CENSORSHIP IS GOOD
Censorship is a good thing when it is used in immediate ways and a bad thing when it is used across the board, or after a film is completed. I think as filmmakers we have a certain responsibility to not only ourselves, but to our viewers’ psyche while we are making our films. I think that we’ve all likely seen enough ‘well-done’ violence and horror in movies, but if it has to be in there – there ought to be an internal moral compass to follow. Self-censorship as an artist is really a good thing (bear with me). The images are something you are choosing to give others in the form of cinema (which is as close to a real experience as they can get) so let them use their imagination. It takes creativity, and the result is always more memorable. What isn’t seen is what effects our emotions, instead of just shocking our systems.
DRAWING THE LINE: SELF-CENSORSHIP
What images do you really want to put out there to get this character beat, or story point or plot turn across? Have they been put out there before and done with more effect through less? Or have people seen this a million times – is this gratuitous? How can yours be different or “creative”…. in its depiction… not just its execution? How are people being allowed to intuit what is happening – i.e. how are they being asked to use their imagination?
Or is the point to thrill, to be laughably violent, repulsively disgusting, disturbingly unsexy, is it to create a numbness in people through trauma, and injure your viewers with imagery they really don’t need forever*?
*Scientists have proven that images from movies embed themselves in deep in your brain’s cerebral cortex, and are stored in and recalled through the exact circuitry from which real-life memories of events (that you personally experienced) are recalled. How much do you want to cloud your memory (who you are) with images of who you are not (a rapist, a murderer, sadistic**)?
**One must give the benefit of the doubt; believe that there really are good people out there (at least at birth).
A-B TYPES
Self-censorship is the golden way to overcome this, so as to not cause a fuss with us A-B types (Artist-at-Birth). I find that I’m opposed to any committee mandating things get taken out of films before release (as everything is debatable) and I’m repulsed by the idea that a film is banned by certain countries because of a scene or plain ignorance (so many beautiful and political films are) but there are things that an Artist should self-censor IMHO – and for that they have to look inward. For me to make a list would be to invite attention to all the ways in which artists have depicted violence, but using an internal compass should guide one away from incidents that don’t need to be ‘seen’ in its entirety (rape, child murder, etc.).
ARTIST’S CHOICE VS. VIEWER’S CHOICE
As it gets much easier for people to get images out into the universe, a code of self-censorship is a good thing to have as part of your power. Actors should choose their scripts and directors carefully. Writers should understand that not everything they can conceive… they should conceive. Producers should know when there are ways his director can do it better. And Directors should have a place in their heart where they keep the images that they put on screen sacred. There should be a line, and it’s within each filmmaker to find that line – and use the boundary to challenge them to do it in a more creative way.
And because not everyone’s line is the same – when it comes to the Viewer – the audience should understand and accept they have a choice. Ultimately, self-censorship is best experienced by closing your own eyes and ‘skipping that part’, or turning off the tv/computer, or if necessary taking a walk outside and thinking there is more to life and art than pain and death without hope or real purpose.
[footnote: Kevin K. Shah’s films so far have never been censored, only self-censored)
TANGENT: CROWD-SOURCING A RATINGS SYSTEM
A side-project Sabi Pictures is working on will use tags that crowds can select after watching the film that indicates objectionable content. Both the filmmaker’s own elected description, and this application (as well as a crowd-sourced minimum age recommendation) is an unobtrusive way for viewers to make choices based on democratized information (as opposed to our current system of MPAA, FCC, etc.). Of course, parents will still have to pay attention to what their kids Google.
May 4th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Arguably the “artist” shouldn’t be responsible for self censorship (but should understand the consequences), espcecially if they consider what they do is “art” and not simply “entertainment”.
The viewer (as you pointed out in your last paragraph) is responsible for what they see. This is where the MPAA comes in. The MPAA does not tell filmmakers what they can or cannot put in their movies. The MPAA is an educational resource and educates potential audiences about the content in specific movies. The filmmaker does not need to submit to the MPAA or abide by their “recommendations” but should be aware that there may be consequences, because the distribution outlets have the right to self-censor the content that they distribute and many of them look to the MPAA as a guiding light.
The artist can and should do whatever they want, but unless they control the distribution they are at the mercy of those that do.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Self censorship… very interesting Kevin.
May 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
‘understanding the consequences’ is a very interesting thought. My understanding is that by fully understanding of consequences, the artist has a responsibility to the viewer.
(this somewhere will lead to the question of whether or not images really do any lasting damage to our working minds. Or if images de-sensitize a few people into committing horrific acts in real life?)
