Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB
That's not merely rude, that's actively obnoxious. I'd appreciate an apology if you deign to follow up this post, especially since you've clearly misunderstood at least three of the points that I was making.
UPDATE: I note - and appreciate - that you've toned down your original comments, although I still strongly disagree with your "wrong on so many levels" charge!
I'm fully aware of that. But the point that you seem to have missed is that this thread is discussing a decidedly non-mainstream film released by a small independent distributor, and that my arguments and the examples that I've quoted apply exclusively to video releases. If Artificial Eye was operating in the US, or in a great many other European countries, they might well find that mainstream outlets such as the ones you mention are closed off to them if they handled certain titles, but they wouldn't be forced to abide by anything close to the restrictions that UK law imposes on them, such as not even being able to ship R18 material via mail order.
Let's take Distribpix or Vinegar Syndrome as examples, not least because they're getting a lot of serious attention such as coverage in Sight & Sound and the New York Times. Those two companies simply wouldn't be able to operate profitably in the UK unless they also bought up a chain of licensed sex shops, which most distributors would understandably consider a step too far.
(Another point, of course, is that US distributors have the option of releasing things without any official rating/classification at all, something that's also denied to their UK counterparts).
But this is another point that you're missing, which is that there undoubtedly are R18-worthy titles that possess artistic merit. Proportionately very very few when set against the total, granted, but they certainly exist, and it's currently next to impossible to release such films in the UK thanks to the present legal straitjacket.
Just to cite two examples where I know for a fact that planned UK releases were abandoned because of BBFC intransigence, Thundercrack and The Good Old Naughty Days - in both cases the BBFC offered an 18 with cuts or an R18 uncut. The potential distributor didn't want to release either title with cuts (which would be ridiculous in the case of the latter film, since the silent-era hardcore filth is the entire raison d'être), but neither did they want to handle guaranteed money-losers, so they passed.
(I do accept that the BBFC has a very difficult balancing act to maintain here - as so often the problem is more to do with our archaic laws.)
And this is the third point that you're missing, which is that the BBFC's definition of "a sex work" is woefully inconsistent. The Erotic Films of Peter de Rome are unambiguously "sex works", made as such and intended as such, and contain numerous prolonged sequences of what is clearly actual sex - and yet they get an 18. The far less sexually graphic Score, I would argue, is not a "sex work" according to the definition that you're quoting, in that its primary purpose clearly isn't sexual arousal - and yet cuts were demanded in order to receive an 18 certificate.
(Of course, if you want to see the uncut version, you can simply order it via Amazon.com and have it shipped straight to you (perfectly legally) - but you can't order it on a British label via Amazon.co.uk, despite the fact that a British label currently owns the rights and would very much like to make it available to you!)
But despite the BBFC notionally being more open, the system is similarly dictated by the mainstream film industry, with independent labels getting penalised - not least by having to pay compulsory charges to the BBFC that wouldn't be applied in many other countries, very much including the US. This is another barrier towards something like Distribpix's The Opening of Misty Beethoven getting a UK release: even if the present R18 restrictions were lifted or loosened, you're still required by law to pay the BBFC to view all your material - which amounts to several hours in the case of that particular release, charged on a per-minute basis.
|
I toned down my comments before I saw your reply, but they were excessive and I'd rather hoped they'd have gone before you looked at it, so I will apologise.
Artificial Eye aren't exactly that small, and
Nymphomaniac is hardly a small independent film. Sure it's not
12 Years A Slave level, but people have actually heard of it, and it does have several big name stars. Probably hard to market though, although that could easily be an advantage if they play up the scandal...
It's a case of taking the legal straightjacket in the UK or the "public enforced" straightjacket in the US, I guess neither is ideal, it's up to you as to whether you'd rather material was legally or morally restricted.
The trouble you have is that you set out the criteria in stone, and there's no room for exceptions. You set your criteria too loose and because the BBFC doesn't handle appeals internally it may find itself having to let certain things through it doesn't feel it should.
I don't know the examples, but it's possible there are contextual or audience reasons why it wasn't allowed. So if the graphic sex forms a narrative purpose it's more likely to get an 18. Also, if the film is borderline and has no appeal to anybody below the age of 18, they'll be more likely to take the lower category.
The BBFC go off their impressions rather than director's intentions, so if they felt the work's purpose was something other than arousal they may be more lenient
I believe you have to pay the MPAA per screening as well, but information about their general practises isn't exactly forthcoming. Also, theoretically you could apply to every local council and ask them for permission to show it unrated, but that would be a pain and they might default to the BBFC (in the case of
A Serbian Film the local council refused to grant permission unless the BBFC had seen it, because they had heard of the films controversial reputation.)
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Nymphomaniac (2013)
Linear Mode
