The Planet Doc Review festival is being held in Warsaw right now. My dad took me out on Monday to see Andrzej Fidyk's Yodok Stories, which is a documentary about North Korean concentration camps. What many people don't realize (or at least I didn't) is that North Korea is running several concentration camps today (I believe the film spoke of the existence of 15) to hold political prisoners and their families. In North Korea, if you are guilty of a crime against the state (which can mean a lot of things - for example putting a newspaper with the photograph of Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il, on the floor would be considered such a crime) three generations of your family will be put in a concentration camp.
Andrzej Fidyk is a Polish documentary director (though apparently his next project will be a feature film, so I'll be really excited about that!) who makes very particular sort of films. I first came across him in film school (for those who don't know me that well - I did a two year film course where I specialized in editing and then didn't follow it up with anything much). My history of film teacher showed us Andrzej Fidyk's 1989 film - Defilada. He told us (or at least that's what I remember - I hope I remember right!) that in the late 80s the North Korean government decided to invite eight foreign documentary directors to make a film about their country (they wanted to improve their image abroad), but of course reserving the right to censor the films. Of the 8 films made, only Fidyk's passed the censors and made its way out into the world. Poland of course has a very strong tradition of making films which pass censors, but which say everything that needs to be said anyway and Defilada is a classic example of this (in fact that's why it was shown to us!).
Almost 20 years later a Norwegian human rights body asked Fidyk whether he would be interested in making a film about North Korean concentration camps. So he started to wonder how such a thing could even be done. Naturally, you can't just waltz into a concentration camp and film it and then there's the other issue of how do you make a film on this topic without making it so depressing that nobody would want to watch it.
Finally, he had an idea... You see, North Korea does probably the most spectacular stadium performances in the world. In fact Fidyk's first film about North Korea references this with its title - Defilada means The Parade. You can see a fragment of Defilada which shows a stadium performance below (it's in Polish, if you want to go straight to the bit that shows the performance then it's about half way through the clip):
To see more of Fidyk's Defilada, go here or to see another North Korean parade go here (there are way more on youtube and all of them are just as spectacular!).
So Fidyk decided that he had to find a North Korean spectacle/theatre director amongst the many North Korean refugees in South Korea and talk him into directing a play about North Korean concentration camps. The documentary would focus on the making of the play. Eventually he found a man suitable for the job and after a lot of talks the play evolved into a stage musical (apparently these are very popular in South Korea). The musical is called Yoduk Story - Yodok being the name of one of the concentration camps. It was a huge success in South Korea and has toured the USA too. You can see the trailer for the stage musical below:
What struck me most in what I learnt from the film was how totally isolated North Korea is. The people living by the border may have some idea about what's going on in the outside world, but everybody else is totally cut off from outside information. And anyone who *would* have such information would not share it because their whole family would end up in one of the concentration camps. Furthermore North Korea has NO internet. That was the first thing I checked on-line after seeing the film because I just couldn't believe it. The North Korean domain is .kp and there are exactly two known websites in that domain and both of them are on servers outside of North Korea. In North Korea internet just doesn't exist. So the only way people (mainly the many North Korean refugees living in South Korea) have been trying to give people in North Korea information about the outside world is by sending brochures via helium balloons.
I really recommend the documentary - it's a very important topic and a very well made film too. It will still be showing this Saturday and Sunday at the festival.
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
My sudden Hollywood obsession and the quest to find a star that isn't gay ;)
Why is it that whenever one has a lot of schoolwork to do, one always has an irresistible urge to do something else? (or at least that's what happens to me ;-P) I've got something like 4 tests and 2 projects over the next week, but am I studying? Of course not ;-P What am I doing? I'm getting unhealthily obsessed with Hollywood stars from the 50s and 60s. And lets get this straight (pun unintended ;-P) - I've never been a particular fan of old Hollywood movies before! I have sometimes enjoyed older films, but a lot of the time I've watched them because I feel I ought to build on my film history awareness rather than because I really want to see an older film. So why have I suddenly become obsessed with this particular topic? Your guess is as good as mine ;-P
Well ok... I do sort of know how it started - it's because of this blog ;-P I found a very interesting article about Method Acting and I'm drafting a post on it (which of course, as always, is turning out to be extremely long). I started looking for Laurence Olivier quotes on The Method because I knew he had spoken against it and... er... that wasn't a good idea ;)
What followed was that I became totally obsessed with Laurence Olivier for 2-3 days (that has subsided somewhat, I have now turned to Tony Curtis instead and I'm wondering who will be next ;-P).
Worse still, I somehow came across this:
And well... it fascinated me... It had never occurred to me that Stanley Kubrick tried to broach the topic of homosexuality in Spartacus. The reference is so slight that if you're not looking for the subtext you might not notice it - and yet this was enough for the censors to cut it.
It was interesting also that two big stars - Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis would have wanted to risk such subtext.
The Spartacus scene somehow led me on to other discoveries... In particular I started finding all sorts of rumours that Laurence Olivier might have been bisexual. As that sort of gossip has always amused me I followed it through. At first it seemed like gossip with little foundation, but what started making it much more fishy was the way Joan Plowright (Olivier's third wife) was being quoted and in particular that she had authorized a biography which claimed Olivier had had encounters with men. I finally came across this article which seemed to cover all the incidents that I found mentioned elsewhere. It is from the Daily Mail, so that's hardly a reliable source, but there was one bit in particular that caught my eye:
After Lord Olivier's death on July 11, 1989, aged 82, from neuromuscular disease and cancer, and his interment in Poet's Corner, Westminster Abbey, his official biographer, Terry Coleman, asked Plowright if he had had homosexual affairs. She replied robustly: "If he did, so what?"
Tarquin Olivier, Larry's elder son, 'was hell-bent on censoring' the homosexual revelations in Coleman's book and attempted to pressure Plowright into withdrawing her permission. She refused, privately remarking that "a man who had been to Eton and in the Guards might be expected to be a little more broad-minded".
The article led me on further... For one it mentioned an encounter between Olivier and Marlon Brando. I'm not sure I believe that one, but apparently there are other sources which suggest Brando may have been bisexual.
The article also mentioned an incident in which John Gielgud was caught in a public toilet trying to pick up a guy (he was arrested for it).
Finding it amusing that so many stars of the era seemed to be gay or bisexual I thought I'd try to look for somebody who was straight ;) So I searched for stuff on Charles Laughton - like Olivier and Gielgud he was also a very acclaimed British theatrical actor who'd done a bit of Hollywood. I thought it likely that he wasn't much of a sexual experimentator - I knew he had been married to just one woman his whole life (unlike most of the stars of that time). Well, I was wrong *grin* Laughton's wife, Elsa Lanchaster, had outed her husband as gay in her autobiography and apparently that was the reason for them never having children.
