The Censorship Poll

Tools    


Your opinion on censorship is...
7.14%
2 votes
Censorship is a necessity!
57.14%
16 votes
Censorship is wrong!
28.57%
8 votes
Be smarter with censorship!
7.14%
2 votes
All of the above
10.71%
3 votes
Other
28 votes. You may not vote on this poll




Let's try to be broad-minded about this
I voted All of the Above because i'm indecisive like that but really i think everything is situational



I was watching TV, and on a saturday at 2 pm in the afternoon they were showing Pulp Fiction. Little kids just flicking the channel get to see a man raped, an overdose, and the most prolofic use of the swear word M.F. ever seen. You better believe a kid can read lips. Thats sloppy, and stupid. Thats exploiting freedom.
Don't you have some kind of screening thing on your tv channels in the US? On our terrestrial channels that film wouldn't be shown till after 9pm and if it was shown on sattelite or cable they're be a pin number to watch it.



Don't you have some kind of screening thing on your tv channels in the US? On our terrestrial channels that film wouldn't be shown till after 9pm and if it was shown on sattelite or cable they're be a pin number to watch it.
LOL! The ethics of the cable industry is nonexistent. Nip/Tuck, The Shield, and other sordid shows prevail making it easier for harder programming to show earlier. At least thats what it seems.



Censorship is a necessity! 2 7.69%
Censorship is wrong! 15 57.69%
Be smarter with censorship! 7 26.92%
All of the above 2 7.69%
Other 3 11.54%
26 votes.

The point of censorship isnt to "kill art", but makes it palpable to everyone. Sorry to follow up on my own post, but an excellent example of smart censorship is The Sopranos. The Sopranos was nowhere near as sordid as The Shield, and Sopranos is on pay per view HBO. The Shield on a normal cable channel FX. The Sopranos had depth, and could handle the most serious subject matter whereas the cop show Shield would sensationalize anything because it hadnt been done before. Ill try and explain clearer - The Shield was showing men & women being raped, graphic torture, and subject matter that a motion picture bureau would consider a NC-17 rating. The Sopranos told stories. Huge difference!

From certain film buff perspectives TVs been accused of being camp, cheap, and oversensationalizing. Film has fallen to such lows too now with the straight to dvd market, and theatres more and more going to the wayside. With the failing economy in the U.S., and desperation to make $ censorship will be challenged more and more now rather than the pursuit of a quality product. When confronted with such decision the easier routes always taken, and imo wont be to our liking.




The point of censorship isnt to "kill art", but makes it palpable to everyone.
How this isn't killing art is a mystery to me. Art isn't supposed to be palpable to everyone.This whole PC world you seem to live in is unrealistic and silly. Without creative freedom films really just become lifeless entertainment.Do you want to start airbrushing breast out of paintings too?

Sure,maybe you don't want to see people knocking boots,But often times it is important to the narrative and needs to be shown.If your whole thing is "We can't offend people" then why don't we just stop making any film above a PG rating.To censor films essentially strips it of some of it's artistic merit. Sure,being subtle can be good in certain instances,But a movie about sex needs to show the sex.

Also,not sure where you are going with the Hitchcock references. He's a great director,But he's also been dead for a while and movies have more artistic leeway now.Who's to say he wouldn't include any of the things your prude mind is offended by in his films.

Overall,I say that censorship is wrong and if you are offended by such a thing then don't watch it.It's just that simple.



How this isn't killing art is a mystery to me. Art isn't supposed to be palpable to everyone.This whole PC world you seem to live in is unrealistic and silly. Without creative freedom films really just become lifeless entertainment.Do you want to start airbrushing breast out of paintings too?

Sure,maybe you don't want to see people knocking boots,But often times it is important to the narrative and needs to be shown.If your whole thing is "We can't offend people" then why don't we just stop making any film above a PG rating.To censor films essentially strips it of some of it's artistic merit. Sure,being subtle can be good in certain instances,But a movie about sex needs to show the sex.

