Agreed, if you want to complain about access to horrific pornographic images, I'm not sure making one really reinforces your point...

If you want see a film in which a guy screws a baby or staples people anuses to other peoples mouths for sexual pleasure, I think you need help....

Ah, but there's the rub: I don't have access to HD channels on my current Freeview set-up - it's standard-def all the way. The 'Full' (no overscan) option is only available via HDMI connections, and the only HD material I have are Blu-ray discs. The same 'black bar at the sides' effect can also be seen on the various C4 channels, including Film 4. It doesn't affect all broadcasts, but more than enough to cause me some aggravation. And some BR's are also affected, especially those where the material was transferred in European facilities (Blue Underground's special edition version of ZOMBIE, for example).


The pro-censorship lobby makes this same kind of argument for all kinds of material, not just the ultra-extreme stuff. You could blacken the name of Alfred Hitchcock and Shakespeare if you took certain bits of material out of their work and presented them out of context. After all, which 'sane' person would want to see a film in which a man dresses in women's clothing and slashes a defenceless naked woman to death in the shower? Or see a play in which a young woman is gang-raped and her hands cut off, followed by a scene in which her father takes those responsible and hangs them upside down so he can cut their throats, while his daughter catches their blood in a bowl held between her stumps?... In other words, the material you describe in those other films may be unpalatable (to say the least!), but some artists have always tested the limits of expression, only to find their place in history once the initial furore has died down, often many years later.

The difference is all of Tom Six's works are perhaps at the very limit of what is palatable, whereas many of Hitchcock and Shakespeare's works are not. All of the films "banned" by the BBFC in recent years have received mixed reviews. Sounds to me like these films makers exist for shock value rather than artistic merit (or entertainment purposes)...

The films may be at the limits of acceptability at the moment (at least as far as the BBFC is concerned - I'm absolutely NOT convinced of that, at least not by the arguments the Board used to suppress the uncut version in this country), but they'll be overtaken by some fresh outrage at some future point. There's room in the marketplace for all kinds of films, not just those which either minimise (and therefore lie about) the ugliness in the world around us, or seek to offer nothing but Good News.


I've no doubt Tom Six's intent was to push the boundaries, and the same goes for Srdjan Spasojevic with A SERBIAN FILM. But remember that PSYCHO was decried for its violence in much the same way as the criticisms applied to modern films, and that PEEPING TOM was so vilified, it brought its director's otherwise majestic career to a screeching halt. And Shakespeare was a populist who was as crude and vulgar as propriety allowed in his day, whilst working in another medium (can you imagine what he could have done with film?!!).

Besides which, there's actually nothing wrong with shocking the audience for its own sake, and I can't agree that these films lack artistic merit just because some people find them disgusting. Artistic quality isn't dictated by notions of 'good taste' - just ask John Waters!

I have no issues with these films, if you want to watch them it's your own fault. However, some of them may breach the law, and I notice that it's only the big name films people care about nobody's mention Grotesque or The Bunny Game

Apropos of not very much, and I haven't seen either film anyway, but I wonder why two of the recent "banned" list are in black and white? (HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 and THE BUNNY GAME). There's a list of post-1970 b/w films on Wikipedia, but it's certainly incomplete - I came up with about six films missing from it off the top of my head.

Re the censorship discussion... Going back further, it's amazing how many films from the pre-Code era (or even Pre-Pre-Code - I've just booked to see the restoration of WINGS at the London Film Festival) were considered beyond the pale at the time and are now classics. But it's because their content was considered unacceptable, the Production Code was enforced, with a huge impact on American cinema for three decades after. Incidentally, 2014 is the eightieth anniversary of the Production Code, so what price some enterprising channel, Film Four or BBC Four say, having a Pre-Code season? Some of these films haven't been on TV for decades, if at all. Well, pigs might get airborne...

Pardon the rambing, folks. It's late and nearly time for bed. Carry on.

Ah, but that's the problem - I can't watch these films because the BBFC has suppressed them, and I won't patronise films which have been censored for political reasons (which is the case here - censorship is almost always aimed at 'protecting' the working classes, and 'obscenity' is always cited as the reason, a convenient legal scapegoat).

