Gay Zombie Film Banned, Screened Anyway, Destroyed

[Cowabungaa]

Thanks Australia, thanks for giving me more and more reasons not to go to that place. Police raids to destroy offensive materials, gee where I do I know that from... Oh! That's right:

Actually, most countries with anti-narcotic, anti-child pornography, and anti-gun laws eliminate those sorts of offensive materials via police raids as well (which could easily include your nation).

Difference being that with child pornography cases there are victims and guns are a lethal threat. In this case there is no victim, hell there isn't even really a crime. They just didn't like it.

 

[mr_rubino]

Actually, I too would have burned the movie, not for the movie itself, but because the Director sounds another Uwe Boll guy. Taking a movie which has gay zombies performing necrophilia is NOT ARTISTIC!

Call it shocking and provocative if you will, but what ARTISTIC BLOODY MERIT does it have?

Heh, I love every single insinuation and wrongly-defined term in this paragraph.
It's like some of you haven't even an idea what the issue is in this situation.

Excuse me?

Creating something that is 'shocking' at best doesn't mean it has any merit in anyway or form. I'm sorry if I sounded ignorant in my previous post, but the fact of matter is, everyone is using the term "Artsitic XYZ" to protect something under a certain 'rights' is simply protecting themselves and their work behind a illusion-ary wall. They simply need to man up, and see that sometimes, somethings, certain things, don't even deserved the word "Art" in them.

We're not talking about Salvador Dali's paintings here, or some movie like Machete (which still has more value then this movie).

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT WITH AUSTRALIA on how they handled the situation, everyone has the right of speech on how they see fit, and how they plan on dealing with repercussion later on, that is fine by me, and if anything, I was against the way the situation was handled.

Let's put it this way: Brokeback Mountain contributed more artistically to the human race, then this movie will do in a hundred years.

The only 'artisic' value this movie could have, is if the Director came out tomorrow, and explained on how this movie is a satire of Zombies, which are the epitome of Nerd-ery, representing the death and decay of the outcast in our current age (Geek/Nerd) being portrayed as someone who unable to feel the touch of a woman, due to the stigma, which till to this day exists, so their second best option would to be 'gay', due to the 'male only bonding' that goes around in he nerd culture.

And I can't stress just HOW WRONG the top statement is, even if it was true.

Maybe I wasn't paying attention when we established that something "shocking" isn't/can't have artistic merit. It looks like you have that "Something that makes me feel good personally" definition of art. I just don't get it.

I also don't get your last paragraph; you're implying the movie could have artistic value if XYZ? That contradicts what you just said about offensive and puerile (form what you've heard) things not being protected as art. The way you're talking, it sounds like you haven't seen or read anything about it, but are making a call on its content.

Aussies and soccer moms do that, and work backwards from there to rationalize why something should be banned and anyone who would see it should not be allowed to, instead of starting from the position that the government needs to give a compelling reason why said work is dangerous to the public.

Your view on Machete is interesting though. Tell me what artistic value it holds for you.

For once i respect the rating board's actions. Just as i don't consider artistically painted pictures of nude children art, i also don't consider films with necrophilia art. And just as the government would have destroyed paedophilia pictures/films of children, they destroyed films depicting necrophilia.

Well you have a point, I guess. To Australia, those are the same thing.
But to most other countries, the difference between fantasy and reality is clearer.

Ahh yeah, how 'bout your government in this article?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98325-Hentai-Collector-Sentenced-to-Jail-Over-Obscene-Material

The above pictures were cartoons yet he was sentenced to gaol.

Because representation of child porn, zzzzz. PrettyBaby was controversial for its time too, since the actual actress was a pre-teen, despite it being a film.
Now tell me what child porn and necrophilia between two assumedly-living actors has in common. Let me know why this film cannot be made available to the public, and then show me why this is a very real fear. (The running line in this thread of "It could hypothetically cause a normal, non-necrophilic person to commit necrophilia somehow because... well, why not?" doesn't exactly fill me with optimism.)

 

[mr_rubino]

A shock film get banned in Austrailia, OMG STOP THE PRESSES! But really though the movie sound more like pretentious garbage than anything else.

Here is an idea, read the whole fucking article.

