“ Too much or just right? „
I think movie censorship is an important thing because as much as we would all love to watch anything we want with no restrictions in a day and age it just can't be possible. It's so easy to access any movie you want regardless of how old you are so things need to be kept to a minimum to prevent a movie getting into the hands of the wrong person. That is my personal opinion but lets explore the history of British censorship.
The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) is in control of what certificate every movie released in the UK and it was founded in 1912. As an overview what they do is watch movies before they are released and give them a classification as they see fit. They seem to have alot of power by telling the whole UK what they can and can't watch but they are not part of the government or for profit they are simply an organisation that give guidance on film ratings. 9 times out of 10 there ratings are followed through but there have been cases where there ratings where overturned in certain areas councils and banned or given different ratings. At this present day the BBFC is currently just 15 individuals all from different backgrounds who come in to work every day and watch movies and classify them by a set of guidelines.
---------How There Classification Progressed-----------
In 1912 they where set up and in 1913 is when they started dishing out classifications for movies. The two ratings U meaning universal for anyone to watch and A meaning adult content for restricted views. Everyone who submitted a film was desperate to get a U rating because cinemas all over the UK weren't so happy to put A rated films in their cinemas because they came across tainted and unjust. In 1921 they introduced young people being allowed to watch an A rated film with an adult present. I think this was a good move for the but at the same time more ratings needed to be introduced because there is a huge gap between adulthood and childhood.
In 1932 H rating was introduced which was a good move because horror movies tend to be the movies that are riddled with adult content so to make the rating more specific was a smart move. The H was then changed in 1951 to X which only allowed people over the age of 16 to enter. X was the most controversial rated that was ever passed by the BBFC because it was the dreaded rating that many directors fought to get dropped. If the X rating was given to your movie it was like a waste of production because nowhere wanted to play it and they made very little money. Directors would write letter and make endless cuts to there movies just to get the rating dropped. In 1970 they progressed onto making an AA rating which allowed people 14 and over to watch anything of this rating. I think this was needed because there are things that a 15 year old can watch but a 12 year would not be suitable for. I think adding the rating mad the rating system more effective.
In 1982 was the most dramatic change to film censorship in the UK when the old ratings where scarped and new ones put in place. This was mainly due to the video recoding act that was put in place to censor the limit of how much violence could be shown in a film. The U rating remained as universal but PG, 15, 18 and Restricted 18 were added to the list. Being the peak of the Video Nasties era the higher ratings such as 18 and Restricted 18 where being given out like nobody's business. Up to roughly about this stage it was just one person giving out these classification which I think is a big job to pin on one person because If your doing this sort of job on your own there is no doubt that you will end up using you personal views to help justify your ratings. This is not good and for me it's better in it's current state with 15 in the panel.
In 1989 the 12 rating was passed and in 2002 12A was passed. I personally think today is best the censorship rating system is the best it has ever been because it has closer ratings such as 12, 15, and 18 so there is not caught in the middle of someone watching something that isn't really suitable for them. Like when it was U and A at the beginning it was just too far apart to be useful.
I think it's good that ratings by the BBFC limit the amount of violence, blood, gore etc can be show because it can influence peoples actions. You may be thinking a I'm an adult I can watch what I want but with all the technology these days it's just so easy for kids to access things they shouldn't be watching. There are alot of people that have vulnerable minds and will replicate things they see on in movies for example the James Bulger case where the kid was brutally killed by kids after they saw chuckie. These events are few and far between but they still are alive and kicking. I think censorship is a good thing and it protects us from things that some people just can't handle. I know people say well if you don't like it don't watch but you have to remember not everyone knows there limits and not everyone even reads up on movies before they watch them.
18 is the highest rating to date but if you notice it is becoming very uncommon these days as rating are dropping. I personally think this is the reason that so many kids are growing up to fast because they are being allowed to watch things that are too old for them. American Pie: Reunion was released this year as a 15 and as most of us know this show is based around sex, sex and more sex. Although the movie didn't have much sex in it the themes shown in some way just promote sex and here in the UK 15 is not legal so why promote how fun sex is to people under age. It may sound like I'm being a little extreme but it's things like this I think is personally given teens the wrong message. On the other hand this movie has way to little adult content to be an 18 so where is the in-between well maybe moving 15 to 16 would be a good idea. I think it's just to little to late overall and the younger generation have by far been exposed to to much and it will just get worse. Along with the media movies are corrupting the younger generation.