Feeling rather gigglish by this point I went to my dad (who had after all watched Hollywood in those times) and told him about my discoveries. He had also heard about Laughton and Gielgud, though Olivier and Brando surprised him. Having shown him the Spartacus scene, I joked I should check whether Tony Curtis was straight. My dad said he was pretty sure Curtis was straight (and I rather thought so too), but I ended up checking it up anyway just for a laugh. At first it seemed I had finally found somebody who *was* straight though probably promiscuous (6 wives! and his present one is 42 years younger than him!), but lo and behold, I found an interview with him in a gay magazine ;) Here's what he says in it:
Speaking of men and men … well, first, how old were you when you got to Hollywood?
I was 22. That was 1948.
And as beautiful as you were … I mean, you are still good-looking…
Thank you.
But as beautiful as you were, I’m assuming that you…
I had more action than Mount Vesuvius.
So, both men and women put the make on you.
Men, women, children. Animals!
I can’t wait for the headlines–"TONY CURTIS INTO BESTIALITY."
[Laughs] I loved it, too. I loved the affection of everybody around me. I participated where I wanted to, and I didn’t where I didn’t. It wasn’t like I said, "Well, I won’t do this or I won’t do that." I just had a chance to have great wonderful friends of all ethnic backgrounds, all sexual genders, and that’s the joy of being an American, that’s the joy of being alive, where all of your friends can be who-ever they want to be.
I'm not sure how serious he was about the children and animals ;) He clearly has a rather crass sense of humour, but especially in context of what he says after that he seemed fairly serious about the men ;) So yet again my quest to find a straight star had failed ;)
Am I the only person who ends up doing such moronic things rather than study? ;)
Well ok... I do sort of know how it started - it's because of this blog ;-P I found a very interesting article about Method Acting and I'm drafting a post on it (which of course, as always, is turning out to be extremely long). I started looking for Laurence Olivier quotes on The Method because I knew he had spoken against it and... er... that wasn't a good idea ;)
What followed was that I became totally obsessed with Laurence Olivier for 2-3 days (that has subsided somewhat, I have now turned to Tony Curtis instead and I'm wondering who will be next ;-P).
Worse still, I somehow came across this:
And well... it fascinated me... It had never occurred to me that Stanley Kubrick tried to broach the topic of homosexuality in Spartacus. The reference is so slight that if you're not looking for the subtext you might not notice it - and yet this was enough for the censors to cut it.
It was interesting also that two big stars - Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis would have wanted to risk such subtext.
The Spartacus scene somehow led me on to other discoveries... In particular I started finding all sorts of rumours that Laurence Olivier might have been bisexual. As that sort of gossip has always amused me I followed it through. At first it seemed like gossip with little foundation, but what started making it much more fishy was the way Joan Plowright (Olivier's third wife) was being quoted and in particular that she had authorized a biography which claimed Olivier had had encounters with men. I finally came across this article which seemed to cover all the incidents that I found mentioned elsewhere. It is from the Daily Mail, so that's hardly a reliable source, but there was one bit in particular that caught my eye:
After Lord Olivier's death on July 11, 1989, aged 82, from neuromuscular disease and cancer, and his interment in Poet's Corner, Westminster Abbey, his official biographer, Terry Coleman, asked Plowright if he had had homosexual affairs. She replied robustly: "If he did, so what?"
Tarquin Olivier, Larry's elder son, 'was hell-bent on censoring' the homosexual revelations in Coleman's book and attempted to pressure Plowright into withdrawing her permission. She refused, privately remarking that "a man who had been to Eton and in the Guards might be expected to be a little more broad-minded".
The article led me on further... For one it mentioned an encounter between Olivier and Marlon Brando. I'm not sure I believe that one, but apparently there are other sources which suggest Brando may have been bisexual.
The article also mentioned an incident in which John Gielgud was caught in a public toilet trying to pick up a guy (he was arrested for it).
Finding it amusing that so many stars of the era seemed to be gay or bisexual I thought I'd try to look for somebody who was straight ;) So I searched for stuff on Charles Laughton - like Olivier and Gielgud he was also a very acclaimed British theatrical actor who'd done a bit of Hollywood. I thought it likely that he wasn't much of a sexual experimentator - I knew he had been married to just one woman his whole life (unlike most of the stars of that time). Well, I was wrong *grin* Laughton's wife, Elsa Lanchaster, had outed her husband as gay in her autobiography and apparently that was the reason for them never having children.
Feeling rather gigglish by this point I went to my dad (who had after all watched Hollywood in those times) and told him about my discoveries. He had also heard about Laughton and Gielgud, though Olivier and Brando surprised him. Having shown him the Spartacus scene, I joked I should check whether Tony Curtis was straight. My dad said he was pretty sure Curtis was straight (and I rather thought so too), but I ended up checking it up anyway just for a laugh. At first it seemed I had finally found somebody who *was* straight though probably promiscuous (6 wives! and his present one is 42 years younger than him!), but lo and behold, I found an interview with him in a gay magazine ;) Here's what he says in it:
Speaking of men and men … well, first, how old were you when you got to Hollywood?
I was 22. That was 1948.
And as beautiful as you were … I mean, you are still good-looking…
Thank you.
But as beautiful as you were, I’m assuming that you…
I had more action than Mount Vesuvius.
So, both men and women put the make on you.
Men, women, children. Animals!
I can’t wait for the headlines–"TONY CURTIS INTO BESTIALITY."
[Laughs] I loved it, too. I loved the affection of everybody around me. I participated where I wanted to, and I didn’t where I didn’t. It wasn’t like I said, "Well, I won’t do this or I won’t do that." I just had a chance to have great wonderful friends of all ethnic backgrounds, all sexual genders, and that’s the joy of being an American, that’s the joy of being alive, where all of your friends can be who-ever they want to be.
I'm not sure how serious he was about the children and animals ;) He clearly has a rather crass sense of humour, but especially in context of what he says after that he seemed fairly serious about the men ;) So yet again my quest to find a straight star had failed ;)
Am I the only person who ends up doing such moronic things rather than study? ;)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The MPAA and the BBFC - how the US and UK deal with sex and violence in films
The Venice film festival (which is the oldest film festival in the world and remains one of the most prestigious) came to an end the week before last and it was Ang Lee's Lust, Caution that won it.
While this might seem irrelevant to the topic of this post, I assure you it's not ;) The trailer should give you an idea where I'm going with this:
Anyway, the film has received an NC-17 certificate from the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). Focus Features, the distributors of "Lust, Caution", have not appealed it or made any cuts for the American release which is very unusual. The NC-17 certificate is usually not regarded as an option even for less commercial films because this means many cinemas will not show it, many DVD rentals and stores will not stock it and many newspapers will not advertise it. While some art house films in the past have gone ahead with this certificate, it's the first time that such a mainstream director and a film that won such an important festival is going to be released as NC-17.
All the talk surrounding this has made me want to take a closer look at the MPAA and how the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) compares. The MPAA has often been accused of double standards (Hollywood films can get away with more than art house or foreign films, sex is treated much more severely than violence).
Perhaps the strangest thing about the MPAA is that nobody knows exactly who rates the films. All the names are kept anonymous. In fact, the whole thing is so fishy that last year a documentary was made about the MPAA in an attempt to shed some light on it (they even hired a private detective to find out who was sitting on the board!). See the trailer for this documentary here.
