Brit filmmaker plans 10hr+ Paint Drying epic

A cheeky Brit has agreeably decided that if the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is going to charge filmmakers to submit their work for certification, he's going to make the longest possible film of paint drying ever to hit the silver screen, and oblige the censors sit through every minute of it. Just how long the …

[hplasm]

Excellent!

Bureaucratic Judo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Excellent!

You can never win against the bureaucrats. For them, this is another ten hours of paid, pensioned employment, sitting in a warm, safe room. I'll wager that ten hours of paint drying would be no worse than anything by M. Night Shayalamam (and speaking personally, Life of Pi would be in the same category).

We can be sure that the salary of those doing the classification will be considerably higher than (eg) the outsourced toilet cleaners working for an investment bank in London. Which would you rather do: Scrape investment bankers' tank tracks off of a toilet for minimum wage, or be paid a comfortable salary to endure a bit of boredom?

Seems to me that Charlie Lyne and his backers don't understand that no matter how low your standards, there's always somebody can go lower.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Excellent!

"Seems to me that Charlie Lyne and his backers don't understand that no matter how low your standards, there's always somebody can go lower."

Don't be so sure. Even bureaucrats have standards. What if, at some random interval between 1 and 15 minutes prior to the end of the piece, something completely disgusting (blood, manure, vomit, whatever) occurs (that doesn't involve an illegal act, mind)? Sure, it will mean a Refused Classification (which it would probably get anyway for some other reason), but you'll have made their day. They try to kill a 10-hour snoozefest until, at the last minute, they lose their lunch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Excellent!

Sure, it will mean a Refused Classification (which it would probably get anyway for some other reason), but you'll have made their day. They try to kill a 10-hour snoozefest until, at the last minute, they lose their lunch.

Give that man (or woman) a gold star! Excellent thinking, displaying qualities of forward planning, insight, vindictiveness and humour, all of which are to be applauded.

However, despite the high qualities of your plan, and its heroic ambition, I'm still not sure you can beat them, since they already have to sit through cinematic gorefests day in day out, Whilst only about 33 films were R18 (as opposed to 18) last year, about 540 videos were classified as R18, plus 379 18 rated videos, and 372 18 rated films.

In fact when I think about the mundane, the profoundly tedious, and the monumentally pointless sequels they have to sit through for general release, and then factor in the six 18/R18 films they have on average to sit through every single day, I start to admire the BBFC. I'm not sure what that whiney film maker is on about, the BBFC ought to be paid to sit through so much dross (and they ought to be able to charge penalty rates to film makers who submit shite).

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Excellent!

"they already have to sit through cinematic gorefests day in day out,"

Maybe if the camera zooms into certain areas where, thanks to some careful undercoating, various slight colour changes occur in the shape of rudie bits, or sexual positions etc, things they need to watch for and classify. These "scenes" could occur at random intervals and be difficult to spot. That should stop them getting too bored and enforce a high level of concentration for the full length of the entire blockbuster.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Excellent!

"I'm still not sure you can beat them, since they already have to sit through cinematic gorefests day in day out,"

But most films that get Refused Classification do so because they're either too lewd or too violent. That's easy enough to understand, but that still leaves potential for grossing out, especially if one goes out of one's way to do it within the confines of the law. And you can even use surreal angles that don't have to necessarily conform to reality.

[Zog_but_not_the_first]

Re: Excellent!

"Bureaucratic Judo."

Excellent observation on a great project.

[Unep Eurobats]

Re: Excellent!

Can he not get a whopping Arts Council grant for this sort of thing?

[Danny 14]

Re: Excellent!

better than watching 10 hours of those 4 twilight films my wife made me sit through.

[TRT]

Re: Excellent!

To qualify for the arts council money he'd have to double the length of the film by putting in an Act 2, which is simply Act 1 in reverse, thus revealing to the viewer the futility of life as everything returns to its original state eventually.

[erikj]

Re: Excellent!

