in age (16-18) starring in his works; actresses being forcibly coerced into performing hideous acts of depravity, such as eating faeces, or drinking urine, whilst naked; and being dressed-up as pre-pubescent girls, and indulging in hardcore sexual acts against their will, in scenarios that are ultimately window-dressings for child pornography.
Now, I'd like to think, that the people reading this article, irrespective of your gender or age, would agree with me, that no one acting in the pornography industry, should ever be forced into performing against their will. Pornography, for me, should be all about consent! And likewise, no one reading this, would ever condone child pornography of any sort.
Whether an actor (of any gender) is paid thousands or millions is not the point here, but they should be able to give or withdraw their consent at any time, for any reason, even after a contract or verbal/written agreement has been decided upon. At no point should anyone feel that they cannot say "no" if they decide they aren't happy moving forward with the filming of a certain act or event. After all, we're talking about real human being here, and real human bodies. This is not fiction, in which people aren't open to harm or pain. That is, people like you and I! It's something many viewers and users of pornography forget! What you see on screen may be fictional, in the sense of the story or acting, or whatever else, but the cast are real people, with real emotions, and a real need for absolute protection during the making of the material concerned!
So why does pornography cause so many problems, and seem to be on the increase in society?
Normally, as soon as you mention the "p-word", people will give you a dirty look, or wink at, and nudge you. There's almost no inbetween actions. It's one extreme or the other. And the world is divided very clearly, between those against pornography and those for it. Yet, no one appears to aim to look at the industry and try to make comment on the area in the middle. I am not implying that views should sit on the middle of the fence, but there does need to be much more balance in how people look at such an emotive subject. Pornography doesn't have to be one thing or the other. It is possible, I believe, to view the subject dispassionately, and retain your emotional views under wraps, whilst still being free to condemn or accept parts of the industry.
If any of you have seen the film THE GOOD OLD NAUGHTY DAYS / POLISSONS ET GALIPETTES (2002, Michel Reilhac and Cecile Babiole), you will see that before cinema, there was pornogaphy! The film is a collection of adult shorts of varying lengths, including animated sequences, originally shown to patrons awaiting time with a lady in various Parisian brothels of the early 1900's. Although it's very funny at times, it's also extremely hardcore, despite being over 100 years of age. Bestiality was common. Oral, anal, threesomes were all quite common and blase by comparison! Material depicting nuns and monks getting up to all kinds of sexual shenanigans, maids and their bosses, postal workers, everyone and anyone was doing it, and doing it in as many ways as they could. If you don't like the gynaecological detail of modern pornography, but desire something more than traditional tits-and-ass, then this is a very eye-opening historical film to own, and I heartily recommend it! Just be warned, that if you import it, it may well breach your own countries laws on obscene material, so please be very careful! You import this at your own risk!
If, as that film demonstrates, that pornography is nothing new, maybe there is something to be said for pornography having a valid existance in today's society. Before film, there was literature, and pornography existed even back as early as 1785, with the Marquis De Sade's mammoth opus THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM, which in turn, was filmed and reworked into a controversial commentary on Fascism by Pier Paolo Pasolini as SALO, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM (1975). One hundred years later, and you had the erotic novel/diaries MY SECRET LIFE written by "Walter", which - over some 1100-plus pages - lists in graphic detail every sexual depravity the author got up to, from his pre-pubescent years, through to his death! It can be legally read or downloaded and printed here as an 8mb-sized PDF file.
As such, pornography is nothing new! Not by a long shot! Nor was it new to record details - extensive and graphically-described details - for others to access; for others to purchase for their own edification. Yet, the production and selling of pornography as we know it today, in the form of magazines and DVD's/Blu-Ray discs is considered a modern phenomenenon, that needs to be stomped-on and stamped out!
In the second part of this extensive, multi-part article, I will examine modern pornogaphy, and the social issues it raises. We shall examine why people have a love-hate relationship with porn, examine those involved in the making of it, both infront and behind the camera, and ask why pornography has become the mass cultural event that it has.
Thank You for reading! See you soon!
Sunday, 6 March 2011
Two Research Studies and An Update!
Hello once again, folks!
I hope that all of you are in good health, and enjoying what I've produced thus far. I know my blog is very, very infrequently added too, but I simply don't have the time to write something as often as I'd like to.
... And anyway, I prefer quality over quantity!
