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)

The whole film synopsis sounds beyond vile and disgusting and you have to ask what sort of twisted mind would come up with a storyline like it.

The negative publicity will only serve to hype it. Far better it's just left to die a death and given no hype/media coverage at all.

It does make me dispair of humanity though.

Dittany I don't think that and don't believe I said I did. I was asking a question, but if you wish to engage in debate it is helpful to respond other than with the word no.

In my opinion it doesn't follow that anything described as "pornographic" necessarily "eroticises and endorses rape".

The BBFC clearly (and rightly IMO) objects to material that does "eroticise and endorse" rape so they have removed the scenes that they believe do this. I don't believe it is an enormous leap of logic to the conclusion that, now cut, the film no longer in their opinion "eroticises and endorses rape".

Presumably this means that the film has some basis to it other than simply repeated scenes of sexual violence with no moral standpoint. Or the alternative is that the BBFC are incapable of making an appropriate or valid conclusion about the film.

The point about Bergman was not random at all Dittany. The point was that one of his film features a rape and murder of a young girl. what is important is if the film eroticizes and endorses rape. The BBFC cut a scene that it felt eroticised and endorsed rape, quite rightly. But I don't think the ending, in which the protagonist finds the same thing he has been doing to others he is doing to his family and then destroys them, justifies or eroticises rape. It shows the inevitable carnage of abusive behaviour, and the inevitable self-destruction of those who carry out these crimes.

The paragraph from the writer/director sounds like utter wankery. But if you were from the Balkans and you went to see this film you'd find it very hard not to see some allegorical themes.

I should imagine they have cut the film to shreds, taken out the sick bits which got it all the publicity, and what remains is still rather shocking and the rest of it lumpen and dull.

Hopefully this means it will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

And so what if it has allegorical themes. That doesn't make it important or interesting. A six year old can write an allegory.

What makes elevates a film is that audiences can be given a greater understanding about something and elegantly done, it can add something to humanity.

Dittany. It is your subjective judgment that Bergman's films and Nabokov novels contain the moral standpoint to render the unpleasant scenes palatable enough to be 'art'. I happen to agree with you, but not everyone feels that Lolita takes a moral stand -- that's your judgment (and the judgment of people who know a thing or two about art).

All we know is this film contains very upsetting scenes (though unseen in some cases). The director and writer have spoken about their intentions -- you may or may not believe them. But if you hadn't read Lolita (to continue the same example) when it came out and didn't know much about Nabokov and thought he was a degenerate emigre hipster out to shock (partly he was), you may also have said exactly what you are saying about this film.

I am giving these directors the benefit of the doubt for two reasons. None of us has seen the film (although I am the only one to have a first hand account from a reviewer friend) The film has passed the censors and therefore does not break the law.

It is for its viewers and the passage of time to pass judgment on this one. I suspect what that judgment will be, however.

Dittany, you win by sheer dint of rantiness.

I respect your views, your perspective and your passion. In real life I think we would have many things in common. But I can't continue to debate with you because your outrage is getting in the way. You can't argue this rationally, you are resorting to ad hominems and appeals to authority and all sorts of logical fallacies. It is pointless and getting boring.

So I'll shut up. Anyway, what do I know. I am a brainwashed rape victim asleep to the male hegemony.

Not all films should/can be elevating. Some have to reflect what really happens in the world. This film is probably just dehumanising crap, but I thought the title was interesting - it was setting itself up as allegory.

commander I don't know the running time of the film but I have read that 4 1/2 minutes was cut which suggests, at least to me, that there was an awful lot of the film that the BBFC found acceptable.

To make my position perfectly clear I am not agreeing that it is acceptable, I suppose I am just curious as to how/why they formed the opinion that they have.

No you're not otchayniye.

Some have to reflect what really happens in the world.

absolutely - and there is an integrity and responsibility to doing that which this film seems to lack.

hell, i don't want it banned. but i share everyone's disgust.

Yes that is probably true Commander.

I agree that not all films should be elevating; there have been some excellent films which explore war, suffering and similarly dark or serious issues which actually do allow insight into matters. This film, however, crosses a line. So many lines in fact that even if it is intended as an allegory the message is surely lost amidst the vileness and pornographic content.

Also, it is certainly NOT the case that you have to see a film to be able to comment, just like I can say with complete knowledge and authority that I can fully condemn Robert Mugabe without evern having been to Zimbabwe (just a random example). There is enough information on the wikipedia link to provide me with all the knowledge I need to wholly condemn this film as unecessary and - if it is an allegory - self defeating. I thnk it was dittany who asked what this film will actually do for the children and women of Serbia who were raped - and no answer has yet been given.

Well that is because of course it will do nothing for them. I shouldn't think there is a woman on this planet that really wants to see this film. And I think you mean the women and children of Bosnia. However the ending does seem to have a deliberate moral conclusion.

I'm generally against banning things but this film is meant to be an indication of what the serbs 'went through' and were 'forced to do' (oh diddums) etc - but you reckon anyone coming out of this film would feel the serbs 'pain' - you're joking. I agree with (was it?) daftpunk that it will appeal to a certain audience and certainly not an audience concerned with the history and psyche of the serbians during the balkans conflict.

Sick, sick, sick and anyone who thinks this film is intelligent - well - what about the boy actor who plays the son who, according to wiki, is raped by his own father. What does this do the mind of a young actor who must be aware of the entire plot and his character in it. Bloody hell - I cannot get my head around this. I wouldn't want a young boy of that age to have that vocab going through his mind, actor or non actor.

I've just read the synopsis and burst into tears - I feel sick - this should be banned and the people involved in making the film should be investigated - they're either mentally unbalanced or sicko's.

This has fuck all to do with anything other than sensationalism - shock value - so so vile.

Yes child rape, etc happens but what vile souless sub-human would want to watch it.

the thing is Dittany, speaking as a writer myself, there are times when you are trying to do one thing but it comes out as another.

I'm not saying that is the case here, we none of us know what was going through the film makers' minds, but I have written disturbing scenes in some of my work and sometimes how the reader/viewer ultimate percieves them is not what I intended. I was just unsuccessful in my craft.

Just checked at the 2 independent cinemas where I live and they aren't scheduled to show it.

Am wondering if this is the type of film that is shown at film festivals, creates a lot of debate, but isn't actually released to the general public, or perhaps straight to DVD?

Well the interview I've read certainly doesn't tell us what they were intending scene by scene. They certainly don't comment upon the particular short scene that was cut.

Overall, they say their aim was to reflect their own feelings of violation by allegory.

That's pretty broad.

Am trying to think of any successful film that is an allegory - I suppose Pan's Labyrinth is an example of creativity which produced a masterpiece.

Also The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe, I suppose..

Also by elevating I meant elevating the subject matter to make a wider point - like The Wire - on the face of it a cop show with graphic violence, poverty, abuse. On a higher level it is an searing critique of the US war on drugs and social policy.

This film seems to plunge the depths rather than reach for the skies.

I can't say I could be bothered to see a film like this, but I do not in any way support a ban. Banning things never works,
"If censorship's the answer, it's a fucking stupid question".