Advertising stunt?
Are they perhaps trying to capitalise on the streisand effect?
Northampton police have seized A Serbian Film from Blockbusters, despite the fact that the version on offer had been approved by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). The raid’s chilling effect was instant, with Blockbuster taking down links to the film from their website and removing it from from stores across the …
"A spokeswoman for that force said: "We have a duty to investigate such claims and in agreement with the manager of the shop took a copy away to view and check that it was the edition that has been approved by the British Board of Film Classification for distribution."
which implies that Northamptons finest now have to sit down with the confiscated version AND a pre-BBFC edit (from where, one asks - certainly not one of those naughty downloads, we hope), and note any differences. In slow motion. With replays.
Pass the popcorn...
The police would probably send it to the BBFC:
"The BBFC measures and researches seized material to check whether they are classified works and, if so, whether they are identical or different to the classified version we have in our archive."
"...a Certificate of Evidence will be drawn up... signed by an Officer of the BBFC who has been authorised by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to do so."
Source: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/law/seized-media-requests
If you are into films portraying the rape of a new born baby, but then that's up to you I guess.
As for Blockbuster losing money, the store I work in has 1 copy, and that's only being rented about 5 times. By comparison we have about 30 copies of Inception which each copy has been rented more often and some copies have been rent 15 times.
Show rents film.
Someone complains to Police
Police visit shop and with their agreement borrow a copy of the film to check it's the BBFC certified version
Meanwhile as a precaution the shop remove copies from shelfs until version is confirmed ok
Version is confirmed Ok
Shop put film back on shelfs.
This seems fairly ok, surely?
It's hardly a presumption of guilt, it's a presumption of cock-up by and on behalf of the company, if the police presumed guilt they would have removed all of the copies of the film.
If it were presumed tainted food, you wouldn't leave it on your shelf until the results came back saying it was ok, you'd remove then put it back on sale when it was ok.
Or, it is were an 18 film and the version they had was r18 (can only be sold through a licensed sex shop.) you'd remove it then put it back when you found that it was the 18 version.
... where's the story? Blockbuster did exactly the right thing given the possibility of having provided a film that was extremely dodgy. Confirmed as OK (though not to everyone's taste) so put back on release.
Only quibble with AC's post is the the plural of 'shelf' is 'shelves' - other than that it's a spot-on précis of a non-story where everyone wins: complainant has properly done his/her civic duty to raise a concern rather than ignore it; police have investigated and worked with Blockbuster to get a sensible agreement, and Blockbuster have done the right thing. Well done all.
"We have a close relationship with the law enforcement agencies who keep us abreast of what is likely to fall foul of the law" - except perhaps in Scotland where they would prefer you guess at the boundaries of the law...
http://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/ignorance_of_scottish_pr0n_law_no_defence/
I cannot imagine why anyone would want to watch a lot of stuff that passes for popular entertainment these days, but I don't call for it to be banned (other than facetiously) simply because I don't like it.
More importantly, however, once again we see the Nanny State stepping in and telling us that we cannot be trusted to watch something because we're so weak-minded and suggestible that, if we do see it, we'll immediately go out and do Bad Things (tm)
It's simply the difference between a libertarian and a fabian.
For example
If a libertarian doesn't like guns they probably won't own one.
A fabian doesn't like guns so wants all guns banned for everyone else.
Obviously the DVD was veiwed by a fabian. They didn't like it so wanted to ban it for everyone else. A libertarian would have just registered their own personal distate for the DVD.
Guess which way our society is heading.
"A spokeswoman for that force said: "We have a duty to investigate such claims and in agreement with the manager of the shop took a copy away to view and check that it was the edition that has been approved by the British Board of Film Classification for distribution."
Did they have to pay to rent the copy from the shop, and did they return it on time?
Why does there need to be a "gentleman's agreement" if the film can still be pulled, despite being given a BBFC classification. The complaint should have been sent to the BBFC directly, not the police, and I'd have thought the police would have referred the complaint to the BBFC in the first instance as a matter of protocol?
How could the complainant, who was proved wrong in this case, know if this version was the uncut copy and not the version approved by the BBFC if they do not contact them directly.
its a lovely homage to the classic childrens program 'will o the wisp' & lewis carrols 'alices adventures through the looking glass'
my advice, sit down with the family and watch it after lunch on sunday, they'll never forget your kindness at choosing such a treat for their viewing pleasure
I'm all for art pushing the boundaries. I'd argue that that's one of the reasons it should exist. It makes people think of stuff they wouldn't want to ordinarily, which can only be a good thing.
I do wonder whether an unintended consequence of this film though will be that people think it's a documentary so end up believing the BS about there actually being a global snuff film industry, which ironically could lead to it being banned after all.
"So this is definately not a movie to pirate as you are likely to get an uncut version that will get you in a lot of trouble."
