DAMN I am sooo annoyed I can't see Bruno!

This "hearing of the public voice" also troubles me due to the fact that the next time a mainstream film like this comes out and it gets an 18 rating the distributor will most likely just release the edited 15 version as opposed to the 18 rated version (i seriously doubt that we will see many films having two separate versions on general release at the same time again)

To all the kiRAB moaning about not being able to see an 18 rated film, i say "tough shit, wait for the DVD" because when you are all 18 and able to see 18 rated films legally you will be joining us in complaining about how an adult film has been cut to pander to the teen market.

As a massive 'Alien' fan i would have killed to see 'Alien Resurrection' at the cinema back in 1997, but i was too young to go, so i accepted it and waited for the VHS. And as an 'Alien' fan i wouldn't have wanted it cutting just so younger people could see it.

If i were 15 i wouldn't actually want to see the 15 rated version of 'Bruno' because i'd know that even if its only 2 minutes that has been cut out, i'd still not be seeing the whole film as the film maker intended. People will still be trying to sneak into the 18 rated version, it's just that the new 15 version hurts our chances of having another mainstream comedy film being rated 18 in the future.
 
1 minute 50 secs is actually a lot of footage to be cut. It's the sort of thing that makes a real editorial mess of a film. Not that any of the sex obsessed crudity that Baron Cohen indulges in should be called film.

I don't think the BBFC has cut that amount from a mainstream film since the True Lies / Lethal Weapon 4 era.
 
I think the bbfc allows pretty much anything at 18 these days. I've seen Antichrist, and I'd suspect even 5 years ago it would have needed cuts for 18, or even been banned, but today it wasn't a problem.

If universal want to have their cake (controversial content to boost box office) and eat it, by still letting 15 year olRAB in, I'm not surprised the bbfc wanted heavy cuts.
 
Although I'm no fan of censorship in any of its forms, while not having seen Antichrist but having read its synopsis, I do wonder what purpose, entertainment or otherwise, is served by the BBFC allowing such a grossly violent, graphic and sexually disturbing film to be released in to the mainstream.

The very fact the BBFC has given it a certificate without cuts shows just how left wing it's become in recent years. Although I could never stand the bloke, it makes me yearn for the days of James Ferman who actually banned filth like Antichrist for what he saw as the good of the public.
 
isn't your whole statment a bit of a condriction? You say you don't believe in censorship, but then you say you wish for the Antichrist to be banned? That shows you do agree with censorship. I Am uncomfortable with the idea that an individual or a group has the right to censor what they deem unfit from my eyes.
 
Having watched Antichrist, I wouldn't ban it. It's more about Lars Von Trier being depressed at the time and this film is the manifestation of his depression than anything else I think. I'd imagine people will be aware of it before watching, although it will certainly linger in the memory of those who can sit through it.

Oh and justpootling, James Ferman was a prat, saying that the Texas Chain Saw Massacre was fine for middle class student types but that he didn't want car workers in Birmingham watching it, and telling the Daily Mail Romper Stomper was given a rating by mistake, that the distributor was faxed documents in error saying it was fine at 18, and it would have been too embarrassing for him to correct himself and ban it, as he apparently then wanted to. Just bizarre. Sacking him was probably the best thing Jack Straw ever did as Home Secretary.
 
Yes, I agree it is a bit of a contradiction. While I've not said Antichrist should be banned, I think there's a debate to be had about what should be allowed to be seen when it's clear that film makers like Von Trier are deliberately making films with content so unpleasant that releasing it to the mainstream audience arguably serves no purpose.

What worries me is that a film studio was quite happy to fund Antichrist in the first place, and that it found distributors who clearly believe there are enough people who want to watch it. I wonder what this says about the state of thinking in the film industry.

10 years ago, Antichrist would never have gotten a certificate, at least not without minutes of cuts. 20 years ago, it would never have seen the light of day.

Perhaps when people like Von Trier debase film to the level which he has done, I would like censorship. Somewhere along the line, you have to start thinking about the impact of films like this on general society.
 
I don't think there should be any censorship.

Whilst Antichrist should be released I wouldn't have wanted to watch that movie at 15 it's up to the parents to control what their children see. Matter of fact is a lot of 15 year olRAB know more about sex than most 18 year olRAB now, so seeing a penetration scene is hardly going to shock them.

I think Bruno will shock them more than that, most teens are homophobic and will cringe if they went to see the 18 cert version.
 
Back
Top