Midweek Mumble – What is it about Censorship?
It is that time of the week where we let Rodney out of his cage and onto his soap box, this week he wants to talk CENSORSHIP
Among the many topics I like to discuss with folks is the issue of censorship, or more specifically, film censorship. Yes, this is going to be one of those posts, so if you’re all sick and tired of hearing people defend their point of view on the matter, you’re probably best off heading back over to RedTube for some self-management time. Censorship, in it’s broadest sense, is the removal or modification of material in a broadcast or publication designed to maintain a set of principles, morals or ethics established by a community standard, usually governed by some form of group or collective assigned by the government of the day. We’ve all encountered censorship in one form or another, usually due to a social taboo or other culturally sensitive scenario portrayed on television, in a film, or even in a piece of literature. In recent times, the advent of increasingly mature and advanced computer games have steered the majority of dialogue on censorship, usually related in some way to violent content, and whether or not it’s socially acceptable for kids and young adults to be exposed to the material a lot of these adult-themed games contain.
I’m not here to act as a judge, jury and executioner on the idea of censorship, because I think there’s a time and a place for it. Censorship, in an ideal sense, protects those vulnerable to content (and I refer to “content” in any format) that society considers more taboo – concepts such as sex and violence have long led the charge in this arena, and in most cases, rightly so. The balance of what people should see, and what they want to see, is the fading grey area in which the very heart of censorship provokes debate. Films containing sexually explicit material, aside from pornography, that are released to the public forum as “art”, are more often than not targeted by those of a more conservative bent as a preventative measure against what they see as a failing of society to protect people from imagery they deem offensive. Films containing extreme violence are perhaps less targeted, although exactly why people seem more easily accepting of people being eviscerated than enjoying a bit of bonky-bonk is something which has long confused me.
Censorship is different in each country – even within the broad landscape of “western culture”, for example, a controversial film in Sweden or Germany might be more accepted in, say, the UK or America. As always, cultural sensitivities provide ample fodder for discussion. Western films often find the majority of their problems in societies which differ greatly from their home base – China, for instance, has a long history of butchering Hollywood films prior to release in that country, usually relating to everything from sexual content, violence to political and religious viewpoints. Often, the decisions of censorship boards in other countries confounds us – how often have you asked yourself “why did they cut out that bit?” when you’ve heard of a film being cut somewhat in China or another Asian country? It’s not uncommon.
Sometimes, boundaries need to be pushed. Cultural sensitivity can often be a crushing blanket of creative oppression, especially in more conservative societies and countries. It’s only right that filmmaker (as well as musicians, writers and other creative folks) push the boundaries of what’s acceptable to their immediate world, although some common sense should always prevail. In order to generate change – change in societal values, change in public perceptions – art should always have a certain amount of freedom, otherwise we might as well all go live in North Korea.
Having said that, at what point do we say “enough”. Everyone has their limit, and as liberal as I am when it comes to cinema, I do feel there’s some lines that should never be crossed. It’s really a question of necessity. Was is absolutely essential to the story for Michael Winterbottom to have his leads engage in actual intercourse in the 2004 film 9 Songs? Did the reality of it provide some kind of extra creative storytelling point that simply faking it couldn’t provide? I can’t deny the right of the filmmaker to do as he pleased, and if those actors were keen to do that, then more power to them, but was it necessary? Equally so, the 2010 monstrosity called A Serbian Film, which displayed graphic images of rape, rape of a child, necrophilia and other abhorrent themes. Really? I call into question the reason for that entire film, because as a film, I believe it never once provided any kind of social commentary that couldn’t have been achieved in other, less gruesome and pornographic methods. Again, the rights of the filmmaker to make such a film aren’t in question, but the intent to do so knowing the hornets nest of horror and anger a film of such nature would kick up.Now, I should state that I haven’t seen A Serbian Film in its entirety, because I simply couldn’t stomach it. Violent fare such as the Saw and Hostel films, for example, straddle the line between horrific realism and near sadistic fantasy, yet it seems to be de rigueur as an artform. Is it sick that society has come to accept them in much the same commercial light as a Harry Potter film?
For all our wailing against films we see as morally and ethically bankrupt, in terms of existing simply to provoke an outcry and stimulate controversy, these kinds of movies keep being made. Boundaries are continually being pushed, and although I find myself often wishing otherwise, perhaps it’s a good thing these kinds of films are out there. They force us to asses ourselves as people, as fellow humans taking the long journey around the sun on this piece of rock. Now, while I’d rather sit down and watch Room In Rome again (man, what a sexy and beautiful film) than endure yet another Saw film, the point is not that I need to, but that I have the option. Everyone being different, of course, provides plenty of grist for the mill of debate on censorship – you and I are always going to have different opinions on what we should be able to watch (not to mention what the Westboro Baptists think of it all) but at least we can agree that freedom of creativity is amongst the most essential dogmas of humanity.
