A Serbian Film can be shown at British Horror Film Festival in Bournemouth (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Bournemouth RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos
A Serbian Film can be shown at British Horror Film Festival in Bournemouth
9:00am Friday 22nd October 2010 in Bournemouth
CONTROVERSIAL: A Serbian Film
A CONTROVERSIAL horror film that includes scenes of paedophilia and rape can be shown in Bournemouth if it gains an 18 certificate – despite one councillor labelling it “disgusting and vile.”
The town’s licensing committee agreed they would not ban A Serbian Film from the forthcoming British Horror Film Festival at the Pier Theatre if it was classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).
But the BBFC will not issue the film with a certificate unless almost four minutes of footage is cut from it first – something the distributor has not yet done.
The film is about a porn star coerced into taking part in acts including necrophilia and child rape. Its director has called it a “diary of our own molestation by the Serbian government”.
But Cllr David Kelsey, vice-chair of the licensing board, said he would still be uncomfortable with the film being shown, even after the cuts.
“I downloaded it last night and I would not recommend it to a member of my family,” he told the meeting.
“It’s 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.
“I just find it amazing what people can actually get away with in the cause of art nowadays – to me that’s just not art.”
Chairman of the board Cllr Andrew Morgan suggested they write to Pier Theatre manager Ian Goode to inform him councillors would not be happy with the unclassified version of the film being shown.
He also recommended the council take Mr Goode up on his offer to vary the Pier Theatre’s licence to specifically prevent unclassified films from being shown there.
“We’re not stepping into the shoes of the BBFC, if they want to show a classified film it’s not our role to stop it,” he said.
Stuart Brennan, director of the British Horror Film Festival, said it was up to the film company and distribution company to decide whether they wanted to make the cuts required to gain an 18 certificate.
“If there is a copy of the film that we can show by the time the festival goes ahead then we will show the cut version,” he said.
But he questioned Cllr Kelsey’s assertion that the film was disgusting and vile.
“There is not an official version online,” he said.
“I’m gobsmacked that he has downloaded an illegal copy and watched it.”
Comments(51)
sashabubble
says...
9:39am Fri 22 Oct 10
Only this year, Srdjan Spasojevic's A Serbian Film has shown a newborn baby being raped to death while still attached umbilically to its mother. Spasojevic has explained: "This is a diary of our own molestation by the Serbian government ... It's about the monolithic power of leaders who hypnotise you."
fedupwithjobsworths
says...
9:47am Fri 22 Oct 10
mikey2gorgeous
says...
9:48am Fri 22 Oct 10
.
Presumably you approve of the many films that show rape, torture and hideous violence that do get 18 certs? At what point does a film stop being 'OK' and start being 'sick'?
.
And just what do you expect will happen? Where are the psychology and sociology texts that correlate the watching of horror and violence to actual harm?
.
I read Hamlet in school. It features incest as a motif. What are your views on that?
.
Surely you're saying more than 'I don't like it so i don't want anyone else to see it'?
Baronbottom
says...
9:49am Fri 22 Oct 10
The Council is famous for watching filth, so why really be surprised. Strange they would lay themselves open to piracy law in such an idiotic way, or is it?
Cllr McLaughlins whitewash inquiry cost the tax payer at the very least £17,000 of tax payers money. He was found to be watching hard core (above top shelf) **** and an £8,000 independent inquiry found against him. The Council however didn't like that outcome so spent thousands more on a Queens Council to get him off by saying it was out of working hours he watched the filth on his council laptop. Throw in some racist texts and conflicts of interest inquiries against a senior Councilor, shocking stories of Cllr Spencer who has resigned but the reason is kept secret from the public (but most the town hall and even the press know). Secret meetings, stitched up consultations the list goes on. How this bunch of hypocrites think they can dictate to others from their position of corrupt morality is beyond ridicule.
Bournemouth Council featured three times in Private Eye's 'Rotten Boroughs' already this year. I think the real Horror is the people of this town not having the chance to vote this mob out until next May.
mikey2gorgeous
says...
9:50am Fri 22 Oct 10
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:Have you seen a typical horror film convention audience?
In my opinion the people who put the money up to make this film are sick, the people who made this film are sick, and the people who want to watch this film are sick - I suggest they seek help.
.
I'd rather have a beer with one of them than a bigoted, patronising bore like yourself jobbie!
sashabubble
says...
9:59am Fri 22 Oct 10
mikey2gorgeous wrote:so it ok to depict a newborn baby being raped to death while still attached umbilically to its mother, is it?
