Censorship

I may have worded what I was saying wrong - I think that people have a right to do whatever they choose, when it's in reason...I also think that the reason theater chains DON'T want to carry certain movies is BECAUSE of the corrupt ratings system. It's a cycle. A ratings system that works needs to come first, and then when it's finally discovered that there is a market for adult-themed films, there will be no need to "censor" an artist's work so it can play in theatre chains.

About parenting...I think that if a child is raised well and taught well, then a movie won't have an effect on them. Movies can touch you emotionally, but I believe that good parenting is what defines the line between right and wrong, reality and unreality. (is that a word?) And all I'm asking is, why should an artist have to suffer because of the lack of good parenting? The artist shouldn't be attacked, the parents should.

And I think ryanpaige made a good point: when parents want to protect their children, they often come up with solutions that will keep the movie from everybody, not just their kids. This isn't fair.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

It's about time I made a good point on one of these threads.

WOW! That was a lot of reading.

I will restate my opinion. Censorship is wrong and if done should be done by the parent and not the government. Why does the government of the right to tell me what I can and cannot see. I remember at one point reporters were saying not to look up to Bill Clinton but instead to look up to your own parents(I do look up to Bill though he is the man). It is the same with movies, parents should control what they want their kids to see. If Clockwork Orange was re-released in the theatres and I was denied access, I would start a freakin riot. The same if I was denied access to see a picture of the Virgin with Child because one of her breasts was showing. Art is art and it should never be compromised. I'm even against editing on television for a movie: like cutting out a scene for time constraints or having it formatted for your screen.

All movies should be shown in wide screen (most at least) otherwise it is just wrong!

listen, all i'm saying about censorship is that when government restrictions force freedom of expression to cease, it's wrong. a chain of theaters deciding not to play a certain movie is a good example of a business making morality a priority, which is not wrong. i'm talking about people who think legislation-based censorship is a good thing, should understand that it's not, because it turns legitimate free-thinkers into criminals, and that's not at all what freedom of speech is about. a chain of theaters not showing an nc-17 movie and the government deciding certain things should and should not be in a movie are two completely different things, like apples and oranges, really. read my above post about this thread having no specifics on what type of censorship is being discussed. censorship can exist on several different levels, and the effects and execution can be almost opposite. also, some people feel that censorship is not even currently being executed, and they don't see where the lack of justice really is. my point is that a little can lead to a lot. if there were a particular group of people who think that Movie A should not be released by a major studio because it doesn't conform to their moral standards could theoretically lobby to have that movie taken out of theaters permanently. it would escalate from there. entire genres, directors, and movies targeting specific demographic groups would all be taken out of the theaters by politicians, and other people who are not very concerned about first amendment rights.

by the way, twt, you asked where these violations of censorship were. well, honestly, i never said that there are any taking place right now (at least not in the states) but there are people who are trying to make it happen all the time. there are lobbyists down in dc right now spending thousands of dollars to make sure that only certain movies get released. i see protests going on outside of major movie studios when a controvertial film is about to be released. this happens all the time. i don't think the studios or directors should give these people an inch. also, it's a lot worse in australia and europe than it is here, so look at some of the examples there.

Well, I certainly assumed that things like this were taking place, given the incredible outrage being shown in this thread. Anyway, I too am against legislation, so long as the movies in question are not breaking any laws.

However, I have NOTHING against people starting protests (as long as they are peaceful) in response to a movie being released. My general sentiment is that as long as you don't have to start filing lawsuits, protest about whatever you want.

What about in Oklahoma in 1998 when a judge declared that the 1979 Academy Award Winning film "The Tin Drum" (won for best Foreign Language Film) be pulled from shelves in six video stores because there is an implication (though it is not shown) of oral sex between two minors in the film? The police went to each video shop taking the video off the shelves. The police also confiscated video rental records and entered the homes of people who had the movie checked out in order to confiscate the videos (the police didn't even bother to get a warrant in order to violate the Federal Law that protects video rental records).

And actions such as what happened in Oklahoma can have a chilling effect beyond the actual instance. Do you think that video stores in Tulsa might be a little more wary about what they put on their shelves now after having the police raid the place for a couple of videos?

Or how about in Dallas where a comic book store clerk was arrested because the store carried adult comics? Do you think people might be less willing to create products that might be considered by some elements of society to be "dirty" for fear of being arrested? (Of course, in Dallas, one can be arrested for all sorts of things that aren't against the law, so I don't know that Dallas is a good example).

When people fear being arrested for making a statement, the statements are less likely to be made.

exactly. thanks, ryan

I'm not going to defend the pulling of a movie from shelves, although I can see the point there. I mean, if someone made a movie that actually, literally encourages people to break the law, or to murder others, what then? I think we all agree some things should be censored, to some people. The question is what, when, why, and to whom.

Anyway, I don't like the idea of a judge legislating anything unless under extreme circumstances where it's pretty much necessary.

WoW! I wonder what was edited out.

I was talking about
So again I ask, is Faces of Death art? There's lots of stuff, and not only bad stuff, but I would say 90% of movies are not art. They are forms of entertainment. Like a roller coaster or trampoline. Or if you prefer to call them forms of expression. Because they are expressing the director's vision, okay. But this forum is a form of expression. We are all expressing ourselves on it. Is this bulletin board art? No, it's some kind of website thing where people can write on.