Apart from being very secretive about their members, the feedback they give to both the filmmakers and the general public about why films received certain ratings is very limitted comparing to what the BBFC does these days. Check out the quote below from one of the MPAA FAQs:
CARA does provide explanations to the submitter of each motion picture of the reasons for the rating assigned to that picture. However, any such discussions concerning a particular motion picture will be only with the submitter and are also considered confidential. Thus, the substance of discussions about a movie being rated by CARA cannot be discussed with the press or anyone else other than, where appropriate, the submitter of the particular motion picture.
Unfortunately, the level of detail given to submitters often isn't enough for their needs. This timeline of MPAA controversies describes many cases, but one stood out to me in particular. In 1983 Brian De Palma edited his "Scarface" three times to get a lower rating, but none of those three cuts passed. Clearly if they had given him the information he needed, the first cut would have passed their requirements (and oh irony, in the end he received the rating he wanted for his original unedited version!).
In contrast, the BBFC lists quite detailed reasons for the rating and cuts made to each film on their website (the older ratings are less detailed, but the more recent ones are usually very much so) and it also invites the public to "make its views known to the Board at any stage of the classification process".
I have two of my own theories about the MPAA (which you can take seriously or laugh at - whatever ;-P). My first is a conspiracy theory - I think they're consciously giving indie and foreign films harsher ratings and that it's one of their methods of ensuring the domination of the big Hollywood flicks on the US market.
Before you roll your eyes at me (actually you probably have already, but before you do it again ;-P), check out how the MPAA is funded. Here's a quote from the FAQ on one of the MPAA's official pages:
The movie rating system is a voluntary system sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners
Since you're probably not familiar with these organizations, I'll "translate". You might already be confused how the MPAA can be funded by the MPAA, so maybe I'll start with clarifying that. For whatever reason, when one talks of the American rating system, one talks of the MPAA giving the ratings (that's how imdb has it for example), but actually the ratings are done by a smaller body called CARA (Classification and Rating Administration) which is part of the MPAA. The MPAA itself is an older and bigger body - you can read about it in more detail here, but it's basically a body created to defend the interests of the major American film production companies - you can see the list of MPAA members (the six biggest studios in Hollywood) on their official site.
The National Association of Theatre Owners is an association of all the movie theatres in the US - most of which are part of cinema chains owned by the six companies already mentioned.
This puts the accusations of bias against foreign and independent films in a totally different light, doesn't it? Clearly it is in the interest of the sponsors of the rating system for films made outside of the six big studios to be given harsher treatment. Wikipedia actually says that Miramax had lots of problems with the rating system while they were an independent company, but now that Disney has bought them out, their problems have ceased!
The BBFC is funded in a much more independent way. See the quote below from their policy (avaliable on their official website):
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is an independent, non-governmental body funded through the fees it charges to those who submit films, videos, DVDs and digital games for classification.
On the one hand this means that British distributors have extra costs (unlike in the US, every film in the UK must be rated or else it is illegal to show it to the general public), but clearly it is a system less open to bias.
My other theory is a cultural one - I honestly believe Americans have a different attitude towards sex than we do here in Europe. Just as in India the general attitude towards sex and sexual behaviours seems to be a lot more prudish than in the West (kissing in public is considered obscene and even hand holding can be seen as vulgar), so in the US it seems certain things are a lot more taboo than they are in Europe.
I thought that it was fascinating to compare reactions to Daniel Radcliffe doing a nude scene in Equus (which I covered extensively on this blog ;) - just click on the Equus tag below this post). In the UK it was a big thing, but at no point did I feel there were any moral judgements about it. It was amusing, maybe shocking, but I don't think many people felt that it was somehow morally wrong of him to be doing it. The voices from the US were different though. Just reading through imdb there were many people who felt this amounted to pedophilia and were wondering how his parents could allow him to do such a thing. There were also those who said they would boycott the "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" film. I'm not saying that all the responses from the US were like that, but certainly it did seem to be somehow "a bigger thing" over there.
In this context, I also found it very interesting to read William H. Macy's comment about the reactions to "The Cooler" (this was one of the few art house films that was released with an NC-17 rating):
William H. Macy said that when the film was shown in European film festivals, afterward people mostly discussed the script and the characters, but when the film was shown at American film festivals, people mostly discussed how good Maria Bello looked in her nude scenes.
I think these different attitudes are reflected in not just the decisions of the MPAA and BBFC, but also their guidelines. I did a sort of comparison of the guidelines for each certificate, which you can download here. I wanted to put it straight up in my post, but the formatting I wanted wasn't possible (it's not a big file, don't worry :) ). Most of the guidelines have been just copied and pasted. Pretty much all the MPAA guidelines I found are in that file, but I only put up part of the BBFC guidelines since there were many which couldn't really be compared against anything in the MPAA ones. The full BBFC guidelines are here.
Finally, two random things that I didn't manage to fit anywhere else in this post. Firstly I thought this article was a great read - particularly the list of silly rating reasons (my favourite was "“PG-13 for intense depiction of very bad weather”).
And also I found it amusing to hear about Alfonso Cuaron's protest against what various rating bodies around the world were doing to Y tu mama tambien.
While this might seem irrelevant to the topic of this post, I assure you it's not ;) The trailer should give you an idea where I'm going with this:
Anyway, the film has received an NC-17 certificate from the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). Focus Features, the distributors of "Lust, Caution", have not appealed it or made any cuts for the American release which is very unusual. The NC-17 certificate is usually not regarded as an option even for less commercial films because this means many cinemas will not show it, many DVD rentals and stores will not stock it and many newspapers will not advertise it. While some art house films in the past have gone ahead with this certificate, it's the first time that such a mainstream director and a film that won such an important festival is going to be released as NC-17.
All the talk surrounding this has made me want to take a closer look at the MPAA and how the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) compares. The MPAA has often been accused of double standards (Hollywood films can get away with more than art house or foreign films, sex is treated much more severely than violence).
Perhaps the strangest thing about the MPAA is that nobody knows exactly who rates the films. All the names are kept anonymous. In fact, the whole thing is so fishy that last year a documentary was made about the MPAA in an attempt to shed some light on it (they even hired a private detective to find out who was sitting on the board!). See the trailer for this documentary here.
Apart from being very secretive about their members, the feedback they give to both the filmmakers and the general public about why films received certain ratings is very limitted comparing to what the BBFC does these days. Check out the quote below from one of the MPAA FAQs:
CARA does provide explanations to the submitter of each motion picture of the reasons for the rating assigned to that picture. However, any such discussions concerning a particular motion picture will be only with the submitter and are also considered confidential. Thus, the substance of discussions about a movie being rated by CARA cannot be discussed with the press or anyone else other than, where appropriate, the submitter of the particular motion picture.
Unfortunately, the level of detail given to submitters often isn't enough for their needs. This timeline of MPAA controversies describes many cases, but one stood out to me in particular. In 1983 Brian De Palma edited his "Scarface" three times to get a lower rating, but none of those three cuts passed. Clearly if they had given him the information he needed, the first cut would have passed their requirements (and oh irony, in the end he received the rating he wanted for his original unedited version!).
