Grotesque Is Too Grotesque for Viewers.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

Aye aye, cap'n. You probably are not going to watch anything that I make. LOL.

EDIT:

If this can get a US release, then someone needs to release Battle Royale over here then.

.

How come I forgot about Battle Royale. The movie was a Kickass. It started simple then went Ballistic.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by eljay

I imagine there will be a lot of really disturbed, creepy people who will rent this movie, sit in darkened rooms and touch themselves...

Yes, but the sicker ones are the ones that touch themselves as they watch the above person.

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

That is, without a doubt, one of the most intelligent and eloquent posts that I have ever read on this forum. Very nicely done

True. What's that guy doing on the internet?

[redtornado]

I just watched this and it need to wash the filth from my soul. Within the first 10 mins, the torture starts. One of the most brutal movies Ive ever seen. The Japanese are seriously f__ked up in the head.

If ever there was a genre that makes you believe in the failure of mankind, torture porn is it.

[witheygull]

Originally Posted by drobswim13

That is, without a doubt, one of the most intelligent and eloquent posts that I have ever read on this forum. Very nicely done

Thank you, though I may have sounded a tad less eloquent if this site were more tolerant of profanity .

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

True. What's that guy doing on the internet?

Trying to sell original screenplays; know any producers or agents looking for scripts?

[ottscay]

First, I have not the slightest desire to see this film (or even Saw or Hostel for that matter). Still, I abhor censorship, even if my artistic sensibilities tend to side on the European pro sex/anti violence side of the fence.

That said, I have a moderately different take; I think the solution (outright ban) is in many ways preferable to asking them to recut the movie in order to let it be shown. Both are wrong, but one tends to encourage a studio to run even more roughshod over the director's/writers' wishes in order to make sure they can bank at least some sales, in essence imposing a more insidious form of silent censorship where audience think they get to see a movie but in fact are not getting to see what was intended.

That said, does the board's ruling impact home sales of the video in the UK as well as theatrical showings? Much like the release of director's cuts on BD/DVD in the U.S., I feel this imperfect solution (studios tell artists to go F themselves in order to get a more marketable rating for theatrical release then allow them to put whatever they want on home video) is perhaps a reasonable solution in a world where economics and sociopolitical vagaries hold more sway than do interest in cinema as an artistic medium.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by witheygull

The problem I have with this is the British Board of Film Classification is restricting what adults can legally own and watch based on a completely arbitrary judgment on a movie's perceived artistic In rendering this decision, the Board is effectively saying that they know better than all other British adults as to what constitutes artistic merit in cinema, and that they have the right to enforce that view in such a way so as to prevent adults in a free country from seeing this particular movie. I believe that this is an unconscionable position because no person can arbitrarily determine what artistic merit any work holds for someone else.

The BBFC does not have the power to ban films in the UK. It is there to give a guideline to ratings only. It is up to individual councils to ban a film.Over the last ten years, only 4 films have been not given a certificate (2 18, 2 R18). They gave Antichrist/ Baise Moi a 18 uncut because the violence and nudity was part of the story whereas this film seems to be nothing more the sick images.

I got to see Clockwork Orange, Last House on the Left AND Exorcist while they were still unclassified by the BBFC. Most films will eventually get a release some where, but the argument I want to see is how far do we go before we say no more. What constitutes as being to sick.

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by scweb13

You can watch the trailer to get an idea. Trailer (NSFW)

After watching the trailer, I can understand why they would not give it a classification. Especially when they say it has "minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism." This quote is of interest, " However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout, cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification." Basically they are saying that it can't be re-worked to be able to be classified.

I'm gonna get my rosary and pretend that never hits theaters.....

[witheygull]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

The BBFC does not have the power to ban films in the UK. It is there to give a guideline to ratings only. It is up to individual councils to ban a film.Over the last ten years, only 4 films have been not given a certificate (2 18, 2 R18). They gave Antichrist/ Baise Moi a 18 uncut because the violence and nudity was part of the story whereas this film seems to be nothing more the sick images.

I got to see Clockwork Orange, Last House on the Left AND Exorcist while they were still unclassified by the BBFC. Most films will eventually get a release some where, but the argument I want to see is how far do we go before we say no more. What constitutes as being to sick.

Your post prompted me to read the wikipedia article on the BBFC. You are correct in stating local councils have the authority for banning theatrical showings of a movie, but the BBFC's classification (or lack thereof) is what is ultimately binding for a film's eventual video release. If the Board refuses classification for a video release, then the selling of that movie is illegal and the film is effectively banned from distribution in any format other than theatrical film prints.