-----------My View From An Adults Perspective-------
I think for adults it is a little unfair that they can't watch anything they want but at the same time it's for the good because like I said before not everyone knows their limits. I had a lecture with one of the censors from the BBFC and they said that even an 18 has heavy censorship. Some of the things that they can't pass as an 18 are heavy graphic sexual abuse, paedophiles involved in heavy graphic scenes, heavy torture that violates human rights. One other thing was if a couple was having an intimate scene they can't allow a child to be in the same scene even if it is just a picture.
Do I think it's unfair Yes but even for an 18 rating it's necessary to censor some things because even adults can replicate what they see because not all of us are strong minded so it's still essential.
I do think censorship is needed but I do think some things need to be reconsidered to allow people to have more freedom in what they can watch. It's a hard topic but it's one you can't be selfish about and need to think of all the possibilities of things that can happened if there was no such things as censorship.
Right let's get down to business. I don't want to bore you with lengthy rants, legal precedents and historical details about censorship but it is a subject I feel strongly about.
Generally I disagree with censorship as a whole as expression through art and media is equally valid to expression through free speech. I think it's fair to say that music and video games have almost broken free of censorship and adopted a sensible rating system in terms of the latter.
Film however continues to be subject to strenuous cuts which do on occassion ruin the experience. Some have become notorious and made classics like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which incidentally I didn't like at all, others driven underground to 'secret fan clubs'.
I often have cause to wonder, as you probably have, who has decided that we are to be 'protected' from content which is deemed 'harmful' and more importantly what criteria has been used to assess our capability to view these films. Opinion on the content, message and philosophy of a film is a very divisive but also a subjective matter. It is akin to big political decisions being made 'in the interest of the people' where we have no option to discuss or vote the issue and, invariably, there ends up a situation in which we are financially at a loss!
I think films should be screened in their entirety as the director intended but there should be very strict controls on the sale and distribution of these items as and when they become commercially available to the public. We currently screen excessively violent films when the narrative or character development demands it, so how do we decide at what point we have to intervene and censor a film?
My feeling is that it just seems irrational. There is no consistency in the editing decisions. Do we specify a body count? Do we allow blatant and repetitive blasphemy? Do we show full intercourse with climax?
A classic example is the recent Japanese horror film Grotesque. It has been refused a certificate at all as cutting the film would have no significant effect on reducing the level of violence. This means it is not legally available anywhere in the UK or even as an import. Now I have seen this film, with Japanese audio, and it is extremely violent and sadistic and would no doubt leave you feeling pretty sickened.
So at some point between the mainstream releases of Hostel and the Saw series and the ultra nasty torture porn of grotesque there is a point which is getting progressively harder to find. So I ask you, who holds the moral compass and who decides it's pointing the right way?
I'm fundamentally opposed to censorship. In principal, I believe that everybody should be free to say what they think, watch what they want and believe what they want, provided that they accept that not everybody will see things the same way. It's a tolerance thing. Even when people say really stupid or judgmental things, I think it's entirely appropriate to allow them to say them. To deny people such rights creates an undercurrent of repression, bitterness and often hatred, sometimes fuelling extreme ideas on the basis that believers become martyrs to their cause.
There is a very common mentality in the world today that if somebody finds something offensive, or that they disagree with it, then it should be removed from sight. Those who have no interest in (or importantly, don't understand) a genre of art, cinema or literature will often call for it to be banned; to be removed from sight lest it corrupt our very souls. I think this is a profoundly ignorant and potentially dangerous attitude. Children and adults should be bombarded with as many varying images, attitudes and people as time permits. It's what shapes us as individuals. It's where we get our identity from. As we go through life, we pick and choose things that match our belief system and reject those that don't. Put quite simply, it's what makes the human race tick.
In recent years, there have been a number of high profile murder cases, such as the brutal murder of the toddler James Bulger. These crimes, quite rightly, horrify society and leave us wondering how such crimes could possibly have been committed. How could man be so very cruel to another man? Naturally, it seems, we need to find a culprit. We need to find someone or something to blame - and violent films and computer games have increasingly come under fire. But do these entertainment products really contribute to these crimes or is society simply barking up the wrong tree?
Generally, I don't believe that violent entertainment leads to violent crime. To suggest so, to me anyway, shows a critical lack of understanding around the psychology of these things and highlights the ignorance of those campaigning for the ban. Don't get me wrong; I don't (and wouldn't) deny these critics the opportunity to criticise horrific films but I would challenge most of the assumptions they (wrongfully) make.
