Cen***ship

Owwmykneecap

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8209829.stm
The BBFC have banned a new Jap Horror film and so we wait with baited breath to see how long it takes IFCO to copy them.

So then Cer***ship, for it or again it?
Can a Movie really harm you?

Is the whole business entirely pointless given the internet and our abilty to anything we want, should the Censors office be scrapped for being an archaic institution and being a massive waste of money?

Won't somebody think of the children?

mikom

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

Can a Movie really harm you?

I once dropped a box-set of "Girls gone wild" on my foot.
Hurt like hell but no lasting harm.

My name is URL

A movie can't harm you, but I dunno if seriously grotesque films wouldn't desensitise some people over time, and that could be dangerous.

But I'm against reactionary censorship that only happens because people might be offended by something, and anybody that's really offended would not consider watching it in the first place

markok84

The film sounds like a load of crap..... The english patient, now that's my kind of film.

Owwmykneecap

mikom wrote: »

I once dropped a box-set of "Girls gone wild" on my foot.
Hurt like hell but no lasting harm.

i know your pain. i sliced my frenulum on a dvd of debbie does dallas

K4t

* ******* **** ********** *** ******** tbh.

mikom

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

i know your pain. i sliced my frenulum on a dvd of debbie does dallas

Banjo kazooie......... ouch.

irelandrover

some of the japanese stuff should never be seen, by anyone. Anyone that ever saw ichi the kiler should kind of know what i mean

markok84

irelandrover wrote: »

some of the japanese stuff should never be seen, by anyone. Anyone that ever saw ichi the kiler should kind of know what i mean

yah I seen that, that is to say I saw it. It's rediculous, the violence is so over the top it's almost comedic.

jumpguy

IFCO's classification system: If England rate it something, we'll outdo them and rate it higher!

Seriously, it's always one higher. If it's 12's in England, it's 15's here. It's retarded and annoying! Also, why do we have a 16's class now? Does it really make a huge difference it you're 15 or 16?

ChocolateSauce

I don't accept that anyone has a right to decide what I may or may not see.

jumpguy

jumpguy wrote: »

IFCO's classification system: If England rate it something, we'll outdo them and rate it higher!

Seriously, it's always one higher. If it's 12's in England, it's 15's here. It's retarded and annoying! Also, why do we have a 16's class now? Does it really make a huge difference it you're 15 or 16?

That's not true, there are numerous films with a lower rating in Ireland than in England.

Having seen Grotesque I can understand the BBFC's dislike of it. It's a thoroughly unapologetic 90 minutes of gore with no real redeeming factor. The story is simplistic and barely there, in fact it's merely an excuse for scene after scene of violence. It's not the worst gore film, ever made but the lack of anything resembling a good story make's the film into pseudo snuff.

genericguy

nah, just slap an 18 cert on it. there's too many classifications now anyway.


and tbh, the laws here now would prevent father ted from being released today.

Overheal

Didnt the Irish Film Board ban Boondock Saints?

irelandrover

OK. I live in Holland. It realy is the country where anything goes. But some of the films that are available in ireland to 15 or 16 year olds really does shock me.

shenanigans1982

Overheal wrote: »

Didnt the Irish Film Board ban Boondock Saints?

I had never heard of that but aint actually seen it for sale anywhere now that I think of it.

Can't see any reason why it would be banned though.

As for censorship...nobody should have any right to completely ban the film but in the long run more people are probably going to see it now than would have in the first place.

Overheal

shenanigans1982 wrote: »

I had never heard of that but aint actually seen it for sale anywhere now that I think of it.

Can't see any reason why it would be banned though.

As for censorship...nobody should have any right to completely ban the film but in the long run more people are probably going to see it now than would have in the first place.

Apparently it portrays Irish Catholics in a negative light.

Far from it, imo.

DoireNod

I picked this: 'This stuff will make you a god damned sexual Tyrannosaurus, just like me.' because it's such a great line. Predator is class.

Fúck censorship!

Raiser

I've heard the Irish Film Censor classification guy interviewed on the radio twice - he really does come across as intelligent, articulate and very open-minded.

- Personally I do sometimes think that we have enough sick fcuk-ups roaming our streets without uber talented Film-makers releasing their oh so cool and edgy content just to give Scum bright ideas......

Biggins

K4t wrote: »

* ******* **** ********** *** ******** tbh.

That's easy for you to say! I might disagree to be honest. :rolleyes:

Otis Driftwood

If someone is going to be a rapist/sadist/murderer then a fcuking film isnt going to send them over the edge.

