Cool News
Copernicus Praises Michael Fassbender's "Fulsome Magnificence" In SHAME!
Fox Searchlight is doing what it should in releasing SHAME with an NC-17 rating, rather than neutering it. Artistically, and and even commercially, a bowdlerized SHAME would be an impotent and flaccid. This is a film about hardcore sex addiction -- cutting away as our protagonist is mired in the depths of his affliction would ruin the central drama upon which the film is constructed, rendering it dead on arrival. And it makes about as much sense as showing married couples sleeping in separate beds. Such quaint notions of censorship have no place in our wondrous era of carnal delights from the internet pornucopia. In fact, ‘quaint’ isn’t a strong enough word to describe the MPAA’s attitude of casual censorship -- I’m not sure English has a word for hopelessly, ridiculously, destructively out of date. And don’t give me that doublespeak that it is voluntary so it isn’t censorship. It isn’t voluntary for audiences (they don’t release two versions of films in theaters), and the MPAA is effectively a cartel.
But let’s not pretend Fox Searchlight is doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They can’t release the film unrated, since they are members of the MPAA. They can’t edit it because it would kill the dramatic viability of the film. Furthermore, Steve McQueen is an honest-to-god internationally recognized artist (i.e. he started in another medium and another country), and censoring his work would intellectually carry a much greater stigma, nearly rising to the level of international incident, than, say, asking Len Wiseman to drop a “fuck” or two.
Not that any of the above has stopped studios before. More likely, this is a rare case where a studio realizes that chopping the film would also commercially damage it. Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan show full-frontal nudity for more than just fleeting glimpses. For better or worse, more people will pay to see that than an art-house piece about addiction. And to be fair, Michael Fassbinder *will* be getting an Oscar nomination, deservedly so, not only for his acting, but (forgive me), his balls-out acting. Cut that last part, and the golden goose of the Oscar nomination is jeopardy. But the most telling fact is that, at least according to IMDB, Fox Searchlight paid only $400,000 for the US distribution rights. When you pick up a film for the price of the lunch tab on a tentpole you can trot it out as your shining example of artistic integrity to distract people from remembering that you are a part of a de facto censorship system for art. The MPAA *is* the studios, so beatifying them for being “daring” by releasing an NC-17 picture is like praising your boyfriend for only hitting you some of the time.
Enough about the business. My wrath is aimed at the studios, and some of the media regurgitating their propaganda. The filmmakers, who made SHAME to tell a story without regard to commercial viability, deserve heaping amounts of praise. I saw it at TIFF, and it was one of the most buzzed about movies this year.
In the film, the protagonist, Brandon, is a New Yorker who seems to have everything going his way. He dresses stylishly, is successful in business, he’s got a well furnished place in New York, and he has the looks and charm of Michael Fassbender. Of course, behind the veneer he’s furiously addicted to sex in all its forms: masturbation, internet porn, casual encounters with women, and prostitutes. These things dominate his daily routine, even to the point of putting his well-being into jeopardy -- he watches porn at work, gets off the subway to chase women with whom he shares a glance, and prefers the company of prostitutes to the intimacy of a relationship. But his carefully constructed life starts to unravel when his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), pays an unexpected visit and, from his perspective, invades his life. She’s emotional and needy, where he’s stoic and distant. The two clearly have an unconventional relationship -- something awful, possibly depraved is lurking in their past, although it is never addressed directly. As a result they regularly push each other to the brink of self-destruction, even barging in to have an argument while the other while one is showering, or worse, masturbating.
It is these kinds of scenes that make SHAME so uncomfortable, yet so powerful. The performances are as good as acting gets, sometimes done for minutes at a time completely in the nude. Carey Mulligan does one scene fully-frontally nude for about three minutes. As hard as it seems to believe, because of the context, it isn’t titillating at all. When one of the hottest starlets in Hollywood can do a nude scene and make you just want to put some clothes on her, that’s great acting. These scenes underscore the vulnerability and damaged nature of the characters, and take the film far out of the comfort zone of conventional Hollywood narrative into an unsettling, yet more revealing, voyeuristic territory.