In contrast, the BBFC lists quite detailed reasons for the rating and cuts made to each film on their website (the older ratings are less detailed, but the more recent ones are usually very much so) and it also invites the public to "make its views known to the Board at any stage of the classification process".
I have two of my own theories about the MPAA (which you can take seriously or laugh at - whatever ;-P). My first is a conspiracy theory - I think they're consciously giving indie and foreign films harsher ratings and that it's one of their methods of ensuring the domination of the big Hollywood flicks on the US market.
Before you roll your eyes at me (actually you probably have already, but before you do it again ;-P), check out how the MPAA is funded. Here's a quote from the FAQ on one of the MPAA's official pages:
The movie rating system is a voluntary system sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners
Since you're probably not familiar with these organizations, I'll "translate". You might already be confused how the MPAA can be funded by the MPAA, so maybe I'll start with clarifying that. For whatever reason, when one talks of the American rating system, one talks of the MPAA giving the ratings (that's how imdb has it for example), but actually the ratings are done by a smaller body called CARA (Classification and Rating Administration) which is part of the MPAA. The MPAA itself is an older and bigger body - you can read about it in more detail here, but it's basically a body created to defend the interests of the major American film production companies - you can see the list of MPAA members (the six biggest studios in Hollywood) on their official site.
The National Association of Theatre Owners is an association of all the movie theatres in the US - most of which are part of cinema chains owned by the six companies already mentioned.
This puts the accusations of bias against foreign and independent films in a totally different light, doesn't it? Clearly it is in the interest of the sponsors of the rating system for films made outside of the six big studios to be given harsher treatment. Wikipedia actually says that Miramax had lots of problems with the rating system while they were an independent company, but now that Disney has bought them out, their problems have ceased!
The BBFC is funded in a much more independent way. See the quote below from their policy (avaliable on their official website):
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is an independent, non-governmental body funded through the fees it charges to those who submit films, videos, DVDs and digital games for classification.
On the one hand this means that British distributors have extra costs (unlike in the US, every film in the UK must be rated or else it is illegal to show it to the general public), but clearly it is a system less open to bias.
My other theory is a cultural one - I honestly believe Americans have a different attitude towards sex than we do here in Europe. Just as in India the general attitude towards sex and sexual behaviours seems to be a lot more prudish than in the West (kissing in public is considered obscene and even hand holding can be seen as vulgar), so in the US it seems certain things are a lot more taboo than they are in Europe.
I thought that it was fascinating to compare reactions to Daniel Radcliffe doing a nude scene in Equus (which I covered extensively on this blog ;) - just click on the Equus tag below this post). In the UK it was a big thing, but at no point did I feel there were any moral judgements about it. It was amusing, maybe shocking, but I don't think many people felt that it was somehow morally wrong of him to be doing it. The voices from the US were different though. Just reading through imdb there were many people who felt this amounted to pedophilia and were wondering how his parents could allow him to do such a thing. There were also those who said they would boycott the "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" film. I'm not saying that all the responses from the US were like that, but certainly it did seem to be somehow "a bigger thing" over there.
In this context, I also found it very interesting to read William H. Macy's comment about the reactions to "The Cooler" (this was one of the few art house films that was released with an NC-17 rating):
William H. Macy said that when the film was shown in European film festivals, afterward people mostly discussed the script and the characters, but when the film was shown at American film festivals, people mostly discussed how good Maria Bello looked in her nude scenes.
I think these different attitudes are reflected in not just the decisions of the MPAA and BBFC, but also their guidelines. I did a sort of comparison of the guidelines for each certificate, which you can download here. I wanted to put it straight up in my post, but the formatting I wanted wasn't possible (it's not a big file, don't worry :) ). Most of the guidelines have been just copied and pasted. Pretty much all the MPAA guidelines I found are in that file, but I only put up part of the BBFC guidelines since there were many which couldn't really be compared against anything in the MPAA ones. The full BBFC guidelines are here.
Finally, two random things that I didn't manage to fit anywhere else in this post. Firstly I thought this article was a great read - particularly the list of silly rating reasons (my favourite was "“PG-13 for intense depiction of very bad weather”).
And also I found it amusing to hear about Alfonso Cuaron's protest against what various rating bodies around the world were doing to Y tu mama tambien.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
And I thought Poland had it bad...
This is a short follow-up to my big pornography post. While Polish politicians have been debating about a total ban on pornography, Iran seems to have taken their politic debates muuuuch further. If the proposal passes, anybody involved with the making, distribution (including websites) or production of porn films in Iran could be sentenced to death.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Teletubbies and the profound effect they might be having on Polish children
Apparently Polish officials are worried that Teletubbies promote homosexuality. The reason they think this is because Tinky Winky carries a woman's handbag. They are considering taking the show off public TV if their psychologists confirm these very terrible fears.
(For those who can't read Polish - I swear, I didn't make this up! That is really what the article says!)
(For those who can't read Polish - I swear, I didn't make this up! That is really what the article says!)
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Chocolate Jesus exhibit cancelled
Here's the story as it appears on BBC.
But what really caught my eye was not that the Christian group was protesting against somebody making a chocolate sculpture of Jesus, but that they were protesting just as much about portraying Jesus naked:
Ms McCaffrey had called the exhibit "an assault on Christians".
"They would never dare do something similar with a chocolate statue of the Prophet Mohammed naked with his genitals exposed during Ramadan."
Firstly, with Islam it would be a whole different deal because *any* sort of portrayal of God or Mohammed is not allowed by Islamic law AFAIK.
Secondly (and this is what I really want to talk about), Christ most likely *was* naked on the cross. The whole idea of Christianity is that God made his own son suffer torture in a very humiliating way to clear humanity of its sins. And while generally the gospels do not specify whether they took his underwear off, all four gospels do specify his clothes were taken off.
The Wikipedia entry for Crucifixion actually says that the procedure usually involved nudity:
The victim was, if able, made to drag the cross or a part of it (usually weighing 150 lb or more) to the place of execution. At this point he was stripped naked, and was either fastened to it or impaled upon it, and left to die.
I'm not sure why there's this whole attempt of hiding the fact that Jesus might have been naked on the cross (surely it just adds to his humiliation and therefore to his sacrifice?), but the attempt goes much further than just not portraying him so in art...
If you look up John 19:23 on the Bible Gateway, you'll find that the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Reader's Version, New International Version - UK and Today's New International Version all have some sort of wording indicating that only Christ's outer garments were taken off. None of the other versions (including two "new" ones) have any mention of whether it was just his outer garments and I don't think any of the other gospels have anything mentioned either (though I only checked the New International Version). I also checked out the Polish Biblia Tysiąclecia translation and again nothing specific mentioned. Some of those olds versions were really well researched (definitely the King James version for example), so can there be any other reason for these changes in the new versions?
But what really caught my eye was not that the Christian group was protesting against somebody making a chocolate sculpture of Jesus, but that they were protesting just as much about portraying Jesus naked:
Ms McCaffrey had called the exhibit "an assault on Christians".