Yeah, good point. I mean, honestly, art is a subjective term. If you want to be really, really technical, just about everyone you see is a form of art, isn't it? If you want to be a bit more practical, it depends on the intention of the person creating it, and the mindset of the persion viewing it. Perhaps some people think of some films as art, but it doesn't make any difference to me.

If I ever make a movie, ya know what I'll want to do? I'll want to intruige and entertain the viewer. I'll want them to talk about and analyze the movie. Does that make it art? Heck, I dunno, and I don't care. Movies are something different. A painting is not meant to be entertaining in the same way. Music today is the same way. Music and movies are odd in that they have more uses than pure inspiration.

Oops, I didn't realize there were 3 pages. I was responding to the stuff on page 2. Anyway,
As happy Hillary would say, It takes a village.
If we lived in a society without rules, without censorship, where nothing was off limits, that would be called anarchy. The world is already going to heck in a handbag and this is why. There are just some things in this world that are not good for you or society as a whole. That's the facts of life. Everyone at some point has to take responsibility. The kids, the parents, the directors, the theatres, the media etc. Everyone is in on it. Everyone contributes to the rise or fall of society.

If you love Requim for a Dream so much why don't you buy the dvd? Then you can support them like you advocate and see it unedited. I haven't seen it but I'll be quite happy renting the edited version.

But many of the things that are getting banned (or restricted) don't hurt adults or even kids. It's an overreaction caused by a society that wants to pretend that some things don't exist and that kids stay kids forever.

Is the world a better place because you can't watch The Tin Drum in Oklahoma? (The irony is that my local TV station showed the scene in question on TV during the story about Oklahoma banning the film). Is it okay to ignore Federal Laws when going door to door rooting out this film from people's homes?

And since most of the focus of attention is on sex-related things, are we saying that there shouldn't be sex? How are we supposed to continue the species if sex is a bad thing that we're not supposed to be involved with?

The comics in Dallas that got the guy arrested had sexual imagery (and were kept in an adult's only section and wrapped in celophane). The violent comics are cool with Dallas. So, we're telling people that sex is bad, but violence is okay.

There is absolutely nothing that people need to be protected from. I've yet to encounter anything ever that was bad enough that it needed to be banned. As a matter of fact, the only way to get something banned in the United States is if it is sexual. Aside from actual fighting words, the Supreme Court has never allowed a ban on violent speech. It's only sex that can get you censored in the U.S. (and some states will ignore Federal Law to do that censoring).

i'm not saying we should sit down and decide what is art and what isn't. i'm saying that censorship should not exist for any movie. if censorship exists at all, then what is wrong and what is not is determined by another person, and no free-thinking adult should have decisions made for them.

Also, to me, it seems a little odd that the punishment for selling sexual comics (in an adults-only section with the comics each wrapped in celphane) is more harsh than the punishment for shooting and killing your wife in front of one of your kids.

Selling dirty comics means jail time. Shooting your wife, driving off then coming back and shooting her some more while your child watches qualifies for probation. Heck, running down a kid with your Cadillac and killing him is only worth probation in the town where I grew up (as long as the dead kid had a funny haircut and the killer played high school football).

Shouldn't we be more concerned with putting killers behind bars than putting clerks at comic book stores who carry sexual comics wrapped in celphane and placed in an adults-only section behind bars?

We spend so much time trying to shield people from things that don't harm them that we ignore things that do harm them.

And that, fellow posters, is the truest and most observant thing that has been said on this subject.

OK. Obviously there is a difference between a movie being art and a movie being a crude piece of pornographic entertainment. Should we or should we not censor all movies even art just so that the "bad" ones won't get out? No I don't think so. Let those so called "bad" movies be let out into the public. I was raised well enough by my parents to dislike these types of films. Which leads us back to the idea that it is the parent who should set up morals and ideals in their children and not some government that "knows best".

Would a non-censorial attitude really be anarchical? Or would it just be non-censorial? There is a difference, you see, between laws governing freedom of speech and/or expression and laws governing a country. And, actually, the riddance of censorship from our society would technically BE a law (since it would require government approval and whatnot) and would inherently be anti-anarchical.

And, you think that MOVIES are why the world is going to burn in the fires of Hades?!? If movies are the sole factor for the dwindling moral responsibility of our society, then we definitely do have a problem. I think what a lot of people are missing is that parents have a right to individually censor things from their own children. As in, if Dad A doesn't want Son A to see the uncut REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, that's his perrogative. But, to prevent the rest of the Blockbuster-renting public from trying to rent it and only allowing them to buy it uncut (which could be a nasty deal that Blockbuster worked out under the table with the production companies....) is going too far.

Would the parents please stop getting so enraged by the movies and "trash" that studios (or independent filmmakers) put out and spend some of that time with your kid?!? All this business stems out of the parental need to, as someone said earlier, have an inanimate babysitter.

It sickens me really. My dad has no problem with Terminator 2 in which 3,000 people die, but he can't stand Eyes Wide Shut or Clockwork Orange because of it's nudity and violence. Come on one is art and the other is complete entertaining trash(not to say I don't like it, I own it)