Make sure there's a reason for the film to be rejected and then submit for reconsideration within 42 days. Then they have to watch it again.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/industry-services/additional-information/reconsideration-requests-and-appeals

[tiggity]

true suffering

Make them really suffer, hours and hours of footage (more specifically the sound) of miscellaneous people chatting (to others or into their phones) on public transport will have the BBFC weeping for release. I especially recommend recording some of the rush hour users at Long Eaton train station for a truly awful conversation experience.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: true suffering

And just to mess with them... put someone in there saying the word "F*CK" so they'll HAVE to watch the entire movie or else everyone will know that they haven't...

[TRT]

Re: true suffering

Most of the "drivers eye" "cab-view" films released on DVD for enthusiasts of such things are rated as what? Exempt? How does that work?

[Dave 126]

Re: true suffering

>Most of the "drivers eye" "cab-view" films released on DVD for enthusiasts of such things are rated as what? Exempt? How does that work?

From the article:

"UK law ensures that, in effect, a film cannot be released in British cinemas without a BBFC certificate."

[TRT]

Re: true suffering

Well I released something into a British cinema once, and that made a film over everything I reckon.

[ScottAS2]

Re: true suffering

Videos which are primarily intended to "inform, educate or instruct" or are concerned with "sport, music or religion" are exempt from classification unless they contain a bunch of naughty things (the usual sex, violence, etc.). A video of a train is almost certainly considered a documentary and thus the BBFC are spared watching it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Be sure to include a few frames of an erect penis somewhere, to check they're paying attention. Hilarity will ensue if they miss it, and it gets a U certificate.

[Danny 14]

or a random "badger badger mushroom" every hour or so

[Anonymous Coward]

What does that remind me of?...

"Hilarity will ensue if they miss it, and it gets a U certificate."

Everyone in the cinema pauses, unsure if they just saw what they thought they saw.

Suddenly, a child in the audience begins to cry.

[TheProf]

Try this

260,000 different images strung together to make a 3 hour film. (Think the opening credits to The Big Bang Theory but much more headache inducing.)

Then they'd have their work cut out scanning the lot for unsuitable scenes.

[DropBear]

Re: Try this

Oooooh, there's hidden depth to this idea... Considering one man has basically f###all chance to acquire imagery of relevant diversity (random trees swaying in the wind and whatnot would not achieve the effect) and that otherwise collecting sufficient photographic variety could not possibly avoid paying astronomical royalties for licensed stock images, the only viable way to actually do that would seem to be a monumental crowd-sourced photo-project where a huge number of people agree to go out, shoot pictures and contribute them royalty-free as a frame of the movie. That, by definition, sounds like the biggest art project in motion picture history so it actually stops being a spoof and becomes a legitimate piece on its own!

[Danny 14]

Re: Try this

make sure it has at least some panning but rerender in 23fp so you get plenty of "jitter" in there.

[TRT]

Re: Try this

With a dystopian violin track scored using an octatonic Phrygian dominant scale at 13/4 time, Larghissimo, of course.

[Rabbit80]

Re: Try this

Better still, I would recommend a soundtrack by Portsmouth Sinfonia.. 10 hours of which would make anyones ears bleed and possibly lead to insanity!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmqBzFcHQis&list=RDnDZZEfrRbdw&index=3

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Try this

I got a better idea. Use a synthetic music maker, then just to be particularly nasty, have the pitch slide slowly back and forth from about 1 semitone flat to one semitone sharp. Do it very slowly so it takes time to realize the music's going off-key. I consider it a musical variant on the Vetinari Clock.

[TRT]

Re: Portsmouth Sinfonia,

Jesus H Christ! You win.

[stucs201]

Re: Portsmouth Sinfonia,

Hmmm, that rendition is a good match for my early attempts at docking in Elite.

[Graham Marsden]

Bravo Charlie Lyne!

The BBFC is a monumental racket, a relic of a Nanny State attitude which was designed by our Lords and Masters to stop the plebs from seeing anything which they thought we shouldn't be allowed to watch for fear that it would give us ideas beyond our station or encourage us to to bad things (since, of course, we are so morally spineless and ethically bankrupt that, were we to see naughty stuff, we would immediately go out and emulate it).

