A FILM condemned as “disgusting and vile” will not be shown at the British Horror Film Festival in Bournemouth on Saturday, October 30, it has been announced.
Bournemouth Council Licensing Committee agreed not to ban A Serbian Film from the festival if it was classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).
Although the BBFC has issued the film with an 18 certificate for Home Entertainment release after almost four minutes of cuts were made, it has yet to issue a certificate for theatrical exhibition.
A Festival spokesperson said they had therefore taken the decision to pull the film “because of timing”.
David Greene, spokesperson for the British Horror Festival, said: “We couldn’t guarantee that they would give us the certificate in time for the screening.”
The film is about a porn star coerced into taking part in acts including necrophilia and child rape.
Mr Greene added: “It is a film that condemns these things and doesn’t glorify them.”
Sue Clark, BBFC spokesperson told the Daily Echo yesterday that they expected to issue the film version with an 18 certificate.
She said: “We have seen the DVD version and they have made the cuts that we requested. If they send the same version in for cinema release there is no reason why we couldn’t have that ready for the end of the week.”
Cllr David Kelsey, licensing board vice-chairman, told the licensing board last week that he would be uncomfortable with the film being shown even if cuts were made.
He said: “It is the most disgusting, vile thing I’ve ever sat down and watched. It was absolutely unbelievable. I think cutting five minutes from it would not be enough.
“Even that would leave a lot of scenes that I would not want to see in a public cinema.”
A LEADING film critic has backed A Serbian Film and called for the public to be allowed to judge it for themselves.
Alan Jones, who contributes to Radio Times and Film Review, organised the Film4 FrightFest event in August, from which the film had to be pulled after Westminster council refused permission to show it uncut.
He said dropping the film had been a “tragedy”.
“I have seen the film numerous times now and have discussed it at length with director Srdjan Spasojevic. Sure, the subject matter is as shocking as they come, but what you actually see on screen in the uncut version, is brilliantly handled so you think you saw what you didn’t,” he said.
He said the film was “a compelling and provocative work of utter hatred and anger” against the treatment the Serbian government meted out to its people.
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has requested 49 cuts totalling almost four minutes before the film can be given an 18 certificate.
Mr Jones said: “That this film has become such a controversial cause celebre – only in the UK and Turkey, I may add – is yet again another example of how the BBFC can tell responsible adults over the age of 18 what they can and can’t see. I find that more outrageous than anything seen in the movie.”
Comments
Don't worry, this film is easily downloadable from the internet.
I expect downloads to get quicker as news of these bans spread.
Maybe I should start telling people what to read or maybe I should tell people what to eat, what to watch, what to drive, where to walk, what to say!?
I don't have a choice or do I...it makes me wonder why the heck I wake up in the morning just so that I can be told what to do everyday by some old **** in a dressing gown!
Maybe I should start telling people what to read or maybe I should tell people what to eat, what to watch, what to drive, where to walk, what to say!?
I don't have a choice or do I...it makes me wonder why the heck I wake up in the morning just so that I can be told what to do everyday by some old **** in a dressing gown!
Never mind the film, that story about the clamper and victim having a girly spat - highly amusing, clamper looks like shirley crabtree! easy,easy!!!!!!!!
Never mind the film, that story about the clamper and victim having a girly spat - highly amusing, clamper looks like shirley crabtree! easy,easy!!!!!!!!
What's wrong with people? Why must something like that have the right to be produced and shown to the audience of a film festival? If people attending the festival would be a bunch of degenerates who don't know what they are doing then they should watch the movie at home munching cheetos. But showing this to a public audience must assume that they are completely desensitized or leave the theater. What is it for you guys watching those movies? The thrill to test how numb you actually are? That you are able to observe the most disgusting things that some losers have in their heads without throwing up? Political critique is one thing, but going far beyond any limits just to add shock value is neither necessary nor any form of "artistic expression". Cut or uncut a movie like this shouldn't even be allowed and people contributing to the production should be held responsible for the sh*t they produce.
What's wrong with people? Why must something like that have the right to be produced and shown to the audience of a film festival? If people attending the festival would be a bunch of degenerates who don't know what they are doing then they should watch the movie at home munching cheetos. But showing this to a public audience must assume that they are completely desensitized or leave the theater. What is it for you guys watching those movies? The thrill to test how numb you actually are? That you are able to observe the most disgusting things that some losers have in their heads without throwing up? Political critique is one thing, but going far beyond any limits just to add shock value is neither necessary nor any form of "artistic expression". Cut or uncut a movie like this shouldn't even be allowed and people contributing to the production should be held responsible for the sh*t they produce.
Rape, necrophilia and paedophilia should never be condoned or portrayed in the name of art.
Rape, necrophilia and paedophilia should never be condoned or portrayed in the name of art.
hemlock wrote…
Rape, necrophilia and paedophilia should never be condoned or portrayed in the name of art.
That means thousands of books, films and tv series should never have been produced. Are you sure you would want that?
Just because something is upsetting to some people, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be portrayed.
hemlock wrote…
Rape, necrophilia and paedophilia should never be condoned or portrayed in the name of art.
That means thousands of books, films and tv series should never have been produced. Are you sure you would want that?
Just because something is upsetting to some people, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be portrayed.
Adrian XX I thoroughly understand your point. But the way that this film has been portrayed by the press makes it look and sound as though it comes dangerously close to breaking The Obscene Publications Acts and The Protection of Children Act. Looking at or making scenes and images displaying Rape, necrophilia and paedophilia even if proven to be fake is now illegal in the UK. If people want to watch this film then let them do it in their own home rather than having it shown publicly.
Adrian XX I thoroughly understand your point. But the way that this film has been portrayed by the press makes it look and sound as though it comes dangerously close to breaking The Obscene Publications Acts and The Protection of Children Act. Looking at or making scenes and images displaying Rape, necrophilia and paedophilia even if proven to be fake is now illegal in the UK. If people want to watch this film then let them do it in their own home rather than having it shown publicly.
Hemlock, the statute you are referring to is Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. This does not "ban scenes and images displaying rape" and does not ban scenes involving necrophilia if the scenes are part of a 'classified work'.
However, as far as I can see, the uncut work is not classified, therefore it may fall foul of this law in showing necrophilia (depending on whether the cut version allows the necrophilia scenes to remain).
You can see the full text of the act here: http://bit.ly/cIwAeH
Hemlock, the statute you are referring to is Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. This does not "ban scenes and images displaying rape" and does not ban scenes involving necrophilia if the scenes are part of a 'classified work'.
However, as far as I can see, the uncut work is not classified, therefore it may fall foul of this law in showing necrophilia (depending on whether the cut version allows the necrophilia scenes to remain).
You can see the full text of the act here: http://bit.ly/cIwAeH
Who cares if this is legal, halfway-legal, or illegal. Common sense and empathy should be enough reason to know that this is just wrong. Allowing to show a movie like this publicly does harm to society by desensitizing people further. This controversy shows how eager people are to defend their "right" to see movies in either cinemas or within their own four walls. This is how far we've come under the disguise of being tolerant and granting freedom to everyone. Just read the synopsis of the movie on wikipedia and tell me if you still have to watch the movie to get the picture.
Who cares if this is legal, halfway-legal, or illegal. Common sense and empathy should be enough reason to know that this is just wrong. Allowing to show a movie like this publicly does harm to society by desensitizing people further. This controversy shows how eager people are to defend their "right" to see movies in either cinemas or within their own four walls. This is how far we've come under the disguise of being tolerant and granting freedom to everyone. Just read the synopsis of the movie on wikipedia and tell me if you still have to watch the movie to get the picture.