Indeed (also note that any clips from the film - even the legal cut version - may still be illegal to possess under new laws on "extreme" images, which exempt BBFC films, but not clips from those films).
But I do wonder: the argument against piracy is that it causes losses for the producer. The argument against these films is that producing them is bad. So surely, by both of these arguments, people who pirate such films are doing good, by harming producers. But no - instead we get the argument that it "fuels demand".
Completely agree and have made the same though some what tounge in cheek arguement about child pOrn. That if getting music and movies from p2p is destrying said industies, then surely people getting child p0rn from p2p are destrying the child p0rn industry, right?
Now again this a completly tounge in cheek comment in the vain of Jimmy Carr or Ricky Gervais and is not in anyway advacting child p0rn, OK? OK...
Dude, you had "some what", "tounge", "arguement", "destrying", "industies", "completly" and "in the vain of..." to choose from and you singled that out?
@ph0b0s, no offense; I don't grammar-Nazi any more (well, only at the Reg journos and copy-editors who are paid for their command of language) but I hate to see someone else doing a half-hearted job of it ;)
It took me longer to figure out what was meant by advacting, my primary thought was to acting, but second thoughts made me realise it was not. That's why I singled it out, but yes, I should if I'm going to go grammar nazi do a better job. For that reason I will be downvoting my own post.
I suck.
Tounge is a good one, it was used twice.
Completely agree and have made the same, though some what tongue in cheek, argument about child pr0n. That if getting music and movies from p2p is destroying said industries, then surely people getting child p0rn from p2p are destroying the child p0rn industry, right?
Now again this a completely tongue in cheek comment in the vain of Jimmy Carr or Ricky Gervais and is not in anyway advocating child pr0n, OK? OK...
There you go, what is should have said. Well that was embarrassing... Man these forums not having an edit function, really separates the men from the boy's. English lesson flash backs....
this film is one of the most fucked up films ever. and not in the good way. stuff like'bad boy buddy' is fucked up but in a good way. i think this is one of those ones that wants to see how nasty it can be.
not really sure about all this torture and snuff type of thing that seems to be coming out so often. i seriously worry about people who like films like hostel.
I don't think this film is comparable to Hostel - it's supposedly a deeply political film although this may turn out to be arsewash.
Hostel isn't really that dreadful - Eli Roth is more self-aware and satirical than he is given credit for, and I've seen worse things on screen with less justification. It does have a story, which puts it a bit above 'torture porn' (in the sense of the story being a flimsy construct which is only there to support the gory bits, as the story in porno is only there to support the sexy bits). There are far more trashy exploitative torture flicks that have squeaked through into the mainstream, and have rightly been given short shrift. Hostel is pretty gruesome, but it's not a bad film as far as I'm concerned, and it seems to have become a scapegoat.
Anyway, I have no desire to see A Serbian Film but it may well be artistically valid. Or it might be a tawdry shocker for the sake of it. Either way I am OK with it existing.
you would have thought they have plenty to do separating warring spouses, eliminating vehicle thefts and dealing with hate crimes without wasting time on some twit who is intent on eliminating others enjoyment.
More money, indeed. Get out the bicycles!
It's a long running sociology experiment started in the 80s to see if video nasties cause violence.
If James Ferman - who presumably has seen more nasty scenes than anyone in the country - goes on a lust fueled chainsaw driven murder rampage, then we know watching naughty videos are bad for you. If he ends up in the house of lords we know they aren't.
It's not *banned* after all, only that the "faggot" word, used *as it is* as a pejorative, isn't acceptible on airplay, and has to be masked (silenced, bleeped or replaced etc). I don't think that that's an insane standpoint by any stretch.
If there was a middle-class white guy singing lyrics like "that stupid nigger with his gold and his baseball cap" (when *meant* and not some sort of irony or parody) do you think that would be deemed to be acceptible for airplay? Of course not - people would be offended, and rightly so.
If that's the case, then there shouldn't be different rules for gay people, and we should be offended by the use of the word faggot as a demeaning term for them. Or if not offended ourselves, at least understand that they can be and be a little more sensitive about the language we use.
Dire Straits re-recorded it to change "faggot" for "mother" in the lyrics to make it acceptible for airplay years ago, stations can just use that version if they want to play the track.
No biggie.
"If there was a middle-class white guy singing lyrics like "that stupid nigger with his gold and his baseball cap" (when *meant* and not some sort of irony or parody) do you think that would be deemed to be acceptible for airplay? Of course not - people would be offended, and rightly so."
So, it's ok for a black person to use these words in a song then?
By that Logic, if Mark Knopfler is a faggot*, then he has every right to use the word he did, yeah?
</IRONY>
*In the UK this is also a term referring to a meatball.