There’s a lot of research studying violent video-games right now, and brain patterns, fascinating stuff.
with the model for controlling distribution flipped on its head, self-censorship I think will become more and more necessary… or the cloud might become a barren desert for real works of meaning and have death and dismemberment without hope at every turn.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:00 am
I’m from the UK and my concern is with the relationship between censorship and independent filmmaking.
Over here the purpose of film censorship by the BBFC is explicitly expressed as being to control the access of children to films. As such its various ratings are useful when it comes to mainstream multiplex cinemas and High Street DVD stores.
The BBFC also states that, with regards to films that they rate as ‘18′ - explicit pornography gets an ‘R18′, they request no cuts or changes as this would contravene European Human Rights legislation governing freedom of speech.
The whole thing is though that independent films aren’t bought by the mainstream exhibitors; whereas they may be lucky enough to find very limited exhibition in arthouse cinemas and arts centres which under-18’s don’t go to.
It’s the same with DVDs. Virtually no independent films make it onto the shelves of High Street stores; they are bought on line by credit card holding over-18’s. But they still have to carry a BBFC certificate or face a $7,000 fine. But none of this applies to VOD. So, in other words, it’s illegal to sell an un-rated DVD, but perfectly legal to sell a boxed and labelled blank disc with a ‘key’ to download and record the film onto it!
Other paradoxes abound. No theatre company has faced any censorship since 1968, so they are perfectly free to include filmed footage as part of their performance. But if they were to record one of their performances they would be breaking the law if they were to screen it the following night in the same theatre.
So, here’s the complete list of the madness facing the UK independent filmmaker or distributor:
Although theatrical exhibition is to adults, you have to pay for a certificate.
A theatrical certificate does not cover the DVD, and vice versa - you need two certificates. The cost of these for a 90min film is around $2,500.
Your DVD has an 18 certificate. You make an ‘extras’ disc. All the material on this has to be certified, even though it won’t alter the 18 rating one jot. Two hours of extras - that’s another $1,500.
You include a director’s commentary. Ah! That counts as a new version of the film! Another $1,000+ or you’re breaking the law.
So there you have it - effectively a $5,000 tax up front before anyone can see your film. If a theatre group had to fork out such an amount before they could put on a single performance, would there be any fringe theatre. If that’s what indie bands had to put up with in order to perform to over 18’s in pubs, clubs and bars, would there be any indie music?
For us this is what the real issue is - that a film like our own “Diary of a Bad Lad” runs 90mins. It’s a film for adults - it’s been described as ‘arthouse for the masses’, and it cost in cash about the same as having it rated. It’s the same for any filmmaker working on a no/micro-budget basis - it’s a large percentage of your budget.
May 21st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Dear Jon,
This is an extraordinary expense on top of making a micro-budget film. Thanks for sharing this information, I didn’t know all of the stipulations until reading this. It’s certainly one way for red-tape to wind up censoring content - and also keeping very low-budget independent films down. Do you know if there is an equivalent of this red tape in America? I also wonder if this applies to films made outside of the UK, but exhibited there?
Thanks for sharing this info. Note to self.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
This is what Michel Gondry thinks (food for thought):
“I think you should be able to censor yourself. If you allow censorship then it’s always going to be used to give more power to people who already have power. I think your brain goes in waves – sometimes you feel strong, like in the morning, and at these moments you could make a decision that stops you being weak another time. Like drink dialling, that’s terrible. They should have systems on your computer: you’d have to do mathematical equations before you go on the net. Then you could not email your ex-girlfriend and tell her how much you love her, which is the last thing you want to do when you’re sober.
Or let’s say I go to this dirty website and do my dirty business, whatever it is: then I regret it, and I should be then able to censor myself. Then the next time I want to go, I’d have made a decision when I was in a better place in my mind. That’s how censorship should work, but no one’s going to bring out the tools to do that. It’s too bad because I think it would be a good idea. That’s my new policy – self-censorship.”
–Michel Gondry
June 4th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Kevin
There’s an important difference between DVD certificates and theatrical exhibition certificates.
When it comes to exhibition, under UK law a film has to be licenced by the local government authority - in practice this means that they accept the ratings made by the BBFC which the filmmaker has to pay through the nose for, but which are not, and I stress, not, a legal requirement. Instead filmmakers can contact the local council licencing committee directly at no cost - and if you rate it as an ‘18′ (and it’s not a piece of hardcore porn) no one is going to bother.
But try and sell an unrated DVD and you’ll be fined £5,000 - unless it’s an import, or a download.
There’s much more about the UK film industry on my blog: http://jw48.wordpress.com
Best wishes
Jon