The result is that, if someone wants to produce and sell a niche video which is only an hour long, to do this legally, they'd have to fork out over £500 (which is probably more than the profit they'd make from the entire thing) for the BBFC to say either "ok, this is inoffensive" or "oh dear, no. This shows X and Y and Z which cannot be allowed, you'll have to cut those bits out before we give it our official stamp of approval" or even "nope, we're not going to let you publish this at all".

An example of the latter was China Hamilton's NF713 which was banned outright from publication in the UK by the BBFC, even though it's perfectly possible to get it from outside the UK *and* possess it legally *in* the UK since it doesn't contravene the Extreme Porn legislation!

It's time the BBFC was dissolved and the Nanny State stopped trying to tell us what is or isn't "safe" for us to see.

[TRT]

Re: Bravo Charlie Lyne!

I quite like the idea of some measure of filtering of the stuff that goes into distribution.

Although I have to agree with you about them failing to actually do a reasonable job of protecting the public from a deluge of crap and filth, because I note that Ted 2 is coming out soon.

[TeeCee]

Re: Bravo Charlie Lyne!

The flipside to that is how risibly simple it is to drive a coach and horses through the whole racket.

A classic example here was the way that David Cronenberg's "Crash"[1] was released here, pretty much the only place in the world where it came out uncut(!) They got a temporary certificate to show it at a film festival on the South Bank, on the grounds there was no time to certify it before the event. After the festival they submitted it for certification. The BBFC went apeshit at the sight of the thing and wanted to cut the living shit out of it to get it into an 18 cert. The promoters pointed out that, since it had already been screened uncut, this was a bit silly. The censors saw, er, sense[2] and we got the full version.

[1] Very good it is too. Cronenberg at his best and really disturbing.

[2] Oops. Sorry.

[Teiwaz]

Re: Bravo Charlie Lyne!

One point: 'relic of a Nanny State attitude'

I think the 'Nanny State' attitude is very much still prevalent in Britain today. The only reason the BBFC hasn't had a severe shake-up it needs is that the politicians want to extend it or replace it with something even more draconian.

[dotdavid]

Re: Bravo Charlie Lyne!

"I think the 'Nanny State' attitude is very much still prevalent in Britain today"

Yep. If the internet were invented tomorrow you'd be force to pay a £500 certification fee for every website you published to protect the children.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Bravo Charlie Lyne!

since, of course, we are so morally spineless and ethically bankrupt that, were we to see naughty stuff, we would immediately go out and emulate it

To paraphrase Rich Hall: "You would not? So how come there's advertising?"

:)

Joking aside, totally agree but there is quite a lot of that about (which means I'm now paraphrasing Spike Milligan, but that's always OK :) ) which is why I forwarded the link to this sterling effort to The Register news desk. There is such a monstrous pile of things that could be improved that it almost suggests that there is an opening for a wholly new platform. Zoning, age classification, and censorship done by people that I suspect to still write using parchment, ink and part of a bird's anatomy. I do see some value in age classification and censorship but I would expect those evaluating to lag at most a decade in attitudes, not a full century.

Anyway, good effort. I love people who find a way to use humour to highlight issues.

[tony72]

Funny

I'm probably going to send the guy a fiver, because that's an amusing way to troll the BBFC and make his point at the same time. I'm not sure that I actually agree with the point though; maybe some will argue against the need for an organisation like the BBFC at all, but if you accept the fact of its existence, then it seems reasonable to expect that film makers should contribute towards the cost of getting their films certified, because it does cost money to do. Maybe there should be some sort of tiny-budget exemption, e.g. if your film has a budget of less than £x and is going to be shown in less than y cinemas, then you get to self-certify or something?

[BenR]

Re: Funny

I think I agree.

Film classification is generally a good thing, but censorship is a bit iffy. As long as they aren't showing something *actually illegal*, why shouldn't it be shown? Maybe introduce another rating above an 18 or something? I dunno.