@sasha - so what? You think we should ban films just because some people don't like them? . Presumably you approve of the many films that show rape, torture and hideous violence that do get 18 certs? At what point does a film stop being 'OK' and start being 'sick'? . And just what do you expect will happen? Where are the psychology and sociology texts that correlate the watching of horror and violence to actual harm? . I read Hamlet in school. It features incest as a motif. What are your views on that? . Surely you're saying more than 'I don't like it so i don't want anyone else to see it'?
likestocomplain
says...
10:03am Fri 22 Oct 10
GB916
says...
10:11am Fri 22 Oct 10
sashabubble
says...
10:18am Fri 22 Oct 10
GB916 wrote:thank you GB916, I am in agreement with you.
There have been many films in the past that tackle such controversial issues,8mm to name one,Hostel is another one,i think the main difference of this film is is sounds like it shows scenes of child abuse and rape,we have had drama's on the TV in the past that have tackled this issue but not in the graphical way this film may show,i agree a film like this should be available to view,but cutting the scenes that actually show the abuse,now i am only speculating that the movie has these scenes in,so maybe Cllr David Kelsey could answer that question,i myself would not want to see such a film,i have seen several documentaries on these issues and that was bad enough,but a movie would not interest me.
fedupwithjobsworths
says...
10:19am Fri 22 Oct 10
mikey2gorgeous wrote:Bigoted, patronising bore for not wanting to watch a film showing a film showing a newborn baby being raped?
fedupwithjobsworths wrote: In my opinion the people who put the money up to make this film are sick, the people who made this film are sick, and the people who want to watch this film are sick - I suggest they seek help.Have you seen a typical horror film convention audience? . I'd rather have a beer with one of them than a bigoted, patronising bore like yourself jobbie!
Perhaps you should enjoy a beer and watch this film with mcloughlin.
captsanders
says...
10:35am Fri 22 Oct 10
On the other side of the coin I think paedophiles are the scum of this planet.
But their seems to be double standards surrounding this type of so called entertainment, A person downloads child **** from a website will feel the full weight of the law, but paying to watch the same thing in a cinema is quite legal.
I cant think of any reason why anybody would want to produce this kind of material under the guise of entertainment, I also cant see a reason why any normal person would want to pay to watch it except for some sort or sexual fulfillment.
The publicity surrounding this film in the media will no doubt bring the dirty mac brigade out in force.
Having said that, banning something like this only drives it underground and would probably force it onto the internet to be downloaded so there appears to be no escape from films such as this.
We hear so much talk about films and television shaping peoples lives that this would probably give a certain section of our society new ideas.
Its the mass publicity that this film has received that will make it a hit with some people.
fedupwithjobsworths
says...
11:08am Fri 22 Oct 10
captsanders wrote:Agree 100%
I have never been a fan of censorship and believe that people should make up their own mind what to watch. On the other side of the coin I think paedophiles are the scum of this planet. But their seems to be double standards surrounding this type of so called entertainment, A person downloads child **** from a website will feel the full weight of the law, but paying to watch the same thing in a cinema is quite legal. I cant think of any reason why anybody would want to produce this kind of material under the guise of entertainment, I also cant see a reason why any normal person would want to pay to watch it except for some sort or sexual fulfillment. The publicity surrounding this film in the media will no doubt bring the dirty mac brigade out in force. Having said that, banning something like this only drives it underground and would probably force it onto the internet to be downloaded so there appears to be no escape from films such as this. We hear so much talk about films and television shaping peoples lives that this would probably give a certain section of our society new ideas. Its the mass publicity that this film has received that will make it a hit with some people.
sashabubble
says...
11:17am Fri 22 Oct 10
"The Protection of Children Act 1978 makes it illegal to make, distribute, show or possess ‘indecent’ photographs or pseudo-photographs of a child (that is, someone under the age of 18 years)".
so how can the BBFC get round this - is it because its "Art"
captsanders
says...
11:23am Fri 22 Oct 10
pawspause
says...
11:32am Fri 22 Oct 10
sashabubble
says...
11:35am Fri 22 Oct 10
andrew.morgan@bourne
mouth.gov.uk
or Cllr David Kelsey
david.kelsey@bournem
outh.gov.uk
captsanders
says...
12:00pm Fri 22 Oct 10
pawspause wrote:I dont think that the normal person in this country needs a visual reminder of how horrific child **** is, your comparison between santa, the easter bunny the tooth fairy and a child pron movie suggests that your sanity needs addressing.