What constitutes being too sick, you ask. I think that is something that each person must determine for themselves. I can watch any fictional piece of violence and be fine with it, but I avoid images of real violence because they are often too troubling for me. I'm sure there are many people who refuse to see something like Grotesque, Saw, or Hostel because they believe it will be too violent for them, but then they turn around and watch real violence, such as the video of Nick Berg being decapitated, without batting an eye. I think that real violence is what is too sick and that fictional violence is a matter of taste.

[drobswim13]

Originally Posted by witheygull

Your post prompted me to read the wikipedia article on the BBFC. You are correct in stating local councils have the authority for banning theatrical showings of a movie, but the BBFC's classification (or lack thereof) is what is ultimately binding for a film's eventual video release. If the Board refuses classification for a video release, then the selling of that movie is illegal and the film is effectively banned from distribution in any format other than theatrical film prints.

What constitutes being too sick, you ask. I think that is something that each person must determine for themselves. I can watch any fictional piece of violence and be fine with it, but I avoid images of real violence because they are often too troubling for me. I'm sure there are many people who refuse to see something like Grotesque, Saw, or Hostel because they believe it will be too violent for them, but then they turn around and watch real violence, such as the video of Nick Berg being decapitated, without batting an eye. I think that real violence is what is too sick and that fictional violence is a matter of taste.

Exactly

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by witheygull

Your post prompted me to read the wikipedia article on the BBFC. You are correct in stating local councils have the authority for banning theatrical showings of a movie, but the BBFC's classification (or lack thereof) is what is ultimately binding for a film's eventual video release. If the Board refuses classification for a video release, then the selling of that movie is illegal and the film is effectively banned from distribution in any format other than theatrical film prints.

What constitutes being too sick, you ask. I think that is something that each person must determine for themselves. I can watch any fictional piece of violence and be fine with it, but I avoid images of real violence because they are often too troubling for me. I'm sure there are many people who refuse to see something like Grotesque, Saw, or Hostel because they believe it will be too violent for them, but then they turn around and watch real violence, such as the video of Nick Berg being decapitated, without batting an eye. I think that real violence is what is too sick and that fictional violence is a matter of taste.

You say we need to decide for ourselves what we deem to being to sick. Fictional violence nowadays with films like Saw is OK as it is obvious that it is set within a film world. Personally, I love violent bloody acts in film, but I do draw the line when violence serves no purpose, which the BBFC claims it does not within this film. Censorship is not bad. Would you like the F word said during Sesame Street, naked woman have sex during at 3 in the afternoon when your 6 year old girl is watching. No sensible person would, but this is censorship of a kind. Personally I like the way we do things now, guidelines are set down by most countries and any film maker trying to claim ignorance of these is deluding themselves. I am glad we have bodies to give us ratings as this gives us all a chance to understand what we will see in the cinema.

Just checked Wiki like you and your country has actually banned more films than the UK.

[redtornado]

I really dont understand the UK standards. I watch BBC America and they say s**t, ba**s, and a whole bunch of other words that Americans could never get away with. They also show nudity in magazines and newspapers. I always thought they were prudes because of the video nasties list.

I know the UK isnt as free as America, but I didnt figure they outright bannned movies?

[witheygull]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

You say we need to decide for ourselves what we deem to being to sick. Fictional violence nowadays with films like Saw is OK as it is obvious that it is set within a film world. Personally, I love violent bloody acts in film, but I do draw the line when violence serves no purpose, which the BBFC claims it does not within this film.

I also prefer movie violence to be in the context of a greater dramatic purpose rather than the purpose itself; however, I would never want my country's government to attempt to prevent people who enjoy fictional violence for its own sake from viewing it.

Originally Posted by koontz1973

Censorship is not bad. Would you like the F word said during Sesame Street, naked woman have sex during at 3 in the afternoon when your 6 year old girl is watching. No sensible person would, but this is censorship of a kind.

Bringing kids into the debate changes everything. I am less opposed to government censorship when it comes to children, but I believe that their parents and legal guardians should be the ultimate arbiter of what children watch. Government censorship of fictional material viewed by adults is what I believe is wrong.

Originally Posted by koontz1973

Personally I like the way we do things now, guidelines are set down by most countries and any film maker trying to claim ignorance of these is deluding themselves. I am glad we have bodies to give us ratings as this gives us all a chance to understand what we will see in the cinema.

If you want an interesting look into the American ratings process, check out the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated.

Originally Posted by koontz1973

Just checked Wiki like you and your country has actually banned more films than the UK.