Also,not sure where you are going with the Hitchcock references. He's a great director,But he's also been dead for a while and movies have more artistic leeway now.Who's to say he wouldn't include any of the things your prude mind is offended by in his films.

Overall,I say that censorship is wrong and if you are offended by such a thing then don't watch it.It's just that simple.
Creative freedom doesnt mean someone has a free pass to show whatever they want. You think the market stifles "art" today to an outrageous extreme your delusional. Have you seen Jackass?! There goes the argument of "art" being stifled because people feel its in bad taste. Have you seen American History X? There goes the argument that "art" is suppresed because of anti semitism. I hear Dakota Fanning is raped onscreen in an upcoming or already released movie. Oh boy I wonder if this will start a trend, but I do know it doesnt help nor is necessary.

Writers need editors. Stephen Kings best works were done when an editor chopped 20% of the book. Same with Anne Rice cause her earlier works make her later ones look like babble. Music example take the Beatles. Lennon and McCartney were very different in their solo works, but neither of their songs could hold a candle to their joint efforts when theyd chop each others ideas apart, suggest, etc... So when another artist suggests an omission its ok, but when a parent doesnt want children to see an overdose, rape, etc... in a position of power to make that decision theyre a dullard?! Thats wearing blinders to protect your views, and thats the same thing theyre accused of. So every movie ever adapted from a book needs to follow the book or its untrue?!

Sometimes an artist needs tempering, and all the happy sunshine blown up their arse is counterproductive. Regarding the Dakota Fanning reference it would probably be more chilling if it wasnt shown or just heard and not seen. If that was suggested by a suit the art community howls first never realizing theres a better way of storytelling. Or being accountable for failing to tell the story, and getting all points across to a larger audience.

I brought up Hitchcock who I consider is the Edgar Allen Poe of film, but didnt realize he had a rape scene in one of his films. I guess he had the craft to pull it off without offending the mainstream. The answer is artists need to step up their game and stop whining about being held back by censorship. Right now its more open than ever so thats not an excuse or a problem imo. Actually they need to tighten the belt, and be smarter with what theyre enforcing.



The phoney baloney debate about censorship and the right of expression burns my butt. There were lots of glimpses of nudity in early films until it disturbed the local standards of small towns that showed the films. Then all sorts of codes were imposed because Hollywood had earned a reputation for lewd living and even rape and murder. Then in the late 50s early 60s, movies started pushing the envelope on nudity, adult subjects, and profanity. Claimed they were depicting "the real world," after apparently depicting Fantasyland for the first 50 years or so. Truth was, the movies were losing audiences to TV that people could watch in their living rooms. But TV was broadcast over public airways and therefore regulated. So instead of improving its product, Hollywood fell back to providing things that American TV didn't show--more and more nudity and more and more profanity. Then came the unregulated cable TV industry and started beating the movies at their own game. Freedom of expression and reality don't mean a damn--it's all about pulling in the viewers. Both sides will keep pushing the envelope until they finally go too far and society again cracks down on them.

Meanwhile, in any town big enough to have a post office, there's almost always someplace one can go and see live all the nudity and hear all the profanity one cares to, if one is big enough to toss the admission fee onto the bar.



Sure,maybe you don't want to see people knocking boots,But often times it is important to the narrative and needs to be shown.
Right on! And it is equally important to the narrative that the movie show us real wounds and blood in the violent scenes too! I'm all for throwing away the blanks and using live ammo in movies like Heat and the 3:10 to Yuma remake. Give Leatherface a real chainsaw next time. I'm tired of having to imagine what death looks like--show me the real thing by blowing away a few stars and extras. A lot of 'em need shooting anyway.



How this isn't killing art is a mystery to me. Art isn't supposed to be palpable to everyone.This whole PC world you seem to live in is unrealistic and silly. Without creative freedom films really just become lifeless entertainment.Do you want to start airbrushing breast out of paintings too?

