Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Yet another great blog. Good form Dr K. Seeing as we are only a few short days away from the halfway point of the year is there any chance of a "half-term" report on 2009's movie offerings? Or are the scars left after watching Bride Ward still yet to heal?

It's such a contrast to the approach of the BBFC now. I really think that the British censors can't be praised enough for their approach in recent times - it really is one area we should be proud of. To me as an outsider it seems perfectly sensible that the censors should explain their decisions on their website, being (as far as I can tell) full, open and honest, and then let the viewer make up their mind if they still want to see it. I'm not a horror movie fan at all (sorry) but I totally appreciate the talent that has come from that genre, and giving the directors the creativity to make something they are proud of and not having it (ahem) butchered seems to me to be exactly the right way to go. And as an added bonus, we don't have to suffer a load of BAN THIS SICK FILM in our papers every Friday.

True example: Waltz With Bashir. I really wanted to see this, but with it having an 18 certificate I assumed it would be pretty gore-drenched and savage - after all, it's an animated film! Being able to find out the actual reason for the 18 classification meant I was able to, if not exactly enjoy the film, at least be comfortable to get fully absorbed in it without worrying that I would be subjected to something truly stomach-turning; I knew I would be mentally provoked by the film, not visually assaulted by it.

And not only does this mean great films are protected, but, as Mark pointed out, bad films can be almost "officially" slated too! What was great when Rambo came out was that the BBFC pretty much said in their classification that it was a morally bankrupt film. I'd love it if something like Captivity had had on the poster "classified 18 for gross mysogeny and crass torture porn [which doesn't exist] commercialism."

I really like what Cronenberg said about Crash being considered "beyond the bounds of depravity"; his response was that the above phrase surely by definition means his film isn't depraved, it's somewhere else.

And on the discussion of awards for films making people cry, I've not cried more at a film than Cronenberg's The Fly.

So it deserves an Oscar.

reminisces

I wrote my dissertation on the Video Nasties debacle.

And now Im an R.E. teacher. Proof, if proof were ever needed, that this stuff really can deprave and corrupt.

It is so easy, even for those of us who lived through it, to forget just how draconian those times were. But its equally important to remember that, whilst the guidelines have changed, the law is still pretty much the same. At any time a more censorious Ö÷²¥´óÐã SecermMinister for Justice can take us right back to the dark days of the 80s, or even worse, without any need for a change in legislation.

Steve W

Absolutely right, again! Horror is very close to humour. Proven by the factor that The Life of Brian was banned in Ireland for 8 years!! The Exorcist too (greatest (horror) film ever)SHAME!

Yes, there is amazing talent needed to do both horror and humour right, it should be recognised. But both often need to push the boundaries to achieve their goals, which is often where the problems occur.

I grew up on nasty films, most were terrible, but some were really great. The closest I've been to calling a horror film actually nasty was Martyrs, which doesn't seem to have attracted much attention from censors (maybe I'm wrong) Almost walked out, but I held onto my lunch, but I did leave feeling a bit traumatised, which was nice.

I'd be happy to come out of the average film these days feeling anything other than regret that I'd wasted my time and money.

Love Evil Dead/II can't wait for Drag Me To Hell.

r.

Dear Dr. K

Completely agree with you on everything you just said. If we let someone decide what we see then it will reverberate and sooner or later we will be living in a George Orwell state where everything we watch will be regulated. The only people that should be allowed to decide what is seen and what isn't is the public audience. Leave it up to them. That's what the BBFC is there for. Besides if these films have such a devastating influence, then how come we all aren't running around like crazy people slashing people up. It's only a few and they were crazy to begin with.

People need to be shocked. They need to gasp. They need to be catapulted out of their mundane existence and thrust into something unbelievably wild and horrifying. So I say thank you Sam Raimi for making quality horror movies.

Keep em coming.

Just to add, I myself am currently writing a horror movie for my screenwriting class that I hope will shock and ultimately disturb people but will be a really good time for the audience.

Dr. K if you would like to read what I have thus far then let me know seeing as you are a massive horror fan.

Hiya Mark

I have tbh but I do believe that some films should be banned.
No matter how much legistaion or laws they make,children will still get their hands on then(Easier now with the Internet)

If they remade The Warriors today for example, some kid will copy what they see in that film.
Is it really worth someone getting hurt,just to entertain people.

I agree sometimes it out of proprtion. But they don't ban films for fum or free publicity for that film.

I recently wrote a story called Versus and after consideration I decided not to write it.
Because of someone coyping it and getting hurt from it.

