criterionforum.org

LQ wrote:Screenwriter Srdjan Spasojevic fielded questions during a Q&A, framing the movie as an angry reaction to the country's rampant censorship laws. "This is a diary of our own molestation by the Serbian government," he said. "We're giving this back to you." He pointed out that the movie, which has yet to play in its native country, reflects a hidden anti-government sentiment. "In the past 10 to 15 years, the only films made in Serbia have no connection to Serbian reality," he said.

Went back and read some of the early posts in this thread, and I found this interesting. At the time I think LQ (among others) took this as validation that this was a "fuck you!" film in a political sense, a couple of filmmakers seeing how shocking they could get in the name of anti-censorship. But reading those quotes now, I get a slightly different read on what they mean. Not knowing too much about how the Serbian government operates, I do know that they have a reputation for turning the other cheek to quite a bit of [sexually and otherwise] violent criminal behavior. To then turn around and have moralistic and extreme censorship laws is absolutely hypocritical, and to say that "The only films made [in the last 10 to 15 years] in Serbia have no connection to Serbian reality" is both telling and rather profound coming from the writer and director of this particular piece of work.

mfunk9786 wrote:To then turn around and have moralistic and extreme censorship laws is absolutely hypocritical, and to say that "The only films made [in the last 10 to 15 years] in Serbia have no connection to Serbian reality" is both telling and rather profound coming from the writer and director of this particular piece of work.

Unfortunately, it's also bollocks - I suspect Spasojević was cynically assuming that his audience would be ignorant of recent Serbian cinema and would take everything he said at face value.

Indeed, the whole "amnesiac discovers that he's committed appalling atrocities in the name of Serbia" plot can be seen in Dejan Zečević's thriller The Fourth Man, while there are quite a few parallels between A Serbian Film and Mladen Djordjević's often equally dark and extreme The Life and Death of a Porno Gang, which is more directly satirical about life in present-day Serbia. Granted, Porno Gang was made at roughly the same time as A Serbian Film, so Spasojević probably wouldn't have seen it beforehand, but The Fourth Man came out in 2007.

Miroslav Momčilović's Seven and a Half (2006) also offers a memorably sour, mean-spirited vision of life in contemporary Serbia, and I doubt very much that those are the only examples - I can't remotely claim to be an expert on the region's cinema.

I'm even more ignorant of Serbian cinema, but just looking over a little of what has been produced over the recent years it doesn't seem like the government is hiding away from tough subjects. Skinning(which I haven't seen)for example tackles Serbian skin heads in some fashion.

The head of the Sitges Film Festival may face charges for screening A Serbian Film. (No other English links yet.)

My question is this: At what point can graphic films stop being defensible by free speech and censorship boosters? Is any act of on-screen violence fair game so long as it wears some veneer of artistry or social commentary (the likes of which for this film sound ludicrous)?

Yes, any act of on-screen violence is fine by me, because of one simple fact:

It's not real.

Unsimulated animal cruelty is a different matter.

And that's the distinction recognised by British law too - though not Spanish law, if the article that JamesF linked to is accurate.

Hate to say that it is - The Sitges Festival And Director Angel Sala Charged With Exhibition Of Child Pornography For Screening A SERBIAN FILM

'A Serbian Film' finally gets it first uncut release on DVD and BD in Scandinavia on 3/30/2011 by Swedish distributor Cinematic Vision. Only Scandinavian subtitles, though.

US distributor Invincible Pictures will release the film into American cinemas on 5/13/2011, probably in a cut version. However, it will also be available uncut as VOD on the same date.

Terrible news about the Spanish festival director. I understand many countries have child pornography laws that also prohibit images resembling children, whether it be drawings or digital animations. The key to the Spanish case will be whether the judge accept the prosecutors idea that 'A Serbian Film' can be seen as pornographic. I would hope not. The scenes in question are clearly not meant to be sexually arousing at all and the film takes a very clear stance against what is shown.

Le Samouraï wrote:The key to the Spanish case will be whether the judge accept the prosecutors idea that 'A Serbian Film' can be seen as pornographic. I would hope not. The scenes in question are clearly not meant to be sexually arousing at all and the film takes a very clear stance against what is shown.

It does indeed - I'd be amazed if a pornography charge stood up for a second.