I did, they banned it, they still showed it, cops came AFTER the owner burn the film (pretty much open and shut if you ask me), I mean really another movie like this would be "A Serbian Film", people won't shut up about how "intelligent" it's "Symbolism" is, but really it's just a shock movie, symbolism or not there are better ways to prove a point than to make shock movies (or torture porn if your a snobby film critic). Also people seem to jump the gun a bit when people use the word "Pretentious", what it more or less means, is that the item is question is convinced it's the best thing to grace it's respective area ever (more or less just a intelligent way of saying "The movie is a douche"). Yes the police raid was overkill, but when a government bans something, people always get butthurt and assume the government is "overstepping it's bounds", I mean really just reading a plot summary and I kinda see why they banned it.

I'm proud you can stand up against people calling A Serbian Film intelligent or metaphorical and say "Nuh-uh! It's gross! (And ban it.)" Show those damned intellectuals who's boss.
I'm confused though. If it's "pretentious", how does it have no artistic merit? Isn't that just the pejorative code-word for "artsy" that people use when they want to avoid delving too deeply into something? So if the director was putting on airs, filling the film with symbolism, doesn't that intrinsically mean you're admitting the film has a message?

 

[Lim3]

For once i respect the rating board's actions. Just as i don't consider artistically painted pictures of nude children art, i also don't consider films with necrophilia art. And just as the government would have destroyed paedophilia pictures/films of children, they destroyed films depicting necrophilia.

Well you have a point, I guess. To Australia, those are the same thing.
But to most other countries, the difference between fantasy and reality is clearer.

Ahh yeah, how 'bout your government in this article?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98325-Hentai-Collector-Sentenced-to-Jail-Over-Obscene-Material

The above pictures were cartoons yet he was sentenced to gaol.

Because representation of child porn, zzzzz. PrettyBaby was controversial for its time too, since the actual actress was a pre-teen, despite it being a film.
Now tell me what child porn and necrophilia between two assumedly-living actors has in common. Let me know why this film cannot be made available to the public, and then show me why this is a very real fear. (The running line in this thread of "It could hypothetically cause a normal, non-necrophilic person to commit necrophilia somehow because... well, why not?" doesn't exactly fill me with optimism.)

No it was a rebuttal to the argument that my government didn't know the difference between "fantasy and reality". Unless your going to argue that cartoon comics are more realistic then actors on film?

 

[General_Potatoes]

People really would rather see this movie? then you all must be fucked in the head.

 

[Raziel_Likes_Souls]

As I read the title, I thought we were talking about the Resident Evil films.

http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=rimshot

Anyways, I really don't want to defend this movie, but destroying it is a tad bit extreme.

 

[Ignatz_Zwakh]

Australia oh Australia...thou art baffling in thy ardor for censorship.

 

[Radelaide]

What was this director thinking? It's Australia we're talking about. You know, the country with the government who wants to censor the internet?

Shame I don't get to see it though... I mean no, gay zombie movie, what?

You're an asshat >: You wait. I'll get you soon! (Don't kill me <3) And it's not going to be censored.

OT: This seems like a *little* bit of an over-reaction by the AFP. But then again, from what I've heard about this film, it's completely irrelevant and the director hides behind "artistic freedom" to make gore porn. So, I dunno...

 

[Sennz0r]

What was this director thinking? It's Australia we're talking about. You know, the country with the government who wants to censor the internet?

Shame I don't get to see it though... I mean no, gay zombie movie, what?

You're an asshat >: You wait. I'll get you soon! (Don't kill me <3) And it's not going to be censored.

OT: This seems like a *little* bit of an over-reaction by the AFP. But then again, from what I've heard about this film, it's completely irrelevant and the director hides behind "artistic freedom" to make gore porn. So, I dunno...

Maybe he wants the world to see that zombies -although they're undead- still have the same kind of raw, lustful emotion we humans have. Or something like that, maybe he's just telling us zombies are filthy gay people or vice versa and should be eradicated. Either way doesn't sound good.

 

[BrunswickStFiend]

The way you're talking, it sounds like you haven't seen or read anything about it, but are making a call on its content.

Aussies and soccer moms do that, and work backwards from there to rationalize why something should be banned and anyone who would see it should not be allowed to, instead of starting from the position that the government needs to give a compelling reason why said work is dangerous to the public.

Sorry guys i had to quote this and bring up the hypocrasy here.

The way your talking, it sounds like you haven't seen or read anything about Australian politics or our culture, but are making a call about it.