Here is the idea to show you what I mean

"Verses (Working Title)

A community on a website set up a league of who is the best the fighter in their community. They organize battles and missions against each other among themselves around public areas.(They have weapons, scenarios, locations, missions organized by neutral members).
They have their equipment delivered to them through a neutral party or person in a suitcase. Which holds the equipment and also plans of the mission and targets stored on a memory card. "

legistaion=legislation
proprtion=proportion
fum=fun
coyping=copying

Sorry long day,should of used Word and my laptop is playing up.

It's worth pointing out that technically, the BBFC still do have the power to ban films and make their distribution illegal- it's just that their attitude has become more liberal, so they're willing to pass a lot more. (From what I hear, enforcement is also more lax.) Unfortunately the Violent Pornography Act and whatever the cartoon porn bill was called have reinforced the government's censorship power again, though it applies to a much smaller range of material.

Rbevanx: I think the problem is that you can't actually tell what people will imitate that might harm them or others. There are too many variables in human behavior. We don't ban Superman comics because of kids putting on capes and jumping off fences.

I am so glad you liked Drag Me To Hell. Evil Dead 2 is one of my favourite films of all time and I can't wait for this. I was a little worried when it received a PG-13 certificate in the US, but after your praise for the film in this blog, my faith in Raimi has been restored.

However you want to cut it, censorship always means someone I don't know deciding what I should be allowed to watch, and by extension, think. I don't much care for that.

I understand the argument in favour of the censor, and can appreciate that it is often made in good faith, but what I watch is my responsibility for good or ill, and that is not a responsibility I choose to surrender because others may not be able to meet the same (fairly basic) standard.

After watching this great addition to the Dr. K blog-o-rama, I went back to have a look at the DDP list to see which films (if any) were still banned. Out of the 74 films on that list 11 are still considered banned here in the UK. Granted, 10 have not been re-submitted since the early 80s, but 'Love Camp 7' was refused a BBFC certificate in 2002. Also, a number of films on the list that have been released received numerous cuts. For instance, the now notorious 'Cannibal Holocaust' was released with 5+ minutes taken out due to 'scenes of animal cruelty'.

This got me thinking. As you can probably tell by the name, I am a fan of Korean director Kim Ki Duk, and in his film 'Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter... and Spring' there are a number of scenes with frogs and snakes being tortured. The film itself is considered his best by many that follow Kim Ki Duk's work and I agree that it is an astonishing piece of cinema, yet this film received a 15 certificate from the BBFC.

I'm not usually one to knock the BBFC, they do a thankless job that and get virtually nothing but grief from most quarters, but perhaps this does shine a light on the larger obstruction films like 'Drag Me To Hell' face. Is it OK to torture animals in the name of art but not for entertainment? Perhaps it is down to what kind of animals are being tortured? Frogs and snakes, hey, that's OK, go ahead, they are ugly, but a dog, oh no, leave little Fido alone. This all just smacks of hypocrisy.

Anyway, that is a bigger argument for another time. It's good to hear that Sam Raimi is getting back on track, because I'm with pretty much everyone on this, 'Spider-Man 3' was a stinker. I grew up with the 'Evil Dead' films (a curse/joy of having two older brothers) and thoroughly enjoyed other films like 'A Simple Plan' and yes, even 'For Love Of The Game' (I'm a baseball fan OK).

Thank you Dr. K, in a world obsessed with the Hollywood blockbuster it is a comfort to know that I am not alone in thinking beyond these limited borders (although it sure as hell feels like it sometimes).

KinkyDuck

Mark,

I'm a teenager who has never properly sat himself down and watched a horror movie in his life. I would like to. Any ideas for where I should start? Should I go with the big names like Evil Dead and Nightmare on Elm Street, or more obscure stuff from the likes of Lynch or Cronenberg?

I really don't agree with animals being harmed for the sake of art at all. Let directors treat actors like cattle by all means; but leave the cattle themselves alone.

(By all means do whatever you want to a CGI cow, though...)

Hey Dr Kermode, are you at this year's Cannes? I'd like to hear what you have to say about Gaspar Noe's new film, Enter the Void?

A great blog,
really liked the bit about the closeness between comedy and horror

Looking forward to Raimi's Drag Me to Hell, and hopefully it will scare me a bit more than Let the Right One In did, which i thought was an excellent film, eerie, intersting and moving, but failed to scare.

Best film of year so far? No chance, the Class and the Wrestler are my choices so far.