Is it not more the case anyway that they way it works is a film producer has a rating they want to achieve, say a 15, for a particular film. They go to the BBFC, and the BBFC say "Yeah, it's mostly OK, but you can't say c**t in that one scene and get a 15 rating. Lose that and you're fine, or we have to rate it an 18."

Charging per minute of footage takes this piss a bit though. Surely a flat fee of £500 or so is all that's needed? Or perhaps up the charge for the big feature films - where the change in cost from £1k to £2k wouldn't even be noticed as a rounding error on the budget - so that smaller niche films can be given a substantial discount if they are only to be shown on a limited number of screens or something?

[Cuddles]

Re: Funny

"Film classification is generally a good thing, but censorship is a bit iffy."

Absolutely. The BBFC is not a bad idea in principle, but its job should be limited to what the name actually now says - classifying films, not censoring them. The absolute maximum rating a film should be able to have is "18 - fuck it, you're an adult now and can watch whatever you choose". Letting parents know that it might not be a great idea for their kids to watch certain things is not a bad thing. Saying that no-one can see Backdoor Sluts 10 because it contains slightly too many nipples is. The problem with the BBFC is that it currently does both, not that it exists at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Funny

>self-certify

Like the idea, I'm making a low budget film with limited release.

Now where did I put that chicken?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Funny

If there was the threat of a fine/ban/possibly legal action against you if you make a clearly inappropriate self-certification, I don't see why that wouldn't work.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Funny

>If there was the threat of a fine/ban/possibly legal action against you if you make a clearly inappropriate self-certification, I don't see why that wouldn't work.

Because it would make every film into a court case.

Group X doesn't like group Y so brings an action against any film that depicts doing group Y stuff claiming that it could harm children and you have to pay a QC 1000/day to defend yourself.

You are group Z and show yourself doing extreme stuff to another group Z and claim that it is your humane right you were allowed to classify it as U.

[Chris G]

Re: Funny

"and you have to pay a QC 1000/day to defend yourself."

Cheap QC, can I have his number?

[PhilBuk]

Re: Funny

"Now where did I put that chicken?"

Next to the pig's head.

[Rol]

Re: Funny

In principal I agree with self certing your film, but perhaps in light of how damaging some material might be to children's minds, perhaps the self cert should be SC18 only, regardless of its contents.

As an adult you would realise an SC18 film might lack titillation and violence, but to allow an SC12 that is nothing other than religious indoctrination, or other manifestation of how fucked up some people are, would be a grievous error.

[JimmyPage]

I've Kickstarted twice this year

£50 total, to keep the video versions of the (IMHO) mainly excellent "Richard Herrings Leicester Square Theatre Podcasts" coming (The one with Johnny Vegas was worth it alone !).

Pluses: Unedited, and no book/film/TV show plugging. Oh, and no BBFC involvement. And free on ther internet.

Minuses: Occasional low-energy guests.

At least I know where my money went. £50 for getting on for 50 hours of when-it-works ****ing brilliant comedy sounds a bargain.

[Ralph B]

Re: I've Kickstarted twice this year

I've also backed RHLSTP (RHLSTP!) on Kickstarter but I would not necessarily recommend YouTube as a general replacement for the BBFC for all video content. While YouTube have never (yet) blocked a Herring video due to the blue-ness of the language, they most probably would if he or his guests were ever to reveal a nipple. (The stuff of my dreams.)

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: I've Kickstarted twice this year

Or if they said something anti-Google, or something anti a company that Google has a financial interest in that you don't know about, or something pro an organisation that some government doesn't like and Google needs to do a favour for...

At least with BBFC you know they are just nanny-ish, you don't need to assume a conspiracy.

[JimmyPage]

Maybe the *cinemas* should pay

after all, the film having a BBFC certificate is protecting *them* from prosecution,

[TRT]

Re: Maybe the *cinemas* should pay

Bloody hell, no. They charge enough as it is, the monopolistic bunch of tossers. £5 for a box of popped corn? At least? What, is it drizzled in Dom Perignon and gold dust?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: £5 for a box of popped corn?

That no-one is *forcing* you to buy.

