Unrulyhandbag said:
Bon_Clay said:
Still doesn't explain most of the comments, its just a movie. If it happened in real life then people being outraged is understandable. This is fiction, whether it was some crazy person writing the story on used napkins or a big budget movie doesn't make a difference.
There should be no such thing as an Obscene Publications Act, trying to make subject opinions on publications people have to choose to see into law is nonsense. And putting people on a watch list for seeing a movie violates freedom of speech and thought. That's a far more destructive thing to society than any movie could be.
No such thing as the obscene publications act? Is child pornography illegal in your country? I'm pretty sure for almost all readers of the Escapist that it is.
In the UK the line of disgust a just a bit wider and the act lays out the specifics; brutal or non-consensual sexual images are illegal even if they are faked or (okay this bit
is ridiculous) an animated representation.
This is getting refused classification because it's so close to the illegal pornography and the only redeeming feature is the sheer fantastic (and not the good sort) nature of the subject. In fact refusing classification to a film is against the BBFC's current policy so it must have no or almost no artistic merit whatsoever (the board have all expressed pretty liberal views about censorship in the past.)
It's not banned anyway; you'll just have a hard time obtaining a copy or going to watch it not get prosecuted for owning or showing it in private. The procedure for actually banning something in the UK is remarkably complicated and drawn out and involves the high courts. Personally I think there should simply be a "refused classification" stamp in the nature of the age ratings but I'm not on the BBFC.
I think the obscene publications act is overly draconian and far too vaguely defined - I'm totally with you on the watch list comment but that is how the act is enforced- and I think censorship is a terrible thing but to say that the act shouldn't exist is a step too far for ANY country in the western world.
Child pornography isn't even a similar issue as fetish porn that freaks people out. Child porn isn't illegal because someone might see it and be offended, that's the absolute least of anyone's concern. Its illegal because its a documentation of child sexual abuse. Its something completely unrelated to publications that is illegal, and then compounded by it being spread around.
The whole illegal pornography categories are nonsense in my opinion. You can have movies about any level of violence and its fine. You can have any level of nudity and people having sex and its fine. But somehow combining the two in the same scene makes it obscene?
If people can watch Saw and not being serial killers, they can watch something like this and not become serial rapists, or mad scientists. Its either people are mindless idiots who are easily influenced by any movie, or they are sane, rational adults who aren't one raunchy flick away from chaos.
But yes just being refused classification is quite different than being banned outright. I still think a movie theatre should be able to play any movie they want to, granted they only let adults see in. If the general public in that area doesn't approve of such a movie and wouldn't want it playing there, they won't buy tickets to it. If no one buys tickets to it, it doesn't make money and they stop showing it.