Sure,maybe you don't want to see people knocking boots,But often times it is important to the narrative and needs to be shown.If your whole thing is "We can't offend people" then why don't we just stop making any film above a PG rating.To censor films essentially strips it of some of it's artistic merit. Sure,being subtle can be good in certain instances,But a movie about sex needs to show the sex.



Overall,I say that censorship is wrong and if you are offended by such a thing then don't watch it.It's just that simple.

**If you're ever in the mood to watch a good movie about sex that doesn't actually show sex try renting "Peyton Place" sometime--it's an example of how a good director can work with censorship and still tell a great story.
__________________
~~More DVD extras, please. Thank you.



A system of cells interlinked
As a big supporter of FREEDOM and a thirty-something adult that works his ass off, I feel I should be able to choose my content without people who THINK they know better attempting to "protect" me.

Censorship = FAIL
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Film makers should self-censor their own work. Sometimes things are just gratuitous.
__________________
You cannot have it both ways. A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never. (The Red Shoes, 1948)



And if you look at the old films, they can still be very effective without gratuitous violence and whatnot.



I like gratuitous violence and whatnot. Screw censorship.

Moviegoers who don't like such things have the responsibilty to research a movie before they see it to avoid being exposed to them.



And if you look at the old films, they can still be very effective without gratuitous violence and whatnot.
But that's the whole point. Why shouldn't there be film (or any other kind of art) that use gratuitous violence? Or sex? Or anything else for that matter. If you watch Babette's Feast or Eat, Drink, Man, Woman you could say that those films use food gratuitously, and they do, but that's the point. You could say that this sketch gratuitously uses silly walking



And you'd be right. The sketch doesn't have to be this long and the walks don't have to be so silly or numerous, but that's the point of it. Replace the walking for punching and it'd be called gratuitous.



I like gratuitous violence and whatnot. Screw censorship.

Moviegoers who don't like such things have the responsibilty to research a movie before they see it to avoid being exposed to them.
Yes, but it's a cheap way out, most of the time, and only indicates a lack of intellectual control. If they were advised to cut them down, we'd get films of much better quality.



Not all movies need "intellectual control." Movies are entertainment. They don't all need to contain social commentary or any kind of message. If that's what you like, great, watch that kind of movie, but nobody should be telling me or anybody else what I can and cannot see on the screen.



Yeah, sure we should have films which are fun but trashy, but there aren't enough films that have the power of some of the classics because with censorship, you had to write around things, had to suggest, be more clever about things. And yes it was a pain when you needed gratuitous explicit things but it did have some plus points.

Of course, if you were making a trashy film, your self-censoring would still produce what some people may think is gratuitous explicit content because that's the point of the film.



Yeah, sure we should have films which are fun but trashy, but there aren't enough films that have the power of some of the classics because with censorship, you had to write around things, had to suggest, be more clever about things. And yes it was a pain when you needed gratuitous explicit things but it did have some plus points.

Of course, if you were making a trashy film, your self-censoring would still produce what some people may think is gratuitous explicit content because that's the point of the film.
Well said. I feel people regard censorship as just a longer word for "no". Everyone hates to be told "No you cant", and artists howl that they cant show anything they want.

Do you think JAWS would have been as good if the shark worked, and what was suggested when we watched JAWS would have instead been plainly shown. Sorry JAWS wouldnt have had the impact, and would have been a less dramatic watch. That shark was at its scariest when we couldnt see it.

No censorship didnt have anything to do with JAWS, but it shows how Speilberg was able to make a piece of art from such a restriction. Speilbergs good, but many artists today whine and cry rather than try. Sadly the MTV generation today cant seem to wrap their minds around the fact you dont have to "show it" too achieve immersion.



Not all movies need "intellectual control." Movies are entertainment. They don't all need to contain social commentary or any kind of message. If that's what you like, great, watch that kind of movie, but nobody should be telling me or anybody else what I can and cannot see on the screen.
You're right. And I won't be satisfied until I see a film with the guts to show cute little puppies being fed live to alligators and boa constrictors.