Thankyou, for making sweeping brushstrokes about my nation and its entire society based on the actions of a minority government. While i, and alot of people did vote for them what you have to understand about Australian Politics is that there are only three parties that matter. The current government is headed by the Labour party who happen to be the lesser evil, they also happen to be chocked full to the brim of "oh my god save the children" flavour left wing Catholics. Which means sometimes our government can take on a bit of an oppressive flavour one way or another.

Fine, attack the policy thats reasonable.

However what is not reasonable is to attack another posters arguments by making sweeping generalisations about an entire nation of twenty million people. Thus characterising us as a bunch of ignorent, intolerant arseholes while yourself trying to defend freedom of speech from the same people who characterise the entire subculture of gamers as deviant freaks.

So hypocracy is bad mkay?

 

[mr_rubino]

The way you're talking, it sounds like you haven't seen or read anything about it, but are making a call on its content.

Aussies and soccer moms do that, and work backwards from there to rationalize why something should be banned and anyone who would see it should not be allowed to, instead of starting from the position that the government needs to give a compelling reason why said work is dangerous to the public.

Sorry guys i had to quote this and bring up the hypocrasy here.

The way your talking, it sounds like you haven't seen or read anything about Australian politics or our culture, but are making a call about it.

Thankyou, for making sweeping brushstrokes about my nation and its entire society based on the actions of a minority government. While i, and alot of people did vote for them what you have to understand about Australian Politics is that there are only three parties that matter. The current government is headed by the Labour party who happen to be the lesser evil, they also happen to be chocked full to the brim of "oh my god save the children" flavour left wing Catholics. Which means sometimes our government can take on a bit of an oppressive flavour one way or another.

Fine, attack the policy thats reasonable.

However what is not reasonable is to attack another posters arguments by making sweeping generalisations about an entire nation of twenty million people. Thus characterising us as a bunch of ignorent, intolerant arseholes while yourself trying to defend freedom of speech from the same people who characterise the entire subculture of gamers as deviant freaks.

So hypocracy is bad mkay?

I was trying to avoid the G-word, because of the flashing neon hypocrisy of "Ban movies I don't approve of because they're dangerous" vs. "Not letting children play Postal 2 = freedom of speech violation!"

But let me use a phrase I often hear from "enlightened" non-Americans: If you don't like your reputation overseas, change your representatives. Else you tacitly approve of the job they're doing.

For once i respect the rating board's actions. Just as i don't consider artistically painted pictures of nude children art, i also don't consider films with necrophilia art. And just as the government would have destroyed paedophilia pictures/films of children, they destroyed films depicting necrophilia.

Well you have a point, I guess. To Australia, those are the same thing.
But to most other countries, the difference between fantasy and reality is clearer.

Ahh yeah, how 'bout your government in this article?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98325-Hentai-Collector-Sentenced-to-Jail-Over-Obscene-Material

The above pictures were cartoons yet he was sentenced to gaol.

Because representation of child porn, zzzzz. PrettyBaby was controversial for its time too, since the actual actress was a pre-teen, despite it being a film.
Now tell me what child porn and necrophilia between two assumedly-living actors has in common. Let me know why this film cannot be made available to the public, and then show me why this is a very real fear. (The running line in this thread of "It could hypothetically cause a normal, non-necrophilic person to commit necrophilia somehow because... well, why not?" doesn't exactly fill me with optimism.)

No it was a rebuttal to the argument that my government didn't know the difference between "fantasy and reality". Unless your going to argue that cartoon comics are more realistic then actors on film?

Notice I said it got into trouble. Not that it was banned. Is it banned there?
Since you seem to be unable to share how portrayal of necrophilia (whatever that entails in a movie about zombies) is dangerous to the public, it feels like trying to explain evolution to a creationist: Very different world-views means we're coming from two completely different directions.
Despite one of your countrymen taking offense to my "Aussies and soccer moms" statement, I can't exactly blame you if you were brought up to trust the feds' line of logic for censoring various media. If I believe something has to have a demonstrable harm either in its making or its effect on the public to be censored, while you believe something has to not make you feel good to be censored, we won't exactly see eye-to-eye.

 

[Radelaide]

What was this director thinking? It's Australia we're talking about. You know, the country with the government who wants to censor the internet?

Shame I don't get to see it though... I mean no, gay zombie movie, what?

You're an asshat >: You wait. I'll get you soon! (Don't kill me <3) And it's not going to be censored.