And, to be fair, the likes of GROTESQUE and THE BUNNY GAME are included in the discussion by default, because they have been censored. It isn't really necessary to mention every relevant title in a discussion of this kind, if you see what I mean.

Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Oh, and eyeblink: I'd like to see some of those pre-Code films, too.

(Unless otherwise indicated, all films in the following list were projected at 2.35:1 prior to 1971, and at 2.39:1 thereafter)

Scope and 3-D movies across the Freeview platform for the coming week (15 - 21 September):


Saturday (15 September)

• AVPR: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR - REQUIEM (Film 4)
• BLOOD WORK (5 USA) [Panavision]
• CORALINE (Film 4) [3-D] [1.85:1]
• DISCLOSURE (ITV 1) [Panavision]
• DRAGONHEART (ITV 2) [Panavision]
• THE GAME (ITV 4)
• HOSTAGE (C4)
• LAWS OF ATTRACTION (Film 4) [Panavision]
• LICENCE TO KILL (ITV 1) [Panavision]
• NIM'S ISLAND (ITV 1)
• PATRIOT GAMES (Film 4) [Panavision]
• RETURN OF THE SEVEN (5 USA) [Panavision]
• SCARY MOVIE (Film 4)
• THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (BBC 2)
• TRANSFORMERS (C4) [Panavision / Super 35]
• THE TREASURE OF PANCHO VILLA (BBC 2) [Superscope] [2.00:1]
• THE VIKINGS (5 USA) [Technirama]
• THE VIOLENT MEN (More 4) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]
• WEDDING CRASHERS (E4)
• WYATT EARP (C5) [Panavision]


Sunday (16 September)

• CAPRICORN ONE (C5) [Panavision]
• CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER (Film 4) [Panavision]
• CUTTHROAT ISLAND (Film 4) [Panavision / Technovision]
• DANTE'S PEAK (ITV 2)
• EVER AFTER (E4)
• THE FIFTH ELEMENT [Le Cinquième Élément] (C5)
• HOT FUZZ (ITV 2)
• INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (BBC 3) [Panavision]
• LOOSE CANNONS [Mine Vaganti] (BBC 4)
• THE MEDALLION (C5)
• STORMBREAKER (Film 4)
• SWORDFISH (C5) [Panavision]
• TWO FOR THE MONEY (BBC 1)
• VON RYAN'S EXPRESS (Film 4) [CinemaScope / Panavision]


Monday (17 September)

• CELLULAR (Film 4)
• THE GOONIES (5*) [Panavision]
• LOOSE CANNONS [Mine Vaganti] (BBC 4)
• OUT OF TIME (C5)
• ROMANCING THE STONE (Film 4) [Panavision]
• SPACE COWBOYS (ITV 1) [Panavision]


Tuesday (18 September)

• THE BRAVADOS (More 4) [CinemaScope]
• THE ITALIAN JOB (Film 4) [Panavision]
• SHOOTER (Film 4) [Panavision]
• TRUST THE MAN (BBC 1)


Wednesday (19 September)

• CRAZY HEART (Film 4)
• DISGRACE (BBC 1)
• THE ENGLISHMAN WHO WENT UP A HILL BUT CAME DOWN A MOUNTAIN (C4) [J-D-C Scope]
• LOVE ACTUALLY (ITV 2)
• NATIONAL TREASURE (BBC 3)
• SPEED 2: CRUISE CONTROL (Film 4) [Panavision]


Thursday (20 September)

• THE BADLANDERS (Film 4) [CinemaScope]
• CORALINE (Film 4) [3-D] [1.85:1]
• DESK SET (Film 4) [CinemaScope]
• HOW TO STEAL A MILLION (Film 4) [Panavision]
• IP MAN [葉問] (Film 4)
• IP MAN 2 [葉問2] (Film 4)


Friday (21 September)

