Japan torture flick sickens UK film censor The Japanese movie Grotesque (NSFW) has gained a rare accolade this month, in being one of the few films to be refused an '18' certificate in recent years by the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC). Individuals who sell, distribute or supply the film would now be breaking the law. According to a spokeswoman for the BBFC, …
/ "think of the children comment"
"oh come on you whingers, how can it be sick, unless they did actually torture people"
That is a good argument for making "fake" child porn, "fake" 'this is how I'm going to capture and torture Paris Hilton" books/films legal. Anarchist / terrorist how to movies. Jihad propoganda. Might work as an argument for all conspiracy charges as long as you haven't commited the crime yet. Or any other attempted, but failed crimes.
/ end "think of the children comment"
Then again, almost all video games are simulated murder so whatever. I'm probably torturing you now with my (lack of) logic. Maybe things are not black and white.
having downloaded and watched this today (thank you bit torrent!) I can see it was definately hardcore.
gruesome, and realistically gory. After watching it I felt truly a bit disturbed and shaken. But y'know what, that's a good thing. In a world of Transformers and G-force and Ice Age 2-3-4, 15 etc.. It's important to have films that make you think, may you FEEL something, experience something, even if that feeling isn't pleasant. It's made me think. And whilst it's in no way a pleasant watch, (you're watching people being brutally tortured) I'm glad I saw it. - but not all that keen to watch it again! (mind you, having sat through transformers 2 the other day I would say the same thing - only with that I'd have preferred to have spent those 2 hours doing something better!)
I object to you bringing anarchists into this mix. Please research what anarchists are and what they stand for. The term anarchist is bandied about too freely to describe those who want to destroy society when all that the majority of anarchists want to do is destroy the status quo and encourage self rule. I do agree with you however that things are not always black and white.
Anarchism: The theory that forms of government are oppressive and should be abolished, the rejection of authority and control.
Anarchy does not have to be violent nor chaotic.
I always take the stance that if you haven't seen it how can you know you won't like it?
A lot of films show a huge amount of gore/violence/torture, it's the story that carries it, not the gore or special effects. I personally found saw (all of them) to be very dull but i will watch this, why? because i like to be shocked and i know that it's not real. People that get off on things that are sickening are more likely to watch the news than a movie....
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641314185
If you honestly think a film about tortue can't be good i suggest you look up "Save the green planet" on IMDB, it is one of the most wonderful, bizaare and disgusting films i have ever seen but you don't see the horrific tortue that it implies, it merely shows facial expressions and allows your mind to do the rest. I found it to be far more horrifying and entertaining than any of the saw films but thats probably because of a great storyline and great acting.
I will watch this although i don't think it will be any better/worse than a standard slasher flick, i would expect it to be like Shogun Assassin, much ado about nothing.
I often get the impression that those who side with the censors conflate and confuse two, different questions:-
1. Is it okay to watch?
2. Who has the right to decide the answer to the first question?
The contradiction at the heart of such censorship is that the censor is exercising a right, on behalf of others, that is denied to those same others.
When Celine the Censor decides that Vic the Viewer shall not be allowed to watch some particular film, Celine is actively participating in denying Vic his right to decide for himself what is and is not okay for him to watch. If Vic does not have that right himself, what right does Celine have to decide it for him? (This is an example of a more general question at the heart of the distinction between libertarianism and authoritarianism.)
Such questions are not adequately answered by arguments that beg this very question in the first place. Some people put forward various arguments as to why Vic should not be allowed to see whatever the film is, as if that answers the question of who has the right to decide that matter in the first place. But such arguments seek to answer the first question, "Is it okay to watch?", when the question is actually the second, "Who has the right to decide the answer to the first question?"
Such confusion on the part of those who side with censorship, and authoritarianism more generally, does give me the impression that such people simply don't understand the very concepts of rights and freedoms in the first place. They seek to protect people by taking away their rights and freedoms - absurd! It is those authoritarians who are a far, far greater menace to society than those who make and watch these ghastly films. Our rights and freedoms - and therefore we ourselves - are simply not safe in the hands of those who don't even understand rights and freedoms.