For those who care, I've just written a new review for Nico Mastorakis' Greek-shocker ISLAND OF DEATH (1978), which can be read here, over at the excellent Sex, Gore, Mutants website. Thanks to Alan Simpson, for sending me the review disc!
My next update, which I am hoping to have completed in the next couple of weeks for this very blog, however, is on the perennially controversial and taboo subject of pornography. There is a new British research study currently being undertaken at www.pornresearch.org asking for peoples opinions on their own use of pornographic material. The research is 100% anonymous, and the intention is to compile a proper, decent-sized sample of what modern-day Britains use pornography, and more importantly, why they use it and what they think of it.
The results will then be distributed to places like OFCOM and the BBFC, who will hopefully use it when it comes to some of their classification and censorship decisions.
The study is actually being undertaken by two women, Clarissa Smith and Feona Attwood, accompanied by Martin Barker, who was strategic when he undertook research into Video Nasties back in the early 1980's, at Aberystwyth University. So, this could prove to be immensely significant when it comes to classification of Extreme Cinema in the future.
My forthcoming blog entry on pornography, will be examining the many different aspects that make-up this modern-day phenomenon. This behomoth industry, that channels millions upon millions of dollars into its production and dissemination, is as provocative today as it always has been. From the humble beginnings of 8mm reels from the 1920's, through to the big VHS porn-explosion of the 1980's, I will be examining the controversy that surrounds it, the problems (both legal and moral) of working in this field, and why even in 21st Century Britain, pornography is still a very dirty word indeed.
You may have heard that the great pillar of our social conscience, Jacqui Smith (ex Labour Home Secretary), recently produced a radio documentary about the pornography industry for Radio 5 Live, which can be listened again to (until Thursday 10th March) by clicking here. Sadly, the problems with the show, is the lack of actual open discussion about why the sex industry as a whole, is still being viewed in such a negative fashion, when we could move forward with it, and turn-it into something less seedy, if we really wanted too.
Pornography doesn't have to be demeaning, desensitising, or dirty. It could be made legal and moral, if government and society chose to do so. Yet, in Britain, we seem to be hell-bent on keeping the people who work in the sex and pornography industries down, and treating them as the lowest of the low.
And talking of Extreme Cinema, there is a second research study being undertaken at www.asianextremecinemaresearch.co.uk that all my blog-readers should pay a visit too. Focusing on the censorship and classification of films from the Far East, such as ICHI THE KILLER, GROTESQUE, or BATTLE ROYALE, Aberystwyth University PhD student Emma Pett wants to know whether you have seen these kinds of works, what attracts you too them, and what you feel defines an Asian Extreme movie.
I would thus politely ask any and all of you, to visit and complete both these studies as soon as you can please, as the research for both is extremely relevant and significant when it comes to censorship issues.
I hope you will enjoy reading my report on pornography, and look forward to hearing your comments upon the subject, very soon. For now though, I bid you a fond adieu!
I hope that all of you are in good health, and enjoying what I've produced thus far. I know my blog is very, very infrequently added too, but I simply don't have the time to write something as often as I'd like to.
... And anyway, I prefer quality over quantity!
For those who care, I've just written a new review for Nico Mastorakis' Greek-shocker ISLAND OF DEATH (1978), which can be read here, over at the excellent Sex, Gore, Mutants website. Thanks to Alan Simpson, for sending me the review disc!
My next update, which I am hoping to have completed in the next couple of weeks for this very blog, however, is on the perennially controversial and taboo subject of pornography. There is a new British research study currently being undertaken at www.pornresearch.org asking for peoples opinions on their own use of pornographic material. The research is 100% anonymous, and the intention is to compile a proper, decent-sized sample of what modern-day Britains use pornography, and more importantly, why they use it and what they think of it.
The results will then be distributed to places like OFCOM and the BBFC, who will hopefully use it when it comes to some of their classification and censorship decisions.
The study is actually being undertaken by two women, Clarissa Smith and Feona Attwood, accompanied by Martin Barker, who was strategic when he undertook research into Video Nasties back in the early 1980's, at Aberystwyth University. So, this could prove to be immensely significant when it comes to classification of Extreme Cinema in the future.