• BORN FREE (C4) [Panavision]
• CASINO ROYALE (ITV 1)
• CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER (Film 4) [Panavision]
• CUTTHROAT ISLAND (Film 4) [Panavision / Technovision]
• SHINJUKU INCIDENT [新宿事件] (Film 4)
• SURROGATES (BBC 3)
• THE VIOLENT MEN (More 4) [CinemaScope] [2.55:1]
• WHERE THE TRUTH LIES (BBC 2) [Panavision]
• YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (ITV 4) [Panavision]

I got a discounted Technika one for £30 last year, but now they have one in Tesco here for £35. Worth it if you watch a lot of TV
http://www.tesco.com/direct/technika...147&pageLevel=

And they told me there was no HDMI lead in the box, while they sold one for about £8. I knew I could get a cheap one on Amazon for £2-3, then opened the box when I got it home and... there was one inside!

I think obscenity isn't the excuse for all of them, the technical reason GROTESQUE and THE BUNNY GAME were banned is because there wasn't enough character development or plotline, the issue lay in the fact there was not even at attempt to explain or justify the actions of the villain and as such, they were literally just 90 mins of non contextualized sexual violence, leading the BBFC to interpret violence as being the main attraction the film.

The issues lies in the fact these films could easily be interpreted as promoting extreme violence (whether or not they are), and as such breached the law, meaning the BBFC had tor reject them.

or as David Cook puts it:

This doesn't really circumvent my argument, since all it confirms is that the BBFC uses 'potential' obscenity as an excuse to censor films. Unless the material can be tested in court, there's no way of knowing whether it's obscene in law, and since the most horrendous (unsimulated) S&M material has been found Not Guilty in recent cases, there's a strong chance the law is limping badly behind public opinion.

Also, this material is freely available in other countries, with no ill-effects recorded. What makes us - the Great British Public - so special, or so vulnerable, that we need to be protected at all? The fact is, we aren't 'special' or 'vulnerable'. The censorship system is entirely political in nature - always has been, always will be.

By the way, that last paragraph may seem like I'm accusing you of advocating censorship. Not at all. I'm just making the point that, whether you like these extreme films or not (and I have my own personal threshold for 'extreme' material, believe me!), censorship is a mug's game. The world may be a beautiful place, but parts of it are shitty and ugly and dangerous, and filmmakers must be allowed to show all sides of the equation, free from political interference. Viewers should be forewarned what to expect from individual films, and can therefore make their own minds up as to what they're prepared to watch.

Yes, but there is still a debate as to whether violence in the media affects people actions, and it's still undecided. Whilst most people that watch CSI won't go around solving or comitting murders, there are words and phrases (and perhaps even behavior) on TV that have entered popular culture, which does support the theory that watching a film or TV show might cause some mild behavioral copying. Though there is no conclusive evidence to suggest anyone has been beaten up, murdered or raped because it happened on a TV show or video game.

Also, if say some of the violence was unsimulated (like the sex in many of these films - obviously at lot of it would be impossible to do without causing untold damage to the subject) it would be "extreme pornographic happy slapping" and probably illegal to posess, does faking it make it more acceptable? (That's a question rather than somekind of argument)

'Mild behavioral copying' is vastly different from raping/murdering someone just because you saw it in a film, as the final sentence above makes clear. Pro-censorship advocates always use the argument that if the media had no effect, why do advertisers spend billions trying to influence us? As others have argued, this is flawed reasoning, because all advertising can do is make us aware of a particular product - it can't make us go out and buy it, otherwise we'd all be so influenced by advertising, we'd buy things for no reason, just because we saw it on TV. One of the most successful ad campaigns in TV history - Nick Kamen stripping down to his undies in a 1950's US launderette - caused sales of Levi jeans to skyrocket, not because the ad influenced viewers in the way pro-censorship folks would have us believe, but because it made us aware of the brand in a way that was funny, sexy and memorable.

And even if we were take the pro-censorship lobby seriously on this point, the argument falls apart when you look at it in another way: We know, for instance, that alcohol and cigarettes kill millions of people every year. There's no debate on that score, no ambiguity. We know that cars and alcohol are a deadly mix, and that people die as a consequence of fools who mix the two. We also know that bread knives, razor blades and disinfectants are potentially lethal in the hands of children. And so on and so forth. But no one would dream of suggesting that such things should be taken away from our homes, or that we can't be trusted to make sure we use them in a safe manner, even though we know for a fact that they are potential killers. As adults, it's up to us to take our responsibilities seriously, or face the consequences.