Its a retarded argument.

As adults we should be allowed make our own decisions as to what we deem acceptable.

Rebelheart

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

So then Cer***ship, for it or again it?
Can a Movie really harm you?

I remember, it must be 10 years ago anyway, going to the local video store and getting a new release. I'll never forget the name of the movie (or 'film' as it then was): War Zone.

It was directed by Tim Roth and starred Ray Winstone. It was on the shelf like any other movie there. I brought it home to watch it and there was a father (played by Winstone) raping his daughter, while being filmed by his son. It was horrific stuff.

I'm by no means a prude - even feeling that I have to say that seems unwarranted - but I don't think this sort of film should have been among the rest of the movies in my local video store.

Rebelheart

Raiser wrote: »

I've heard the Irish Film Censor classification guy interviewed on the radio twice - he really does come across as intelligent, articulate and very open-minded.

John Kelleher (the film censor) is a sound man. He was the producer of 'Eat the Peach' years ago (1986), if anybody remembers it.

dsmythy

nedtheshed wrote: »

If someone is going to be a rapist/sadist/murderer then a fcuking film isnt going to send them over the edge.

Its a retarded argument.

As adults we should be allowed make our own decisions as to what we deem acceptable.

If someone buys it i guess we'll get the tax off it. Not sure i want that tax source however...

Stercus Accidit

Once you are over 18 you should be able to watch what ever the fuck you want.

Nodin

Rebelheart wrote: »

I remember, it must be 10 years ago anyway, going to the local video store and getting a new release. I'll never forget the name of the movie (or 'film' as it then was): War Zone.

It was directed by Tim Roth and starred Ray Winstone. It was on the shelf like any other movie there. I brought it home to watch it and there was a father (played by Winstone) raping his daughter, while being filmed by his son. It was horrific stuff.

I'm by no means a prude - even feeling that I have to say that seems unwarranted - but I don't think this sort of film should have been among the rest of the movies in my local video store.

A film that was - by all accounts - utterly and unrelentingly grim. Therefore, why would you ban it?

dsmythy

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Once you are over 18 you should be able to watch what ever the fuck you want.

How's about the 90 minute fictional depiction of a presumed (but probably not quite) underage girl being sexually abused? In this proposed film there is no character development or plot in sight like the film here that's going to be banned. But sure, once they're over 18 they can buy what they like...

I don't see the problem, the distributors must be in heaven. The amount of free advertising they've recieved over this means that R1 copies are going to be flying off the shelves. I know 4 people who have ordered the R1 DVD today.

MikeC101

jumpguy wrote: »

IFCO's classification system: If England rate it something, we'll outdo them and rate it higher!

Seriously, it's always one higher. If it's 12's in England, it's 15's here. It's retarded and annoying! Also, why do we have a 16's class now? Does it really make a huge difference it you're 15 or 16?

It's not always the case - I've seen a few films that received a lower rating here (though they'd generally be ones that relate to Irish history). The 16 rating is a cinema only rating, any film that receives it is upgraded to 18 on DVD release.

The reasoning behind the 16 rating goes something like this: originally the cinema rating was 15A, so kids under 15 could go to a film accompanied by an adult. But some parents were shocked and appalled and outraged and calling Joe Duffy due to the content of some of these 15A films, so the 16s cert was introduced. It allows more violence, boobies and drug usage.

Not sure I totally follow the logic behind it.

Rebelheart

Nodin wrote: »

A film that was - by all accounts - utterly and unrelentingly grim. Therefore, why would you ban it?

I don't know whether I'd ban it or not from Ireland. I would certainly not allow it to have been available on my local video store shelf along with more conventional movies. Taking home a movie from my local store only to find a guy raping his child ( at least twice, before I ejected the video and returned it) is unnecessary (to put it mildly).

To this day it remains the only movie I have been truly repulsed by.

Proxy

It's a ridiculous movie. It has literally no redeeming qualities (other than maybe the pride the VFX guys took in their work). There's no art here. Aside from this, I felt awful after watching it, physically sick, even if I am a horror fan. It's torture porn.

The creators of this film need to be psychologically assessed.

As for the censorship question, in this case it would be valid, more as a "this isn't a film, what the **** are you thinking" point.

MikeC101

Proxy wrote: »

It's a ridiculous movie. It has literally no redeeming qualities (other than maybe the pride the VFX guys took in their work). There's no art here. Aside from this, I felt awful after watching it, physically sick, even if I am a horror fan. It's torture porn.

The creators of this film need to be psychologically assessed.