Incidentally, this was the argument used by the BBFC's James Ferman in favour of passing Pasolini's Salò uncut in 1976 - he said that it was most unlikely to fail the British legal test of obscenity, which is to deprave and corrupt, because the purpose was clearly to shock and revolt. He was overruled, but Ferman's argument was never subjected to a legal test in court, and I'd say that it still has considerable merit. But I don't know what the legal test is in Spain.

Le Samouraï wrote:I understand many countries have child pornography laws that also prohibit images resembling children, whether it be drawings or digital animations. The key to the Spanish case will be whether the judge accept the prosecutors idea that 'A Serbian Film' can be seen as pornographic. I would hope not. The scenes in question are clearly not meant to be sexually arousing at all and the film takes a very clear stance against what is shown.

Yes, here in the United States child pornography laws were expanded under President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft to prohibit "virtual" child porn, in other words works that "convey the impression"of a minor engaging in explicit conduct. Apparently, in Michigan this means child porn can include YouTube videos of children with no explicit sex in them at all.

Does that mean The Tin Drum is still going to have issues in the US?

What about Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song which had the main character as an underage child growing up, and being sexually initiated, in a brothel? That actually screened on British television in the late 90s totally unedited (I think during the time when British television could take the responsibility on themselves and screen films that had not been through the classification process, something which was tightened up later on) and yet when later released on DVD had most of that early sequence removed.

Ruh-roh wrote:Apparently, in Michigan this means child porn can include YouTube videos of children with no explicit sex in them at all.

Though I guess this is the whole point but where does the line get drawn? Wasn't there a scene in Clerks where one of the characters is reading off an order over the phone for porn films with rather graphic names in front of a child? Are they going to bring Smith up on charges? (And I'll stop everyone right there who is about to post something along the lines that they hope something like that would happen bcause Smith is a fat hack and blah blah blah...)

That would make virtually everyone on this forum an offender. That could include Fish Tank, The Last Picture Show, probably Amarcord, hundreds of films. I dunno, I'm too pretty for jail.

The Spanish brouhaha leads to the cancellation of the planned uncut US release. It will now only open in an edited version - and if it's MPAA-approved, it's probably a safe bet that it'll lose more footage than the British version.

cdnchris wrote:Though I guess this is the whole point but where does the line get drawn? Wasn't there a scene in Clerks where one of the characters is reading off an order over the phone for porn films with rather graphic names in front of a child? Are they going to bring Smith up on charges?

The only even vaguely plausible charge in this case would be corruption of a minor, but for that to stick the prosecution would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the child was present at the time of shooting the entire scene, and that the porn titles were clearly audible. I don't for one second believe that this was the case, and there's no evidence in the film itself that would support that theory. So - hopefully - a case like that would collapse at the first hurdle.

Ruh-roh wrote:Apparently, in Michigan this means child porn can include YouTube videos of children with no explicit sex in them at all.

This is absurd. I can't believe a guy just had his life ruined and is being charged as a sex offender because of a video montage.
As someone just pointed out, that has been done in dozens of movies (including Clerks) and the idea that someone might consider that as child abuse really frightens me.

MichaelB wrote:The only even vaguely plausible charge in this case would be corruption of a minor, but for that to stick the prosecution would have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the child was present at the time of shooting the entire scene, and that the porn titles were clearly audible. I don't for one second believe that this was the case, and there's no evidence in the film itself that would support that theory. So - hopefully - a case like that would collapse at the first hurdle.

I'm not sure how it was done in Clerks, but since they're never on screen together I'll assume it was all done at different times. But if I understood the story in that link correctly, didn't he simulate the setting? He sang appropriate songs in front of the children but then sang the explicit songs to an empty classroom and just edited the footage together to give the idea he was singing the explicit songs to the kids. He didn't actually do it.

If my daughter was in that video without my consent I'd be pissed and I could understand a father being upset, but as long as he didn't say anything explicit in front of her I'm not going to try to bring the guy down as a sex offender and I'd actually object to the DA even trying to do that. That's just ridiculous.

cdnchris wrote: I'm not sure how it was done in Clerks, but since they're never on screen together I'll assume it was all done at different times. But if I understood the story in that link correctly, didn't he simulate the setting? He sang appropriate songs in front of the children but then sang the explicit songs to an empty classroom and just edited the footage together to give the idea he was singing the explicit songs to the kids. He didn't actually do it.

