I already explained to you when you first brought all this up that there is a line - if someone or something is getting hurt, then its not art. If kids have fake sex in a film, I still agree that it shouldn't be censored. If everyone is consenting, no one is unwillingly being harmed (although could make an argument that its affecting the kids mentally, but look at child stars that just act in disney movies, they grow up more fucked than most real life rape victims...). So saying the Austrian dungeon stuff could be excused as art isn't true - he could say its art as much as he wants, but it's abuse, pure and simple. And underage people having sex is quite common in European films anyway... like Let The Right One In, I think I remember a scene where both the kids are in bed and when we studied it at uni the lecturer was talking about how it implies they had sex. I can't remember the scene so iunno, but like all coming of age movies deal with underage sexuality.
I don't know how anyone has the right to restrict and censor someone's imagination. No baby was harmed, no baby was raped, it's rated over 18 so no kids are going to see it. It's all consenting adults. You go to the cinema you enter into a contract to watch the film the director has made. If you don't like it, then post a review saying that, but don't censor other people from seeing it.
I mean where would the line be ok for you? If it was an animation? What if it was in South Park and there was a baby fucker episode that's some kind of ironic twist on the King Herod/Jesus story where someone is going round raping everyone under two, and at one point it's implied he rapes a woman whilst she gives birth. Would that be as fucked up? What if it's a stick figure cartoon with a scribble next to a guys penis that has an arrow saying "this is a baby getting raped".
Actually ironically that last one probably would be illegal, because you can't even draw child porn, so if you explicitly say the scribble is a baby then it would probably get you put in jail.
And the issue isn't he could have come up with something different. He could have, he could have made a different film. But he didn't. He made this. The fact is you just don't like it, don't want to see it, and apparently think it's an acceptable example of film censorship.
But ART SHOULD NEVER BE CENSORED.
You know why loads of statues have fig leaves over their dicks or just their dicks missing completely? Cause when Christianity was particularly strong at some point in history, don't know exactly when, they thought it was sick and would corrupt people's minds, so they lobbed them all off. Some great works of art, statues that someone has spent probably weeks or months sculpting to perfection, and some conservative bastard comes along and knocks part of it off - forever. Can't just regrow it or glue another one back on.
Same should be for film, paintings etc. etc.
Him trying to appeal to a broader audience has nothing to do with it either. He might not want to be making a blockbuster that's gunna be number one at the box office. He's made a film to make a statement. If he wants a wider audience, then he could easily release another cut of the film without baby rape and the dick murder or whatever, as well as a director's cut version which is fully intact. But it would be his choice. It shouldn't be the choice of some censor board.
Author
Topic: A Serbian Film (Read 175 times) Share