I've been a big fan of horror films since I was around 16. Surprisingly, up until that age I was very weak-willed; even The Towering Inferno terrified me. However, as I grew up, I found myself fundamentally entertained by the whole horror genre. I've often debated and discussed this with friends, some of whom share the love of such films and some of who don't. What I need to make clear is that I don't enjoy the idea of real people suffering nor do I actually enjoy the idea of fictitious people suffering, because there's only really a small distinction.
Horror films appeal to me in a number of ways. They are, for me and many others, an extreme way of satisfying a need for justice. The plot of most horror films, for example, will eventually lead to the bad guy / alien / monster being vanquished and killed in the most brutal fashion. The build-up is extreme and often very harrowing, but the badder the bad guy, the more satisfying it is when he finally gets the chop. Some modern film makers satisfy this need particularly well; in Hostel parts 1 and 2, the bad guys are so wicked, you're virtually willing the victims to tear them apart with their bad hands by the end. There's a moment in Alexandre Aja's remake of The Hills Have Eyes when one of the mutants is about to finish some poor guy off and instead, at the very cusp of his death, this guy finds enough strength to run a pickaxe through the mutant and turn the tables. It is one of the most satisfying moments of recent movie history. A psychologist might say (and I would agree) that this is actually a very healthy way of viewing a film like this. Look at the beliefs exhibited - innocence, good overcoming evil, the bad guy always gets it in the end. I'd be quite happy for my children to think like this.
If you look closely at some horror writers, the lines between the good and bad guys are often blurred, too. In the Saw series, serial killer Jigsaw puts people through various tortures to try and make them learn lessons about their lives. Nobody could argue that it's an acceptable thing to do, but the writers are trying to make a slightly more profound point here, albeit demonstrated in a very visceral and shocking manner. How many bad guys are the victims of a broken home or child abuse? Surely horror films are actually also a moral warning to us. Michael Myers is a fictional killer; but his childhood torment simply mirrors that of many real children. Perhaps there is a point of learning, here?
There's another reason we like horror films. We like to be frightened. We like to be shaken out of the normality of our every day lives. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say we need it. There's comfort to be taken from a horror film. At the end of the film, you can walk away, safe that in real life, such things (normally) don't happen and gosh, aren't we lucky for it? I think it's entirely healthy to use a horror movie for escapism.
What about violent video games? Well, I'm not such a fan of those, so I can't comment so closely, but it strikes me that there is a similar appeal. (Frankly, I'm just too lazy to stick with them.) Certainly, the escapism is there again and I can clearly the see the potential fun to be had from dashing around shooting zombies and / or people. Our lives can seem very normal, very simple and very law-abiding. Sometimes, we need to know what it feels like to be the opposite to take comfort from the way we are.
What I would say is that none of my interest in horror films stems from a need to be inspired. There is nothing in a horror film that would inspire to go out and replicate the act. There's nothing that COULD make me do that and for 99.999% of the population I believe that the same thing applies. For many people, the appeal that I have discussed doesn't apply to them personally and that's fine. That's what choice is all about and that's why I AM a big supporter of film certification and warnings on content. I think people should know if something contains gore or sexual imagery. Parents should have advice on what MIGHT be suitable for their kids and what might not.
So what about the other 0.0001% of the population? Yes, I suspect there could be a tiny, disturbed minority of the population who could be inspired to commit a violent act by a horror film or computer game. But then, men have always done horrible things to men - and horror films are a fairly recent invention. I don't imagine that the Moors Murderers were inspired by something they saw on a movie; nor was Frederick West. It has been argued that prolonged exposure to images of horror desensitises you to them and that you are no longer able to distinguish between right and wrong. This is bobbins. I've seen literally thousands of horror films and whilst it may now take more to shock / revulse me on screen, I can assure you that stories of real-life violence or torture still have the same effect that they always did.
Opponents argue that violent crime is on the increase and link this to the availability of horrific film material. I think violent crime IS on the increase, but I think you need to look more profoundly to find out why that is. Teenagers and young adults are beating and stabbing each other to death. I would suggest that this is more of a symptom of deeper-rooted problems in society. The growing divide between wealth and poverty; useless parents unable to break free from a cycle of useless parenting and actively discouraged from doing so by the welfare system. I'd be more inclined to blame politicians and leaders seemingly incapable of acting in a selfless, uncorrupted manner, seeming to exist only to serve their own greedy agendas. Or perhaps it's a bulging economy where even the basics seem to cost a fortune and our entire belief system is based upon profit and monetary value? It strikes me that each generation is becoming increasingly embittered than the last, as the world just goes further and further down the toilet. But it's these same corrupt politicians and leaders that are required to turn around some of these changes who, instead, misguidedly spend their time trying to ban horror films, simultaneously demonstrating their complete lack of social understanding of what makes their constituents tick. It's only human nature. When the going gets tough, the tough go for the easy targets, which horror films always have been.