"They would never dare do something similar with a chocolate statue of the Prophet Mohammed naked with his genitals exposed during Ramadan."
Firstly, with Islam it would be a whole different deal because *any* sort of portrayal of God or Mohammed is not allowed by Islamic law AFAIK.
Secondly (and this is what I really want to talk about), Christ most likely *was* naked on the cross. The whole idea of Christianity is that God made his own son suffer torture in a very humiliating way to clear humanity of its sins. And while generally the gospels do not specify whether they took his underwear off, all four gospels do specify his clothes were taken off.
The Wikipedia entry for Crucifixion actually says that the procedure usually involved nudity:
The victim was, if able, made to drag the cross or a part of it (usually weighing 150 lb or more) to the place of execution. At this point he was stripped naked, and was either fastened to it or impaled upon it, and left to die.
I'm not sure why there's this whole attempt of hiding the fact that Jesus might have been naked on the cross (surely it just adds to his humiliation and therefore to his sacrifice?), but the attempt goes much further than just not portraying him so in art...
If you look up John 19:23 on the Bible Gateway, you'll find that the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Reader's Version, New International Version - UK and Today's New International Version all have some sort of wording indicating that only Christ's outer garments were taken off. None of the other versions (including two "new" ones) have any mention of whether it was just his outer garments and I don't think any of the other gospels have anything mentioned either (though I only checked the New International Version). I also checked out the Polish Biblia Tysiąclecia translation and again nothing specific mentioned. Some of those olds versions were really well researched (definitely the King James version for example), so can there be any other reason for these changes in the new versions?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Pornography, sexual content and obscenity
According to this and this (both articles in Polish unfortunately!) Poland might be facing a full ban on pornography in the near future. The new legislation that some politicians want to bring in (perhaps they'll be in the minority, we shall see!) will make it possible for someone to get a prison sentence not just for distribution but even for possession of any kind of pornography.
No definition of what constitutes pornography is given in this proposal, which sort of brings me to what I want to discuss (other than how stupid our current government is I mean ;-P). I've always felt that the limit of what's ok and what's not ok as far as sexual content goes is a fascinating discussion topic. Of course it's largely about taste and I don't think I'm going to come up with any reasonable conclusions, but if you have any thoughts I'd love to hear them :)
Not so long ago in India, there was a legal complaint against the kissing scene between Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai in Dhoom 2 (imdb page, trailer on youtube). A quote from IndiaGlitz reads:
According to the complainant, the women felt offended after watching the scene and it promoted vulgarity in society, especially among the youth.
Now for anyone who read the Polish articles on the pornography ban you might have noticed that those are almost the exact reasons for which some of PiS want a full pornography ban in Poland. In case you're wondering, here's the scene which we're talking about (the actual kissing happens late in the clip and sorry for the lack of subtitles but didn't find a clip with them):
It's not even as if there's no kissing in commercial Indian cinema, so it's hard to say why this particular kiss was so controversial. In the end, the kiss was cut.
But even a Western perspective of what's ok and what's not may sound just as ridiculous at times. Having been rambling about Equus on this blog I'm going to link to a Guardian article which uses Equus as a starting point to write about the history of nudity in British theatre. Apparently 40 years ago only female nudes were ok in the theatre and only if they didn't move. If they moved they were automatically considered obscene.
Not that people in the West don't have (what I would call) weird ideas about nudity even now. If you check out some discussions about Equus on-line, a lot of people (many of whom seem to be American) think that Daniel Radcliffe appearing nude on stage is enough to constitute child pornography because he's not yet 18 (he will be in about 6 months by the way). In accordance with US laws this might actually be true, I'm not sure, but I still feel it's a bit weird...
Of course so far I've been writing about stuff which nowadays only a small minority of people in the West would call obscene or pornographic (if at all that is - I'd be shocked if someone considerd the Hrithik-Ash kiss as such!). When we think pornography we generally think about stuff which is more explicit - usually photos or films which show people really having sex rather than just pretending. But there are films which would confuse us even there because they show *real* intercourse and yet they probably wouldn't be of interest to someone who is looking for pornography. One such film is definitely Lars von Trier's The Idiots (imdb page, trailer on youtube), another (although I haven't actually seen it) is Michael Winterbottom's 9 songs (imdb page, trailer on youtube). Both of these were shown at art cinema festivals and entered normal distribution in many countries.
And it's not just with films. If you ever check out some sites which specialize in fetish photography you'll find that most of the photographs are very artistic (sometimes - especially when we're talking about the violent stuff - very unsettling, but still artistic). I'm not sure what it is specifically about the fetish community but they really take photos which are way more than something that's just supposed to turn people on (in fact I've not seen many fetish pics which show people "in the act"). And yet when people hear "fetish" we usually think "obscene". Check out Incubus Choice if you want to see some stuff (though I am warning you - if you click on the link you are straying into territory that maaaany would consider porn, not that I think that should scare you but I'm saying it all the same).
Ok, so I've gotten from kissing scenes to real intercourse and photography portraying naked people tied up. Surely there should be a limit somewhere, right?
Lets look at the law then - I found this article very interesting and useful for this. Law is obviously different in different countries. But what I think is true pretty much everywhere is that it is illegal to supply pornography to people below a certain age (usually 18 or 16 though in Poland surprisingly enough it's 15 at the moment - however most Polish shops dealing with any sort of porn would not sell it to anyone below 18). It is also illegal to force the viewing of pornography on anyone (hey, I warned you about that Incubus site so I've done nothing illegal! ;-P ). The other legislations differ. Usually depicting bestiality is illegal (though I don't think that is true in the Netherlands - I think it is ok there as long as the animal is not harmed in any way). And of course there's child pornography which also has different restrictions and definitions in different countries. Mostly nobody below the age of 18 should be depicted although sometimes it is 16. Shockingly enough until 1999 Japan was extremely liberal about child pornography:
Prior to 1999, the only Japanese statute prohibiting actual child pornography was very limited in its reach, applying only to children under 13 who filed complaints within six months of an incident. A general criminal obscenity law protected minors over 13, but it also specified that the material must depict sexual organs to be considered illegal. Consequently, pornographic materials in Japan often resorted to showing other sexually oriented depictions of children, including abuse or torture, to avoid running afoul of the law.
Most countries also have laws against possession of child pornography (reading through the imdb boards, I'm not sure if this is true but apparently in the US anybody with nude pics of Daniel Radcliffe from Equus on their computer could theoretically be arrested for child pornography - not that there are many non-photoshoped pics of him floating around but I think even those are not legal under US law).
Many countries have laws which seperate child pornography into "virtual" and "actual" penalizing the virtual kind just as much. Virtual pornography is defined as depictions in which adult models are made up to look like children, and artistic or computer simulations of children involved in sexual activity. Now while I can see the logic of this I at the same time can't help but wonder if some of the stuff I've read or seen wouldn't be considered child pornography of the virtual kind. I mean particularly when I think about Harry Potter fan fiction and fan art... there's a lot of teacher-student relationships portrayed in those. To give you some examples, here's fan art showing Snape with Draco, Snape with Harry and another of Snape and Harry. I can see how for some people this might be considered totally sick, but is it harmful?