Also Mark, why aren't you in Cannes? I know it's not your favourite place in the world, but there are some serious names vying for the Palme d'or, including Audiard, Haneke, Noe, Almodovar, Tsai Ming Liang and Chan-wook Park.

Your favourite director after Bay and Ritchie, Mr Von Trier has just shown his new horror film, Antichrist. And another favourite of yours, Mr Tarantino is showing his new one tomorrow.

While a certain Mr Terry Gilliam, someone whom you are actually fond of, is also showing his new film.

It's too late, the government have already started clamping down on "innapropriate material" once again and are now looking to jail anyone in possession of mateial they personally dislike.

Do a google search for the "Dangerous Pictures Act" (which will see people jailed just for possesing certain BDSM images of acts that are actually legal to participate in) and the "Dangerous cartoons Act", which will see people jailed just for owning sexually explicit anime/manga, which is perfectly legal at present.

I knew the UK was bad, but now we have the worlds first thought crime on the statute books.

Rbevanx: I think the problem is that you can't actually tell what people will imitate that might harm them or others. There are too many variables in human behavior. We don't ban Superman comics because of kids putting on capes and jumping off fences.

Yes but children can clearly distinguish Superman as fantasy. That would be a step too far I agree.

I meant in terms of learning a new way to create a crime not commonly known. Some films or books help criminals in committing crimes like Fredrick Forsyths Day of the Jackal.
Before that film most people didnt have a clue how to commit identity fraud.



But I do agree most bans on films are daft and over the top.
I remember watching The Evil dead and thinking to myself why was it banned. I thought it was well made, made no offences to any religion.


I remember watching Robocop on ITV, and the amount of the film changed was ridiculous.

Dick Jones: "Once I even called him (Change Voice) Airhead!"

Bob Morton: "You're gonna be a bad mother (Change Voice) Crusher!"

Bloke shooting at Robocop in the liquor store, line changed to "FuWHY me! FuWHY me!

I wonder if Mark has seen the ITV version of Robocop. I have to be honest I did find it funny.

I completely agree, although I am left to wonder: why aren't you watching Drag Me to Hell in Cannes (especially with von Trier's Antichrist causing a bit of a stir)?

Mark, what about films shown after 9pm on the telly that still get cut? Annoys me to no end. Especially when I'm seeing the film for the first time and whole scenes are missing. Easy - show it all, or don't show it at all.

Another thing that annoys me is when DVDs/BDs feature cut films, and you never know till you check dvdcompare.net or something, argh!

It is nice to see the doc also recognise the ignorant and facetious attacks by the "morally superior" media on video games and to draw parallels with the treatment of films in the past. I know games quite well, and whenever I read an article condemming them in a newspaper, they are usually entirely made up of misinterprations and downright fabrications about their content, designed to conjour outrage in their readers, and yet there is rarely any counter argument. With countries like Germany and Australia heavily sensoring games in in a similar way that films were originally treated, and in fact citing the same reasons, there is a good chance the next generation of games may be censored as they move to try and better reflect the real world. Though I am open to the negative sides of games, such as the fact they encourage laziness, it would be ill concieved to argue that the they turn people crazy. Though most games are brainless, there is still some high brow content left, such as in the case of Bioshock, which is utterly brilliant and easily comparable to the best films.

Sam Raimi = GOD

Are Rambo (2008) and Irréversible (2002) just the same? I mean, in terms of the moral bankrupcy of using violence in an attempt to emotionally manipulate the audience to enjoy acts of revenge. Even though one of these films is more arty than the other (meaning, being French and making you think backwards), aren't they doing the same thing (after the rape, the fire extinguisher scene wasn't so bad - in fact you want to now watch that scene again). Even though I believe that Irréversible could serve as a useful social tool in terms of revealing in graphic detail the horrible experience that is rape (and therefore it would discourage such acts in the real world), I still feel a little emotionally manipulated with regard to the fire extinguisher scence. Remembering your comments, Mark, regarding the latest Rambo release when you summarised it as being more than just stupid, I wondered how you would describe a similar film minus the stupid element. Would Irréversible fit the bill in this instance? (I know this is a while ago - just having these thoughts now - sorry). Thanks and keep up the good work.