With film, there is no conclusive evidence that it causes dangerous imitative behaviour, and yet those who would censor the media make outrageous claims that film is somehow 'special' and MORE dangerous than cars and alcohol and bread knives, etc. It isn't. In fact, it's no more or less dangerous than all those other things I mentioned earlier. We have a responsibility to make sure that the more excessive films (even those which focus on simulated sexual sadism without recourse to a moral viewpoint) are kept away from those who aren't equipped to deal with the emotional fall-out from inappropriate exposure to such things. In other words, we have to trust adults to do the right thing (as with ciggies, beer, etc.) whilst giving them the responsibility to keep this stuff away from kids.


Yes, it does. The fact that it's simulated makes it so. It's like depictions of animal cruelty on film. If it's real, and the activity has been organised by the filmmakers themselves (as opposed to the insertion of documentary footage into a narrative feature, for example), then the filmmakers should be arrested and charged, and the material cut from the negative and BURNED. I have no truck with piss-poor arguments that cruelty to animals should be retained for the sake of 'historical truth', or because it happened "years ago" (as if that makes it OK!!). I'm quite militant on this point. But if the activity is entirely simulated, and the animals were treated properly during production, then the filmmaker has every right to depict that behaviour in any manner he/she sees fit.

Unsimulated behaviour which causes genuine pain in a non-consensual situation is illegal and should remain so. Simulated behaviour exists solely in the realm of fantasy, and filmmakers should be free to explore the dark side - as well as the sunny side - of human behaviour in all its many facets and particulars.

Is this an argument or not? Cos I'm not acutally pro-censorship, you can watch what you want, however there are some concerns that the BBFC has at the 18 classification that I believe are legitimate, for example detailed discussions of suicide technicians were cut from a recent episode of American Horror Story. Which were a) against the law, hence the compulsary cuts and b) I think there was concern that the description many allow others to copy.

Real life animal violence is ALWAYS cut by the BBFC as under UK law it would be illegal to posses such video.

Never said you were. But you're using the same justification for your reasoning as those who ARE in favour of censorship.


The BBFC also believes they are legitimate. I don't. The difference between me and the Board is that they have the power to act on their beliefs. And when their beliefs mean they end up interfering with my democratic right to view individual films, I can't help but take it personally. I don't mean to 'take it out' on you - we're just having a discussion here, nothing more.


It's a crass point to make, but murder is also against the law, and that's depicted in films and dramas all the time. I think the primary concern was that the technique might be copied. But since the episode has been shown uncut on TV, and since its freely available uncut across the US, and since the techniques in question are already well-known to those with a propensity to suicide (or thoughts thereof), the BBFC was probably wrong to make that cut. In this instance, I accept there may be cause for debate, but the 'cut-first-and-ask-questions-later' route is always going to cause controversy.


The BBFC has been remarkably lenient on this score in recent times, allowing virtually all of the animal slaughter to remain intact in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, for example, using the old excuse that the animals died 'quickly', which they seem to feel renders this filth acceptable for public scrutiny. And a small point: It isn't illegal to possess material which includes animal cruelty, but the BBFC would be in breach of the law if they were to pass (and therefore facilitate the distribution of) material which included such behaviour.

Yes, it was rather stupid to cut a TV show that has already been aired uncut without complaint, but Ofcom ask questions later rather than sooner, and FX might find themselves having (inadvertently) broken the law by broadcasting the episode uncut. But that was the only real example I can remember of something that was cut for legimate concerns (other than animal cruelty).

It is fairly silly to cut detailed instructions of how to commit suicide/murder someone, because it doesn't take a genius to do either of them. In my mind it's one of those things were everyone can know it and cutting it is stupid, but you don't particularly want people discussing suicide techniques in detail either. I think it's one of the more reasonable cuts, but whether it's justified I don't really know, because I could easily just buy the uncut version of iTunes or stream it or just import the DVD from the US.