When I was a lad I'd have been all over this film, however as the years have gone I really can't deal with the entire genre (as in it has no appeal what so ever) I think it was the Japanese girl in Hostel that did it. I mean when I was a teenager I was desperate to get my hands on the early Guinea Pig project films, but now I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.
My mate keeps trying to make me watch it -.-
However the story points out the Police view on personal movie habits, I'm sure they would have soon been snooping around for lists of people who'd borrowed the film. Looking to see how far they can spread the fear. Also as mentioned - the police have far better things to do in Northampton, and a quick though "hmmm what are the chances that blockie decided to replace the bbfc version with an uncut version hmmmm"
Is the fact that a single complaint can have this effect. I know that similar has happened in art galleries. So all that you have to do is complain to the police that you are offended by something, police head down to take a look because they are 'obliged' to (mind if it is a burglary or a real crime you might get nowhere). Police investige, decide that they are not sure (what to do) gallery/distributer panics and pull the item just to be sure. This could lead to a lot of fun?
Another example of the police being seen to act. In Birmingham on sunny afternoon about three years ago there were a lot of schoolkids sitting on the benches and the lawn of the cathedral square. Not causing any bother. Police moved them on (about 50 kids). I asked the police woman why - she said there was a complaint from a member of the public who felt threatened by the group of kids so they felt that they had 'to respond'. Tough on the kids though. Seems to me that this 'being seen to do something' is a cancer eating away at common sense in British society.
funny that they need never be seen doing anything useful.
... except on cop shows where every copper is Mr Perfect and all the baddies ride around town on unicycles knocking over old ladies and smoking crack out of stolen pipes.
And it's not like they could edit those shows to tell any story they wanted...
Unfortunately I watched this film several months ago and the images it contained still haunt me. The film makes Hannibal seem like a child's Disney cartoon. There are no redeeming features in A Serbian Film. All your worst imaginings and more are there.
Whilst I would never be in favour of any form of censorship in this case I would plead with people not to watch the film for their own peace of mind. Very few people would, I submit, wish to watch it all the way through. Even fewer would want to watch it again or recommend it to others.
I did not believe critics view that echo mine - I wish I had.
then obviously just ban it.
that will solve all the problems and then life can go back to being fantastic like it was before modern media existed.
I'm happy to roll back science a bit too. Everyone knows the earth is secretly flat and Jesus is hiding the dinosaurs.
peace.
So it shows/depicts child molestions sceens of a dubious nature.
"PC Plod"
Dear Block Busters,
It has come to our attention that said film contains the above. Please email us by un-enycrpted memory stick left on the No3 bus where the finest constabulary member may pick it up all the names and address's of said people who have every rented this film. Also send security tapes us all those people who have in anyway looked at the sleve or picked it up from your shelves to read.
That way we can go and arrest them just in case.
I mean Blockbusters of course is synonymous will under the counter P0rn and illegal material "NOT!"
Pity they don't have the same level of 'duty' when the 'crime' is kids being mugged / beaten up, property being destroyed or houses/offices burgled. Perhaps those things just don't have the same interest factor as watching a porn movie 'at work'.
Certainly when my son was beaten up the police were 'too busy', when my car was written off while I was away (it was 'safely' parked) or when my office was burgled and several 100,000 of kit was stolen the police failed to act at all. (Frankly didn't even pretend to try).
I have now seen this film around five times, now both in it's cut and original version. Before I get a backlash accusing me of seeing this illegally; I was accepted onto Raindance's film festival's uncut presentation last year. I have since defended the film as an important piece of art. A Serbian Film is undoubtedly one of the toughest movie experiences in years, yet the film being accused of simply torture porn is totally invalid. The movie uses aesthetics of the genre (this is true), yet throughout the entire film we have a proper narrative, characters we (as the audience) care about which makes the film's second half all the more problematic and disturbing.
Film’s such as Murder Set Pieces, Grotesque, Hostel and even the later Saw films have little to no plot. They are simply just about presenting the spectacle of violence in a pornographic manner. In this movie, violence is presented in a truly uncompromising manner which goes to such lengths to denounce violence outright. Yes, the film contains very taboo breaking and controversial content, however nothing is simply placed there just for shock value.
Everything presented in A Serbian Film is an allegorical piece of filmmaking. In the director’s statement (which can be found at www.aserbianfilm.co.uk) Srdjan Spasojevic states: This film serves not as a documentary depiction of our reality, but as an X-ray, a diagnosis of the malformed and disease-driven soul of our society. That is the reason for showing the almost unshowable scenes in the film in such unrestrained and direct manner. The violation, humiliation and ultimate degradation of our being must be felt and experienced by every viewer so that it cannot be ignored. Those scenes figure and communicate as literal drawings of our disfigured and raped emotions. You may call it torture-porn, but to us, it is our life.