I would suggest a much more sensible way to proceed might be to make sure that those who might end up choosing to watch such films are aware that if, as a consequence, they become deranged killers (or whatever), they are still fully responsible, since they themselves chose to watch such films to begin with. (It's the same with, say, drink-driving (or at least it should be). We don't regard drunkenness as an excuse for killing someone while drink-driving, since the drunk driver chose to drink in the first place. That choice means they're fully responsible for the consequences.) If you choose to pollute your mind, you're entirely responsible for the consequences.
Instead, we have this patronising, nannying approach which tells people that they're not really responsible for what they do, because nasty images on a screen can make them do bad things.
If I don't have the right to decide for myself what is and is not okay for me to watch, then neither to the BBFC.
.....thing is had the moron who made it bothered or had the skill to add some proper plot to it then it probably would have passed.
I've watched several of what were classed as 'video nasties' back in the 80's over the years and without fail all of them were awful and a true waste of time. Unfortunately banning gave them a reputation they dont deserve.
"If i knew of anyone that even *wanted* to watch this stuff "
This proposition appear to be based on quite a few unsolicited assumptions.
People might want to see it without expecting it to be "entertaining" for a number of reasons.
1. What is all the fuss about?
2. Is the film more or less "sick" then a different "sick" film?
3. Is this film really as sick as it is described?
4. Are there any new techniques applied in the making of this film?
5. What is the agenda (or naff story line) in this film "really" about?
etc.. etc
People have a tendency to do the most strange things due to curiosity or unexpected special interest which from an ignorant point of view might appear to be "sick". The point is that while "sick" people might find some entertainment values in this film - others (inclusive filmfans and professional reviewers) might find some entertainment values in aspects of the film production etc which are not necessarily straightforwardly apparent to ignorant observers. Ofcourse there might have been virtually no interest in the film if it was not banned. People might howerer have perfectly valid reasons to watch censored films - if for no other reason just because of them being censored! The issue for many of the commenters above is not necessarily always the sickness of the work - but the lack of respect for the citizens of this country as mature adults! Treating all people above the age of 18 as underage and unable to make use of their personal judgements is not appreciated by us - the same people who would prefer to live in a society with free speech. Rather then censorship there could be a review panel which could describe why this film is sick and socio-culturally unacceptable - but censorship is fundamentally flawed in a free society by definition (as it is targetting a piece artificially created work of "art" - e.g. not a "snuff" movie and so not causing "real harm").
What is really sick is the promotion of a censor (ubermensch) who "knows best" on behalf of us - the common adult members of our society.
Surely, the point of all this is that you have to draw a line somewhere in a "civilised" society?
Certainly, I am 100% in favour of free speech, or rather, a person's right to it, but let's say the movie was about a psycho who kidnapped two children, raped and them murdered them - would that be OK? Would everyone here defending the film's right to exist defend a move like I just described? Or would some of you draw the line at the depiction of a child being dismembered whilst still alive?
And if you would draw a line there, then I think that's maybe just a wee bit hypocritical. If you want to talk about objective proof or objective argument, then where's your objective morality? How can you justify objectively that it's OK to watch it happen to adults, but not for example kids?
Personally I never watch this kind of thing but that's only because I get plenty of adrenaline/freaked out scary from my active life of bear wrestling :)
also, where is the IT angle?
Without any plot or other artistic justification for the violence, it should not have a certificate.
For Simon 6: Whilst you might not be affected, others might be. I would contest that the sort of people who are obsessed with this sort of thing might well be disposed to enacting what they have seen on film. In my youth, I spent a fair amount of time with someone who was fascinated by violent films and weaponry of all kinds. He was regularly violent towards those around him, culminating in a 4 year sentence for the attempted manslaughter of his own mother.
Here's another more recent example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6390754.ece
You have to set a bar somewhere - Personally, I have less of a problem with sex than with violence. I think there is already too much violence in the world to give it any kind of glorification.