Ummm..... are you guys serious? This is a film...a movie... it's fake, it's not real? And from what I've read about the film is condemns the horrific acts in the film. So how is child **** different to a movie featuring it? ONE IS REAL THE OTHER IS NOT? Are you seriously this uneducated? Maybe it should be banned if you can't tell the difference. I'm sorry to have to tell you about Santa, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy....
The film may well be fake but there are certain people in our society that get lot of gratification while watching this type of filth.
We read about these things happening everyday all over the world, there's a big difference in reading about it and being disgusted and being disgusting enough to want to watch it happen.
Chris12
says...
12:38pm Fri 22 Oct 10
Let's just remind ourselves who these people are. They are the ones who we complain about on these pages each day for their incompetence, poor judgement and lack of accountability.
I am more offended by their actions in the past that affect the entire borough than their input in a decision to show a film that an individual has a choice to pay to attend.
Since when did Bournemouth Council have the right to be our moral compass ?
sashabubble
says...
12:58pm Fri 22 Oct 10
pawspause wrote:yes its a movie, whether the "acts" are real or not are beside the point. Are you saying that these vile scenes are acceptible because they are "art"?
Ummm..... are you guys serious? This is a film...a movie... it's fake, it's not real? And from what I've read about the film is condemns the horrific acts in the film. So how is child **** different to a movie featuring it? ONE IS REAL THE OTHER IS NOT? Are you seriously this uneducated? Maybe it should be banned if you can't tell the difference. I'm sorry to have to tell you about Santa, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy....
Before you know it, soon child **** will be legalised because it is "Art". There is a fine line between "art" and ****.
Markmag
says...
1:03pm Fri 22 Oct 10
4 minutes of cuts is a huge amount for one film. While I have no interest in seeing such a film I fully respect the right for the edited version to be shown.
The right action of any council is to support this - don't allow an unrated film edit to be shown, but don't try to stop the showing of a rated film either. Thankfully the days of local councils making their own decisions on films are mainly gone.
I am very concerned that a councillor appears to have illegally downloaded a pirated copy of a movie (and one not certified by BBFC at that). This to me is a far bigger scandal than the po rn-gate affair. Unlike that case, Cllr David Kelsey has openly broken the law and has done so in the name of council work. The council should investigate this with the upmost urgency. Unless the Cllr can easily prove he managed somehow to pay legitimately for the film he has put the council into disrepute.
soulchild
says...
1:28pm Fri 22 Oct 10
When you hear these people complaining about these issues, surely everybody has a choice in the matter its not as though people are getting forced to watch it.
zagzig
says...
1:47pm Fri 22 Oct 10
I downloaded it last night and I would not recommend it to a member of my familyLOL, has anyone reported him to his ISP for piracy yet?
mikey2gorgeous
says...
2:17pm Fri 22 Oct 10
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:No - bigoted patronising bore for labelling people you know nothing about as paedos. Lazy sensationalist crap, I'm surprised you don't write for the Echo!
mikey2gorgeous wrote:Bigoted, patronising bore for not wanting to watch a film showing a film showing a newborn baby being raped?
fedupwithjobsworths wrote: In my opinion the people who put the money up to make this film are sick, the people who made this film are sick, and the people who want to watch this film are sick - I suggest they seek help.Have you seen a typical horror film convention audience? . I'd rather have a beer with one of them than a bigoted, patronising bore like yourself jobbie!
Perhaps you should enjoy a beer and watch this film with mcloughlin.
madgeman
says...
2:57pm Fri 22 Oct 10
madgeman
says...
2:58pm Fri 22 Oct 10
cathyfranklin
says...
2:59pm Fri 22 Oct 10
I would like to know whats so good about watching child abuse and paedophilia from all you guys that are for this film? Would you like to see films like this had you been victims of this abuse in your family or would you still think this film was ok? the film makers are obviously not of right state of mind either so would you leave them to babysit your children?
This is not about ranting and shouting about everything and trying to get stuff banned for the hell of it, its about this film is particually vile and sick and i see NOTHING entertaining about paedophillia unless it is a paedophile himself watching it. Why do we have to be so detailed and gory to have entertainment these days.
And how contradicting many people are, when only yesterday everyone was saying about the councillors to watch the film for themselfs, so one does just that and everyone goes moaning again saying its illegal, typical brits.Damned if you do and damned if you dont. I would also liek to know how the chidlren are after making such vile sick film. Anything to make a quick buck these days and always people to follow and help them make money along the way. Shame on this country.
allseeing kevvo
says...
3:20pm Fri 22 Oct 10
ranger_bob
says...
3:34pm Fri 22 Oct 10
..
Thare are constant complaints on this website about the Nanny State and Big Brother. Now here is a chance for everyone to stand up and be counted. As Voltaire said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
..