I don't imagine that opponents of horror films will ever be silenced in any way, and nor should they. But to enable censorship, to prevent people having access to this kind of entertainment is ridiculous and fundamentally wrong. If the horror films were to go tomorrow, the violent deaths wouldn't - and what would the censors turn to next?
The Times recently reported that a Conservative MP, Julian Brazier, is trying to get the UK's video censorship laws tightened. He's latched onto an old video nasty, SS Experiment Camp, and is using it to revert the UK to the bad old days of the 80s and 90s.
SS Experiment Camp is an idiotic film (and unlike the authors of stern op ed pieces in the Times and Express, I've seen it). It depicts some bad stuff - mutilation, upside-down crucifixion - and sounds on the face of it to be immensely disreputable. (Concentration camp exploitation was a short-lived sub-genre that developed after the success of semi-respectable films like The Night Porter and Salon Kitty.) But as the BBFC has pointed out, the film is made with such ineptitude that it's more likely to amuse than offend. The overall impression is of an infantile attempt to shock rather than a genuine attempt to transgress. It certainly doesn't support Nazi or anti-Semitic viewpoints; I don't think it has any viewpoint, beyond hinting that testicle transplants are a bad idea and that the Nazis weren't terribly nice. It certainly isn't in good taste; but since when was it acceptable to start censoring on the basis of taste?
The BBFC has passed this film uncut. The BBFC's sole purpose is to judge the effect films will have on audiences and rate and censor accordingly. An MP and a few journalistic hacks do not know more about what is acceptable in a film than the BBFC does. And the BBFC is hardly an organisation of woolly-minded liberals - the UK still has some of the strictest film censorship in the Western world.
We've always had moral panics about censorship. Certain types of person just aren't comfortable with the idea that other people should be allowed to watch, read or listen to whatever they want. What seems to be different about this latest attempt is that it seems to be based purely on bourgeois notions of taste.
In the past, censorship panics focused on 'harm', on the idea that watching horror films has a damaging effect, especially on children. Awful, high-profile crimes like the Hungerford massacre and the Bulger murder were blamed on violent films. This has always struck me as rather cowardly; people are looking for an easy scapegoat rather than trying to examine what really causes horrific things to happen. It's natural to want simple, easy explanations in the wake of terrible events, but the truth is almost always a complicated interaction of several factors. In the case of the Bulger murder, the killers hadn't even seen the film that the tabloids blamed for the crime.
This is about fear of the working class, as ever. The late James Ferman, former head honcho at the BBFC, once famously told an audience that he banned the Texas Chainsaw Massacre because, while it was fine for middle-class cineastes like them, it would be disastrous if it fell into the hands of 'a factory worker from Manchester', a remark worthy of Brass Eye. It's always been about class - about ring-fencing middle-class pleasures to keep the great unwashed out of sight and out of mind. The view seems to be that working class people are dangerously childlike and impressionable, and that if they see something on television they will attempt unthinkingly to re-enact it. This is ludicrous.
SS Experiment Camp has been available, uncut, in many countries outside the UK for more than 20 years; the Holocaust has notably not reoccurred. If there *were* credible evidence that watching violent films caused violent crimes, then that would clearly offer justification for censorship. But that isn't happening this time; we're instead presented with the attitude that films like SS Experiment Camp shouldn't exist simply because they offend the sensibilities of the middle-class.
A low-budget horror film like Cannibal Holocaust has scenes of animal cruelty removed while a Hollywood film by an 'important' director, Apocalypse Now, ends with a cow being hacked to death. Grindhouse sleaze-a-thon I Spit On Your Grave has its rape scenes removed; subtitled French arthouse movie Irreversible has an explicit, ten-minute rape scene left intact. If you're going to censor one, you should censor the other. It isn't the job of state censors to judge a film's artistic merit. You can't legislate on the basis of taste; that's what Stalin and Hitler did. Islam is often criticised in the UK media for being overly censorious. I don't see how you can criticise any religion for repressing freedom of expression if you support film censorship.
