Film Censorship on TV and the BCC

faceman

Hopefully we can get some lively debate about this topic. Lets stay on the topic of films on tv rather than wider tv censorship please.

I read in the papers today that the BCC (Broadcasting complaints Commission) upheld a complaint that RTE One's broadcast of the movie "Derailed", which included a rape scene and was described by the complainant as vile.

Id imagine as a result RTE will receive a fine or be forced to make an apology. Worse than that is that it will probably force RTE to reconsider what movies they show on tv.

Im all for certain TV censorship but when you consider that it only takes 1 complaint for the BCC to act and the reasons for complaints often include "lack of taste and decency" or "no consideration given to minors who could be watching" it makes you think how unfair the system can be.

We all remember the hatchet job UTV did on the die hard movies many years ago where they screened a version where the bad language was overdubbed and we'd have preferred to movies to have not been shown at all than be butchered like that!

Often in movies and Art, unpleasant scenes are necessary for the plot development.

The argument about children potentially watching unsuitable material doesnt always wash with me. The watershed rule overs some "common sense" but if children want to watch unsuitable tv/film they will watch it on DVD, pirate copies, the internet etc. At least on tv, there is better opportunity for parents to moderate or restrict tv viewing to some degree. Or maybe im naive.

So what are you views on it? Should we just accept that there are mainstream movies that shouldnt be shown on tv for sensitivity sake? Should there be pre screening warnings (similar to what sky do) as well as warning before returning from commercial breaks?

dr.bollocko

I just don't see the point in screening movies that are censored or butchered to lower the ratings or to pander with the "I'm a mother Joe..." crowd. It makes me cringe, because, as you say a lot of the more violent scenes are entirely integral to the plot of many movies.
And I would agree with you, also, in dismissing the "But my kids might see it" argument.

Delirium

What about the 1,000s of viewers that didn't complain about the film as they understood the context of the rape. It was in the film as violent and evil act.
I would be more annoyed that a film was aired and not shown as the makers intended.

mike65

Any idea when Derailed (was it the Clive Owen movie?) was screened? If it was an evening flick after 9 pm and the MA flashes up then you have no grounds to complain.

Channel 6 has screened Last Tango and Dressed to Kill in recent weeks, I didn't see the former and missed the opening few mins of the latter so don't know if a warning was handed out.

Mike

Delirium

mike65 wrote: »

Any idea when Derailed (was it the Clive Owen movie?) was screened? If it was an evening flick after 9 pm and the MA flashes up then you have no grounds to complain.

Channel 6 has screened Last Tango and Dressed to Kill in recent weeks, I didn't see the former and missed the opening few mins of the latter so don't know if a warning was handed out.

Mike

It was on at 9.30 on Wednesday 18 June, according to rte.ie.

TheIrishGrover

But I am for age/time restrictions. I cannot abide parents who complain that their kid saw something unsuitable on television after 9 O'clock. Or who buy movies/games for their underage kids. Ratings are there for a guide. If something is on after 9 or is 18s on the box then chances are it's unsuitable. IMO there's no justification for a parent buying something for their kid that's rated above their age and then complaining. It's bad parenting. Plain and simple. I've had very heated debates with people, even members of my own family, on this issue. You always get the whole "Oh, but I wanted to watch the program and didn't want to put my kid to bed so early" or "Oh, but I didn't know it was going to be like THAT". Look at the situation in the States. All kinds of pressure groups swamping networks with all kinds of complaints. It's coming to the point where program makers will just stop making films/programs that even run the risk of offending anybody because the networks will just not buy them (Its probably already come to that). Ill informed people and people who cannot be bothered to find out if something is suitable are ruining many forms of entertainment.

Dont be at yourself

Im all for certain TV censorship but when you consider that it only takes 1 complaint for the BCC to act and the reasons for complaints often include "lack of taste and decency" or "no consideration given to minors who could be watching" it makes you think how unfair the system can be.

It's important when discussing this to realize that the volume of complaints received is completely irrelevant - the BCC will review the broadcast whether it has received one complaint or one thousand. The volume of complaints does not affect its judgements or decisions.