There have been (more about this in the long article I linked to) attempts at trying to find a link between watching porn and comitting sexual offences, but generally it seems the results depended on who tried to find this out (conservatives found a correlation and liberals did not).
I think I've finally come to the end of this post, but I don't really have a conclusion... I do believe people should be left with a choice as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but when it comes to "mental harm" it's very difficult to establish what is harmful and what is not (other than making somebody watch porn when they don't want to). Obviously if pornography causes sexual offences then something should be done about it (though I'm not sure a total ban would work), but we don't even know if it does (I've even heard claims that it actually makes the amount of sexual offences drop! but unfortunately don't have a link for this). Also I think even describing what pornography is is problematic. I'm not saying that any sort of porn is ok. There is definitely a lot of things happening in the porn industry which are not right - there are many reports of children and women being forced into starring in porn films (and in the case of children even if they did this willingly there would be reasons to say this is wrong).
On a final note, I think it's interesting that porn is apparently a huge economy booster and a pioneer in technology. The BBC article even says that the switch from Beta to VHS happened because of the porn industry.
No definition of what constitutes pornography is given in this proposal, which sort of brings me to what I want to discuss (other than how stupid our current government is I mean ;-P). I've always felt that the limit of what's ok and what's not ok as far as sexual content goes is a fascinating discussion topic. Of course it's largely about taste and I don't think I'm going to come up with any reasonable conclusions, but if you have any thoughts I'd love to hear them :)
Not so long ago in India, there was a legal complaint against the kissing scene between Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai in Dhoom 2 (imdb page, trailer on youtube). A quote from IndiaGlitz reads:
According to the complainant, the women felt offended after watching the scene and it promoted vulgarity in society, especially among the youth.
Now for anyone who read the Polish articles on the pornography ban you might have noticed that those are almost the exact reasons for which some of PiS want a full pornography ban in Poland. In case you're wondering, here's the scene which we're talking about (the actual kissing happens late in the clip and sorry for the lack of subtitles but didn't find a clip with them):
It's not even as if there's no kissing in commercial Indian cinema, so it's hard to say why this particular kiss was so controversial. In the end, the kiss was cut.
But even a Western perspective of what's ok and what's not may sound just as ridiculous at times. Having been rambling about Equus on this blog I'm going to link to a Guardian article which uses Equus as a starting point to write about the history of nudity in British theatre. Apparently 40 years ago only female nudes were ok in the theatre and only if they didn't move. If they moved they were automatically considered obscene.
Not that people in the West don't have (what I would call) weird ideas about nudity even now. If you check out some discussions about Equus on-line, a lot of people (many of whom seem to be American) think that Daniel Radcliffe appearing nude on stage is enough to constitute child pornography because he's not yet 18 (he will be in about 6 months by the way). In accordance with US laws this might actually be true, I'm not sure, but I still feel it's a bit weird...
Of course so far I've been writing about stuff which nowadays only a small minority of people in the West would call obscene or pornographic (if at all that is - I'd be shocked if someone considerd the Hrithik-Ash kiss as such!). When we think pornography we generally think about stuff which is more explicit - usually photos or films which show people really having sex rather than just pretending. But there are films which would confuse us even there because they show *real* intercourse and yet they probably wouldn't be of interest to someone who is looking for pornography. One such film is definitely Lars von Trier's The Idiots (imdb page, trailer on youtube), another (although I haven't actually seen it) is Michael Winterbottom's 9 songs (imdb page, trailer on youtube). Both of these were shown at art cinema festivals and entered normal distribution in many countries.
And it's not just with films. If you ever check out some sites which specialize in fetish photography you'll find that most of the photographs are very artistic (sometimes - especially when we're talking about the violent stuff - very unsettling, but still artistic). I'm not sure what it is specifically about the fetish community but they really take photos which are way more than something that's just supposed to turn people on (in fact I've not seen many fetish pics which show people "in the act"). And yet when people hear "fetish" we usually think "obscene". Check out Incubus Choice if you want to see some stuff (though I am warning you - if you click on the link you are straying into territory that maaaany would consider porn, not that I think that should scare you but I'm saying it all the same).
Ok, so I've gotten from kissing scenes to real intercourse and photography portraying naked people tied up. Surely there should be a limit somewhere, right?
Lets look at the law then - I found this article very interesting and useful for this. Law is obviously different in different countries. But what I think is true pretty much everywhere is that it is illegal to supply pornography to people below a certain age (usually 18 or 16 though in Poland surprisingly enough it's 15 at the moment - however most Polish shops dealing with any sort of porn would not sell it to anyone below 18). It is also illegal to force the viewing of pornography on anyone (hey, I warned you about that Incubus site so I've done nothing illegal! ;-P ). The other legislations differ. Usually depicting bestiality is illegal (though I don't think that is true in the Netherlands - I think it is ok there as long as the animal is not harmed in any way). And of course there's child pornography which also has different restrictions and definitions in different countries. Mostly nobody below the age of 18 should be depicted although sometimes it is 16. Shockingly enough until 1999 Japan was extremely liberal about child pornography:
Prior to 1999, the only Japanese statute prohibiting actual child pornography was very limited in its reach, applying only to children under 13 who filed complaints within six months of an incident. A general criminal obscenity law protected minors over 13, but it also specified that the material must depict sexual organs to be considered illegal. Consequently, pornographic materials in Japan often resorted to showing other sexually oriented depictions of children, including abuse or torture, to avoid running afoul of the law.
Most countries also have laws against possession of child pornography (reading through the imdb boards, I'm not sure if this is true but apparently in the US anybody with nude pics of Daniel Radcliffe from Equus on their computer could theoretically be arrested for child pornography - not that there are many non-photoshoped pics of him floating around but I think even those are not legal under US law).
Many countries have laws which seperate child pornography into "virtual" and "actual" penalizing the virtual kind just as much. Virtual pornography is defined as depictions in which adult models are made up to look like children, and artistic or computer simulations of children involved in sexual activity. Now while I can see the logic of this I at the same time can't help but wonder if some of the stuff I've read or seen wouldn't be considered child pornography of the virtual kind. I mean particularly when I think about Harry Potter fan fiction and fan art... there's a lot of teacher-student relationships portrayed in those. To give you some examples, here's fan art showing Snape with Draco, Snape with Harry and another of Snape and Harry. I can see how for some people this might be considered totally sick, but is it harmful?
There have been (more about this in the long article I linked to) attempts at trying to find a link between watching porn and comitting sexual offences, but generally it seems the results depended on who tried to find this out (conservatives found a correlation and liberals did not).
I think I've finally come to the end of this post, but I don't really have a conclusion... I do believe people should be left with a choice as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but when it comes to "mental harm" it's very difficult to establish what is harmful and what is not (other than making somebody watch porn when they don't want to). Obviously if pornography causes sexual offences then something should be done about it (though I'm not sure a total ban would work), but we don't even know if it does (I've even heard claims that it actually makes the amount of sexual offences drop! but unfortunately don't have a link for this). Also I think even describing what pornography is is problematic. I'm not saying that any sort of porn is ok. There is definitely a lot of things happening in the porn industry which are not right - there are many reports of children and women being forced into starring in porn films (and in the case of children even if they did this willingly there would be reasons to say this is wrong).