The pro-censorship campaigners have chosen their target well; I can't imagine many critics or academics stepping up to defend SS Experiment Camp. But if you oppose censorship it isn't enough to just oppose it in good films; you have to oppose it in the bad ones too, otherwise the next time the government wants to earn some easy credit with the right-wing press, they'll start banning the good stuff.
This is an unsurprising argument from a long-time fan of horror movies like myself; many bad horror films try to hide their paucity of ideas by throwing in buckletloads of gore. This is a very partial opinion full stop - I'm not addressing pornography, partly because it's a more complicated subject, but mainly because I don't enjoy porn so haven't bothered to think about it much. This probably makes me every bit as bad as the Sight and Sound reader who congratulates himself on owning the BFI's DVD of Salò, but would sneer at the very notion of SS Experiment Camp.
I can't believe that there will really be a tightening of film censorship. If there is, what happens to all the ex-video nasties I own? Will they become illegal again? Will we start seeing police raids? I doubt more censorship would be workable. Unless the UK is going to start blocking what its citizens can view online, like China or Saudi Arabia, then people will always be able to import racier films from abroad, something many horror fans already do. Other fans will just download the films illegally.
But it's the principle that bothers me. I don't understand why I, as an adult, shouldn't be allowed to watch whatever I want, as long as no one was deliberately harmed in the making of it. I would never make a Fundie Christian sit down and read a Harry Potter novel; nor would I object to him reading a book about Creationism. Would he extend me the same courtesy?
That's what angers me. I don't try to impose my views on others; I don't try to make it illegal to watch films I don't personally approve of. Why are other people so arrogant that they believe they know what's best for me? How can they possibly presume to say that their taste in films is better than mine, or anyone else's? If we were all a lot more tolerant towards each other there would be less nastiness in the world. We should keep the nastiness on DVD, where it belongs.
I decided to put forward this topic (Though wasn't the first to get an opinion up... Damn you, sparkymarky1973! Damn you all the way to hell!!!) for discussion as it's one that has always been a very big issue for me.
For many years now, the BBFC has been overseeing film, video and now DVD releases in the UK. From establishing what certificate a film should be given through to trimming out anything that they deem to be unsuitable for us to watch - like we're stupid and can't decide for ourselves what we can
handle when it comes to our own viewing.
The thing is, we see horrific images on the news every single day now. From the memorable and terrible footage of the World Trade Center Twin Towers being brought down by hijacked jets to actually showing bodies in body bags when reporting from one of the many wars or awful incidents that have happened the world over. I hate to say this but we probably ARE getting
de-sensitised to unhealhty imagery - but I doubt that it's due to anything we can see in movies - reality is always much, much worse.
Maybe I'm beginning to show my age or am looking back with rose-tinted glasses - but in either case, I simply can't remember seeing such awful things on the news when I was younger. I'm not saying such things weren't reported - as of course they were - just perhaps not shown in such an
Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy our movies are frequently treated like idiots by the BBFC who feel that we are unable to make up our own minds. This is not helped by ridiculous media hysteria that results in movies and video games being blamed whenever something terrible happens - and the
perpetrator blames a film or game that they have been influenced by. When are people going to stop allowing these media from being used as a bloody scape-goat by these idiots?!?
I remember shortly after the tragic murder of James Bulger, the media reported that the two boys who killed the toddler - Jon Venables and Robert Thompson - had been obsessed with imagery they had seen in the horror film Child's Play 3 and other "violent movies". The Sun and other so-called crusaders started to cry out for a ban on "video nasties". Once again,
movies got the blame for parental failings. Quite frankly, these boys should not have been allowed to watch whatever they wanted at such a young and impressionable age.
Shortly after that point, I remember The Sun running a cover story of someone who had murdered someone and was blaming it on a killer from a horror film who had spoken to him and urged him to kill. Unfortunately, the movie serial-killer in question was Michael Myers from the Halloween series.
Note to mentalist would-be murderers out there and to stupid-arsed, gullible, print-any-crap-as-long-as-it-causes-sensation-and-makes-money *ahem* "newspapers"... If you're going to blame a heinous act on a killer from a movie, make sure he's one that ACTUALLY BLOODY TALKS!!! Michael Myers
doesn't speak a single word in ANY of the Halloween movies!
Anyway... I've found a very, very useful website for anyone who buys DVDs and wants to know whether the movie they are buying has been butchered by the BBFC or not.