Much of the credit for SHAME is due Steve McQueen, who is an artist who happens to be working in film. Each shot is carefully composed, whether it is the wrinkled bedsheets or the tracking used in a sex scene. Yet, as befitting the subject matter, the film is never beautiful -- like the main character it seems, gloomy, cold, and distant. The uncomfortable situations and uncompromising vision of the film will no doubt turn many viewers off, but I found them interesting, if at times almost stifling in their weight.
Stories about men and women being laid low by sexual misadventure are as old as storytelling itself (see Oedipus Rex), but McQueen gives this one a modern twist, drawing upon ancient themes while taking the narrative it into relatively unmined territory using the novel possibilities offered by the ubiquitousness of the the internet and the anonymity of the modern labyrinth of New York.
What happens when your tools of self destruction are always readily at hand, the bonds of family and friendship that restrain your dark side are removed, and there are plenty of willing participants to speed you along in your downfall? This is a fictional story about sex addiction, but the broader strokes could apply to distinctively modern sorts of catastrophic implosions we’ve watched collectively in cases like Charlie Sheen or Michael Jackson.
Carey Mulligan and Steve McQueen are great, but it is Michael Fassbender’s performance that makes this film something unforgettable. His character’s got charm, but he’s got a deep, dark core that he’s hiding from the world. But beyond that, he’s almost a predator, something like a wild animal stalking prey. Yet at the same time he has a very human vulnerability. And I don’t know how he did it but he somehow manages to convey that he’s sexy and in control, while simultaneously seeming desperate and full of despair.
Now I don’t know if Fassbender was rocking a stunt cock or what, but let’s just say that my reaction to him in his fully uncensored glory was approximately that of Tom Hanks in BACHELOR PARTY upon seeing “Nick The Dick”: reluctant amazement, giving way to awe. As I straight man, I am here to tell you that this thing in its fulsome magnificence is the kind of talisman that can unite a divided nation, and has such power that it will lift us out of our economic malaise. Audiences will be blown right past revulsion or defensiveness into a state of wonder formerly achievable only by meditation or reflecting upon the cosmos. And that’s the real reason SHAME can’t be anything less than NC-17. Its best supporting actor would end up on the cutting room floor.
-Copernicus
-
+ Expand All
-
Dec 02, 2011 1:48:46 PM CST
Copernicus = Interesting. Will it invoke a comparison to Boogie Nights? If so how would it, well, measure up?
by trollspotting
-
Wow...this site can be so juvenile sometimes. Plus it's probably fake since the same stunt has been done in Boogie Nights and that Eric Bana in Chopper.
-
exactly how big is Magnetos penis? These are the burning questions that people want answered!
-
ok, come on, a whole paragraph about fassbenders dick. but yes, its one to be envious of. see jonah hills rant from knocked up about kevin bacons dick in wild things, because i dont feel like talking more about it. aside from that, i thought the movie was very good, but pales in comparison to hunger.
-
Dec 02, 2011 2:08:40 PM CST
All I want to know from a Copernicus review is: IS IT SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE?
by royston lodge
Can Fassbinder's moans be heard in the vacuum of space?
Does his spunk breach the speed of light like a naughty neutrino?
Does Carrie Mulligan teleport with no regard for Heisenberg's Principle? -
Dec 02, 2011 2:11:44 PM CST
I look forward to "The Science of Shame" on The Discovery Channel.
by royston lodge
So say we all.
-
Dec 02, 2011 2:16:05 PM CST
Oh Lord - I just realized that the Brian Cox jokes are going to start again. I'm outta here.
by trollspotting
-
Dec 02, 2011 2:56:54 PM CST
HEY COPERNICUS --Legally, the rating system is entirely voluntary --NO film HAS to be rated!!!!
by mcgootoo
You say:
But let’s not pretend Fox Searchlight is doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. They can’t release the film unrated, since they are members of the MPAA.
-----------------------------------------------------
BUT, they CAN release the film unrated. It is by choice that they don't. There is nothing that forces any studio to release a film rated. It is PURE economics - AND COWARDICE>
Legally, the rating system is ENTIRELY voluntary. However, signatory members of the MPAA (major studios) have agreed to submit all of their theatrical releases for rating, and few mainstream producers (outside the pornography niche) are willing to bypass the rating system due to potential effects on revenues. Therefore, it can be ARGUED that the system has a de facto compulsory status in the industry.