This point has been debatable since it's release; but I feel it becomes clear when we see the hierarchy figure of Vulmir (The film's Antagonist) and the treatment of Milos (the film’s Protagonist) which presents deeply political undertones. It also becomes clear when you judge the entire film as a whole and not on individual scenes; the argument the filmmaker is making about the treatment of his citizens in his country. The problem with the BBFC decision to cut the film by four minutes has created a bigger notoriety surrounding the film. Countless online debates about the film’s content and portrayal of violence have created more attention towards this film.
Efficiently the film would have been seen by few people, those that were interested in extreme cinema, foreign films and horror. Now all this attention has created a storm of illegal downloads of people not supporting a cut version but seeing the film in its original state. Because of this development, people are taking it upon themselves to watch the film simply just because of it’s more controversial moments. This has lead to reaction videos, similar in the tradition to internet videos such as: 2 Girls 1 Cup; which i have to say frankly disturbs me. I’m not disturbed that people are seeing the film, but people are ignoring the film as a whole and just forcing themselves to see the New Born Porn sequence and it’s nihilistic conclusion.
The recent developments with Blockbusters will undoubtably secure that this film will never get an uncut certification in this country. It’s true that average film goers would be appalled by the film and they should. This is one of the film’s intentions. The violence is never meant to be fun. The film is profound in many areas. Its not a masterpiece but is an important film. The questions we must ask ourselves: Were you aware of the atrocities that occurred in Serbia? Did you even acknowledge that Serbia existed? The film has put the spotlight on Serbia to an international audience. If you explore Serbian art it resembles what the film portrays. Nothing is new, just that this representation of Serbia has provoked the strongest reaction yet.
I have now seen this film around five times, now both in it's cut and original version. Before I get a backlash accusing me of seeing this illegally; I was accepted onto Raindance's film festival's uncut presentation last year. I have since defended the film as an important piece of art. A Serbian Film is undoubtedly one of the toughest movie experiences in years, yet the film being accused of simply torture porn is totally invalid. The movie uses aesthetics of the genre (this is true), yet throughout the entire film we have a proper narrative, characters we (as the audience) care about which makes the film's second half all the more problematic and disturbing.
Film’s such as Murder Set Pieces, Grotesque, Hostel and even the later Saw films have little to no plot. They are simply just about presenting the spectacle of violence in a pornographic manner. In this movie, violence is presented in a truly uncompromising manner which goes to such lengths to denounce violence outright. Yes, the film contains very taboo breaking and controversial content, however nothing is simply placed there just for shock value.
Everything presented in A Serbian Film is an allegorical piece of filmmaking. In the director’s statement (which can be found at www.aserbianfilm.co.uk) Srdjan Spasojevic states: This film serves not as a documentary depiction of our reality, but as an X-ray, a diagnosis of the malformed and disease-driven soul of our society. That is the reason for showing the almost unshowable scenes in the film in such unrestrained and direct manner. The violation, humiliation and ultimate degradation of our being must be felt and experienced by every viewer so that it cannot be ignored. Those scenes figure and communicate as literal drawings of our disfigured and raped emotions. You may call it torture-porn, but to us, it is our life.
This point has been debatable since it's release; but I feel it becomes clear when we see the hierarchy figure of Vulmir (The film's Antagonist) and the treatment of Milos (the film’s Protagonist) which presents deeply political undertones. It also becomes clear when you judge the entire film as a whole and not on individual scenes; the argument the filmmaker is making about the treatment of his citizens in his country. The problem with the BBFC decision to cut the film by four minutes has created a bigger notoriety surrounding the film. Countless online debates about the film’s content and portrayal of violence have created more attention towards this film.
Efficiently the film would have been seen by few people, those that were interested in extreme cinema, foreign films and horror. Now all this attention has created a storm of illegal downloads of people not supporting a cut version but seeing the film in its original state. Because of this development, people are taking it upon themselves to watch the film simply just because of it’s more controversial moments. This has lead to reaction videos, similar in the tradition to internet videos such as: 2 Girls 1 Cup; which i have to say frankly disturbs me. I’m not disturbed that people are seeing the film, but people are ignoring the film as a whole and just forcing themselves to see the New Born Porn sequence and it’s nihilistic conclusion.
The recent developments with Blockbusters will undoubtably secure that this film will never get an uncut certification in this country. It’s true that average film goers would be appalled by the film and they should. This is one of the film’s intentions. The violence is never meant to be fun. The film is profound in many areas. Its not a masterpiece but is an important film. The questions we must ask ourselves: Were you aware of the atrocities that occurred in Serbia? Did you even acknowledge that Serbia existed? The film has put the spotlight on Serbia to an international audience. If you explore Serbian art it resembles what the film portrays. Nothing is new, just that this representation of Serbia has provoked the strongest reaction yet.