OT: This seems like a *little* bit of an over-reaction by the AFP. But then again, from what I've heard about this film, it's completely irrelevant and the director hides behind "artistic freedom" to make gore porn. So, I dunno...

Maybe he wants the world to see that zombies -although they're undead- still have the same kind of raw, lustful emotion we humans have. Or something like that, maybe he's just telling us zombies are filthy gay people or vice versa and should be eradicated. Either way doesn't sound good.

I'm not going clubbing with you.

 

[Sennz0r]

What was this director thinking? It's Australia we're talking about. You know, the country with the government who wants to censor the internet?

Shame I don't get to see it though... I mean no, gay zombie movie, what?

You're an asshat >: You wait. I'll get you soon! (Don't kill me <3) And it's not going to be censored.

OT: This seems like a *little* bit of an over-reaction by the AFP. But then again, from what I've heard about this film, it's completely irrelevant and the director hides behind "artistic freedom" to make gore porn. So, I dunno...

Maybe he wants the world to see that zombies -although they're undead- still have the same kind of raw, lustful emotion we humans have. Or something like that, maybe he's just telling us zombies are filthy gay people or vice versa and should be eradicated. Either way doesn't sound good.

I'm not going clubbing with you.

That's a good stance for everyone

 

[Necromancer1991]

A shock film get banned in Austrailia, OMG STOP THE PRESSES! But really though the movie sound more like pretentious garbage than anything else.

Here is an idea, read the whole fucking article.

I did, they banned it, they still showed it, cops came AFTER the owner burn the film (pretty much open and shut if you ask me), I mean really another movie like this would be "A Serbian Film", people won't shut up about how "intelligent" it's "Symbolism" is, but really it's just a shock movie, symbolism or not there are better ways to prove a point than to make shock movies (or torture porn if your a snobby film critic). Also people seem to jump the gun a bit when people use the word "Pretentious", what it more or less means, is that the item is question is convinced it's the best thing to grace it's respective area ever (more or less just a intelligent way of saying "The movie is a douche"). Yes the police raid was overkill, but when a government bans something, people always get butthurt and assume the government is "overstepping it's bounds", I mean really just reading a plot summary and I kinda see why they banned it.

I'm proud you can stand up against people calling A Serbian Film intelligent or metaphorical and say "Nuh-uh! It's gross! (And ban it.)" Show those damned intellectuals who's boss.
I'm confused though. If it's "pretentious", how does it have no artistic merit? Isn't that just the pejorative code-word for "artsy" that people use when they want to avoid delving too deeply into something? So if the director was putting on airs, filling the film with symbolism, doesn't that intrinsically mean you're admitting the film has a message?

No pretentious just means the film believes itself to be an artsy political and/or social commentary, but in reality all it is is a movie TRYING to be artsy, but comes across as artsy-fartsy. A film like Schindler's List has artistic quality in spades, but than someone decides to make a cheap, controversial film such as this and they just end up falling short, down a flight of stairs, into an alligator pit.

 

[mr_rubino]

A shock film get banned in Austrailia, OMG STOP THE PRESSES! But really though the movie sound more like pretentious garbage than anything else.

Here is an idea, read the whole fucking article.

I did, they banned it, they still showed it, cops came AFTER the owner burn the film (pretty much open and shut if you ask me), I mean really another movie like this would be "A Serbian Film", people won't shut up about how "intelligent" it's "Symbolism" is, but really it's just a shock movie, symbolism or not there are better ways to prove a point than to make shock movies (or torture porn if your a snobby film critic). Also people seem to jump the gun a bit when people use the word "Pretentious", what it more or less means, is that the item is question is convinced it's the best thing to grace it's respective area ever (more or less just a intelligent way of saying "The movie is a douche"). Yes the police raid was overkill, but when a government bans something, people always get butthurt and assume the government is "overstepping it's bounds", I mean really just reading a plot summary and I kinda see why they banned it.

I'm proud you can stand up against people calling A Serbian Film intelligent or metaphorical and say "Nuh-uh! It's gross! (And ban it.)" Show those damned intellectuals who's boss.
I'm confused though. If it's "pretentious", how does it have no artistic merit? Isn't that just the pejorative code-word for "artsy" that people use when they want to avoid delving too deeply into something? So if the director was putting on airs, filling the film with symbolism, doesn't that intrinsically mean you're admitting the film has a message?