BUT THEY ARE NEVER FORCED TO SUBMIT FILMS FOR RATING!!!!!!
-
I am available....
-
It's hard enough competing with Fassbender's face.
-
Even though he hasn't seen it in person.
-
Cause we've already got one McQueen, and he's pretty famous.
-
Dec 02, 2011 4:00:18 PM CST
Well, David - we HAD a Steve McQueen already. But, you're right.
by impossibledreamers
The current Steve has to know how confusing it is. He needs to take the step to change it if anything so that at least he won't be thought of as living off someone else's name.
-
Can't we drop this whole "Steve Mcqueen needs a new stage name" thing? This guy works hard at what he does, and it's not as if he's dragging the name through the mud. If anything it works as a nice and sketchy marketing scheme.
And buckwheat69... I'm pretty sure averting your eyes whenever there's a cock on-screen makes you the closet homo, bro. There is a very specific and time-tested system for detecting the hidden homosexual, and that's one of the first bullet points.
I think that you should come out via AICN talkbacks. -
Dec 02, 2011 5:23:24 PM CST
As I recall, Mulligan's got one of those preemptive strike, napalm the village, just leave a few bristles standing jobs
by marcel_the_negro_projectionist
As she's a natural blond, it's hard to tell. But it's all there, in its frontal glory. Doesn't save this plotless wonder though (but comes damn close!). Imo. -
Dec 02, 2011 5:49:24 PM CST
want to see this. can't imagine going to the cinema to see it though.
by waka_flocka
-
The male lead was average looking, had a minimum wage job and a small penis.
What do you do if you're a sex addict and THAT'S your life? (And, before you start typing 'You post on AICN's Talkbacks!', I'd like to point out that if you indeed had a sex addiction and were on the internet, you would not be reading AICN...)
This is another "First-World problem" film; Two attractive people who are well off and live in New York have lots of sex with others and argue. Yeah, there are regular people going through this type of stuff but, they're ugly and poor, so, fuck them.
Ahhh, the Entertainment Industry.
Helping the lives of dozens. -
good post
-
Dec 02, 2011 7:15:11 PM CST
Tophat: A friend of mine says that back in the 70s, she and her hot friend...
by marcel_the_negro_projectionist
...were at a party and approached by a short, hairy, not very attractive guy named "Ronny" who smelled funny. He identified himself as a struggling off broadway actor, and proceeded to attempt to seduce one or both of them. My friend steered clear, but her hot actress friend couldn't resist the Wookie bait, reached for it, and was corralled into doing the nasty in an empty room with him. Afterward, she told my friend she regretted it, but he had the biggest dong she'd ever seen. A couple years later they saw that he'd changed his name to Ron Jeremy and was now in LA making porn films.
All of which is a roundabout way to say that unattractive men with sexual addictions often go into porn. -
Well done and very true.
We try to look like the guy with no luck. Try to move metal until our heads hurt, no dice. Now it seems Magneto can also "satisfy a blue whale", as I believe Jack put it in Anger Management.
Seriously though, I doubt I'll ever see this, at least not in the theaters, but good for Fassbender still getting the work.
-
Copernicus’s indignation may be at a rolling boil, but it is so unfounded and misguided that one wonders what fuels it. The first mistake is in the statement “don’t give me that doublespeak that it is voluntary so it isn’t censorship.” The fact that Copernicus even wrote this sentence betrays his understanding that the charge of censorship is eminently challengeable. It’s not, however, on the basis of its voluntary nature that the ratings system doesn’t constitute censorship; it’s on the basis of the dilemma that a) it doesn’t prevent any filmmaker from making any film that his creative and financial and collaborative wherewithal allows, nor does it preclude a distribution company from distributing it, nor does it deny a theater owner from showing the movie, nor does it prevent any consenting adult from viewing the result and b) it is not imposed by the government.
It would be well for someone concerned about doublespeak to think twice before making “censorship” an example of it. The fact that Copernicus is fuming in frustration over the MPAA’s ratings system does not justify characterizing it as censorship. That is, “censorship” does not mean “quaint” or “hopeless” or “ridiculous” or “destructive,” even assuming that the ratings system is any or all of these.