As for the censorship question, in this case it would be valid, more as a "this isn't a film, what the **** are you thinking" point.

It begs the question, why did you go out of your way to watch a movie, that's been banned on the grounds that it's plotless "torture porn" (how I loathe that phrase)?

And if it makes you feel so awful and physically sick, why not stop watching it?

I'm always amused by people who seem to go out of their way to be horrified and outraged about things.

Karl Hungus

There's a more serious discussion of this subject on the films forum here.

My stance on this is that censorship is an abhorent practice. Think back to the video nasty scare in the UK (something we're still seeing the tail end of, considering some films that were originally banned still are banned in the UK, and many films only being released uncut very recently), and ask what did it accomplish? A huge amount of "sick" and violent films were banned, but history has proved it was futile. Violence in society is not a product of fictional violence on film, never was and never will be. Blaming films is scapegoating.

Stercus Accidit

dsmythy wrote: »

How's about the 90 minute fictional depiction of a presumed (but probably not quite) underage girl being sexually abused? In this proposed film there is no character development or plot in sight like the film here that's going to be banned. But sure, once they're over 18 they can buy what they like...

Oh no, pedofilez!


Thats no better than invoking godwins law tbh.


Simulated assault of a minor you say? Well, thats illegal in the first place duh. A minor can't consent, so can't be involved in anything sexually explicit.
If you meant cartoons, well why didn't you say so! And no, my stance doesn't change, if its legal to make, its legal to watch, or will you come up with some other tabloidesque over the top situation to invoke, "omg censor us please nanny state!" style reactions.

So I repeat.

If you are over 18, you should be able to watch whatever the fcuk you want.

Please bear in mind that there are laws against paedophilia anyway, and its a matter for the real police, not some 1950's book burning thought police.

jumpguy

MikeC101 wrote: »

It's not always the case - I've seen a few films that received a lower rating here (though they'd generally be ones that relate to Irish history). The 16 rating is a cinema only rating, any film that receives it is upgraded to 18 on DVD release.

The reasoning behind the 16 rating goes something like this: originally the cinema rating was 15A, so kids under 15 could go to a film accompanied by an adult. But some parents were shocked and appalled and outraged and calling Joe Duffy due to the content of some of these 15A films, so the 16s cert was introduced. It allows more violence, boobies and drug usage.

Not sure I totally follow the logic behind it.

It's upgraded to 18s on DVD? It goes from 16s to the highest availiable cert? What a load of ****e. I feel sorry for anyone with the sort of parents that wouldn't let their child watch an 18s movie at 16.

MikeC101

jumpguy wrote: »

It's upgraded to 18s on DVD? It goes from 16s to the highest availiable cert? What a load of ****e. I feel sorry for anyone with the sort of parents that wouldn't let their child watch an 18s movie at 16.

Yeah, as there's no 16 cert for DVD it's upgraded to the nearest higher cert, which is 18s.

Wikipedia claims the film could be recut to get a 15s cert, I'm not aware of that happening though.

dub_skav

Rebelheart wrote: »

I don't know whether I'd ban it or not from Ireland. I would certainly not allow it to have been available on my local video store shelf along with more conventional movies. Taking home a movie from my local store only to find a guy raping his child ( at least twice, before I ejected the video and returned it) is unnecessary (to put it mildly).

To this day it remains the only movie I have been truly repulsed by.

Would you be happier perusing the sick pervert section?

If it had an 18 cert on it I don't see the problem with it being among "conventional movies" (whatever that means). If it was PG and beside Toy Story I could see a problem

Wazdakka

<Snip>

Joey the lips

Imo this survey says a lot about the user profiles on boards, My attitude as a parent is sensor everything feck it. Kids will see what they want anyway, why make it easier for them.

Joey the lips

Joey the lips wrote: »

Imo this survey says a lot about the user profiles on boards, My attitude as a parent is sensor everything feck it. Kids will see what they want anyway, why make it easier for them.

You're argument is that any material not suitable for children should be censored as they'll watch it any way no matter what you do? That's complete bull, why should other people have their viewing experience limited just because you fail as a parent.

walshb

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8209829.stm
The BBFC have banned a new Jap Horror film and so we wait with baited breath to see how long it takes IFCO to copy them.

So then Cer***ship, for it or again it?
Can a Movie really harm you?

Is the whole business entirely pointless given the internet and our abilty to anything we want, should the Censors office be scrapped for being an archaic institution and being a massive waste of money?

Won't somebody think of the children?