About The Author – Rodney Twelftree
Aussie film fan Rodney has been writing about film, DVD and Blu-Ray since 1998, when he became Chief Reviewer at a now-defunct Adelaide-based online retailer. A fan of blockbuster and mainstream cinema, as well as dabbling in arthouse and independent forms of the industry, Rodney prefers to spend his nights and weekends in front of the television watching the latest release on Blu-Ray instead of out getting sloppy drunk like many of his friends. When he’s not out in the Front Room, Rodney can be found writing reviews for his own website www.fernbyfilms.com, helping good mate Al K Hall over at The Bar None, and dabbling in lists over at Top 10 Films.
What do you think about censorship? Do you think it provides a reasonable service to society, or is it simply a wall between the artist and their audience?












I don’t think it is a bad thing. But as a guide line.
It should be there just to guide the viewer so they know what they are getting into. I can understand how some film makers find it an annoyance, or maybe it is a great bit of PR, actually.
If a film get’s banned somewhere, you know it is going to be seen by the cult followers!!
I am not ever going to see Serbian Film though…. nasty nasty nasty
Serbian Film is one movie I’d actively recommend NOT watching. There’s not too many of those, I can tell you.
I’ve never been a fan of censorship. Sure, there are certain films that in general shouldn’t be shown to children, but parents should be able to judge whether their child should watch a certain film, not the fucking government. The worst part of censorship is when edits are made to a film by force. That’s mutilation, in my opinion, and I despise it in all forms.
Parent need to spend more time controlling what their kids see, that’s for sure, Tyler. Too many lazy parents out there just let their kids watch any old stuff, mainly because they can’t be bothered making sure it’s age-appropriate.
I think censorship should be less about restrictions and more about information to the viewer….
And I agree, mutilation of films is to be despised, even if we don’t always like that film….
We haven’t got any government censorship anymore. But if you want to market your films to an audience younger than 15 you need approval and you might have to make some cuts and adjustments to get that approval. I think that’s a fair deal.
I think the responsabilitiy mainly lies with the viewer. It’s up to you. I don’t think people will watch A Serbian film by mistake so to say, not knowing what they’re up for.
Snuff movies, showing real crimes, or child pornography, is of course an enteriely different beast. But that’s basically filmed crimes. The movie is a part of the crime and there’s no reason that such should be allowed.
The free market, where censorship is not required to make a movie (like the US, for example) is a pretty good idea: in the US, studio’s must pass their films through the ratings board which provides an idea on what the films content should be rated, and these are usually the versions which go to the cinema, but “unrated” versions are freely available to anyone with cash to spend on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Your point about the responsibility being with the viewer could be a little counterproductive – in order to be protected from seeing something disturbing, somebody needs to see it first. I think it’s good that we have ratings to allow folks to make informed decisions.
Thanks Jess!
The more I hear about it, the more I want to live in SWEDEN, although I tink I may be too ugly!! HAHAH Any room at your house Jessica?
Interesting topic, certainly a hot button issue.
I came from a country with ridiculously strict censorship, I mean even a simple kiss between a husband and wife in a sitcom like Growing Pains is censored!!! The opening of Bond movies with scantily clad women also got covered up w/ black tapes, ahah. So naturally I think over-censorship is bad and pointless. However, I think a certain amount of censorship is necessary, especially as you said Rodney, boundaries are getting pushed more and more and people are becoming more desensitized to gross violence and sexual content. I don’t know that preserving those mean ‘crushing blanket of creative oppression.’ It’s not like we’d miss out on something educational or inspiring from watching extreme violence.
So yeah, I’m glad you said that “some lines that should never be crossed” and the example you said above is a good one. I don’t see that as ‘creativity’ I see it as ‘indulgence.’
As for your question: “Is it sick that society has come to accept them in much the same commercial light as a Harry Potter film?” My answer is: sadly yes.
Ruth, there’s some places in the world that I just shake my head at for restrictions in media, and Indonesia is one. Can’t quite get a grip on it, myself.
There’s a very fine line between “creativity” and “indulgence”, and often it’s hard to know where the line is drawn: should it be a blanket ban or on a case by case basis for each film?
