Censorship: Does it work?
This point came to me while I was watching Cannibal Ferox with friends the other night. While watching the movie it came to a point where the captives are going to be tortured or eaten by the cannibal tribe, the only problem is i cant tell you which one actually happened as the whole scene had been cut out. We have no clue what had happened -all we knew was it cant have been pretty and thanks to be bbfc, we’d missed out.
So we really need protecting from movies? Considering watching them now, more than 25 years on you have to wonder why they were taken seriously in the first place. Would society really collaspe if we were allowed to view these movies fully?
The video nasty act of the 80s wasnt an attack on free speech, but for many of these films it was the greatest piece of publicity they could ever recieve. Banned movies obtain a mythical status because they are banned -were not allow to see them, so we want to see them all the more. Looking at the films thta grace our cinemas and dvd players nowadays, saw as the Saws and the Hostels, is there anything that was shown back then that these movies are showing now that are any different? The ‘uncut’ dvd versions of these films come across more as a marketing ploy rather than general censorship.
Wii game Manhunt 2 was banned until the developer blurred out the killings scenes, which only made people want to play it -but the censors shouldnt have worried -after becoming bored with the kill scenes the game has poor controls and little replay value.
Censorship is supposed to ‘protect’ the public from devient artists -but shouldnt we have the choice over whether to view said entertainment for ourselves? Rather than cutting films to the point of being left with a unitelligible film because of the cuts. To take a quote from the marketing campaign of banned film ‘Last house on the left’: ‘Its only a movie’.
If you remember the video nasty campaign of the eighties you’ll also remember Converse trainers -go here for trainers and some cool t-shirts.