Dear Dr K
Am thrilled you liked Drag me To Hell, I am a huge Sam Raimi fan and am glad to see he is getting back to his roots. Theirs been a lot of discussion on this board about the BBFC classification with films and how their views have changed. As Sam Raimi first Spider-man film instigated the BBFC to change their rating system and create a 12A certificate based on the popularity of the film it thought i would put this question to the group and DR Kermode

Did anyone else think that the BBFC tend to ignor its own rating system when it comes to good films? (of course in the eyes of DR K the definition of a good or popular film may be different). I turn your attention to the Original Star Wars Trilogy. All films loved by most and yet despite the fact their is death, blood, severed arms (see Ep 4) and various other things, these films are rated "U".

I always found it strange it like the BBFC decided that these films were so good that we should make sure the film is seen by everyone. Another example is the first Lord Of The Rings, with decapitation and death scene in which a character gets shot many times with arrows, Yet the BBFC rated this film a PG. I put it to the good doctor and anyone else for that matter, can anyone else think of a popular film that has been given a lower rating then it should have been if it was an independent film for instance?

I have a question about the rumour that all movies are moving towards 3D.

I was receently at the opticians and he infromed me that my right eye didn't work, not that I'm blind in it, it just doesn't work. I don't know what he meant by that. But he said because of this condition I would not be able to view 3D movies. So what happens to me and people with similar problems? Will cinema just be closed off to me?

Also worth a look is Raimi's Brilliant horror/comedy "The Frighteners" from the early 90's, great blog btw Dr K.

I think it was Peter Jackson that made The Frighteners not Sam Raimi, still a great film though.

In response to mysteriousMisterMo:

I have t'disagree. The point you've raised is 100% speculative. Firstly, I do agree that Rambo is a vile film, truly disgusting in its intentions (moreso since hearing that in order to form a plot, Stallone phoned Soldier Of Fortune, asked for the most dangerous place in the world, then made Rambo KILL THE HELL OUT OF IT).

But Irreversible is totally different, and not there to manipulate an audience in the same sense (if at all, 'manipulate's a horrible word for it).

Your response to the rape scene 'excusing' the S&M attack is purely your response, whilst mine (for example) is that the film's structure makes it far more about remembering what's been lost than torturing oneself avenging its destruction. I'm as repulsed by both incidences equally so on further viewings; I think the point is not to answer any moral questions, but simply raise them for the audience.

The nightclub attack is made particularly primal (even compared to the rape); a pack of sweating men forming a circle around two alpha-males as they fight it out, on breaking the head of another....a la....2001. T'get all film critic-esque.

If anything the first attack remains the more painful, due to the low-frequency soundtrack inducing a physical reaction.

Now THAT could be argued as manipulative. But I don't think it is at all. It's just a nightclub.

I've been a huge horror fan since I was a kid. Speaking of piracy, when horror films such as The Evil Dead, The Exorcist, etc were banned, the only way you could only see these movies was via pirate videos.

When those films were finally released again on VHS and DVD, all of them made a decent profit despite being watched by millions on pirate copies all throughout the 80s.

When the The Evil Dead was finally released it made its money, in it's cut version on VHS, and in it's uncut version on DVD.

The same goes for The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House on the Left, The Burning etc.

Last year The Dark Knight was the most pirated film of the year, yet it broke all box office records, worldwide, as made bucket loads on DVD and Blu Ray.

It just goes to show that people will pay money time and time again for a good film.

Great post, well said, but I see you're still talking about 'England'. I wish you wouldn't.

***POST 30 - SLIGHTLY EDITED***

I've been a huge horror fan since I was a kid, so when it came to films such as The Evil Dead, and The Exorcist, etc the only way you could see those movies was via pirate videos.

When those and many other banned films were finally released on VHS and DVD, all of them made a decent profit despite being watched by millions on pirate copies all throughout the 80s.

For example, when The Evil Dead was released it made its money in it's cut version on VHS, and in it's uncut version on DVD.

The same goes for The Exorcist, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House on the Left, and The Burning etc.

Last year The Dark Knight was the most pirated film of the year, yet it broke all box office records, worldwide, and made bucket loads on DVD and Blu Ray.

It just goes to show that people will pay money time and time again to see a good film.

Mark, where did you get that T-shirt and can I have one please?

What, I wonder, does Mark make of Nick Palumbo's extremely nasty (in more ways than one) 'Murder-Set-Pieces'? It's interesting to read on bbfc.co.uk. the reasons for the Board's rejection of the film for certification, even heavily cut. I live part of the year in the US and thus easily obtained an uncut copy of this horror - ahem - 'epic'; it is perhaps telling that a stray neighbourhood tomcat found its way into my house one evening and promptly went to a dvd shelf, located Palumbo's movie, turned his backside to it and sprayed mightily . The smell persists.