Government censorship of art is never something that should be acceptable, but organizations and commercial entities should and do censor things.
I dont think a Serbian film got wide release, for example – in a way that’s companies “Censoring it” by saying we dont want to release this under our label. even if they did, theatres could then refuse to show it, and of course, audiences could refuse to watch it.
As long as that decision is in the hands of the free market? I’m fine with it. “Freedom of Speech” isnt intended to protect speech that everyone is comfortable with…
And we’re always going to have movies that try to shock by “pushing the boundaries”… I dont think that’ll ever go away.
Dude you are the bomb!! I love this comment. See even if Serbian film was showing in my local theatre I wouldn’t see it. I can censor myself!! I know my limits.
Have you seen it? (see I am fascinated with it, but too scared to watch)
” “Freedom of Speech” isnt intended to protect speech that everyone is comfortable with…”
Fogs, that is quite possibly the best argument for censorship I’ve ever read. Bravo.
I am always amused that every year a SAW film comes out to no fanfare, but if there is a penis anywhere near a screen, that film is doomed. Everything that prevented Shame from being seen last year is exactly what is wrong with the MPAA.
I agree with you on this one Colin. To be honest I didn’t even find SHAME that shocking. I mean yes it has sex and nudity, but it was one of the films of the year.
Have you seen HUNGER as well Colin?
Yes I have, it’s one of my favorite films of the last ten years. Easily.
Totally. That ‘running the gauntlet scene where the prisoners had to go between the battened guards was immense. I heard it shock McQueen too!!
What about that LONG monologue / shot!! Amazing
I am really looking forward to his next film!!
Which is a concern considering it was only a few years ago when a superhero film containing one enormous blue penis throughout most of the film seemed to get by with nary a sideways glance at the censorship board. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
I’m wondering how i missed this post, but anyways i don’t believe in censorship at all. I am not against guidelines, but i don’t think any person or organization should be able to ban a film, no matter how extreme it is. What is or isn’t justified is just too subjective. For example, i think the first 3 Saw movies had substance to them, and my dad did find a political subtext in a Serbian Film(I personally haven’t had the courage to see it). From your post i am assuming you would disagree with both of those statements.
Also, i would disagree that Saw and Hostel has the same acceptance of Harry Potter. I mean, i don’t think Saw or Hostel got the box office of any Harry Potter movies, which to me says they have a very limited audience.
I could be biased on this topic, as my dad never really tried to censor what i could watch(Also, i grew up with 2 older brothers in the house and all movies were watched in 1 room pretty much). He did insist on being around me if i wanted to watch anything extreme for my age(Of course he let go of this as i got older). And so i watched plenty of R rated films before i turned 18 and turned out fine. Also, i think if you make a big deal out of a film that will just make young people want to watch it to be rebellious or whatever. Personally i think the reason i never found a need to seek out extreme stuff for the sake of it is because my dad never made a big deal out of them.
And in America at least censorship seems to come down on sexuality far more than violence.On tv you can have decapitations and heart ripping, but boobs are not allowed because somehow they are seen as more traumatizing.
Julian ( I know this is Rodney’s post) but I just wanted to say that I am chuffed you came along to add to the discussion. Do you remember your blog-a-thon? Ahhh Happy times.
hehe
Thanks for stopping in, Dirty. Some nice comments here. I don’t think we disagree too much on your first point, actually – I agree that no one person or organization should be allowed to outright ban films, only promote potential issues folks might have with them. I’m not against banning films outright, but I am questioning whether some films even need to be made, or (as Ruth mentioned above) are they just hubris on the part of the filmmaker to cause controversy.
Sounds like you grew up in a fairly liberal household as a kid, too: my parents would monitor my viewing and determine beforehand if a show or film was going to be too much for me to handle; now I’m not saying this is the definitive answer, nor would I accommodate my own children in the methods your parents undertook, but I think we need to be mindful that what you or I might find acceptable, others may not. It’s finding the happy medium that’s important, I guess.
To clarify my point re Saw and Harry Potter, I meant that both franchises have their audiences, and have become accepted as mainstream films; of course Harry Potter would find a larger slice of the commercial pie, because the audience for those films is considerably larger – but as concepts, neither Saw nor Harry Potter provoke much outrage these day. Saw perhaps should considering the rather extreme nature of the content, although in saying that, i agree that the first two I saw (I never watched past #2… although I plan to some day) at least balanced the gore and viscera with an attempt at a decent story. I guess what I’m trying to say (poorly) is that both franchises are vastly different and yet both have become pop-culture staples for cinema crowds, regardless of content.