It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I disagree completely that a bunch of adults can sit down and watch this and then decide for the rest of the adult population what is and is not fit for viewing. What makes them all right and us all wrong? What is not nice for some folks may be okay for others. If you don't think you will like it, don't bloody watch it.

By all means, slap an adult cert on it, but how dare they dictate to adults what they can
and cannot view, after they themselves view it? We have had enough of this for far
too long in Ireland with the church and others

o1s1n

Joey the lips wrote: »

Imo this survey says a lot about the user profiles on boards, My attitude as a parent is sensor everything feck it. Kids will see what they want anyway, why make it easier for them.

Whenever I hear people use the term 'as a parent' it instantly makes me want to run out and have a vasectomy.

o1s1n

o1s1n wrote: »

Whenever I hear people use the term 'as a parent' it instantly makes me want to run out and have a vasectomy.

I know a guy who prefaces nearly every sentence with "As a parent...." Ask him his opinion on anything from the war in Iraq to the best pizza topping and you're guaranteed a reply along the lines of, "As a parent I feel that the continuing action in Iraq is there to safe guard my childs future".

He seems to think that having a kid is some achievement and not in fact down to him stupidly believing a girl when she said she was on the pill.

ChocolateSauce

dsmythy wrote: »

How's about the 90 minute fictional depiction of a presumed (but probably not quite) underage girl being sexually abused? In this proposed film there is no character development or plot in sight like the film here that's going to be banned. But sure, once they're over 18 they can buy what they like...

And to whom do we award the right to decide for others what may not be seen? I don't know anyone in the world I would trust to tell me what I shouldn't watch.

No censorship, ever.

komodosp

In the end it probably won't matter too much... It doesn't prevent you from watching it, it just makes you go out of your way to watch it.

I too hate censorship. OK for child porn - there are real children being abused here. (Even if they consented they aren't old enough) or snuff movies, or anything where someone was harmed to make it.

But for anything with consenting adults, why should it be banned? I mean the censors are allowed watch it, why shouldn't the rest of us? We're allowed smoke, which kills thousands of people every year. So by all means, slap a government warning stickers saying, "this shut is ficked up!"

But a feicin taste police is the last thing we need.

And censoring things for adults because you're afraid children will see it is just as bad.

jpm4

Rebelheart wrote: »

I remember, it must be 10 years ago anyway, going to the local video store and getting a new release. I'll never forget the name of the movie (or 'film' as it then was): War Zone.

It was directed by Tim Roth and starred Ray Winstone. It was on the shelf like any other movie there. I brought it home to watch it and there was a father (played by Winstone) raping his daughter, while being filmed by his son. It was horrific stuff.

I'm by no means a prude - even feeling that I have to say that seems unwarranted - but I don't think this sort of film should have been among the rest of the movies in my local video store.

I've seen it.....grim and nasty stuff without a doubt, but the rape scenes were not filmed in a pornographic or titillating manner, so why should it be removed from the other films just because you were disturbed by it? It's a serious subject manner and was treated as such.

Joey the lips

Deleted User wrote: »

You're argument is that any material not suitable for children should be censored as they'll watch it any way no matter what you do? That's complete bull, why should other people have their viewing experience limited just because you fail as a parent.

LOL you are a very funny guy. I express an opinion on censorship and you can map out my whole life. Well done! Ever think of going into fortuene telling!

I simpley ment I would favor making it as hard as possible for kids becuase even the best parenting is innocent to the ways of kids. Just ask any man/women over 50 I reckon 25% of them can send a text message never mind try and grasp the concept of cyber bullying.

gillo_100

Just to say Bruno which was given a 18cert in most other countries was given a 16 in Ireland, and in fact since the new film classification officer has been appointed this has been the case with some other movies as well.

We have moved on from the days of banning the likes of The life of Brian.
One significant difference in my opinion is the change from the censorship office to classification office, while only a name change it does represent the change in attitude of the body.

Anyway back to original issue, for the most part agree should be able to watch what we want, with some exceptions. Maybe they should introduce some sort of 18+, not so much as a classification but more as a warning of extreme sex or violence above and beyond what would be normal.

bleg

IFCO is really after getting way more lax in recent years.

They actually give less lenient age restrictions to many films than the UK.

Fighting Irish

lol who cares

i haven't watched tv/dvd/cinema in years

internet ftmfw

Cookie_Monster

bleg wrote: »

IFCO is really after getting way more lax in recent years.

They actually give less lenient age restrictions to many films than the UK.

So lax in fact that its gone from

Irish Film Censorship Office

to

Irish Film Classification Office