My forthcoming blog entry on pornography, will be examining the many different aspects that make-up this modern-day phenomenon. This behomoth industry, that channels millions upon millions of dollars into its production and dissemination, is as provocative today as it always has been. From the humble beginnings of 8mm reels from the 1920's, through to the big VHS porn-explosion of the 1980's, I will be examining the controversy that surrounds it, the problems (both legal and moral) of working in this field, and why even in 21st Century Britain, pornography is still a very dirty word indeed.
You may have heard that the great pillar of our social conscience, Jacqui Smith (ex Labour Home Secretary), recently produced a radio documentary about the pornography industry for Radio 5 Live, which can be listened again to (until Thursday 10th March) by clicking here. Sadly, the problems with the show, is the lack of actual open discussion about why the sex industry as a whole, is still being viewed in such a negative fashion, when we could move forward with it, and turn-it into something less seedy, if we really wanted too.
Pornography doesn't have to be demeaning, desensitising, or dirty. It could be made legal and moral, if government and society chose to do so. Yet, in Britain, we seem to be hell-bent on keeping the people who work in the sex and pornography industries down, and treating them as the lowest of the low.
And talking of Extreme Cinema, there is a second research study being undertaken at www.asianextremecinemaresearch.co.uk that all my blog-readers should pay a visit too. Focusing on the censorship and classification of films from the Far East, such as ICHI THE KILLER, GROTESQUE, or BATTLE ROYALE, Aberystwyth University PhD student Emma Pett wants to know whether you have seen these kinds of works, what attracts you too them, and what you feel defines an Asian Extreme movie.
I would thus politely ask any and all of you, to visit and complete both these studies as soon as you can please, as the research for both is extremely relevant and significant when it comes to censorship issues.
I hope you will enjoy reading my report on pornography, and look forward to hearing your comments upon the subject, very soon. For now though, I bid you a fond adieu!
Sunday, 13 February 2011
How Extreme Is "Too Extreme"?
So, welcome back!
This is only my second piece of blog work, and I know I've been extremely neglectful, but as I'm currently uregently looking for full-time work preferably involving cinema, film or DVD in some way, I'm afraid my attention has been diverted to surfing the Internet, for jobs, filing job applications, (which always seem to go unanswered or ignored), and actively trying to find someone, somewhere who will employ me for a reasonable wage (and I'm not asking much, here, folks) for a reasonable week's work.
Well, today, I thought I would springboard from my first review, way back in January, and posit the question just how extreme is too extreme?
This has arisen, as I've just discovered that the film THE RULES OF ATTRACTION (2002, Roger Avery) has been slipped-out onto UK Blu-Ray, but in a new and unclassified uncensored version. (See here!) For those who are unaware, this controversial, black-comedy/drama was originally released uncensored here in UK cinemas, but all previous home-viewing versions have been cut or had alterations made to a scene in which a young woman commits suicide, whilst Harry Nilsson's "Without You" plays out on the soundtrack.
The offending sequence, shows the woman drawing a razor-blade vertically up the inside of her left arm, as she lies in a bath, and we see blood flow from the wound. It's not a lengthy scene, and nor is it overtly graphic, but the BBFC had a problem with the sequence and the soundtrack itself. As the blade slices into the woman's flesh, the lyrics "I can't live if living is without you / I can't live, I can't give any more / Can't live if living is without you / I can't give, I can't give any more" can be heard. The stark juxtaposition of the offending sequence, the clearly-displayed technique, (which at the time, wasn't really that well-known in the UK), and the music's haunting lyrics proved uncomfortable and unpalatable to the BBFC. Worse-still, as the technique was instructive, it was felt that the scene could be potentially harmful to UK audiences. Hence, the alteration/editing of the scene.
Now, the Blu-Ray has been released, and UK fans can get to see the original, uncut and uncensored sequence, in all its beauty - and the scene is ethereal in its beauty - despite no resubmission details to the BBFC appearing on their website! Could this be a simple oversight? Has the film been reclassified as acceptable to al over-18's in the UK, or is this a case of a film being released, under-the-counter?