I would rather the council got on and ran the borough than try to tell us what we can and can't watch.
..
If however they are hell bent on censoring something they can start a petition to remove Reality TV from our screens (and soap operas if they really want to gain my vote!)
s-pb2
says...
4:41pm Fri 22 Oct 10
There seems to be a lot of people passing judgement on something they havent seen and are going on the say of a councillor who may or may not have illegally downloaded it and may have his own agenda. It is ultimately down to the BBFC to decide whether to give the film a certificate or not. Its all rather reminiscent of that wonderful episode of Father Ted!
MrsDoylescakes
says...
6:14pm Fri 22 Oct 10
zagzig wrote:Well well well. I would love to be the companies solicitors....they must be rubbing their hands, a Cllr admitting he has commited to the media and fellow Cllrs he has illegally downloaded the film.........why did he not view the legal copy the company offered him and refused! or maybe that was too tame for him. Please tell me he's been reported!
I downloaded it last night and I would not recommend it to a member of my familyLOL, has anyone reported him to his ISP for piracy yet?
joncon
says...
6:22pm Fri 22 Oct 10
Tezza1965
says...
6:39pm Fri 22 Oct 10
I've heard the same rubbish time and time again from the naysayers who want to ban everything controversial. We had the same muppets complaining about The Exorcist, A Clockwork Orange and even Monty Python's Life Of Brian for heaven's sake! All three of these films are now recognised as classics of their genre.
So get a grip ok.
It's just a film.
It's NOT real!
T.BH1
says...
8:38pm Fri 22 Oct 10
differentgravy
says...
9:02pm Fri 22 Oct 10
Bournemouth Woman
says...
9:10pm Fri 22 Oct 10
!!!!!
butlincat
says...
10:05pm Fri 22 Oct 10
Dorsetshell
says...
10:10pm Fri 22 Oct 10
zagzig
says...
10:18pm Fri 22 Oct 10
MartiB
says...
10:09am Sat 23 Oct 10
Nobody is forcing anyone to watch it. It is a film made in a Country where people have seen more death and horror in the last few decades than most people in the UK will ever see in their lives. They have a different outlook on life and different attitudes to life.
This is just some vain attempt by another councillor to 'try' and make a name for himself, who should be investigated for possibly illegally downloading a copyrighted film and whether he used council property to do so, as I dare say he didn't purchase the film.
The noose
says...
11:10am Sat 23 Oct 10
i will offer no opinion on it however as I'm more interested in the comments of those who have NOT seen the film.
As in the mid '80's and the moral panic around "video nasties" there seem to be a lot of people complaining about something they have not seen and taking scenes that they have HEARD about and adding their own context, then making the leap from fiction to reality. can they not define the two?
why would a "peado" go to a public area to watch scenes of simulated child rape? surely the fact they can get the real thing in the comfort of their own home would negate this.
the same with people who want to watch videos of accident victims or real life murder. its all there, just a click away. why would we suddenly make child **** legal because of a morally dubious film? now that is a leap.
i do NOT want to watch real life murder or abuse but i do have the capacity to understand the difference between fiction and prosthetics and the real life horrors we inflict on each other everyday. this ability too differentiate the two and live through and empathise with the vicarious thrills of heroes and villains and the victims and betrayed is what ALL our entertainment is based around whether its a book, music TV or film. some people like thrash metal some like Celine Dion. some folk enjoy eastenders some prefer emmerdale.
its all about personal choice and if i happen to want to watch something that might challenge my own morality then why can i not have that option?
child abuse is illegal.killing people whether for entertainment or not is illegal. making challenging and thought provoking media should never be.
nor should those who engage with it be the subject of name calling or finger-pointing.
I'm am never surprised at the "moral majority's" ability to judge whats suitable for other people whilst at the same time professing "I've not seen it but...." according to these type of people i should be a mass murderer by now!
a.g.o.g.
says...
11:18am Sat 23 Oct 10
allseeing kevvo
says...
12:37pm Sat 23 Oct 10
indefinable
says...
4:30pm Sat 23 Oct 10
being a responsible adult I can go along pay my money and decide if I like it or not, and not have some dictatorship decide for me.
I remember the sex pistols being banned from Derby and i think torquay (might have been newquay) and you couldnt have bought the ammount of publicity with the furore that followed.
Well Done The echo for "advertising" this film.
Pepper Pig
says...
8:09pm Sun 24 Oct 10
Yes, this film should be banned. Not just because I don't like what others call 'art' but because it portrays evil, sadistic acts which cause pain and suffering beyond belief. It will corrupt the soul and poison the minds of those who watch it. Not immediately, but given time exposure to these types of behaviour will make the watcher de-sensitised. They then become common place and acceptable!!!
