To try and start a campaign to stop the uk release of 'A Serbian film'

[spidersandglue]

I'm not suggesting anyone read the synopsis as that's disgusting enough. But I don't know how the government can allow this disgusting film to be released!

Surely this sort of film encourages paedophillia and violent rape.

There are more slaves alive now than there has been before at any time in the history of the world. The majority of this is sex trafficking.

I'm revolted that a film like this can be given even a censored release date (10th)

Good idea Dittany:

Oh my life. What a thread. I remember when I first read the synopsis of the film - I cried. And I am a pretty mean, hard, horrible person, but I still cried.

I think the question here is about censorship, and where the line sould be drawn. The recent toruture porn culture has shown me one thing - one film will ALAYS trys to outdo its predecessor. We went from the Devils Rejects to Saw. From Saw to Hosetl. From Hostel to untracable. From Untraceable to The HUman Centipede. And frm the human Centipede to this lovely piece of 'art'.

So, the question begs should a line be drawn. And my question is, if we are not prepared for it to be the contents of his film, where the fuck do we draw it.

Holy god. i clicked this thread initially to bitch saying its your choice to see it or not wise up etc, but read a synopsis and was nearly sick at the thought of it. no need at all. what sick bastard even thought of doing it let alone the people financing it.

WRONG WRONG WRONG and it has fuck all to do with freedom of speech or any other "human right" i had a fight about this with my husband the other day that there should be some sort of line and the line is a dot in the distance to this film.

And for all this 'I'm against censorship' stance, would those people argue against the banning of child porn? No, I doubt it.

So why allow a film that is just one step removed from that, even if it's not shown in full graphic detail? There's that woman whose daughter was murdered, can't remember her name, whose charity has the premise that violent porn/ films do legitimise it for men who are pre-disposed to that type of 'urge' and it awakens/ reinforces it.

I dread to think what type of urge this film would awaken in the wrong person.

This is a difficult one for a woolly liberal.

I feel a bit torn between my instincts against censorship and the utter vileness of the subject matter.

Do I believe that this film is analogous to the war? No, on the basis that no analogies of this nature have been made by those critics who have a strong enough stomach actually to see the film.

So, does it have any artistic merit beyond gross schlock horror? I don't know. It doesn't sound like it. Anyhow Tarantino did artistic schlock horror first and did it better by all accounts.

Okay so having dismissed this film as being by a leather-jacketed dubious character on the make, with little or no artistic merit, what are my objections?

If the purpose of art is to mirror life - well in life this sort of stuff happens. It does happen, it has happened, and it will happen again. So can we censor a film on the basis that it is utterly revolting?

I think not. Still. But I will never actually go and see the film. It sounds as though it would make me ill.

I think viewing the film would actually really me mess up mentally. It is really worrying that people could see the film and NOT be disturbed and sickened - just rather see it for the gross factor. It can be horribly desensitising for younger viewers to see this kind of stuff - remember it is still only classed as an 18

Child porn is completely different as it involves real children, being hurt, degraded and worst and perpetuates an industry which does the same.

The content of the film is an interesting debate though. Many of the scenes as described in wiki wont actually be seen, they will be alluded to and the audience will be invited to make the assumption as to what has occurred. I imagine that is why people on this thread are saying that they would "need to see the film". Certainly if I was going to form a full opinion or make any proper judgement about what the film does or doesn't show I would need to see it. Thankfully I don't, so I wont. But I find the idea of censoring what develops in the individuals mind a curious one.

I think it is worthy of note that the BBFC cut 4 1/2 minutes of film on the basis that it "eroticises and endorses rape". Presumably they were comfortable with the position that the remainder of the film does not ?

Has anyone seen 'Idi i Smotry'? Multi award winning Russian film?

Hallucinatory war thriller set in Belarus in German occupation contains many scenes of unimaginable cruelty to children (locked in a barn and burned, thrown out of windows) and the main character is a young boy (hypnotised for the harrowing final scenes) who goes mad from what he's witnessed.

A truly hard watch but undeniably a powerful testament to the savagery of war.

What about the descriptions of child rape in the bible?

What about Lolita? There's a description of the rape of a 12 year old in that masterpiece.

Come and see - wonderful film, very different to the film in the OP.

Look the very fact that the film makers included scenes in their original intended cut that "eroticise and endorse rape" indicates that they are beyond contempt. With the right of image-making comes responsibility. So we are now seeing the sanitised version .

We have all read the synopsis. It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to deduce that these guys are aiming to be as disgusting and shocking as possible. They are not creating a dilectic of the brutality of war, they have already stated that.