The age of the film has diminished the "shock" factor of the scene, sufficiently to a 2011 audience, but there have been a lot of recent films that have been released that have really pushed the boundaries of extreme cinema. At the end of last year, we had SRPSKI FILM / A SERBIAN FILM (2010, Srdjan Spasojevich), hotly followed by another Serbian shocker ZIVOT I SMRT PORNO BANDE / LIFE AND DEATH OF A PORNO GANG (2009, Mladen Djordjevic), which is a supposedly black comedy similar in lines to its predecessor, despite being made a year before. (Both films have been brough to UK audiences, at almost the same time.) Again, the content and themes of the film, are highly-likely to cause disconsent within the BBFC's hallowed walls, as it deals with a young film-maker aiming to shoot his first-ever feature film, who becomes an unwitting friend/accomplice to a pornographic movie director, and they join together to film... Well, to film the unfilmmable, and take their work on tour around the country!
A socio-political movie, this sounds like the film that A SERBIAN FILM desperately wanted to be. I've not seen ZIVOT I SMRT PORNO BANDE myself, as no English-subtitled version is yet legally available, but I am eager to compare and contrast it with its cinematic brother.
But I digress... A SERBIAN FILM pushed boudaries beyond any that any cinemagoer could imagine. Scenes involving the anal rape of a minor; the rape of a newborn baby, fresh from its mother's womb; eyeball socket penetrated by penis; necrophilic sex followed by decapitation - the list of offending moments are a catalogue of obscenities, strong enough to warrant disgusted faces of even some of the hardest of extreme-cinema fans! Banned around the world, the planned US DVD release from Invisible Pictures for February 2011, looks to have been a case of PR hokum, as we head nearer and nearer to the end of the month, with no other news released. In fact, the only official release, is the heavily cut UK one! Every other nation appears to have said "no" to a cinema release, in any form whatsoever.
Then, we've had the censored version of the remake of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (2010, Steven R. Monroe), which had about 43 seconds of seditious sexual violence and torture removed, to make it acceptable to UK audiences.
At what point do we draw the line? Should we draw a line at all? Is there anything that is, quite literally, unacceptable?
Cinema history has featured many taboo-busting films: SALO OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM, CALIGULA, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, MURDER SET PIECES, GROTESQUE, STRAW DOGS, CANNIBAL FEROX, ZOMBIE FLESH-EATERS, and hundreds more. Each one, has usually been released uncut in the UK eventually, but if not, certainly in another English-speaking territory. Almost all of the most controversial titles, have generally dealt with violence, sexual violence or explicit scenes of gore. On occasion, the three offending items have been combined, which has caused the censors' problems. In the USA, explicit sexual material is likely to be the problem. In the UK, it is going to be explicit violence or sexualised violence. For Australians, it's going to be excessively bloody violence that provokes the Office of Film and Literature Classification (or OFLC), into censoring or banning your work.
A SERBIAN FILM breached all of these, though, with combinations of violence, sexualised violence, and explicit sex, that went beyond anything anyone ever imagined or considered possible.
Ultimately, there is no line that can be drawn. I have been personally involved in disputes on a few IMDB threads, regarding the content of A SERBIAN FILM, and these have been about the perception of the material. A few people have claimed this film isn't that bad, or that the content is off-screen or only fleeting, because your imagination fills in the worst, and thus that is what you see! Yet, having watched this film three times now, I stand by my original thoughts and fears: there are times when a film can go too far, even if we know that no one is actually being harmed on-screen. I love my hardcore violence, but I still have limits of tolerance and acceptability; of what I would be comfortable viewing. I’m not sure I could stomach seeing an adult, brutalise a child, (or the child’s corpse), to a point where the corpse becomes a bloody mush, as similar to IRREVERSIBLE (2002, Gaspar Noe)! I’m not sure if I could tolerate, without watching through my hands, a scene involving the decimation of someone’s eye, with a scalpel! I struggle to tolerate Lucio Fulci’s "knife-up-her-joytrail" moment, in his THE NEW YORK RIPPER (1982), because the thought of that actually happening to a woman in real-life is too repugnant for me to consider any man actively wanting to undertake this! I’m sure someone would, or could do it, but it breaches my own, individual threshold of taste and decency. As bizarre as that may indeed sound.
Another question for another day.
This is only my second piece of blog work, and I know I've been extremely neglectful, but as I'm currently uregently looking for full-time work preferably involving cinema, film or DVD in some way, I'm afraid my attention has been diverted to surfing the Internet, for jobs, filing job applications, (which always seem to go unanswered or ignored), and actively trying to find someone, somewhere who will employ me for a reasonable wage (and I'm not asking much, here, folks) for a reasonable week's work.