No pretentious just means the film believes itself to be an artsy political and/or social commentary, but in reality all it is is a movie TRYING to be artsy, but comes across as artsy-fartsy. A film like Schindler's List has artistic quality in spades, but than someone decides to make a cheap, controversial film such as this and they just end up falling short, down a flight of stairs, into an alligator pit.

In other words, it's an overwrought attempt at a message. So like I said: artsy.
If you're going to use meaningless words, you can't change the definition midstream.

Incidentally, all these attempts to build an objective sliding scale based on what the movie is compared to Dali, Schindler's List, and Citizen Kane are kinda funny (albeit completely irrelevant to why it should/should not be censored). Again, all I'm getting is "It's shocking so it's not art!!!" (Someone mentioned "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom" a few pages ago. What are your thoughts on it?)

I keep trying to get the conversation away from that pseudo-scientific silliness (Alliteration woo!), but noone else seems to want that. Don't tell me what your Film 101 textbook says. Tell me why this particular movie does not fit the definition of art that this thread created out of thin air has been based on.

 

[Necromancer1991]

A shock film get banned in Austrailia, OMG STOP THE PRESSES! But really though the movie sound more like pretentious garbage than anything else.

Here is an idea, read the whole fucking article.

I did, they banned it, they still showed it, cops came AFTER the owner burn the film (pretty much open and shut if you ask me), I mean really another movie like this would be "A Serbian Film", people won't shut up about how "intelligent" it's "Symbolism" is, but really it's just a shock movie, symbolism or not there are better ways to prove a point than to make shock movies (or torture porn if your a snobby film critic). Also people seem to jump the gun a bit when people use the word "Pretentious", what it more or less means, is that the item is question is convinced it's the best thing to grace it's respective area ever (more or less just a intelligent way of saying "The movie is a douche"). Yes the police raid was overkill, but when a government bans something, people always get butthurt and assume the government is "overstepping it's bounds", I mean really just reading a plot summary and I kinda see why they banned it.

I'm proud you can stand up against people calling A Serbian Film intelligent or metaphorical and say "Nuh-uh! It's gross! (And ban it.)" Show those damned intellectuals who's boss.
I'm confused though. If it's "pretentious", how does it have no artistic merit? Isn't that just the pejorative code-word for "artsy" that people use when they want to avoid delving too deeply into something? So if the director was putting on airs, filling the film with symbolism, doesn't that intrinsically mean you're admitting the film has a message?

No pretentious just means the film believes itself to be an artsy political and/or social commentary, but in reality all it is is a movie TRYING to be artsy, but comes across as artsy-fartsy. A film like Schindler's List has artistic quality in spades, but than someone decides to make a cheap, controversial film such as this and they just end up falling short, down a flight of stairs, into an alligator pit.

In other words, it's an overwrought attempt at a message. So like I said: artsy.
If you're going to use meaningless words, you can't change the definition midstream.

Incidentally, all these attempts to build an objective sliding scale based on what the movie is compared to Dali, Schindler's List, and Citizen Kane are kinda funny (albeit completely irrelevant to why it should/should not be censored). Again, all I'm getting is "It's shocking so it's not art!!!" (Someone mentioned "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom" a few pages ago. What are your thoughts on it?)

I keep trying to get the conversation away from that pseudo-scientific silliness (Alliteration woo!), but noone else seems to want that. Don't tell me what your Film 101 textbook says. Tell me why this particular movie does not fit the definition of art that this thread created out of thin air has been based on.

Ok fine I wasn't sure what you meant when you said "artsy" (I was under the impression it was a compliment), but my previous points stand, frankly it got banned because of it's violence, because austrailia follows the rule of "sex is fine, violence we whine", if the gore wasn't there, they wouldn't care (as much at least), it trys to convey a message through horror, not in a classy "invasion of the body snatchers" way either, but at the same time not in a "Machete" style "Obvious allusion is obvious" which MAY have worked. Personally from a cinematography PoV I can't pass judgment on it's shot composition because I haven't seen it.

 

[mr_rubino]

Actually the sex seems to be what broke the dingo's back in this case. =P (Well that and apparently the mere presence of a penis, looking at the article. I thought they were fine with penii.)
I'll never take a Euro (Ok, they're only semi-Euros) seriously again when he twaddles his monocle and says "Those Americans raise a stink over anything involving sex, harumph."

 

[Necromancer1991]

Really with a culture that supports topless beaches you'd think a penis would be the last thing to offend them.......