"If i knew of anyone that even *wanted* to watch this stuff (knowing what it was about), i'd hand them their P45 and have them escorted out within minutes."
...and you'd be in breach of employment laws and in court faster than you could say "rewind!". You can't dismiss people for what they think, like or want. Only for gross misconduct; if they watched the film in company time on company premises for instance.
Get a grip, we don't belong to you and we are not subject to laws on thought-crime. yet.
I find the very concept of the film repulsive and the thought of watching it (or even Hostel) makes me feel a bit nauseated.
However, if some other person wants to watch these films and extracts some entertainment from it, why not let them?
I remember when Faces of Death was all the rage with the kids. I opted out of watching those with my friends, too. And that was back when you had to find someone with a copy of a copy VHS cassette.
This, as long as nobody was actually tortured in the scenes depicted, is precisely the sort of thing freedom of expression is designed to protect.
You don't have to protect the things no one objects to. You only have to protect those things that may "offend" because those are the things that others will ask to have removed "for the children" or "for common decency".
"(AFAIK Rape scenarios fall outside of R18 by some margin.)"
Which is ironic as somewhere in the region of 40% of woman surveyed in some studies on the matter have admitted to having had some level of rape fantasy, and that's just the one's that admit it seen as it's an embarrassing/taboo subject.
> The comments here show exactly what sort of pathetic tossers are produced by UK society.
Yes, we get Nanny State idiots like the BBFC whose job, it seems, is to "protect" us from seeing anything nasty, just in case it inspires *us* to then go and do something nasty too.
Still, what's wrong with a little Thought Crime here and there?
Of course by not giving it a classification it means that anyone who does download a copy can now be done under the so-called Extreme Pornography legislation (aka the Dangerous Pictures Act) that came in a while back, whereas, beforehand, they were not commiting any offence at all.
As this film has been refused a certificate by the BBFC, it is no longer exempt under the new extreme pornography law and as such possessing it is likely to earn you 1-3 years inside and a lifetime branded as a sexual offender (therefore assumed by most to be a pedo)
Now, are you still sure you want to download it?
Still sure when you realize that you posted your intent to do so in a public forum where a simple tick-the-box warrant will give the police your IP address and shortly afterward your name and address?
Feel free
... normal healthy adult want to a). make a film like this or b). watch a film like this?
I can't see why extreme scenes need to be shown on screen. If it is so vital for the story to have butcher scenes why not just have the camera pan away and then back? Unless the point is just to show butcher scenes for shock/sick value. then if so, it brings me back to my first question.
Can normal healthy adults here answer?
"I usually find myself supporting free speech but theres been several films I've seen that have just made me feel physically sick and I dont really see why anyone had a need to make/watch anything like that?"
I think you mean, "I usually find myself supporting free speech but only for stuff I don't strongly dislike."
It's not free speech if you only allow it for stuff you don't strongly dislike. Your idea of "supporting free speech" sounds a little bit like the BNP's idea of opposing racism: they very strongly oppose racism against the vast majority of the population - whites. But if, on that basis, they claimed they usually oppose racism...
Your claimed support for free speech is not tested when faced with stuff you don't strongly dislike. It's tested when faced with stuff you do strongly dislike. You have failed the test.
Free speech: it's Voltaire or nothing.
by reporting this you have promoted it., and done so free of chrge, ... YOU KNOB!!
that said, I won't be looking for it or watching it. I know some movie makers are clueless and just think that by pushing the envelope they will have a hit but these are usually crap movie makers who actually don't have a clue.
As for this genre, i think you have to be a little sick in the head to want to watch it. Seriously, If this article has really made you want to watch this rubbish then you should really consider seeing a shrink coz you're a bit of a phuqnutt - really. Think about it, this kind of crap is one step away from the real thing, so ask yourself if you 'really' want to see this, and if the answer is yes then you are wrong in the head and need help (or secure isolation).
So Matt 89 doesn't understand this stuff, therefore it should be banned.
Wow, what a great argument!