Having lost 4 stone by the unheard of technique of eating less food I can tell you that you can easily reach your 2100 calories (1800 for women) a day without a bucket of popcorn.

A medium latte can have 150-200 calories (i.e close on 1/10th of your daily target). Add a cake, and you're probably at 500+ calories. Bet you don't leave a meal out to compensate.

[TRT]

Re: £5 for a box of popped corn?

It was more a comment on the prices at the cinema in general. I avoid the pop corn because of the lack of value for money (not the price, I hasten to add). £9.29 for a standard adult ticket?! £11.29 for a "premium seat". This has now exceeded the price of getting it on DVD. Might as well wait for the disk to come out. Does Vue's Premium Seat have a button on it to pause it whilst I nip to the loo (an all too often occurrence nowadays)? Although I note that Apple have maintained the price differential. £14.99 for e.g. Minions or Jurassic World on iTunes.

[VinceH]

Re: £5 for a box of popped corn?

"It was more a comment on the prices at the cinema in general."

I agree entirely - but if you (can*) avoid big names like Vue, the cinema can still be a reasonably priced experience. I tend to go to my local fleapit - a very small chain (Scott Cinemas) who charge something like £5.25 or so for a ticket. (And I didn't realise until a couple of months ago when I happened to go on the right day, one day of the week it's even cheaper; something like £3.50).

Their snacks and drinks etc are still pricier than in the shops, but I make a point of buying a drink simply to put a little more into the till because the ticket prices are so reasonable. (Even though it usually means I'll have to miss a couple of minutes of the film because I'll, ahem, become full and need to make a little more room!)

^{* Which might not be possible, depending where you are, etc. Such places are gradually disappearing (there used to be a selection of three or four small places locally I could go). :(}

[Fraggle850]

Re: £5 for a box of popped corn? Not where I go!

They don't even serve such nonsense. They do, however, serve chocolate cake, real ales and absinthe. Also, being an independent cinema I'm not generally troubled by noisy, ignorant morons or people rattling paper bags full of over priced pick & mix. They show art house, off the wall stuff, have special events for classics and still manage to squeeze in the better blockbusters. Big up to the Electric in Birmingham.

[SImon Hobson]

Re: £5 for a box of popped corn?

> £9.29 for a standard adult ticket?! £11.29 for a "premium seat"

Well that's what happens when you don't support your local independent cinema(s) and lose them all. We are lucky where I live in that we still have an independent - and it's only £6 for an adult, no "premium" seats, they are all the same (old, probably the originals from when it was built !).

[Anonymous Coward]

8 downvotes

Truth hurts, fatty,

[tony72]

Re: £5 for a box of popped corn?

I commend you on your weight loss. However most people don't go to the cinema every day, it's an occasional treat, just like parties and whatnot. Most people accept that ones normal dietary goals may be temporarily suspended for special occasions.

And besides, can't speak for the GP poster, but for myself, when I have occasion to eat extraneous cake, donuts or whatever during the day, I actually do try to compensate for it, by cutting down or eliminating the carbohydrate portion of a main meal, not by skipping the meal altogether; that works well. Not an unheard of thing to do.

[Ralph B]

Re: £5 for a box of popped corn?

The cake is a lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: £5 for a box of popped corn?

Having lost 4 stone by the unheard of technique of eating less food I can tell you that you can easily reach your 2100 calories (1800 for women) a day without a bucket of popcorn.

OK, I may have missed something here: are you saying you only eat when you go to the cinema?

:)

[IsJustabloke]

Re: Maybe the *cinemas* should pay

I'd rather pay a few quid more and not have to put up with fuckwits eating barrels of popcorn... buckets of fizz... troughs of nachos with chillies/cheese/vomit on them.

You're there to watch a movie, if you want dinner go to a fucking restaurant

[jonathanb]

Re: Maybe the *cinemas* should pay

They pay for distribution rights for the film, which includes the cost of classification, so ultimately they are paying, and we pay them when we buy a ticket.

[Soruk]

Sounds like that other film-within-a-film...