If I remember correctly the actor refused to say the lines in front of the kid so they shot it separately, but Smith himself read the lines to the woman to get the right reaction.

cdnchris wrote:If my daughter was in that video without my consent I'd be pissed and I could understand a father being upset, but as long as he didn't say anything explicit in front of her I'm not going to try to bring the guy down as a sex offender and I'd actually object to the DA even trying to do that. That's just ridiculous.

I agree. Some of those parents must have been furious. My first thought reading the article was, how did he think he could possibly get away with this stunt? But then so much comedy now trades on publicly embarrassing unwitting suckers who find themselves in front of the camera. The difference this guy maybe failed to appreciate is that when someone like Sacha Baron Cohen gets embroiled in multiple lawsuits he has huge corporations and powerful law firms to back him up.

I just find it bizarre that the authorities decided that the best way to go after this guy was to accuse him of being a child pornographer. As in the case involving A Serbian Film, it just confirms my fear that vague or imprecise laws regarding what constitutes obscene material or child pornography will only encourage some people to use those laws to ruin innocent people or censor works they simply dislike.

The comparison to Clerks definitely seems appropriate. Regarding films in the Criterion Collection, I would have to say that, if this YouTube video constitutes child pornography, then I cannot imagine what these authorities would make of the somewhat uncomfortable scene involving children in Sweet Movie!

So material like this would be frowned upon?:

"You're damaged merchandise and this is a Fire Sale"

The "SICKEST TV SHOW EVER" (Daily Mail) is still on YouTube - in an entirely legitimate upload courtesy of the rightsholders.

MichaelB wrote:The "SICKEST TV SHOW EVER" (Daily Mail) is still on YouTube - in an entirely legitimate upload courtesy of the rightsholders.

Would that be "Brass Eye"? Oh, how I love Chris Morris. Sadly, the video is blocked in the US due to copyright restrictions.

MichaelB wrote:The "SICKEST TV SHOW EVER" (Daily Mail) is still on YouTube - in an entirely legitimate upload courtesy of the rightsholders.

What was it? This is what I get when I click on the link:

YouTube wrote:This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

Something Chris Morris-related, I'd guess?

The part of A Serbian Film that I find the most troubling are the real-life repercussions that may ultimately be suffered by the little boy who appears in the film. At some point, he's going to discover the true nature of his contribution to the film and I seriously wonder how his parents will address this with him when the appropriate time comes. I would not want to be them.

To the filmmakers' credit, at least in most of the press material/film credits I've seen, they've omitted the young actor's name.

Ruh-roh wrote:

MichaelB wrote:The "SICKEST TV SHOW EVER" (Daily Mail) is still on YouTube - in an entirely legitimate upload courtesy of the rightsholders.

Would that be "Brass Eye"? Oh, how I love Chris Morris. Sadly, the video is blocked in the US due to copyright restrictions.

It was indeed the Brass Eye Paedophile Special, a vanishingly rare example of genuine satire in the authentically Swiftian tradition. It's impossible to imagine anything even vaguely similar being broadcast by US network TV - I suspect even cable might have baulked at some of it.

I have particularly fond memories of it because I went on a blind date on the day that that Daily Mail headline appeared, and when we saw someone else in the cafe reading it it became an obvious talking point. I decided I might as well be honest about it being one of the funniest things I'd ever seen, which turned out to be the perfect ice-breaker as all her friends had been outraged by it and she was delighted to meet a kindred spirit. We got married just over a year later - and I've just realised it's the programme's tenth anniversary coming up in July, so I might suggest a special screening.

Anyway, here's a more accessible clip. If you're not familiar with Brass Eye, you need to know upfront that every single celebrity and politician was under the impression that they were contributing to a serious campaigning documentary, and that Phil Collins was utterly oblivious of the fact that the name "Nonce Sense" means something else when read aloud (hilariously, he threatened to sue when he found out).

I'll always have a fondness for the Daily Mail's hysterical reaction: it was loud enough that, in the internet age, even someone like myself, on the other side of the Atlantic, heard about it. Using the internet, I was able to track it down, and voilà!: the Daily Mail ended up introducing me to the twisted brainwrongs and one-off man-mentals of Chris Morris, and it was love at first sight.

Speaking of the ridiculousness of this case, and the way major names with litigious corporations behind them would never be in this situation: Daniel Tosh pretty much did an even more offensive take on similar material recently, even going as far as calling the bit "Child Pornography". However, I'll highly doubt he'll end up having his life or career ruined over it.