Personally I don't understand why people would want to regularly watch stories of people being threatened, abused, intimidated, having relationships torn apart and so on, but since these are (apparently) regular staples of EastEnders, presumably there is *some* desire on the parts of some people to watch such stuff.
If Matt 89 or anyone else doesn't like it, then, in the words of Kenny Everett to Mary Whitehouse "You've got a knob, use it".
But don't be so arrogant as to try to tell everyone else that because *you* don't like it, *they* shouldn't be allowed to watch it.
"that you Brits have the BBFC to protect you from yourselves. We're on our own here in the US, and let me tell you, it's a minefield - how are we supposed to know if it's OK to look at or think something unless the government tells us? Well, you know how it is - we just don't take care of our citizens here the way you do."
Ain't that the truth!
Robert Grant (and supporter):
Point taken. Possibly the logic could have been made more explicit. The BBFC view seems to boil down to the idea that absence of narrative and character development makes a film more likely to be watched for sadistic amusement only and/or more likely to influence towards harm.
The HO research I looked at - and odds and ends besides that have emerged over the last few years, suggest that identification with a film character has a deeper influence in all sorts of ways than just showing nasty images.
F'rinstance... I have watched some quite nasty stuff over the years in order to get a handle on what is at or close to the edge. Yes: this is sample of one stuff...but my own response where a film lacks engaging features (like narrative, etc.) is to turn off very quickly and to stop watching.
In other words, it is possible that the lack of engagement makes the film less dangerous than one with narrative etc.
...the number of people in here who say, "I in particular dislike this, therefore I'm fine with the government banning it" - not thinking for a moment that the government might ever in the future do something they DISAGREE with.
Think, people. First, they came for the Jews, etc etc...
Those who complain about censorship never actually lived with it. I did and I risked jail to distribute banned publications. The kind of which you may find nowadays only in most boring history books.
This? it's not censorship. Some publications are just so disgusting people should be protected from seeing them. Granted, another category would propably do better in this role e.g. "you will wish you had not seen it", simply because "bannded" attracts attention.
These types of extreme movies cause Desensitization to horrific and violent events.
This IS a bad thing, it de-values human life and damages society.
eg; At a certain point, after years of watching these kinds of movies which get worse and worse trying to out gore each other, you will turn on the TV, see some poor mother and child blown to bits live during some war or attrocity and you wont even care!
You have seen worse in movies so what do you care, it causes no reaction in you, envokes no emotion, you have been DESENSITIZED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(psychology)
These films are not entertainment, they are like blood sports of old, lets throw some people to lions and laugh as they are torn apart!
Yes they are movies, we know the actors are still alive but your mind on some level WILL process these images as if they were real, after a while these movies will not seem so bad or shocking but this will also extend to the real world.
There has to be a certain line you do not cross, you may not like it but its there to protect you!
To echo the observations of a few preceding commentators, this film would be a risky P2P download considering the 'Extreme Pornography' legislation now in force.
One criterion would be whether a jury would determine it to be 'solely for the purposes of sexual arousal'; an insufficient narrative, as judged by the BBFC to be significant factor in this case, increases this risk, then but this threshold is not identical with that set out in the legislation.
>I can't judge this behavior, that would be wrong, but personally, I'm not that kinda person.
>Watching people being tortured?
>Why?
>Do you want to be tortured, do you want to torture?
Or do they want to stop people being tortured? Banning this would not stop Israeli "Chastity Squads" from beating up widows for being seen smiling or whatever their excuses are, but if allowing it motivates people to get off their arses and intervene to stop real world allegories then your discomfort is worth it.
Should we spare ourselves the horrors of rape, so that nobody cares that Afghanistan just legalised it, or remind ourselves that on a deep level we want to stop it?
This post has been deleted by its author
I think that the trouble with films like this (and the Saw and Hostel series) is that they really desensitize people who watch them to the real violence and horror that takes place in the world.
I work with young people, aged between 12 and 16, who have watched the Saw and Hostel films. They thought that the violence and torture was 'cool' and 'funny'. I know that legally they shouldn't have seen these films due to their 18 rating, but we all know that in this age of Bit Torrent and weak parenting that young people will get and watch these films. This casual attitude towards death and violence carried over to real life killings - some of them had seen 2 guys 1 hammer and again, found it funny.