Who could forget Idiocracy's in-film film, "Ass"?

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: Sounds like that other film-within-a-film...

actually I have. The opening scene was the memorable bit

[Loyal Commenter]

Re: Sounds like that other film-within-a-film...

Or the in-film-TV series, "Ow My Balls!"

[Trevor_Pott]

Optimal solution

Create a competition between 4chan and reddit to come up with the single worst movie of all time. A movie that would make CIA interrogators looking break a subject weep with horror. Then film it and submit it.

The downside is that the despair for the sheer horribleness of which humanity is capable will cause anyone actually reading more than 5 minutes of that script would simply walk outside their house and blow their own head off. You'd go through a crew of thousands before you got the film shot and it would eventually be classified as a war crime.

But a film that was the result of a head to head between 4chan and reddit to create the most horrible thing ever would be one hell of a form of political protest.

[TRT]

Re: Optimal solution

Or you just just resubmit Ishtar.

[Captain DaFt]

Warning: Pure Evil Alert

"Or you just just resubmit Ishtar."

Ah, I've an inspiration!

Get the rights to several horrid movies (Heavens' Gate, Gigli, Ishtar and Water World as examples), Hire Uwe Boll to edit them into an epic drama, and

Watch the World burn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Optimal solution

Prometheus

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Optimal solution

"...will cause anyone actually reading more than 5 minutes of that script would simply walk outside their house and blow their own head off. You'd go through a crew of thousands before you got the film shot and it would eventually be classified as a war crime."

"Jesus.... what do you call a film like *that*?"

"The Aristocrats!"

[jonathanb]

Re: Optimal solution

I think if you sent for example some child porn for classification, they would report you to the police as well as ban it.

[Fred Flintstone]

Re: Optimal solution

Create a competition between 4chan and reddit to come up with the single worst movie of all time. A movie that would make CIA interrogators looking break a subject weep with horror. Then film it and submit it.

Ah, so basically the reverse of Monty Python's funniest joke in the world? I'm not sold on the idea that these people have any emotion and/or soul left. Surely if it was possible to drive them to despair it would have already happened on account of the sheer amount of pointless drivel, sorry, "art" they have to wade through...

[BinkyTheMagicPaperclip]

Re: Optimal solution

Spring time for Hitler, in Gerrrmannny.....

[annodomini2]

Re: Optimal solution

Black screen with noise cancelling white noise designed for the room, should only need to be about 15-20mins long and should drive everyone watching literally crazy.

[DrXym]

I doubt the BBFC really care

I bet 99% of what BBFC is forced to watch is terminally boring to begin with. I'm sure they'll take the money and pass the thing. Or they'll have some fast track process in place to deal with certain kinds of content and they'll force the guy to use it.

[Jason Bloomberg]

Re: I doubt the BBFC really care

It's not like just one person has to sit and watch it start to finish in one sitting. I would guess they could find some means to derail pre-booking to get a swifter rating decision.

The only reason to watch it is to ensure it is only paint drying, doesn't contain something they could be caught out by rating without having watched it. If they have technology in place to spot subliminal frames they might be able to use that to look for scene changes; making it a very easy job to handle without even watching it.

It's 'funny' on some level but I am not sure it achieves anything or makes any real point. I also don't think the BBFC will care either, even if they do have to watch it all.

[DropBear]

Re: I doubt the BBFC really care

"It's 'funny' on some level but I am not sure it achieves anything"

It doesn't yet it does. The thing is, the worst thing one can ever possibly do to authority is making it laughing stock - it gradually fractures the reverence that is the only thing keeping unjustified authority in place. Why else do you think satirical depiction of a certain allegedly-holy-person is such a big deal these days with certain people? They know this all too well too. In that sense, subjecting BBFC to thunderous laughter is definitely a worthwhile endeavour. Anyone expecting any immediate dramatic changes is betting on the wrong horse though...