Well, today, I thought I would springboard from my first review, way back in January, and posit the question just how extreme is too extreme?
This has arisen, as I've just discovered that the film THE RULES OF ATTRACTION (2002, Roger Avery) has been slipped-out onto UK Blu-Ray, but in a new and unclassified uncensored version. (See here!) For those who are unaware, this controversial, black-comedy/drama was originally released uncensored here in UK cinemas, but all previous home-viewing versions have been cut or had alterations made to a scene in which a young woman commits suicide, whilst Harry Nilsson's "Without You" plays out on the soundtrack.
The offending sequence, shows the woman drawing a razor-blade vertically up the inside of her left arm, as she lies in a bath, and we see blood flow from the wound. It's not a lengthy scene, and nor is it overtly graphic, but the BBFC had a problem with the sequence and the soundtrack itself. As the blade slices into the woman's flesh, the lyrics "I can't live if living is without you / I can't live, I can't give any more / Can't live if living is without you / I can't give, I can't give any more" can be heard. The stark juxtaposition of the offending sequence, the clearly-displayed technique, (which at the time, wasn't really that well-known in the UK), and the music's haunting lyrics proved uncomfortable and unpalatable to the BBFC. Worse-still, as the technique was instructive, it was felt that the scene could be potentially harmful to UK audiences. Hence, the alteration/editing of the scene.
Now, the Blu-Ray has been released, and UK fans can get to see the original, uncut and uncensored sequence, in all its beauty - and the scene is ethereal in its beauty - despite no resubmission details to the BBFC appearing on their website! Could this be a simple oversight? Has the film been reclassified as acceptable to al over-18's in the UK, or is this a case of a film being released, under-the-counter?
The age of the film has diminished the "shock" factor of the scene, sufficiently to a 2011 audience, but there have been a lot of recent films that have been released that have really pushed the boundaries of extreme cinema. At the end of last year, we had SRPSKI FILM / A SERBIAN FILM (2010, Srdjan Spasojevich), hotly followed by another Serbian shocker ZIVOT I SMRT PORNO BANDE / LIFE AND DEATH OF A PORNO GANG (2009, Mladen Djordjevic), which is a supposedly black comedy similar in lines to its predecessor, despite being made a year before. (Both films have been brough to UK audiences, at almost the same time.) Again, the content and themes of the film, are highly-likely to cause disconsent within the BBFC's hallowed walls, as it deals with a young film-maker aiming to shoot his first-ever feature film, who becomes an unwitting friend/accomplice to a pornographic movie director, and they join together to film... Well, to film the unfilmmable, and take their work on tour around the country!
A socio-political movie, this sounds like the film that A SERBIAN FILM desperately wanted to be. I've not seen ZIVOT I SMRT PORNO BANDE myself, as no English-subtitled version is yet legally available, but I am eager to compare and contrast it with its cinematic brother.
But I digress... A SERBIAN FILM pushed boudaries beyond any that any cinemagoer could imagine. Scenes involving the anal rape of a minor; the rape of a newborn baby, fresh from its mother's womb; eyeball socket penetrated by penis; necrophilic sex followed by decapitation - the list of offending moments are a catalogue of obscenities, strong enough to warrant disgusted faces of even some of the hardest of extreme-cinema fans! Banned around the world, the planned US DVD release from Invisible Pictures for February 2011, looks to have been a case of PR hokum, as we head nearer and nearer to the end of the month, with no other news released. In fact, the only official release, is the heavily cut UK one! Every other nation appears to have said "no" to a cinema release, in any form whatsoever.
Then, we've had the censored version of the remake of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (2010, Steven R. Monroe), which had about 43 seconds of seditious sexual violence and torture removed, to make it acceptable to UK audiences.
At what point do we draw the line? Should we draw a line at all? Is there anything that is, quite literally, unacceptable?
Cinema history has featured many taboo-busting films: SALO OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM, CALIGULA, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, MURDER SET PIECES, GROTESQUE, STRAW DOGS, CANNIBAL FEROX, ZOMBIE FLESH-EATERS, and hundreds more. Each one, has usually been released uncut in the UK eventually, but if not, certainly in another English-speaking territory. Almost all of the most controversial titles, have generally dealt with violence, sexual violence or explicit scenes of gore. On occasion, the three offending items have been combined, which has caused the censors' problems. In the USA, explicit sexual material is likely to be the problem. In the UK, it is going to be explicit violence or sexualised violence. For Australians, it's going to be excessively bloody violence that provokes the Office of Film and Literature Classification (or OFLC), into censoring or banning your work.