What films did you read were banned? I know of a few instances, such as I Am Curious: Yellow and Carnal Knowledge where a state or city attempted to ban a movie but the ban was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't know of any instance where the U.S. government has banned a film on the national level.

[Hi-Def Steve]

I fear for the generation growing up with this sadistic garbage. "Elbow deep inside the borderline."

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

I fear for the generation growing up with this sadistic garbage. "Elbow deep inside the borderline."

I have to say it again, anyone who does bad things because of stuff they see in video games or movies wasn't mentally stable to begin with. Normal people generally won't be affected by crap like this. I know I'm not, I've played violent video games and seen R-rated movies since I was yea tall and I'm fine.

[witheygull]

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

I fear for the generation growing up with this sadistic garbage. "Elbow deep inside the borderline."

Depending on your age, your parents most likely thought your generation would be the downfall of society due to one or more of the following things:

Comic books
Drugs
Dungeons & Dragons
Heavy metal music
Horror movies
The internet
Rap music
Satanism
Teen sex
Television
Video games

It seems that every generation is always looking to blame something other than itself for its children's perceived failings. Most of the kids today are going to turn into fine, decent adults just like every generation before them.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by witheygull

Depending on your age, your parents most likely thought your generation would be the downfall of society due to one or more of the following things:

Comic books
Drugs
Dungeons & Dragons
Heavy metal music
Horror movies
The internet
Rap music
Satanism
Teen sex
Television
Video games

It seems that every generation is always looking to blame something other than itself for its children's perceived failings. Most of the kids today are going to turn into fine, decent adults just like every generation before them.

I couldn't have said it better than you.

Don't forget that there is always that REBELLIOUS factor against the previous generation, and a good example is the idea of Marriage VS. Divorce. I think with every new Gen. there is always a conflict of such.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by redtornado

I really dont understand the UK standards. I watch BBC America and they say s**t, ba**s, and a whole bunch of other words that Americans could never get away with. They also show nudity in magazines and newspapers. I always thought they were prudes because of the video nasties list.

I know the UK isnt as free as America, but I didnt figure they outright bannned movies?

Don't forget they also have problems with several games that have gotten banned because of violence.

Then again we come to question this "Cultural Shock" that most of us experience not understanding why other societies functions that way.

[Hi-Def Steve]

Originally Posted by witheygull

Depending on your age, your parents most likely thought your generation would be the downfall of society due to one or more of the following things:

Comic books
Drugs
Dungeons & Dragons
Heavy metal music
Horror movies
The internet
Rap music
Satanism
Teen sex
Television
Video games

It seems that every generation is always looking to blame something other than itself for its children's perceived failings. Most of the kids today are going to turn into fine, decent adults just like every generation before them.

Are you seriously comparing extremely graphic torture movies, which there are several now. It's the new thing people like to watch these days....people mutilating themselves. You're comparing that to rap music? to Television? Comic books? Internet? Poltergeist? It's beyond a different level. How much lower can entertainment get?? And you know whats sad? If there was a torture movie but starred pets instead of humans. Everyone would be up in arms everywhere. Not humans though. It's just shocking when people defend this garbage as entertainment. Well I guess it shouldn't be surprising as society continues to decay. And I ain't some old fart saying this, I'm only 32. Oh well continue to defend it.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by Hi-Def Steve

Are you seriously comparing extremely graphic torture movies, which there are several now. It's the new thing people like to watch these days....people mutilating themselves. You're comparing that to rap music? to Television? Comic books? Internet? Poltergeist? It's beyond a different level. How much lower can entertainment get?? And you know whats sad? If there was a torture movie but starred pets instead of humans. Everyone would be up in arms everywhere. Not humans though. It's just shocking when people defend this garbage as entertainment. Well I guess it shouldn't be surprising as society continues to decay. And I ain't some old fart saying this, I'm only 32. Oh well continue to defend it.

Do you not Think that

Originally Posted by witheygull
Depending on your age, your parents most likely thought your generation would be the downfall of society due to one or more of the following things:

Comic books
Drugs
Dungeons & Dragons
Heavy metal music
Horror movies
The internet
Rap music
Satanism
Teen sex
Television
Video games

It seems that every generation is always looking to blame something other than itself for its children's perceived failings. Most of the kids today are going to turn into fine, decent adults just like every generation before them.

whatever happened to "Adaptation" of a society. The person I quoted was trying to explain how with every new generation there is always a different perspective on things in comparison to the previous one.

It was simply put as (what you don't find acceptable today, will be accepted by society tomorrow).