[auburnman]

Re: I doubt the BBFC really care

Best case scenario from the viewpoint of annoying the BBFC is the intern is going to have a shit couple of days; 3 if they get enough to reshoot a 14 hour extended edition.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I doubt the BBFC really care

I'm sure they'll take the money and pass the thing

It'll be hard to spot a spike in suicides in a third world country, although I have been led to believe from their movies that in India they will jump back up a moment later and break out in song and dance...

[PhilipN]

Blowed if I'm going to watch the film

The guy's painting is crap

[TRT]

Re: Blowed if I'm going to watch the film

Just wait for the sequel. Paint Drying 2 - The second coat.

[Chris King]

Re: Blowed if I'm going to watch the film

Beaten to the sequel joke, but who's the protagonist ? "Ron Seal" ?

[Callam McMillan]

Re: Blowed if I'm going to watch the film

It'll be better when it's rereleased - The Dulux edition!

[Lester Haines]

Re: Re: Blowed if I'm going to watch the film

Very good. Award yourself a beer.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Blowed if I'm going to watch the film

"they already have to sit through cinematic gorefests day in day out,"

Then there's the slightly longer version where they spotted a flaw and had to fix it. The Directors T-Cut.

[lawndart]

Re: Blowed if I'm going to watch the film

With a bit of clever editing he could show sequences out of order.

And call the movie Primer.

[TRT]

Re: Blowed if I'm going to watch the film

It's never going to rival Krzysztof Kieślowski's Three Colours trilogy.

[pstiles]

I hope it's a trilogy

I'm really looking forward to the director's cut on Blu-ray.

The boxed set will look great on the shelves and may actually get as much re-watching as The Hobbit trilogy.

[TRT]

Re: I hope it's a trilogy

Pah! It's just a remake of the 1939 cult classic, "Whitewash".

[Nick Ryan]

Re: I hope it's a trilogy

Not forgetting all the other wonders of Blu-ray that are apparently very, very important for, well, on broad average nobody at all. So we can have multiple commentaries, different endings and different angles all of the same riveting storyline. Not forgetting the directors cut and the making of featurette as well.

[Haku]

Payback

for ruining all those films over the decades by cutting bits out of them to make them "safe".

[Anonymous Coward]

porn?

I could never understand of the logic behind some censorship. Sex between consenting adults (and depending on the country even between consenting 14 year olds) is legal, murder is not. Showing sex, even faked one, on tv or in the cinemas is considered porn and in lot of the countries it is illegal, while showing murders or other crimes are regarded as standard entertainment. In the US it is even worse, a female nipple on tv creates more upset than school shootings.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: porn?

"Showing sex, even faked one, on tv or in the cinemas is considered porn [...]"

On a trip to South Africa in the 1970s I was invited to go with a family to a drive-in movie, Their three children were no older than about 9. Apparently the official censors had cut out a fleeting distant view of a bare-breasted woman - so they could then give the film a "family viewing" rating. It was "Dirty Harry" - with all the blood and violence uncut.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: porn?

For REALLY weird censorship, look at Japanese porn. There is some irony in the pixellation of genitalia in a flim about 2 armed men systematically raping a bus full of schoolgirls!

[Anonymous Noel Coward]

Re: porn?

You can thank the Americans and their "morality" for the mosics.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: porn?

The irony is that they're typically looser than Americans in that regard. Plus, they have much less problem with tops in that regard. Some can be overt; others just remove the most sensitive parts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: porn?

"[...] consenting 14 year olds [...]".

Pretty much anything with under-18s is likely to either be very self-censored for anything that could be tangentially regarded as sexual - or risk a prosecution. Even then - you can still be prosecuted for owning a legal film if the prosecution decides you were thinking unwholesome thoughts while watching it.

Imagine a young playwright with a synopsis for a prime TV slot of a couple of 14 year olds getting it together. Aided by an elderly woman who is supposed to be responsible for them - knowing that the parents would be livid. "Sorry Will - nice story but no way we'd get it past the censors. Have to cut the sex relationship - but we'll keep the sword fight killing".

[myhandler]

Um. so classification also helps parents decide what is suitable for their kids to see.

£100 per movie plus a few quid per minute is bugger all.

