How far are you allowed to go?

[bluefox4000]

We all can decide what we want to see or not. Censorship is a no no.

Mick

[fjp999]

I see. Well this wasn't much of a discussion then. I was expecting at least someone to advocate the removal of some REALLY disturbing material. Explicit combinations of necrophilia and paedophilia perhaps.
...

_____I don't like their way of rating things either; it's terribly inconsistent. I remember some movie where a girl masturbates (with her clothes on!!) that got an NC-17 rating whereas extreme amounts of violence are tolerated.

To the first points...

Whenever such subjects are put into films, especially paedophilia, it does cause a lot of discussion... the classic discussion starts with "How much trauma was the child actor/actress put thru?"

Now combinations of the two... I do think you might be pushing the boundary

On the second point...

The rating system in the USA was first started by the Catholic League (I believe). That went on for years and was eventually changed to the system we now have which is a mysterious group. There have been docs done which have tried to uncover the members which seem to be a lot of religious members as well as (seemingly) stuffy housewives.

As you say they often want cuts to the mildest sexual activities but let the violence flow. Many directors have even tested this trying to combine the two and it is always the most basic of sexual acts that get the ax while getting the ax is just fine :O

___________________

As to Pix...

There is a problem with your comparison of labeling food and film. It is easy to label food but what you ask for is not so simple. You go thru a list of things that some would define differently than others.

Someone would have to label a film for you who had the exact same taste as you... impossible. Also they would have to go thru the film scene by scene destroying any thrill the film would have of the first experience...

[Counselor]

If the rating system in the US is run by nuns (generalization, don't care much) it makes sense that the board would allow violence over "borderline pornography".

[monk]

I've never understood why they're so hung up on sex. Violence is the real obscenity, but that's okay apparently.

[SolemnBoy]

There's a pretty good documentary called "This Film is not yet rated" that explores the various ratings as well as the people who decide on them. Admittedly some of the directors that have been victimized by NC-17's are a bit whiny but other than that it's very informative. It showcases some of the really bizarre decisions of the board.

[Pix]

In response to above (which I can't show because the autodraft won't let me and I trust it's not really necessary), I wasn't talking about taste, like "how good/funny/gross" something is, just like "rape, graphic violence, etc." I suppose "graphic" can be subjective but some already use descriptions like that anyway and seems easy enough to define by how much blood and damage is portrayed. I see an objective definable difference between parody and slapstick as well. I suppose "clever" could be clarified as one that uses twists of phrases, song lyrics, etc, whereas fecal works even better than toilet humor.

The one part I'd like pointed out that could be a problem as "too subjective" are the "tragic humor" ones. (Just how in the hell does anyone find close loved ones dying and things like that funny anyway? :confused: Maybe if I knew the appeal of it it could have a more objective label, something better than "dark humor," especially as I don't consider it "dark" or "graveyard" at all but rather a tragedy with comedic elements that actually sharpen the angst of it rather than finding a way to laugh about it.)

[SV20]

if you can think about it? then you can portray it in art.
i've watched some sick movies through out my short life, i have a library of 2000 films, from english to Korean arabic and japanese, some were very chilling and some were just... experimental.
the more you suppress people and creative minds the more they would fight and create something much more diabolic, so what if the film is rather avant-garde? so what if there's rape or murder in it? after all, most of this crap happens generally all around the world.
i am completely against censorship.

[partisan]

films like hostel (torture porn) just think there awful and pathetic, not good for anyone, i worry for the filmmakers (i spend an hour and half watching, they spend months investing into it)

On the other hand free speech of course must be respected

and theres lots of good video nastys i have seen and enjoyed, if, its a good story,

[Story]

I have mixed feelings. While I believe in free speech I often wonder what type of messages are often trying to be conveyed from these more graphic movies. There's a difference between someone presenting a film with dark elements to make a point versus a film maker trying to go all out on gore for shock effect. Going back to the idea of what movies try to convey I've seen movies that I really question the messages being sent. Good example The saw series. In this movie, the deranged mastermind is glorified for his extravagant ways of making people torture and kill each other. Yes I used the word glorified. The way he is presented as this untouchable villain who always gets his way disturbs me. Even if most audience members never sit there and think "oh I want to be just like him," they are still presented with a message that glorifies the situation. And It makes me wonder who is being receptive to those messages as well. I hope that made sense :-p it's early here

[Lalo]

Like everyone else, I am completely against censorship (for adults). But I also believe that we are already working with an uneven playing field. Violence is practically lauded but sex is anathema for the U.S. rating system. It is really quite ridiculous.

Having said that, I think the bigger question is what will our society tolerate in a truly uncensored world? Just because everything should be available legally, doesn't mean that their isn't an ethical question associated with the idea of self-censorship. In other words, where would we draw the line as individuals? I think that is the a more interesting question.

For example, I find violence for shock value to be an extremely sophomoric trick to play on the audience. It is one of my biggest problems with Quentin Tarantino. I think that he is a brilliant director for the most part. But I think that his reliance on shock value is really beneath him and really cheapens what might otherwise be a long list of exceptional films. It also deadens the senses and creates an audience that is immune to real human experiences. Sorry, but I don't find that artistically gratifying in the least.

I have similar feelings about the visual arts. To me, an artist who spray paints a pile of dog crap gold is not a genius...or even an artist. He's a self-absorbed, shock-master who is using shock-value to forward his own notoriety.

On a final note, I also truly believe that we have become incredibly lazy thinkers as a society. We demand to be spoon-fed images of gore and violence, forgetting that the best brush to paint with is human imagination. Sure, we can create just about any scene with computer generated imagery, but that doesn't mean that we should. Sometimes, the scenes where the camera pans away at the last minute are the most gruesome, because our minds fill in the gaps and our own personal fears become realized. I think that type of production is much more a form of art.