Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Films not certified for Ireland/Banned/Censored
-
03-10-2008 3:31pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 30,012 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28719
NekkidBibleMan wrote: »I've always found IFCO ratings to be on the money, and I think they're doing a great job considering their resources.
John Kelleher comes across very well in any interviews he has given and I'd largely agree with his stance towards movie classification and censorship.
I used to think the Irish censors had a nasty habit of just upping 15 UK ratings to 18s over here (when I was younger, and wasn't able to get into the cinema to see the Matrix of course
) but yeah Kelleher is doing a fine job. Small changes to the rating system (such as 15a ratings) don't affect older film fans, but at least give parents more say in what their children watch (with the 16 rating reserved for the border between 15s and 18s). And yeah, a lot of the bannings have been overruled, and while I don't agree with his decision on Manhunt 2 (even though I would never play the game, I still don't think it needs to be censored when it has a strictly enforced 18s rating) on the film front he is usually bang on the money. His anti-banning stance which he has talked about in many interviews is really positive: going some way to moving on from a system which once was highly conservative and damaging.
As for films that are still banned, can't be sure but I think there are still a few out there. As you said, I'm pretty sure I've seen Baise Moi around the place (perhaps censored?). Strange to see Meet the Feebles is banned! OK I've heard its fairly explicit, but at the end of the day they're just puppets engaged in 'unpleasant' activities. Must just be one no-one bothered submitting for reclassification. Or maybe they are just afraid parents will pick it up by accident and be in for a little shock. Peter Jackson's probably quite proud.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
They're basically ok at the 18 category nowadays. I don't neccessarily agree with banning porn or Manhunt 2 or anything but I don't really care.
My main problem with them is that it's way too easy to get a 16/18 rating here. I hate having to pay student prices.
I think a lot more could be allowed at 15A. There are films out there that are genuinely worth protecting children from and stuff like Knocked Up and Step Brothers just aren't among them. The way films are classified right now basically cheapens the whole system and makes it hard for parents to take it seriously. They could at least introduce a 16 rating for DVDs, but I think that would involve a change in legistlation so I guess it's probably not gonna happen any time soon.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
That's a great post.
Lets look at the issue of Bad Santa.. I've seen the film, and it is very much as the title describes: a Bad Santa. He drinks, smokes, swears and womanizes. It's certainly not a kids film, certainly not a Jingle All The Way-style wholesome piece of family entertainment.
However, it's also not an obscene, perverting, morally bankrupt film either. It's a comedy, and the drinking, swearing, smoking and womanizing is presented in this context, and it is (for the most part) tame. There is also a moral center to the film.
So, I'd hope we can agree that while this film is by no means a General film, neither is it a hard 18s. A 15A seems entirely reasonable to me.
To apportion blame, it's important to define exactly what a 15A certificate is though. It means that those who are 15 or over may enjoy the movie without parental consent. Those under 15, must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. If a parent takes a child under 15 to see a 15As film, it is their responsibility to ensure it it suitable for them. There are both general guidelines for the certificate and film-by-film guidelines available on the IFCO website. The IFCO did not grant Bad Santa a General certificate, or even a PG. It was 15A. Parents should not treat it the same as a PG, because it is not the same.
I was out of the country at the time of release, so I didn't hear about the Joe Duffy-led uprising. I'm not surprised though. Too many parents are too ignorant of the entertainment that their child consumes - be it TV, cinema or videogames - and they're quick to blame everybody but themselves. However, the IFCO is not the nation's parents, and in a case like Bad Santa, the buck stops entirely with the parent if they choose to bring an under-15 to a screening.
I used to work in a videogame retailer, and it would drive me up the wall at the amount of ignorant parents coming in to pick up the latest Grand Theft Auto for their 7 year old.My opinion on the IFCO is sort of a mixture of what you said there. They're too inconsistent basically. I'm not at home at the minute but I'm pretty sure that I've a good few dvds which have radically different certs when compared with the BBFC. I'll try and have a look at some when I get back to back up my opinions/statements.