On a final note, I think it's interesting that porn is apparently a huge economy booster and a pioneer in technology. The BBC article even says that the switch from Beta to VHS happened because of the porn industry.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
The Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves (1991)
I just watched "Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves" and had a really good laugh. It is a very Hollywoodish film (as in Robin Hood is your classic unflawed action hero), but I was surprised at some of the themes in it to the point of wondering how it's possible that censors and Hollywood producers (in the early 1990s no less) let that through. And then I visited IMDb's trivia page for this film and found out that actually they didn't let these things through ;-P
Don't get me wrong, it's not as if there's anything that shocking in it, but it's not what you'd expect of a light-hearted movie like this - particularly one which is aiming at rather low age certificates (PG in the UK, PG-13 in the US).
From what I can make out (based on the IMDb boards for this film), I was watching the extended British DVD version which has less cuts than the original theatrical release, but is still cut more than some of the DVD releases elsewhere in the world. The reason for this is that the British distributor wanted to retain a PG certificate for the film.
What does the Sheriff of Nottingham have to do with all these censorship musings? Well, that was the character that they cut the most of (this film is quite a different take on him). The cuts not relating to him were done purely because of excessive gore, although why they were excessive I cannot say because the version I saw didn't have them in ;-P (Although to give you an inkling - even in what I saw, this film is pretty heavy on medieval torture)
Most of the scenes relating to the Sheriff were thankfully (because I thought they were the best part of the film) left in my version, although I'm rather disapointed at not having seen him scheduling his whores with words such as "you! my room...10:30. and you! 10:45. and bring a friend." .
One of the most baffling cuts that were made to the version of the film that I watched is the removal of part of the famous spoon dialogue (it's so famous that WikiQuote has it on its spoon page). They kept the first line, but removed the other two. I don't quite understand this cut (why would those lines make a difference between a PG or higher certificate?), but see what you think for yourself - here is the quote:
"Locksley! I'm gonna cut your heart out with a spoon."
"Why a spoon cousin? Why not an axe?"
"Because it's dull, you twit, it'll hurt more."
I cannot continue writing without mentioning how good Alan Rickman is as the Sheriff and prewarn you that there might be quite a lot of gushing about him in the rest of this post ;-P I would have put in a video link here, but I haven't found anything suitable (the trailer is awful and has hardly any of Rickman in it anyway), so I'll content myself with a link to a picture of him as the Sheriff of Nottingham.
So first of all, one of the reasons to love the Sheriff of Nottingham in this film is that he has all the best lines ;-P There's some very black humour there (something that I think doesn't usually feature in American action films) and the way Alan Rickman delivers it is absolutely hilarious.
While the darkness of the character is maybe not portrayed that graphically, it is certainly one of the most perverse Hollywood villains I've seen in a while. Right at the start we're introduced not just to the atrocities he inflicts on people and his lack of anykind of fair play (quite classic elements to any Hollywood villain ;-P), but also to his total lack of sexual inhibition and perhaps most perversely (at least I was very surprised to see this and it didn't make the theatrical release) the film also shows him worshipping the devil.
But apparently, Alan Rickman wasn't playing a villain *grin* Here is something he says in the DVD extras:
I'm not playing a villain. I'm just playing somebody who has a certain checklist of things that he wants in life and he goes after them. And other people say, like Robin Hood decides, that's appalling and it must be stopped.
While the quote totally cracks me up, this is actually what I most loved about Alan Rickman's portrayal. Despite playing some things which are quite perverse when you start thinking about them, the way it's done there's just no judgement of whether the Sheriff is doing right or wrong, it's played as if whatever Nottingham is doing is the most natural thing in the world to do. This, as you might imagine, has a rather bizzarre effect in scenes such as a bishop performing a marriage ceremony while the Sheriff is holding his bride down on the floor and preparing to rape her in front of the bishop the moment the marriage is proclaimed (this was probably my favourite scene, although hardly the only one I loved).
On a final note, here's a thread on the IMDb boards that amused me a lot. I'm very obviously not alone in adoring Alan Rickman as Nottingham (the thread is titled "Did anyone else want the Sheriff of Nottingham to win?"). I doubt anyone will want to wade through the whole thing because it's very long. It's basically lots of people gushing about Alan Rickman and many of them saying he was much better than Kevin Costner (who played Robin Hood) and then there's people who think these people who like Nottingham so much are mad and saying Costner was way better and how can anybody find such an evil character sexy anyway. There are two quotes that particularly cracked me up. The first is by somebody who like me clearly enjoyed Nottingham a lot, but I find her wording rather amusing:
Its very impolite to want to cut someones heart out with a spoon but he makes it sound so funny!
And then there's a post by somebody who thinks all these people gushing over such an evil character are completely mad:
Lets's see...you guys are all rooting for a man who is a: murderer (of his own cousin and no doubt thousands of others); a would-be rapist; a devil worshipper; a contract killer (hiring Celts to do his dirty work); a pervert (with dozens of whores at his beck and call). Yeah, you picked a real upstanding criminal to admire and drool over. WELL NOT ME!
Don't get me wrong, it's not as if there's anything that shocking in it, but it's not what you'd expect of a light-hearted movie like this - particularly one which is aiming at rather low age certificates (PG in the UK, PG-13 in the US).
From what I can make out (based on the IMDb boards for this film), I was watching the extended British DVD version which has less cuts than the original theatrical release, but is still cut more than some of the DVD releases elsewhere in the world. The reason for this is that the British distributor wanted to retain a PG certificate for the film.
What does the Sheriff of Nottingham have to do with all these censorship musings? Well, that was the character that they cut the most of (this film is quite a different take on him). The cuts not relating to him were done purely because of excessive gore, although why they were excessive I cannot say because the version I saw didn't have them in ;-P (Although to give you an inkling - even in what I saw, this film is pretty heavy on medieval torture)
Most of the scenes relating to the Sheriff were thankfully (because I thought they were the best part of the film) left in my version, although I'm rather disapointed at not having seen him scheduling his whores with words such as "you! my room...10:30. and you! 10:45. and bring a friend." .
One of the most baffling cuts that were made to the version of the film that I watched is the removal of part of the famous spoon dialogue (it's so famous that WikiQuote has it on its spoon page). They kept the first line, but removed the other two. I don't quite understand this cut (why would those lines make a difference between a PG or higher certificate?), but see what you think for yourself - here is the quote:
"Locksley! I'm gonna cut your heart out with a spoon."
"Why a spoon cousin? Why not an axe?"
"Because it's dull, you twit, it'll hurt more."
I cannot continue writing without mentioning how good Alan Rickman is as the Sheriff and prewarn you that there might be quite a lot of gushing about him in the rest of this post ;-P I would have put in a video link here, but I haven't found anything suitable (the trailer is awful and has hardly any of Rickman in it anyway), so I'll content myself with a link to a picture of him as the Sheriff of Nottingham.