The Hayes Office could credibly be called an organ of censorship; it imposed through governmental agency restrictions on the free expression of ideas. The ratings system came along in 1968 as a method of eliminating the censorship. It is an advisory system. The only persons prohibited from viewing anything under the system are children from viewing NC-17 movies. If a parent considers it appropriate or necessary to have his pubescent daughter watch Michael Fassbinder masturbating on screen, then he will have to suffer the heinous consequence of waiting for the VOD or Bluray.
The second paragraph of Copernicus’s screed is equally clouded. He writes, “But let’s not pretend Fox Searchlight is [releasing SHAME with an NC-17 rating] out of the kindness of their hearts.” Who is pretending that and why should it matter? Copernicus’s point is that the movie should be released intact in its NC-17 form, as the filmmaker intended it, that doing so is a good thing. Then who cares what their motivation is? It is preferable that the right thing be done for the wrong reasons than for the wrong thing to be done for the right reasons. After all, it is not the motivation that helps or hurts someone, but the thing that is done to or for him. Copernicus writes, “...censoring his work would intellectually carry a much greater stigma, nearly rising to the level of international incident...” The censoring charge and the preposterous hyperbole notwithstanding, the idea is that Fox Searchlight would be afraid of some sort of international artistic backlash if they were to alter McQueen’s movie to avoid the NC-17 rating and it is from this fear that they shrink from doing so, rather than “out of the kindness of their hearts.” Personally, I can think of few things less frightening than bearing a stigma imposed by the international artistic community. Be that as it may, where is the evidence that this idea plays at all into the decision to release “Shame” in its intact form? In other words, did Copernicus pull this idea out of anywhere other than thin air?
Copernicus continues in his third paragraph with “More likely, [Fox Searchlight] realizes that chopping the film would also commercially damage it.” So the commercial interests and the artistic interests intersect. And from this grows outrage? Seems to me that this is the ideal confluence.
-
Dec 03, 2011 1:51:22 AM CST
Wanting to put clothes on an already naked Carey Mulligan??!!
by gabba-uk
In my world that would be illegal. Still interested in this movie however not sure how to go about it. Going alone means your a member of the dirty mac brigade, going with male friends looks and feels wrong for no reason I can verbally identify and going with a female friend sends out all the wrong signals given the subject matter. Its a quandary.
-
Also...
PENIS. -
Dec 03, 2011 2:16:35 AM CST
If Magneto's got a hard-on does that mean his wang was acting as well?
by tallboy6t6
Actors usually disassociate themselves from their character's actions, but if he's rocking a stiffy does that mean he has such genuine acting prowess he can make himself aroused while being fully dedicated to the craft?
-
I'm gonna be up for an Oscar by just thinking about a naked Carey Mulligan and not needing her in the same room to help my method acting.
-
Dec 03, 2011 3:08:19 AM CST
Fassbender looks as though he would have an uncircumcised penis...
by liam_howlett
And i for one, would NEVER let an uncircumcised member anywhere near these lips!
-
Sutureself - great analysis!
I think you would be hard-pressed to find a word that gets abused as much as "censorship". Censorship is when the government tells someone that they can't write THIS, can't draw THIS, can't perform THIS, can't sell THIS, and so forth, or tells someone that they can't read/hear/partake of THIS, based on the government's opinion of the contents.
Censorship is NOT when someone decides it is bad business to fund some artist's work, or to distribute a particular movie unless there are cuts made, and so forth. Those are business decisions, economic decisions, about how people want to spend their own money. You may agree with those decisions, or you may disagree with those decisions, but such decisions do not constitue censorship. You have a right to create any work of "art" you so choose. You do not have a right to have that work of art sold, displayed, performed, etc, at someone else's expense.
And, with all due respect - take a good look around. In America, today, a lot (most?) homes have Internet access, which means that, 24/7, the most violent, sexual, provocative, controversial, base, high-minded, beautiful OR profane material is never more than a couple of clicks away, any time, any where. It is hard to think of another time in history when so many people had so much access to so MUCH material of all types, at all times, right in their homes. In this context, to rail against a voluntary rating system that does little more than allow consumers to know what "kind" of movie they are considering seeing is, IMHO, overkill. And if you have a problem with movie distributors or theater chains being squeamish about showing NC-17 features, you may be able to make an argument there, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you think their squeamishness is based on prudishness versus their read on the economic fallout of such a decision.