If this is 'art' then what next; a west end theatre version? Would the people who support this evil film still like it if the acts were carried out live on stage??
Ban it now, and make it a serious crime to even possess a copy!
cor
says...
11:40pm Sun 24 Oct 10
-well, why would anyone want to watch any horror; murder, rape, disemboweling, severed limbs and all the rest of it...
To be horrified! why else?
To see human beings in inhuman conditions and maybe, just maybe, witness a character fight against the evil in the fictional world and identify with that person on a basic level... or just to hope for that character, that never turns up and be thankful that in your life your are that character.
remember children, these aren't cartoons, the good guys can't win in every scene or the story would be so devoid of reason it wouldn't be worth the telling.
If those four minutes are the difference between the audience being horrified at a horrific act, or not.. then removing them would only fool the masses into thinking these activity maybe are not so horrific after all... not exactly the message I'd like to send out.
Binky
says...
10:47am Mon 25 Oct 10
It seems that Bournemouth Council is not the first to have to make this decision:
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/film/2010/aug/
27/a-serbian-film-fr
ightfest
The film maker insists that the violent imagery is a metaphor for how his government has treated the people of his country. Couldn't he have used a slightly more acceptable metaphor? No of course not. That wouldn't get bums on seats.
Don't be sucked into the "Emperors New Clothes" argument that this is art. It is out and out sensationalism and the director is showing a staggering lack of sensitivity, just to make a name for himself. If he really wants to protest about his government, he should attend the "less is more" school of subtlety.
The noose
says...
8:14pm Mon 25 Oct 10
How incredibly patronising.
Have you ever read a book or watched a tv program when the down trodden and oppressed rise up and conquer their oppressor and felt empathy with the character? Of douse you have. would you want to stand by and watch it happening for real. No. Only an idiot would want that.
You then state that it should be a "serious crime" to own a copy of the film. (this bits important. Its a film, fake, not real, its pretend, make up, special effects)
Just think about that for a minute. A serious crime could include The loss of liberty, maybe of employment,think of the impact it would have on a family if the person was the main bread winner and was sent to prison. all that because they own a film (a film you have not seen) and the fact you don't agree with someone else's (mine for instance) opinion. An opinion based on other peoples opinions.
Being an adult I like to try and form my own opinions rather than repeating others.
I'm sure my wife and children would be extremely grateful to lose their father, husband and home because of nice people like you. I personally wouldn't wish that on anyone.
I thought it was the people who watch this type of thing who were supposed to be desensitised!
For someone who's quite happy to make other peoples opinion a crime and for effectively not thinking the same way you do I think it's YOU who are desensitised. Dangerously so....
The noose
says...
8:20pm Mon 25 Oct 10
The "quote" button was broken!
Pippins
says...
6:49pm Tue 26 Oct 10
Binky wrote:you must have been appauled when you watched it ...... i'm assuming that you must have seen it in order to make such comments?
Whether it's art or ****, the fact remains that its showing is down to the BBFC, who have refused to issue a certificate. This in itself indicates that it is a film far from the usual "horror" that we are used to. It seems that Bournemouth Council is not the first to have to make this decision: http://www.guardian. co.uk/film/2010/aug/ 27/a-serbian-film-fr ightfest The film maker insists that the violent imagery is a metaphor for how his government has treated the people of his country. Couldn't he have used a slightly more acceptable metaphor? No of course not. That wouldn't get bums on seats. Don't be sucked into the "Emperors New Clothes" argument that this is art. It is out and out sensationalism and the director is showing a staggering lack of sensitivity, just to make a name for himself. If he really wants to protest about his government, he should attend the "less is more" school of subtlety.
Rally
says...
12:56am Wed 27 Oct 10
The critical difference is that the former is for real, the latter is not.
It is like the difference between a 'snuff' movie and, say, 'No Country for Old Men'.
More Bournemouth stories
- Bournemouth Airport heath is transported to top London museum
- Contest of creativity for Bournemouth students
- Brave Jeff tackles a shoplifting runaway in Bournemouth
- Bournemouth's night-life under scrutiny
- Trades Union Congress returning to the BIC for annual conference
- Arts centre campaigners make final stand
- Memorial to Red Arrow pilot chosen
- Carjacker broke pensioner's arm in attack
- Oakmead College sparks tree-felling row
- Winton residents angry over 'unwanted' cycle path
all seeing cat says...
9:36am Fri 22 Oct 10