Anyway, I'm very much against the censorship of movies after the watershed. I'm also very much against the fact that the broadcasters don't advertise the films as cut/censored. I would not waste my time watching a cut film, and I'd like to know I'm not watching one before I'm half-way through.

Fysh

The problem is that the view of film that allows for and understands contentious or shocking/uncomfortable content is "film as art", whereas the view of a lot of people who watch films on tv of an evening is "film as entertainment", with all the caveats that this entails.

Personally, TV long ago ceased to be the vehicle of choice for film-watching precisely because of the censorship issues that crop up. I understand the reasons for it, but I just don't agree in most cases that films shown with due warning after the watershed should be amended or censored. The implications of paying your licence fee are curious - on the one hand you're contributing money towards the broadcast of cultural material you wish to see, but on the other hand some people feel that if they're contributing to something financially they have a right to dictate what standards it adheres to....

Short version : TV censorship is crap, and the reason I don't watch films primarily on TV anymore.

mike65

Does it not depend on the channel? I would guess More4 and BBC 4 for example would not show a cut version of a filum.

Mike

johnny_ultimate

Well at least the censorship isn't as bad as America. They have 'TV versions' of films: things like Pulp Fiction without the bad language (which is fascinating viewing). Cutting out things completely is just a bizarre decision: if its late night, I really do not see what the issue of screening uncensored films is. And indeed most channels do tend to show films uncut once a certain hour has been passed. Even TG4 has proven to be relatively brave in showing more explicit foreign films after watershed.

As long as films are put on at reasonable hours, there is no need to compromise. Admittedly, putting on something truly shocking is probably just asking for trouble, so that is the reason why TV stations probably don't show Visitor Q at 9 PM. But again I have seen plenty of films after twelve on channels like Film 4, and RTE have even shown stuff like Happiness. There is no need to censor once the intended audience is more willing to accept it (hence why you'd hear little complaints if any of these films were shown after twelve).

The reasons I don't watch too many films on TV are mainly the distraction of ad breaks (even Film Four cuts to commercial regularly now, interrupting the flow of the film: only the poor selection on Sky Movies remains ad free) and the fact that most films worth watching are buried in the graveyard schedules, post 1 AM. But as far as censorship goes, we probably don't have it as bad as others.

But if they'll complain about Derailed, they should probably throw on Irreversiable at nine for the laugh.

And why should kids be protected after ten? The arguement that kids might be watching is indeed regrettable, and if we go by that logic we may as well get rid of all more adult content (DVDs etc..). TV aint just for kids, and if they are up watching it at one in the morning, then its the parents fault if they see something they shouldn't.

lostexpectation

maybe the bcc doesn't like jennifer aniston

R N' R

^I'd back that

jackdaw

faceman wrote: »

So what are you views on it? Should we just accept that there are mainstream movies that shouldnt be shown on tv for sensitivity sake? Should there be pre screening warnings (similar to what sky do) as well as warning before returning from commercial breaks?

It's up to the parents, as you said , kids will see it anyway on the net, on DVD ,pirate copies etc ..

Parents need to restrict their kids access to TV and TV stations just need to
show it at a late hour if it's violent.


edit- mentioning the TV versions of some movies for American TV ... I remember watching some action flick in the US

bad language and nudity was edited out yet the violent scenes were untouched .. this at 3PM on a sunday afternoon ..

lostexpectation

it surprising the this wasn't a tv version already

Otis Driftwood

Censorship is a joke.We are only allowed to watch what 1 or 2 people deem to be appropriate.Thats laughable.Im all for perantal control but as people have mentioned in this day and age pretty much everything is available online.
When the Gateway Meat was released some kids got hold of it in a torrent and Ron De Caro (director,star) got an abusive email from one of the kids parents basically telling him that he and people that make horror movies are the devil.His reply was something to the effect of instead of her bitching at him why didnt she take measures to limit what her child watched and that her son was illegally downloading copywrited material and that he had a good mind to report her son.Surprisingly he didnt hear from her again.:D