And then people wonder why society has issues. We've lost the respect and value of human life. We all watch the news now and most people, myself included, are no longer shocked by all the death and destruction that we see. Killing either on the streets of the UK, Iraq, Afganistan or wherever is now seen as normal and unremarkable.
I don't think that censorship is necessarily the answer - as others have pointed out, all it does is draw attention to the films. Ideally film makers, from big Hollywood studios to the small independent producers will start to think about the impact and effect that their products have on those who will inevitably see them. But like that's ever going to happen, when there's a quick buck to be made.
For those who are decrying the censors as being 'nanny' and that they have the right, as adults, to watch stuff such as this - stop thinking about yourself and your rights and start thinking about your responsibility to wider society. Just because you can watch / do something doesn't mean that you should.
The signal to noise ratio is pretty high in this comments section.
@Sarah Davis
"Think about it, this kind of crap is one step away from the real thing, so ask yourself if you 'really' want to see this, and if the answer is yes then you are wrong in the head and need help (or secure isolation)."
I'm sorry but you are utterly incorrect with this statement. Saying that watching something is "one step away from the real thing" neatly avoids the fact that its a massive life-changing step and requires a person to actively decided to commit the act in question. And using your same logic on anything else of a disturbing nature shows just how flawed it is, e.g. i watched plenty of news and footage of the suicide bombings in Iraq - do i want to be a suicide bomber because of that? I actively sought out the footage of that iranian woman randomly executed during the recent unrest, which is quite possible the most saddening and disturbing thing i've ever seen - do i want to start shooting iranian women because of that? I've watched documentary footage of whales being harpooned - do i want to join some japanese whaling fleet because of that? I recently played a game on the PC where i used very realistically modelled weapons to shoot all manner of people - do i want to join the army and shoot foriegners because of that?
The answer to all those questions is a very obvious NO. Equating wanting to watch something disturbing or distasteful with wanting to mirror those same acts myself in real life is quite possibly the single most dangerous threat to freedom of speech and freedom of expression you can come up with. You may as well accuse anyone who watches a documentary about Hitler with wanting to become him. Patently ridiculous.
Oh and you completely missed the minor issue that, according to your logic the censors themselves should be locked up for wanting to do their job.
So you ban this extreme sort of thing, and you're happy. For a while everything's good, and Daily Mail readers such as yourself the nation over rejoice.
Time passes and after a while stuff on the scale of Saw and Hostel starts to look distinctly tasteless. With anything more severe being banned, these are now the most severe thing about, and surely, if Grotesque deserved the banhammer, why don't these?
Time passes and with no Saws or Hostels about, the violence portrayed in Tarantino films starts to look distinctly hardcore.
In the end you're left with Bambi, but even that gets censored as the murder scene is far too graphic.
Slippery slopes!
... it's the people who make it that bother me. They are only in t to make money after all. If they get a certificate and people pay to see it, they may make a profit and no story torture porn become a market. Download it from a torrent site they don't make money and the industry looks somewhere else for a bit of easy money.
I'm not quite sure why they even bothered to approach the BBFC with a relase in the UK, the best place to market this film and make money on it is some Bit torrent porn site surely?
And I think calling it and comparing it to a 'Film' as in release to cinema etc, is a bit strong, I would class it as a fetish film which indulges the Director's passion, ain't going to make him famous in the right circles that make millions that's for sure.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Time passes and with no Saws or Hostels about, the violence portrayed in Tarantino films starts to look distinctly hardcore."
Is that the same Tarantino who portrayed someone's head being blown to pieces with a pistol in True Romance? That's merely the first scene that springs to mind. Notably "Resevoir Dogs" was denied a certificate for some time. We are currently sliding down an entirely different slippery slope, where does it go? Animals tortured to death on film? Pyschotic killers murdering hordes of undifferentiated children while tossing himself off?