I will say this - there is some truth, I think, to the out-of-balance standards relating to portrayals of violence and portrayals of sexuality. When you consider the levels of violence and sadism featured in many R-rated features (think of the "torture porn" genre!), and you consider how the ratings board would likely treat equivalently graphic depictions of sexuality, something DOES seem out of whack. But again - IMHO - that is a far cry from "censorship", and it hardly keeps most people from having access to sexually explicit materials (and that is a huge understatement!)... -
he should play every parts and his dick would get the supporting roles
-
Well stated. No one is blocking the release of the film, or editing attempting to alter it prior to its release. Calm down, Copernicus! You like seeing the cock; we get it...
-
Dec 03, 2011 2:11:53 PM CST
I totally agree that Torture Porn shoulda been NC-17, not people fucking
by tallboy6t6
Seriously, that's one thing I don't get about the States rating system, or TV FCC guidelines. Show people getting killed constantly, cool, but a boobie? Nooooooooooo!! In Canada we only go as high as 18A, and frankly a hellova lot of R-rated movies in the US are 14A up here (Scream 4 is a recent example). 18A = need an adult to get a pass in. Canadian R-rating = basically NC-17. Which movies get, like, never. In fact, I can't remember seeing an (Canadian) R-rated movie ever and, trust me, I see a SHITTON of movies.
-
Sutureself, I disagree with you but it is nice to see some actual discussion here, rather than the usual dick jokes (which, admittedly I invited), or people who can't comprehend that two people can have the same name.
Government censorship isn't the only kind of censorship. If I buy a piece of art from someone, then paint a fig leaf over what I find objectionable, then display it, that is still censorship. That's what studios do all the time. SHAME was an independent film, and after being publicly screened at Venice and Telluride was bought by Fox Searchlight. Had they then cut it and released it, it would have been censorship.
Does this mean that any ratings system is censorship? Absolutely not, but *as practiced* the MPAA system often results in censorship, even if it is not strict legal censorship. That's what I meant by "de facto."
What if all makers of web browsers got together and decided that every web page had to be rated. Then if certain ISPs got together and decided to block web pages with a certain rating, that would be a system of censorship. Even if you thought each party was acting responsibly, they would be part of a system that resulted in de facto censorship. That's what we have in the movie industry today, where some chains (e.g. Cinemark) won't show movies that are NC-17. Whether it is business or moral decision is irrelevant.
And I agree that companies are not obligated to generate content that will not make money. But that's different than buying art and modifying it. -
Dec 03, 2011 3:11:24 PM CST
Yeah but the Fucking Company can buy that art and if they modify it they make more money
by tallboy6t6
The Fucking Company (Trademark Ripley in Alien3) bought the art. They can now do whatever they wish to it. The Fucking Company can chop chop chop all the live long day because they think they can turn a profit if they modify it. So that's totally within their rights as the person who bought it. If that's unfair to the art and the artist, they shouldn't have sold it to the Fucking Company in the first place. Or had something in their contract when they turned the aforementioned art over that "you cannot chop this". I'm not a fan of censorship but there's a difference between the government trying to shield people from what they think it immoral vs. a company modifying something they own outright.
-
tallboy, it is not true that you can buy art and do whatever you want to it. In certain cases the integrity of the work must be protected, even after it is sold. The concept is called "moral rights": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)
For example, The Eaton Centre in Toroto commissioned a sculpture from an artist of birds in flight. When they put a bunch of bows on the birds, the courts ruled that they could not do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v._The_Eaton_Centre_Ltd.
The US has the same concept, but, somewhat arbitrarily, here it is limited to what is called "visual art," which does not include films. Also, if the artist agreed that the buyer could modify the work, that would be ok.
Never have I said the studios don't have the right to do this under US law. What I'm saying is that the MPAA system of rating movies, combined with the stances of theater chains being unwilling to show movies with certain ratings, often results in artists visions being compromised (sometimes against their will) and this is de facto censorship.
You say there is a difference between the government acting in this way and a company. I agree -- I didn't say they were the same, I just said both can be called censorship.