So first of all, one of the reasons to love the Sheriff of Nottingham in this film is that he has all the best lines ;-P There's some very black humour there (something that I think doesn't usually feature in American action films) and the way Alan Rickman delivers it is absolutely hilarious.
While the darkness of the character is maybe not portrayed that graphically, it is certainly one of the most perverse Hollywood villains I've seen in a while. Right at the start we're introduced not just to the atrocities he inflicts on people and his lack of anykind of fair play (quite classic elements to any Hollywood villain ;-P), but also to his total lack of sexual inhibition and perhaps most perversely (at least I was very surprised to see this and it didn't make the theatrical release) the film also shows him worshipping the devil.
But apparently, Alan Rickman wasn't playing a villain *grin* Here is something he says in the DVD extras:
I'm not playing a villain. I'm just playing somebody who has a certain checklist of things that he wants in life and he goes after them. And other people say, like Robin Hood decides, that's appalling and it must be stopped.
While the quote totally cracks me up, this is actually what I most loved about Alan Rickman's portrayal. Despite playing some things which are quite perverse when you start thinking about them, the way it's done there's just no judgement of whether the Sheriff is doing right or wrong, it's played as if whatever Nottingham is doing is the most natural thing in the world to do. This, as you might imagine, has a rather bizzarre effect in scenes such as a bishop performing a marriage ceremony while the Sheriff is holding his bride down on the floor and preparing to rape her in front of the bishop the moment the marriage is proclaimed (this was probably my favourite scene, although hardly the only one I loved).
On a final note, here's a thread on the IMDb boards that amused me a lot. I'm very obviously not alone in adoring Alan Rickman as Nottingham (the thread is titled "Did anyone else want the Sheriff of Nottingham to win?"). I doubt anyone will want to wade through the whole thing because it's very long. It's basically lots of people gushing about Alan Rickman and many of them saying he was much better than Kevin Costner (who played Robin Hood) and then there's people who think these people who like Nottingham so much are mad and saying Costner was way better and how can anybody find such an evil character sexy anyway. There are two quotes that particularly cracked me up. The first is by somebody who like me clearly enjoyed Nottingham a lot, but I find her wording rather amusing:
Its very impolite to want to cut someones heart out with a spoon but he makes it sound so funny!
And then there's a post by somebody who thinks all these people gushing over such an evil character are completely mad:
Lets's see...you guys are all rooting for a man who is a: murderer (of his own cousin and no doubt thousands of others); a would-be rapist; a devil worshipper; a contract killer (hiring Celts to do his dirty work); a pervert (with dozens of whores at his beck and call). Yeah, you picked a real upstanding criminal to admire and drool over. WELL NOT ME!
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Banning books
Something which Harry Potter has introduced me to is the idea that people to this day try to ban books. While I sort of have the awareness that there are people who try to ban certain films, the idea that this might be happening with books in fully democratic countries was something I hadn't considered at all. But maybe that's just because I don't read enough to consider that a book might be offensive.
Anyway, here are the 10 most frequently challenged books of this century. Harry Potter tops the list. I must say I'm very curious that The Da Vinci Code is not up there somewhere with all the noise the film made!
This is a list of the 100 most frequently challenged books in the 20th century. Some of the titles puzzle me to no end - what is Roald Dahl doing on this list? lol (I do love his books, but I don't understand why The Witches or James and the Giant Peach are offensive lol)
Of course I think being included on this list is actually a big compliment (some of those names and books are quite something!). And certainly J.K.Rowling seems to be thinking along the same lines - see her comments about this in one of the news articles on her site. I think I might actually use this list as a way to develop my reading ;-P It seems like a lot of those would be really worth a read (Google's Banned Books page would probably be a good place to start finding out more about them).
Of course the reasons for people wanting these books taken out of public libraries are probably just as bizarre (and therefore interesting) as the lists of challenged titles themselves. Naturally, because I'm a rather pathetic reader, I have only heard of some of the stories of why people keep trying to ban Harry Potter, but if anyone knows any of the stories behind challenging some of the other titles on those lists, I'd love to know! :)
Some light on why books in general are challenged can be found here. And below are two articles on Harry Potter which I found very amusing.
Here is an article about Laura Mallory, who believes the Harry Potter books are trying to teach children witchcraft and are a major reason for some of the shooting tragedies that have taken place in American schools.
This on the other hand is a slightly older article. It features comments from the current Pope's chief exorcist which in itself amuses me, but the quotes are even better. Harry Potter is called the "king of darkness, the devil" and the characters in the books are compared to Hitler and Stalin.
Anyway, here are the 10 most frequently challenged books of this century. Harry Potter tops the list. I must say I'm very curious that The Da Vinci Code is not up there somewhere with all the noise the film made!
This is a list of the 100 most frequently challenged books in the 20th century. Some of the titles puzzle me to no end - what is Roald Dahl doing on this list? lol (I do love his books, but I don't understand why The Witches or James and the Giant Peach are offensive lol)
Of course I think being included on this list is actually a big compliment (some of those names and books are quite something!). And certainly J.K.Rowling seems to be thinking along the same lines - see her comments about this in one of the news articles on her site. I think I might actually use this list as a way to develop my reading ;-P It seems like a lot of those would be really worth a read (Google's Banned Books page would probably be a good place to start finding out more about them).
Of course the reasons for people wanting these books taken out of public libraries are probably just as bizarre (and therefore interesting) as the lists of challenged titles themselves. Naturally, because I'm a rather pathetic reader, I have only heard of some of the stories of why people keep trying to ban Harry Potter, but if anyone knows any of the stories behind challenging some of the other titles on those lists, I'd love to know! :)
Some light on why books in general are challenged can be found here. And below are two articles on Harry Potter which I found very amusing.
Here is an article about Laura Mallory, who believes the Harry Potter books are trying to teach children witchcraft and are a major reason for some of the shooting tragedies that have taken place in American schools.
This on the other hand is a slightly older article. It features comments from the current Pope's chief exorcist which in itself amuses me, but the quotes are even better. Harry Potter is called the "king of darkness, the devil" and the characters in the books are compared to Hitler and Stalin.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Freedom of expression on-line
While I'm not expecting this blog to turn into something very serious or political, I just want to draw the attention of everyone reading this blog (if anybody is reading it of course!) to a site called http://irrepressible.info/ which deals with freedom of expression on-line. It's a bit weird to think that there's people who are getting jailed for what they write in blogs like these (well not like mine because mine is rather pathetic at the moment - I think their blogs are mostly much better and more interesting!), but it is happening and I think it's important to support Amnesty International's campaign for freedom of expression on-line. Perhaps as somebody coming from and living in Poland, where the current government has started restricting freedom of speech (maybe not so much on-line yet, but certainly there have been some strange goings on in the media and then there's the case of Hubert Hoffman - a homeless man who called the president names and is now being pursued for it by the police!), it is all the more important for me that freedom of expression is defended. So for anyone who agrees, show your support by visiting that site and sign the petition! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