I like special effects in films, I also like 'magic'. Should the powers that be ban 'sawing the lady in half' tricks. I saw Penn & Teller do it on AGT. Blood and Guts were hanging out, it looked real. But we all know its a trick, Magicians aren't murderers. If censors had their way back in the day, there would be no Houdinis or magic. People used to collapse when they saw tricks like that. Most people with functional brains know what films they like. Don't want blood? Disney's for you. Want violence? See Arnie. If a film is crap, then people will give it a miss anyway.
I am an adult, fully aware that what I see on screen is trickery. I am not influenced to go copying the film for real. I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. I would like to be allowed to do so.
And not be judged as a sicko because I'm into sfx.
has a job to do, and part of that is to assign certificates to films. Part of the remit is to refuse certificates under certain circumstances.
Freedom of speech only goes so far, whereas I can see an argument for a classification above R18 which makes it pretty clear the nature of the film there will always be a level where material gets banned. pretty sure some things getting 15 certs today would have been refused certificates 20 years ago.
OK, so now people who wanted to see the film but couldn't buy it will just torrent it, and others will torrent it just to see what the fuss is all about, but that is entirely outside the remit / responsibility of the BBFC. To blame the BBFC for any increase in viewing of banned films would be like blaming the courts for the increases in murder because they have decreed murder illegal.
As has been mentioned if people acquire it in the UK without paying money to do so then the commercial entities behind the film will not make any more money from it and ultimately these things are created in order to make a profit.
One of the main reasons we have social problems today is we don't invest in childrens development, we'll spend millions upon millions to increase policing so we can get revenge on people but the net result is very poor (almost no decrease in crime figures, or marginal) where as a recent scheme geting kids boxing by the olympic boxing guy (£200,000) led to almost a 50% drop in youth crime in some high crime areas.
Yes programs can mess up kids ethics but only if they're being brought up by the programs and not by real living people. If we decided to invest the millions we waste on increased policing on free clubs, activities, after school clubs, etc... However that doesn't play well with the revenge aspect in our society, and the "bobbies on the beat" fallacy.
We're in a sad sad state.
This post has been deleted by its author
err, just look around you.
Watching a sick film does not make people want to go out and mutilate people, but it desensitises people to such actions and repetative exposure such scenes causes them to be accepted as more 'normal' than society would find acceptable.
Witness the increase in youth stabbings and shootings - in nearly all cases, when the perpetrator is caught, they say that they didnt mean to hurt the victim let alone kill them.
There seems to be a relentless drive to make films and tv programs more and more outlandish, with more extreme stunts and effects. The hero who can be shot a dozen times but still manages to save the day - whereas in reality he would have been a bubbling mess of blood and pain lying crying for his mum. Or the stunt where the good guy chases the baddies across the rooftops and jumps the 20 foot gap between buildings, planting a perfect two-footed landing and continuing the chase. Again, in reality, if he actually cleared the gap, then a two-footed landing without dissipating the impact in a roll or other way would probably pop his hips out.
But wth the youngsters absorbing this sort of tosh, and not being served any 'factual' or educational content, they tend to take the movies as representations of the real. Alas, they learn all too late that sticking a blade in someone doesn't just leave the target requiring a few stitches and trying to take a 90 degree turn at 80mph on the local estate usually ends up with a bunch of dead mums and babies on the payment they just spun across.
... just how many people are in favour of the sort of "Freedom of Expression" which is defined as "Freedom to say/ read/ look at things that *I* approve of".
Not to mention those who are immediately willing to dismiss anyone who makes or watches such things as "sick" or "not normal" or "not having a healthy mind" or those who think that we need to be "protected" because we're obviously so mentally feeble that we're not capable of exercising our own consciences and not going out and emulating what we might have seen.
Isn't it good that we have people like you who are such fine, upstanding citizens that *you* are capable of deciding for *us* what we should or shouldn't look at!
I'm sure the Taliban would applaud your morality and would want to recruit you for their groups that eg go around beating women who let their burkhas slip because obviously seeing a bit of female skin is just the first step on a slippery slope to the commission of depraved acts...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