Also I knew a guy who worked at the BBFC - pay was crap and it quickly got very boring

[Mark 85]

But did the guy who worked there get a popcorn allowance? OTOH, boring is bad no matter how good the popcorn.

[Stevie]

Bah!

What an exellent and most British response to the situation.

I suggest, in order that the BBFC do not simply set the poor bloody tea boy to watch it he paint letters that just *could* be some sort of rebus or code or something, but aren't of course.

And call it "Subversive Thoughts On The Government of Great Britain".

[Crisp]

Make sure that the BBFC is doing their job properly.

Insert a few hundred frames of something in there to make absolutely sure that they watched the whole thing closely.

[Yugguy]

BBFC is funded solely by charges

It doesn't get government funding.

And it's a captive market with no competitors. So it can charge anything it likes.

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy should narrate it, too, with shipping forecasts and other things in such a monotonous voice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shipping forecasts

Why pick on the shipping forecast? I always found them riveting. You obviously have little imagination and have no idea what fantasies the words Dogger or German Bight can conjure up.

[Charles 9]

Re: Shipping forecasts

Use an old computer-generated voice and turn it loose on a large local phone book.

[MR J]

I am confused.

It's £1,000 for a 90 min film.

But the cost is £101.5 + £7.09 per min..

That's only about £740.

And.. Not to be rude here. But How many people sit and watch this?

So £425 an hour, and BBFC says they use teams of 2-3 per film, and if something needs clarification they will run it by another 2 or 3 per film..

So we are going to pay 3 people £141.8 per hour each for 14 hours to show them how we don't like them?...

While there is some hilarity in this, I think a lot of people need to really consider what impact this will have. Personally, I bet the BBFC will enjoy these types of films coming out.

If anyone here dislikes what I do, I am more than happy to receive £141.80 per hour to keep doing it.

[Francis Boyle]

"If anyone here dislikes what I do, I am more than happy to receive £141.80 per hour to keep doing it."

Which is the point of the exercise.

[Mutton Jeff]

There has to be a trilogy in this

pass the popcorn.

[Anonymous Coward]

5kHz test tone all the way through

Their ears would be ringing after that :)

Or perhaps a dripping tap... water torture, LOL

[Fraggle850]

Re: 5kHz test tone all the way through

An irregularly dripping tap, I think that messes with the brain a little more effectively.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 5kHz test tone all the way through

An irregularly dripping tap, I think that messes with the brain a little more effectively.

Left and right at a very slightly different frequency...

[Queasy Rider]

What am I missing here?

In this digital age, how hard is it to knock up a film of any length, especially paint drying. Point your digital camera at the paint, record for a few seconds, loop the results infinitely, or till your eyes bleed, transfer to film, submit to censors, although personally I feel this will not achieve the desired result because you have made it too easy to fast forward through. A better solution would be to individually film a large, random selection of objects, or better yet, partially clothed people, then randomly and repeatedly mix the cuts till you have the length of movie you desire. Because of the randomness, the censors will be forced to watch it end to end. And to forestall the board simply refusing to even view the film by perhaps arbitrarily rejecting it as unviewable tripe, be sure to insert a few socially redeemable clips randomly, (I'm thinking anti-Holocaust type footage here) just to keep them on their toes.

P.S. Use only black and white or a little bit of red to make it even more difficult to scan through.

[Naughtyhorse]

Of course...

The book was much better

[DocJames]

Dammit!

I read all through the comments to check it wasn't there, and naughtyhorse managed to get my comment right at the end. Have a thwarted upvote.

[Dr Patrick J R Harkin]

He won't need to reshoot any footage to make it longer.

Just stick in some slow motion sequences.

[HippyChippy]

Drying paint...

The process of paint drying is quite interesting though real time viewing would be a bit tedious. See here for edited highlights - nice crystal structure Man!

https://vimeo.com/90187417

[xnetman]

Could Backfire

The whole stunt could backfire, and motivate the BBFC to change their pricing structure.

[Anonymous Coward]

On a serious note...

...don't spoil the ending of the movie for me.