"Later Vukmir shows Milo? another one of his projects: a film of a man helping a woman give birth to a baby girl; the man then proceeds to rape the newborn in what the director calls "newborn porn".[8]"

wikipedia

I don't think these films have any deep meaning at all. The people who write them, the people who watch them, it's for kicks, nothing more.

fucking hell ]why do people feel the need to post about babies being raped.
it this a competitive sickening thread

2shoes: This thread was about banning a film -
it was inevitable the content of the film would be discussed to some degree -

2shoes beacuse if you don't have an idea of what the film involves then how can you comment.

I read the OP and then googled a couple of film reviews which all stated that they weren't going to comment on the content as it was horrific/dreadful etc etc. That gave me no comprehension as to the subject matter covered and if we are going to debate the film and I think it is worthy of debate then one needs an idea of the horror of what is dramatised.

There have been a number of adequate warnings in this thread about the content of the film. If you don't like the thread walk away, block and don't post but this is a valid debate and the film can only be discussed of people know what it is about.

www.thea21campaign.org

This is an amazing charity, click on the problem link on the website and amongst other things it explains the the problem of supply and demand.

I would love to raise awareness of this terrible problem which I don't think many Brits realise is happening??

Only 1-2% of victims are getting rescued at the moment, lots are even here in the uk.

We need to stop the supply and demand - a film as aborant as this one I think could increase the demand.

I know the subject matter makes most of us want to puke but this is happening and I for one can't sit back and not make a stand.

I'd love the women, the mothers of the uk to make a stand too.

What do you think happens to any child that is born as a by product. I know it's disturbing to the core - but this is going on!

oh for crying out loud tabouleh just leave me alone. I said it sounds absolutely sickening. I said it may be abhorrent, and I meant in how it portrays the acts, because I do not know if it condemns them or makes them titilatting. I agree male film makers and these too want to make films that are as shocking and 'exciting' as possible, and that is extrememly depressing and disturbing, given the content. The one person who has actually seen the film [otchayaniye's friend] said it was NOT titillating to watch in the slightest. I wondered if, given the punishment that the protagonist sufferes at the end, basically what he has done to others ends up happening to the ones he loves, was a comment on war and war crimes.

I find the whole thing extrememly difficult and unpleasant to talk about. It is impossible to have a debate when people are trying to make those raising points morally reprehensible, or morally less superior.

Yes I know I should stay away from the thread. Am waiting for it to die. And yes I know that means I should stop posting too, but I do not like leaving accustations unanswered.

Mmm. I'm with Dittany on this one. Aside from the rape aspect of it, when he realises what he's done and is destroyed, he then commits familicide. We read enough in the papers about suicidal men taking their children with them (due to ownership not altruism) it has no "entertainment" value whatsoever. If my ex watched this I'd never allow my children around him again.

I think dittany is probably right in that these film makers have used the war allegory as a way of validating a really nasty and dehumanizing piece of cinema. But I still think, and it may not be relevant to this film, that depicting terrible acts that really do go on during war, is not always for reasons of titillation, even if many people will get off on it in that way.

There are so many films [Creep, Irreversible, The Killer Inside Me, The Human Centipede etc] in which absolutely horrific acts of sexual violence are enacted out towards women, all unashamedly depicted for entertainment purposes only. I feel very angry about those films and people who enjoy them. This film may well be the same and worse. It probably is. I wouldn't see it for anything, as I wouldn't be able to sleep for a very long time. The only distinction I made was whether this film had an allegorical identity, which dittany strongly objected to.

Normally Dittany winds me up but she's bang on the money with most of what she's said on here.

Soldier Blue attracted this attention ( similar themes - extreme violence: rape ) that was back in the 70's.

Probably why this film doesn't shock me - it's not really anything new.

I have been raped by a stranger on a train.

I watched Irreversible's 9 minute long rape scene and it was deeply disturbing (share similarities with my situation) and upsetting. But I could still distinguish between that film and what happened to me.

I encountered similar feelings watching Salo, Calvaire, other supposedly shocking films etc.

I watched the film, not because I am a gin-toting hipster, nor a soiled-dressing-gown-wearing priapic sexual sadist (and neither did my husband who also watched it). I watched it because I am interested in filmmaking.

I didn't like it, wouldn't watch it again, but defend the right of the filmmaker to make it.

Would you keep my friend (the only person who has watched this particular film, as a reviewer) away from your kids because he had watched it?

Would you keep your children away from fans of Lolita, or The Enchanter?

And of course it's an allegory. It is so obvious. It just about hits you over the head with it. Saying it isn't until your blue in the face is up to you. But you would be whistling in the dark.

My saying this doesn't mean I think it isn't an exceptionally nasty film, or that I wouldn't raise my eyes at someone wanting to watch this out of choice.