-
Dec 03, 2011 9:40:09 PM CST
tophat has perhaps never heard of the refractory phase or period?
by gotilk
That's *the recovery phase after orgasm during which it is physiologically impossible for an individual to have additional orgasms*. In my case, that was always when I'd visit places like AICN.
Poking fun a bit, yeah. But kind of truthfully, you know you can only have so many orgasms a day and you have to fill that time with something. It also can't all be tiddlywinks and conversations with a spouse now can it?
-
Dec 03, 2011 9:45:45 PM CST
I also see evidence of the common misunderstandings that follow
by gotilk
claims of censorship around. The idea that it isn't censorship if someone in a position of power (like a government) doesn't right out stop it from being seen, directly.
Censorship comes in many flavors and styles, and they are ALL CENSORSHIP. One of those flavors is *voluntary*, another is called a business decision. Many times censorship happens when it doesn't have to, or when no force or direct power is used to make it happen. But it's still censorship. Even so-called self-censorship is still just good old fashioned censorship.
Might want to consider backing off Copernicus here a little, if you want to be taken seriously. You just have no clue what you're talking about.
You're welcome. -
Of an intelligent person who just doesn't have the first clue as to what censorship is. EVEN the most basic dictionary definitions simply describe it as *the act of censoring*. The lack of mention of any means of power or source of power causing said censorship is no accident. And don't you dare cite wikipedia in your arguments. Not only does it support my description, but is also woefully incomplete in its analysis and history. It is censorship if it is censored, simply and completely. No grey areas. As much as that goes against many world views and often-cited opinions on the matter. Even academics can display brazen stupidity in regard to such things, especially if they take part in certain *think tanks* (I'm looking at you, Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, directly at you and your 400 or so faxes and newsletters a day going out to radio programmers and editors nationwide daily who have substituted your *strategy* for news and reality... mmmm hmmm) with an agenda to re-define the word, jotting down talking points on yellow paper and contemplating tenure.
Try as they may, nothing will ever make censorship NOT censorship. It's very important to recognize when you've been duped, whether directly or indirectly, gradually or suddenly. These things can creep rather than pounce.
-
GOTIK - Wordgames are great, but at the end of the day, your definition of "censorship" makes the term meaningless. Utterly. By your definition, every time any individual in a society refuses to fund a particular piece of expression, or covers it up, or the like, it is an act of "censorship" that is the equivalent of a government agency banning the production of said piece of art. Sorry, but for me, that is a total non-starter.
To be clear, I have no problem at all with someone wanting to critique the ratings system, or objecting if, for example, a chain of booksellers refused to carry a certain book for ideological reasons, or whatever. What I do think is silly, however, is the argument that such things are the moral equivalent of true, meaningful "censorship". I think I stated it pretty clearly, above - I think "artitsts" should have the right to create any work of art they see fit (assuming they don't break other laws to do so - for example, a snuff film!) but they don't have any right to compel someone else to pay for its distribution, or to compel someone else to buy it, etc. When the latter happens, and it is equated with an act of real censorship, I think it cheapens the term.
-
The MPAA does not censor, but it does intimidate as do theater chains, as does anyone of any business who refuses to advertise a film based on it's rating.
It is not censorship.
But it might as well be.
MPAA ratings are supposed to be a guide for keeping films with questionable content from the eyes of the young, but, like our current economy under corporate rule, it has mutated into something much more oppressive.
FUCK THE MPAA.
]
-
ALL MOVIES, ALL CONTENT, FOR ALL PEOPLE.
If society crumbles because of movies being seen by kids, THEN adjust it.
GODFUCKINGDAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
Settle down there buddy.
-
You know, I found most of what you said completely accurate, except that what you first describe is what we call *rejection* not censorship. And I wouldn't even go as far as to say ALL kinds of censorship is unacceptable. It might be terrible, wrong, a bad decision, or even just a bad decision artistically on the part of the one responsible for the art/product. If I made it sound like any decision that alters a work is censorship, that wasn't my point at all. I would say that any decision that alters a finished work IS, even if it falls under the category of self-censorship. I think we all have a pretty good idea what's going on when a finished work is altered for a reason that is NOT artistic , and I certainly wouldn't call a rejected work censored. If say, a studio says *we want your film, but only if you cut out all the nudity*, then I'm afraid that type of rejection is indeed censorship, ESPECIALLY if , rather than other than when, the artist does so. I hope that made better sense and if it did not, apologies in advance.