I knew we'd find common ground if we just worked at it hard enough!

Back on track, kids: Channel 5 aired an OAR print of WAR the other night, and anyone who saw it that way should count themselves lucky, since the DVD version is cropped/reframed to 16:9. And cropping anything which involves Jet Li kicking seven bells out of all and sundry is tantamount to criminal negligence in my book...

THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP was OAR on BBC 2 last night. Interesting to note this was a co-production between the BBC and HBO, the latter being a US cable channel notorious for cropping all films to 16:9. At least, that's what I heard about a year ago - their policy may have changed by now.

The premiere was also 2.35:1. Not a bad film from what I remember. The only Michael Sheen portrayal of Blair I haven't seen is The Deal. I could download it, but I keep expecting C4 to repeat it.

http://www.dbstalk.com/archive/index.php/t-175040.html

Here's a thread from 2010 that suggest it crops/opens some films but not others. There's also a suggestion that Lionsgate's broadcast contracts demand their shown in OAR...

Its good to see Channel 5 showing more widescreen films. Capricorn One was in full widescreen and Fifth Element too.

(Unless otherwise indicated, all films in the following list were projected at 2.35:1 prior to 1971, and at 2.39:1 thereafter)

All of the 3-D films listed in the UK section below are selling at such hyper-inflated prices (even at a 'discount' on Amazon), I'd be surprised if they sold even half the numbers they might otherwise have sold if the distribs STOPPED BEING SO BLOODY GREEDY!! Bring the prices down, include the 2-D version as an alternative, and stop stuffing the package with DVD and digital copies as an excuse to inflate the price. Otherwise, they WON'T SELL!! This is absolutely, completely disgusting...


Scope and 3-D films released on UK Blu-ray (17 - 23 September):

• AVENGERS ASSEMBLE [The Avengers] (2012) [3-D] [1.85:1]
• THE BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL (2011)
• BLADE: TRINITY (2004)
• THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE VOYAGE OF THE DAWN TREADER (2010) [3-D]
• THE CORE (2003) [Panavision]
• EXECUTIVE DECISION (1996) [Panavision]
• GLEE: THE 3-D CONCERT MOVIE (2011) [3-D] [1.85:1]
• GULLIVER'S TRAVELS (2010) [3-D]
• HOW THE WEST WAS WON (1962) [Cinerama] [2.59:1]
• ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS (2009) [3-D] [1.85:1]
• OCTOBER BABY (2011)
• PALE RIDER (1985) [Panavision]
• RIO (2011) [CGI and 3-D]
• THE WILD BUNCH (1969) [Panavision]


Scope and 3-D films released on US Blu-ray (18 - 24 September):

• THE BABYMAKERS (2012)
• BAIT (2012) [3-D] [1.85:1]
• BATTLEFIELD AMERICA (2012)
• THE BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL (2011)
• THE CABIN IN THE WOODS (2011)
• DAIMAJIN [大魔神] (1966) [Daieiscope]
• THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE (1997) [Panavision]
• HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OFTHE WITCH (1982) [Panavision]
• HALLOWEEN II (1981) [Panavision]
• HOFFA (1992) [Panavision]
• HYSTERIA (2011)
• INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008) [Panavision]
• INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE (1989) [Panavision]
• INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (1984) [Panavision]
• JUDGE DREDD (1995) [Panavision]
• KATY PERRY: PART OF ME (2012) [3-D] [1.85:1]
• MAN-TRAP (1961) [Panavision]
• QUEEN OF THE DAMNED (2002) [Panavision]
• RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981) [Panavision]

If they stopped being greedy it's highly likely the 3D versions wouldn't exist in the first place...

Looking at that list,does anyone know if the screen has been cleaned up for either the DVD or Blu-ray versions of How The West Was Won and it's not got the lines going down the screen (because it was shown on a triple screen or something like at the cinema) like the prints you normally get when it's shown on the telly ??

Indeed. Both of those have been shown correctly on C5 before, C-One only being on about 2-3 months earlier - although a quick repeat is nice as it's a class scene even if they do censor...



But it's still nice to get both films as a double-bill.