Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!

[nath]

CHRISTOPHER HART: What DOES it take for a film to get banned these days? | Mail Online

I know I know, it's the mail, what do I expect. Still - I thought it was incredibly stupid and very amusing.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well i think i can summarise it in one quote;

"thanks to the gross irresponsibility of some parents, any film that is given general release will be seen by children."

Nothing more needs to be said.

Goes for games, movies, books, comics and any media that is "18 rated".

18!

Parents out there? Hear this? 18!

 

[ECA]

Does he think the BBFC banning a film is going to stop children seeing the film if they have unrestricted computer access and a desire to see it?

 

[nath]

What's worse is those fucking awful pornographer rapist filthy Dane scumbags are using OUR tax money, OUR MONEY THAT WE EARNED AND PAID to make this utter smut.

BASTARDS!

 

[Calaen]

Comment


----------------------------------------
You pride yourself on being broad-minded? I think perhaps you need to be slightly less proud of yourself today. That was a classic piece of closed minded criticism, of a film you haven't seen, giving it a context you don't fully understand, and claiming a lack of morality which you couldn't possibly know - because you haven't watched the film!

It was a hysterical read - and I mean that in the least complimentary way possible.

----

Lal

 

[Embattle]

Seems crap either way, again a case like that Bully game where it is boosted by a public outcry which actually helps it.

 

[tris-]

I am wondering if this **** has ever read a Barker or King story before.

There is some sick shit right there.

 

[Shagrat]

Well he's a good critic isnt he:

I haven't seen it myself, nor shall I - and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment.

I know, I'll start writing articles about things I havent even seen, deriding them as evil. First topic, cross-stitch.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Some stunning quotes:

The husband and wife go to stay in a log cabin to recover from their grief. There, horrors the likes of which I have never witnessed unfold in graphic detail.

Well yes, you've never seen horrors like them... because you didn't bother to watch the bloody film.

Shakespeare is dramatising the tragic universe we inhabit, human evil at its worst, and the hidden moral process by which Cornwall will eventually be punished for his cruelty.

The world of Antichrist, by contrast, is blatantly amoral, without any sense of justice or retribution whatever.

So blatant that it even transcends physics and burns amoral wrongness into our minds without seeing it.

'I don't think about the audience when I make a film. I don't care. I make films for myself.'

A pity he doesn't fund those films for himself too, then...

Don't you mean funds those films BY himself? What you just wrote doesn't make sense.

Now bearing the stamp of BBFC approval, Antichrist is to be released uncut into our cultural bloodstream. In artistic terms, it is the equivalent of food poisoning.

I have no words to describe just how stupid that analogy is.

Meanwhile, there's Bruno, another film out at the moment. Sacha Baron-Cohen's latest film about a gay Austrian fashion TV presenter is outrageously smutty - including close-ups of genitals and pictures of babies in the bath with a group of gay men - and well deserves its 18 certificate.

So when the film-makers wanted to release a milder 15 version of the film, presumably the BBFC required them to produce a whole new edit?

No. Instead, BBFC merely suggested that they remove one minute 50 seconds. What a joke!

How is that a joke when the only material that warrants an 18 is removed? However short or long it is is totally irrelevant.

Bruno contains some hysterically funny scenes, especially those where real danger is involved. It offends nearly everybody - gays, straight, Hasidic Jews, Arabs, African Americans, Christians - and you still come out of the cinema with a smile on your face...

So a film that offends nearly every ethnic group is acceptable, but a film that hasn't really caused any group any offense isn't? Good logic.

As soon as it's released on DVD, Antichrist will harm children...

So it's going to what, stab them? Force itself upon their minds, again transcending physics. It's an object, not a sentient being.

If I were to see Antichrist, I don't believe for a moment that it would incite me into copycat violent behaviour or make me a danger to others. But it would poison my mind and imagination, with explicit, ferocious scenes of sexual violence that would stay with me for ever.

My mind was once "poisoned" by fluffy, unrealistic, idealistic sentimentalist shite. That stays with me forever, can we ban that too?

 

[nath]

The article is such a Daily Mail cliché that I actually started to wonder if it was a spoof.