But rejection is still rejection and censorship is still censorship. Mainly because the artist always has the right to say *NO*, just as the entity purchasing rights or a license for said work CAN do what they want with it, yet cannot avoid being censors if thy censor. It would be like me buying your bicycle design and then destroying it, then claiming that what I did wasn't destructive just because I had the right to do so. Still destructive, even though it was well within my rights. Doesn't change the act. Censorship is a description of an act, not a judgement of ownership.
Thanks for your response. -
Nah, man. Don't settle down. I like your passion.
-
here in the UK we have a government body called the BBFC. The BBFC has a number of staged ratings for film and video being the following:
U - Universal, suitable for all.
PG - Parental Guidance.
12A - Suitable for 12+, younger at parents discretion.
And then we have the solid ratings which NO-ONE complains about:
15 - You must be 15 years of age or older to see this film. Not admittance underage.
18 - You must be 18 years of age or older to see this film. No admittance underage.
The likes of the Saw franchise from 3+ in it's 'Extreme Editions' were all passed with an 18 rating uncut. As was Hatchet 1 and 2.
What is wrong with audiences being told that a film is not for kids or young teens and that it features adult content being violence, drug use or sexual content? The 'R' rating is fucked up and is for no-one except the studios to make more money buy allowing in younger audience members! -
Something about this comment stream grew the hell up. It must be the water.
A film about sex addition with major stars.. full frontal nudity.. maybe-consensual, broken, curious sex.. a review that's unafraid to talk candidly about an erect cock and a straight man's reaction to seeing it.. random musings on censorship etc etc and loads of funny, interesting commentary. Good stuff, everyone should be congratulated.
What I think is funny is that these taboo-defying films come out with alarming frequency. There have been loads of other explicit, relatively mainstream flicks that feature scenes of genuine penis and vagina-laden magic and for 2 seconds every new one feels like a timely NC-17 earth shattering event.
Most deal with extremes and a kind of 3rd act sexual brutality that is telegraphed the moment the first festival reviews come in. I'm thinking here of your 'Last exit to Brooklyn"s, "Looking for Mr Goodbar"s, "9 Songs", "Shortbus"s, even "Boogie Nights", "American Beauty", or that one with Meg Ryan masturbating in the bath. I guess the similarity is that it's always the up and coming stars who are getting genuinely into it. Too established (Tom and Nicole) and it's tired and sucks.
2 things: Is there really such a thing as censorship in this day and age when banning/cutting/NC17/unrated really means having to wait 3 months for the dvd to come out? And a million web sites will show you exactly what you were looking for the moment you type it in? Every studio knows extremity has a shelf life and they'll happily compromise/delay artistic vision if it means continued interest in a product for months to come.
Also, favourite mainstream sex scene? I've always been fond of Mira Sorvino in "Summer of Sam" and the 'Everybody Dance' group sex bit - it's lovable, it's payback, it's 1977, what's not to love?
-
either rape, mental illness, or gauzy cutaways.
Is sex ever portrayed in any big budget movie as it actually occurs 99% of the time in real life? -
Dec 06, 2011 10:14:22 AM CST
menacingphantom: That would only take up about 30 seconds of the movie.
by royston lodge
Hay-oooooo!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 301 total posts 301 posts
- UPDATE!! What The Hell Happened With G.I. JOE: RETALIATION?! -- 185 total posts 185 posts
- THE EXORCIST Is Being Remade... -- 161 total posts 160 posts
- Remember when I said I’d kill The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day last? I lied. -- 155 total posts 155 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 145 total posts 145 posts
- Quint has seen the brand new Jaws restoration and demands that Universal do a wide theatrical rerelease this summer! -- 138 total posts 138 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 276 total posts 134 posts
- The day we've all been waiting for has arrived...IN THE ARMY NOW II is in the works! -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- A New Clip From PROMETHEUS!! Charlize And Fassbender Talking About...Something (?)... -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Honest Abe Dishes Out The Vampire Violence In The New Red-Band Trailer For ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER!! -- 53 total posts 53 posts