I can't shake the impression that you hold BBFC to be the yardstick. In my experience (I live in the UK, currently), they can be just as wide of the mark at times. The Dark Knight was granted a 12A (15A here), which I feel is probably a little low, considering the dark tone and one or two scenes (The Joker's magic trick?). There is no 'right' or 'wrong' certificate for each film, and as it's basically a matter of judgement, there will inevitably be differences and inconsistencies between rating boards.Being that Ireland is indeed a seperate country of course, something which at times I'm quite proud of (to not be a part of the UK). Copyright with regards distribution deals have little to do with countries and more to do with "territories". So when some distributor , say from the USA, obtains the rights to a film for the UK they get the rights to Ireland as well. But then they have to pay twice to have it certified. And for what purpose ?
Why wasn't The Passion of the Christ rated 18's like it was in the UK ?
Something to do with Kelleher's religion ? Maybe, maybe not....
But surely you can't be in favor of the UK's BBFC having final say on what can and cant be released in Ireland? I do take your point about distributers having to pay twice in order to release the movie in the two territories, but the cost is far from prohibitive and in all truth nominal over the shelf-life of a film (in terms of box-office and DVD takings). The solution to this problem is not to give the BBFC dominion over our release slate, but perhaps there is some merit to a pan-European ratings initiative.And on the subject of hardcore pornography ... It's not available here. That is , and excuse me for being graphic, visual entertainment for the purpose of sexual arousal which contains the folliwing: erect penis', penetraion of the penis into the vagina and anus, ejaculation from the penis, graphic depiction of the vagina opening.
The IFCO can only rate what is put in front of them, and their judgements must be in line with legislation. The IFCO's own views towards pornography doesn't really come into it - they legally can't certify indecent or obscene movies. As you say, movies with artistic merit, like 9 Songs and Baise-Moi, have been passed - but these are quite different to the hardcore pornography that is currently banned.The thing is, the IFCO just does not reveal itself and explain it's decisions as much as the BBFC does./quote]
The BBFC have excellent online resources explaining their decisions, but the IFCO are catching up. Here is an example of an information page on a new release. It gives a breakdown of the content, as well as comments specific to that film.I suppose that's the sole reasoning behind the IFCO existing.... Just to change certain ratings with regards Ireland's religion and possibly it's history (Michael Collins got a special 12RA rating I think upon release).
But it's something that still doesn't sit right with me.
I think this is probably the nub of our disagreement.
As you see it, the IFCO merely takes the BBFC ratings and changes them.
As I see it, they receive a movie and judge it independently of the BBFC - often they arrive at the same rating, sometimes not.
As you see it, the IFCO's primary concern is with religious values, with secondary concerns for history and culture.
As I see it, the IFCO weighs up cultural and historical concerns equally, and the religious attitudes of the Director of Classifcation don't come into it.
That's a funny read about female ejaculation. The BBFC gets very technical when it comes to pornography. I believe their definition of an erect penis as being 'north of Cornwall'.
Here's a map.
0 -
-
-
NekkidBibleMan wrote: »That's a great post.
Lets look at the issue of Bad Santa.. I've seen the film, and it is very much as the title describes: a Bad Santa. He drinks, smokes, swears and womanizes. It's certainly not a kids film, certainly not a Jingle All The Way-style wholesome piece of family entertainment.
However, it's also not an obscene, perverting, morally bankrupt film either. It's a comedy, and the drinking, swearing, smoking and womanizing is presented in this context, and it is (for the most part) tame. There is also a moral center to the film.
So, I'd hope we can agree that while this film is by no means a General film, neither is it a hard 18s. A 15A seems entirely reasonable to me.
To apportion blame, it's important to define exactly what a 15A certificate is though. It means that those who are 15 or over may enjoy the movie without parental consent. Those under 15, must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. If a parent takes a child under 15 to see a 15As film, it is their responsibility to ensure it it suitable for them. There are both general guidelines for the certificate and film-by-film guidelines available on the IFCO website. The IFCO did not grant Bad Santa a General certificate, or even a PG. It was 15A. Parents should not treat it the same as a PG, because it is not the same.
I was out of the country at the time of release, so I didn't hear about the Joe Duffy-led uprising. I'm not surprised though. Too many parents are too ignorant of the entertainment that their child consumes - be it TV, cinema or videogames - and they're quick to blame everybody but themselves. However, the IFCO is not the nation's parents, and in a case like Bad Santa, the buck stops entirely with the parent if they choose to bring an under-15 to a screening.
