Wednesday, July 20, 2005
We Don't Mind You Showing Fucking On Film, As Long As It's French Or Pretentious Or Both
Well, the decision has been made, and it's what I predicted. The Video Appeals Committee have ruled that nine films that were rated R18 by the BBFC, after requesting an 18 certificate, were correctly certified, and may only be sold in licensed sex shops.
This excellent piece by film critic Mark Kermode was written before the verdict. Read it.
As he says, 'they're going to have to explain why Michael Winterbottom can show people shagging on tape, but Ben Dover can't.' Too right they are. Just a couple of weeks ago, the BBFC passed '9 Songs' uncut 18 on video. As anyone who has seen the film will attest, it consists of little more than hardcore sex with the nine songs of the title interspersed within. Given the censors complete ease with Winterbottom's work, we have to wonder what it is that the producers of the nine films appealing (Lubed, The Secrets Of The Karma Sutra, Ben Dover - Cumming Of Age Volume Two, Heart Of Darkness, Queensway Trailers, Dungeon Diva 2, Semi-Detached, Catering For All Tastes - Finger Buffet For Six and L'Elisir d'Amour) did to deserve their hypocritical classification.
The obvious answer has to be that, unlike Winterbottom's work, or Catherine Breillat's 'Romance', which got only a token cut, these films aren't considered 'art' by the BBFC. Yet why are '9 Songs' or 'Romance' considered art? They're both crap. Is it because one is French, and the other was at Cannes? Is it because most broadsheet film critics are so out of touch with the world of R18 that they know they can get a free pass, as long as they give '18s' to the hardcore sex films that have forced themselves across the critics radar by appearing at festivals or applying for wide cinematic release?
Not so long ago, the indispensable Kermode criticised the BBFC for taking such a contradictory line about 'Last House On The Left', insisting on more cuts than were previously enforced, at the same time as passing 'Irreversible' uncut. The suspicion at the time, and clearly it was right, is that the BBFC will treat films differently depending on whether or not they feel it is 'art.'
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. One man's art is another man's trash, as any fool knows. I can't stand most modern art, but Charles Saatchi clearly sees a lot in it. By a similar token, no matter how the film turns out, all films are made of basic components, like building blocks. If one film features hardcore sex, and so does another, if you strip them down to the bare bones, both contain a hardcore sex scene. One could be brilliant, one rubbish, but they contain the same building block.
Ultimately, I'm not too angry at the verdict. I'm disappointed, of course, but in reality the situation is simply the same as yesterday - we haven't gone backwards, at least. However, what I want, and what I suspect the producers of softer hardcore want, is clarification. Simply, what is permissable at 18, and in what context?
Here to stay.
This excellent piece by film critic Mark Kermode was written before the verdict. Read it.
As he says, 'they're going to have to explain why Michael Winterbottom can show people shagging on tape, but Ben Dover can't.' Too right they are. Just a couple of weeks ago, the BBFC passed '9 Songs' uncut 18 on video. As anyone who has seen the film will attest, it consists of little more than hardcore sex with the nine songs of the title interspersed within. Given the censors complete ease with Winterbottom's work, we have to wonder what it is that the producers of the nine films appealing (Lubed, The Secrets Of The Karma Sutra, Ben Dover - Cumming Of Age Volume Two, Heart Of Darkness, Queensway Trailers, Dungeon Diva 2, Semi-Detached, Catering For All Tastes - Finger Buffet For Six and L'Elisir d'Amour) did to deserve their hypocritical classification.
The obvious answer has to be that, unlike Winterbottom's work, or Catherine Breillat's 'Romance', which got only a token cut, these films aren't considered 'art' by the BBFC. Yet why are '9 Songs' or 'Romance' considered art? They're both crap. Is it because one is French, and the other was at Cannes? Is it because most broadsheet film critics are so out of touch with the world of R18 that they know they can get a free pass, as long as they give '18s' to the hardcore sex films that have forced themselves across the critics radar by appearing at festivals or applying for wide cinematic release?
Not so long ago, the indispensable Kermode criticised the BBFC for taking such a contradictory line about 'Last House On The Left', insisting on more cuts than were previously enforced, at the same time as passing 'Irreversible' uncut. The suspicion at the time, and clearly it was right, is that the BBFC will treat films differently depending on whether or not they feel it is 'art.'
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. One man's art is another man's trash, as any fool knows. I can't stand most modern art, but Charles Saatchi clearly sees a lot in it. By a similar token, no matter how the film turns out, all films are made of basic components, like building blocks. If one film features hardcore sex, and so does another, if you strip them down to the bare bones, both contain a hardcore sex scene. One could be brilliant, one rubbish, but they contain the same building block.
Ultimately, I'm not too angry at the verdict. I'm disappointed, of course, but in reality the situation is simply the same as yesterday - we haven't gone backwards, at least. However, what I want, and what I suspect the producers of softer hardcore want, is clarification. Simply, what is permissable at 18, and in what context?
Here to stay.