A SERBIAN FILM breached all of these, though, with combinations of violence, sexualised violence, and explicit sex, that went beyond anything anyone ever imagined or considered possible.
Ultimately, there is no line that can be drawn. I have been personally involved in disputes on a few IMDB threads, regarding the content of A SERBIAN FILM, and these have been about the perception of the material. A few people have claimed this film isn't that bad, or that the content is off-screen or only fleeting, because your imagination fills in the worst, and thus that is what you see! Yet, having watched this film three times now, I stand by my original thoughts and fears: there are times when a film can go too far, even if we know that no one is actually being harmed on-screen. I love my hardcore violence, but I still have limits of tolerance and acceptability; of what I would be comfortable viewing. I’m not sure I could stomach seeing an adult, brutalise a child, (or the child’s corpse), to a point where the corpse becomes a bloody mush, as similar to IRREVERSIBLE (2002, Gaspar Noe)! I’m not sure if I could tolerate, without watching through my hands, a scene involving the decimation of someone’s eye, with a scalpel! I struggle to tolerate Lucio Fulci’s "knife-up-her-joytrail" moment, in his THE NEW YORK RIPPER (1982), because the thought of that actually happening to a woman in real-life is too repugnant for me to consider any man actively wanting to undertake this! I’m sure someone would, or could do it, but it breaches my own, individual threshold of taste and decency. As bizarre as that may indeed sound.
I also hate pornography! It does nothing for me!
I don’t enjoy seeing male and female genitalia, at the moment of excitement, spurting forth bodily fluids over one another. Nor do I get any satisfaction from watching adults perform numerous sexual proclivities, via every available orifice, and then some. I find it dull, unrelenting, and bland more than anything else. I enjoy erotica, where it’s more tease than tussle, and I have my own sexual preferences and acts, that I do enjoy, but they are very tame in comparison to most porn tapes. (It’s the kind of Playboy-style material.) I’m not even that big a fan of much of the adult content in “lad’s mags” like “Zoo”, and their ilk. The idea I should enjoy seeing a woman’s most intimate parts splayed out, like a gynaecological examination, for me to be aroused by, just makes my blood run cold. I certainly have no problem with secondary sexual objects, or genitalia, and seeing them under the right circumstances, or involving someone I loved and cared for, would be very different to the notion of the objectified woman shown in these kinds of publications.
Maybe I’m just a hypocrite?! How can I “enjoy” seeing men and women violate and be violated by one another in films, but not in pornography? It’s really down to the fact that pornography involves real men and real women, actually performing these acts! Actual orifices are penetrated by actual human organs and, in some cases, by non-human organs! At least in movies, nobody actually has this performed on them, as it’s all undertaken through fakery, tricks, illusion. An actor or actress never actively had to insert an object into them, that could cause real harm. It’s carefully and professionally simulated. In the porn industry, that most certainly is not the case! Try reading some of the descriptions of the DVD's available abroad, from pornographer giants like Max Hardcore, (who is currently serving a four-year prison sentence over the content of some of his works), without feeling sick! In fact, I would urge my fans to read this article by journalist Susannah Breslin, for a shocking but superb account of Mr Hardcore's antics)!
But in this age of computer technology, where any and every kind of perverse, violent or sexualised act can be found via the unrestrained remit of the Internet within seconds, it’s interesting to me, how many of us still get a kick out of illusion, via the cinema! There’s something special about 24 frames-per-second of tomfoolery skipping past my retinas, that excites my brain, and stimulates my soul, no matter how explicit or unrestrained it may appear to be!
Thus, maybe the line we have to draw is not an actual line at all. Or at least not one to do with specific acts, words or images. A check list that says A, B and C is allowed, but D, E and F are not. Maybe, the line is to do with simulation.
Yet celluloid simulation becomes ever more realistic, as time passes, and what is simulation, can be very, very convincing to the untrained eye. If a film like A SERBIAN FILM can cause moral outrage across the world, and that is 100% simulated, then maybe it’s more to do with our own perception of what is real or cinematically-real that is the root cause? If it appears to be too realistic, we ban or censor it. But how real is too real?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)