This website has an enormous list of DVDs - both American Region 1 and European Region 2 (from all over Europe - not just the UK). This compares such things as picture and sound quality, extras and bonus materials on the DVDs and whether there have been any cuts made.
I've been fortunate enough to buy some DVDs elsewhere (while I used to live and work in Luxembourg and Belgium) that are uncut - unlike the versions available here in the UK. Some of the films I have in my DVD collection that have been cut here in Blighty include the following:
This film was due to be passed uncut by the BBFC upon cinema release - but with an 18 certificate. Warner Brothers accepted the proposed cuts by the BBFC in order to make this film the 15 certificate that it now is in the UK in order to have a bigger box-office return.
So the UK version is missing head-butts and ear-slaps during a few fight sequences but what is almost worse is that all of the punching sound effects in those fights have had the volume reduced on the UK version - in order to (quite literally) reduce it's impact. How bad is that?!?
The only thing that is different on my French DVD is the opening title of the film. Instead of reading 'THE MATRIX', it reads 'MATRIX'. That's surely a small price to pay for the peace of mind that the BBFC boys haven't had their grubby mitts and scissors all over the version of the film you're about to sit down and watch...
INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM:
Again on the French disc, the scene where Mola Ram lowers the sacrifice victim into the fire is uncut. You actually see him pull the victim's heart out from his chest before a shot of the chest sealing itself up - presumably due to black magic. When the victim is placed face down in a cage an lowered into the fire, it is much longer and to be completely honest much more brutal than the cut UK version as there are more shots of the sacrifice victim burning up...
Please note: The films noted above were just a few examples of very, very popular movies that are not the full and uncut versions you may think you already own. I'm not saying I'm a gore hound or that violence actually makes a film better - but if they don't detract from the story that is being told then I see them as a part of the story - and shouldn't be removed if that's the way that the story was intended.
There are many other movies that are cut in the UK and will undoubtedly keep being cut. You can always check out the BBFC's own website:
They are always honest about cuts they have made and at least this can give you an idea of cuts made at the time of cinema release. Otherwise for anything on DVD, I can't recommend dvdcompare enough.
Happy viewing, folks! Don't let the BBFC bite!
Thanks for reading!
Although it seems we are currently in one of the more relaxed times of movie censorship,it still galls me that what we watch is governed by a jury of people who decide what we are and aren't allowed to see.The censors sole purpose as I understand it is to decide what certificate a film should be and,by all means,if a film depicts someone having their eyes removed with tweezers then it probably should be an 18;but don't stop me from watching it if I decide I want to see it.
I'm sure we all remember the eighties and the introduction to our homes of videotapes.How many movies then were banned under the "video nasties" law that was passed?Too many I say!!
Most of these !"banned"! films are now available on DVD-some edited slightly,some in their original form-but really most of them weren't that worth watching anyway(Driller killer anyone?)it's just it would've been nice to have a choice.
Just because a few parents couldn't show restraint and let little Jimmy watch alien chestbursters from hell 3 with all his other 13 year old mates,we all had to suffer.It wasn't our fault he wet the bed for a week straight and screamed every time he saw a mirror but we all had to pay....it was a dark time where all our rights were being infringed and the goverment said basically that none of us were responsible enough to be trusted with any violent,gory movies and took our right to see them away from us like a naughty child.
Like I said at the beginning,these days our censorship laws are a bit more relaxed but when anyone accused of a horiffic murder claims "it wasn't my fault,its because of this film I saw when I was 12",I see those days on the horizon threatening to return...
Whatever your belief is about whether or not violent movies influence killers to act(and I don't think they can be held solely responsible),we,as adults,have the freedom of choice to make up our own mind what we want to watch even if others think these films are sick and depraved.Obviously there have to be some limits(i.e;snuff,paedophillia or bestiality all of which are rightfully illegal and morally wrong by any standard)but lets be sensible about things shall we and avoid the ill-fated P.Cness that has infiltrated every other aspect of our daily life.
The current system whereby uncensored versions of films are available on DVD with extra scenes that often weren't shown in the cinema for whatever reason works and I implore censors to leave things as they are.If it ain't broke,don't fix it!!!
Speaking for myself,I want the censorship board to allow me,a mature sensible adult apparently,to be able to judge for myself what I do and don't want to watch.If I don't like what I see I can switch off-it's no big deal but if I am mature enough to drive a car(which can and does kill people every day),or make descisions for myself let the descision of what I want to watch be mine and mine alone......
Apart from that you censors do a good job!!(Rant over-you can come out now....)