I used to work in a videogame retailer, and it would drive me up the wall at the amount of ignorant parents coming in to pick up the latest Grand Theft Auto for their 7 year old.
I can't shake the impression that you hold BBFC to be the yardstick. In my experience (I live in the UK, currently), they can be just as wide of the mark at times. The Dark Knight was granted a 12A (15A here), which I feel is probably a little low, considering the dark tone and one or two scenes (The Joker's magic trick?). There is no 'right' or 'wrong' certificate for each film, and as it's basically a matter of judgement, there will inevitably be differences and inconsistencies between rating boards.
But surely you can't be in favor of the UK's BBFC having final say on what can and cant be released in Ireland? I do take your point about distributers having to pay twice in order to release the movie in the two territories, but the cost is far from prohibitive and in all truth nominal over the shelf-life of a film (in terms of box-office and DVD takings). The solution to this problem is not to give the BBFC dominion over our release slate, but perhaps there is some merit to a pan-European ratings initiative.
The IFCO can only rate what is put in front of them, and their judgements must be in line with legislation. The IFCO's own views towards pornography doesn't really come into it - they legally can't certify indecent or obscene movies. As you say, movies with artistic merit, like 9 Songs and Baise-Moi, have been passed - but these are quite different to the hardcore pornography that is currently banned.The thing is, the IFCO just does not reveal itself and explain it's decisions as much as the BBFC does./quote]
The BBFC have excellent online resources explaining their decisions, but the IFCO are catching up. Here is an example of an information page on a new release. It gives a breakdown of the content, as well as comments specific to that film.
I think this is probably the nub of our disagreement.
As you see it, the IFCO merely takes the BBFC ratings and changes them.
As I see it, they receive a movie and judge it independently of the BBFC - often they arrive at the same rating, sometimes not.
As you see it, the IFCO's primary concern is with religious values, with secondary concerns for history and culture.
As I see it, the IFCO weighs up cultural and historical concerns equally, and the religious attitudes of the Director of Classifcation don't come into it.
That's a funny read about female ejaculation. The BBFC gets very technical when it comes to pornography. I believe their definition of an erect penis as being 'north of Cornwall'.
Here's a map.
Yep I think Bad Sant getting a 15 is fair.
15A ? No, I don't think that this certificate should exist.
I agree with you on the Dark Knight issue, Can I lead this discussion into a new area? What role and how much influence do yous think that the distributors have with regards certification ? Darkn Knight gets a 15 in the UK less tickets are sold. Dark Knight gets a 12A plenty more tickets sold. I tell you , with these "Accompanied" certs it makes the job at the box office so so difficult. If anyone has ever had to make the decision to ask for identification while working in a newsagents serving a pack of fags, then the job is even hard at the cinema checkout . You'll have a group of friends come up . Maybe some look 16, maybe they are. But then there's friends that barely look 15, maybe they are 15, maybe they're 16 but as you and I and everyone else knows different teenagers look different ages!
I tell ya, I see where you're coming from and I agree...
But, fact is as I said , when a distributor gets the rights for film , they get the rights for this "region" ie. UK and Ireland.... And sometimes the IFCO is a bit dubious with regards their ratings...
I'll leave you with this: Whats the point in classification backed by legalities when sure, you can get even more extreme material on the internet ? Is the BBFC and IFCO not a bit out of step with technology today ? The laws that they act under are 20+ years old. Well the video recordings acts are anyways, and they were created after some dodgy editorials from UK tabloids.0 -
-
NekkidBibleMan wrote: »That's a funny read about female ejaculation. The BBFC gets very technical when it comes to pornography. I believe their definition of an erect penis as being 'north of Cornwall'.
"As I was going to St. Ives,
I met a man with seven wives...
Get the camera! Yee-hah!"
The other "standard" I've heard mentioned in the UK is the Mull Of Kintyre test, though it's not clear whether it's still used.
PS: According to IMDB, Ai No Corrida is still banned in Ireland. I saw it in the UK, and while it's an incredibly powerful examination of obsessive lust, it ends with a scene that no man ever wants to see. :eek:
PPS: on IMDB you can access a list of films apparently banned in Ireland, here. Um... The Life Of Brian, banned? Showgirls? Natural Born Killers... Brief Encounter? Must be films that were initially banned, but not any more.You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.
―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray
0
Advertisement