web counter
 

Dist-erbia

By William Goss | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (18)

a-serbian-film-500x252.jpg

Well, you guys tell me: has A Serbian Film officially become the next Human Centipede around these parts or what? I endured it at SXSW after bearing witness to the most divisive word-of-mouth I’d ever heard, and I found it compelling in that feature-length dare kind of way. I don’t know if I’d have thought much of it had the filmmakers not been there to toss forth a sociopolitical defense for the film; I’m not even sure that I buy that argument. But as Prisco made clear, it is — at the very least — a film to be reckoned with.

…unless you’re the BBFC. Apparently, the British Board of Film Classification wouldn’t allow the film to be shown at last week’s Frightfest film festival without first cutting out nearly four minutes of graphic material. They claimed that the scenes went “beyond what is acceptable under current BBFC guidelines [for an 18-certificate].” If I understand correctly, that’s like our MPAA saying that they can’t even give a film an NC-17 unless it gets whittled down to something more tolerably intolerable.

I guess there’s something to be said for artistic integrity. Goodness knows that forbidding it will only drive England’s more perverted cineastes to download it somewhere. (As the commenters on Prisco’s review made apparent, it’s made its way out there for those willing to look.) Me? I just think it’s funny that the filmmakers and the censors have the same goal now — they’re both thinking about the children.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← The Smell of Failure is Stinking Up My Office | 2010 Emmy Awards Open Thread | How a Black Film Benefited from Piranhas | The Weekend Box Office Report →









Comments

I managed to see parts of this. Quite literally on fast forwards and with my eyes covered...I can see it being pulled. The BBCF is pretty...they're old fashioned, very much still in the Outraged Grandmothers wrinkling their doilies over stuff phase but it's getting better at allowing more hardcore stuff though.
This how ever is...it is too much, IMO, and I didn't get the 'saving' moment at the end that you said sort of...lifts it from just being ANOTHER torture porn piece of crap, I missed what ever that was

Posted by: Nadine at August 30, 2010 9:21 AM

If I understand correctly...

Yep. I think you pretty much did.

To be fair to the BBFC though, they are open about their rating decisions and all are explained in depth on their web site.

You might not always agree with them, but they are generally consistent and open to scrutiny.

I gather that the same is not true of the MPAA?

Posted by: Simon at August 30, 2010 9:24 AM

Censorship is censorship, however you decide to dress it up.

So the film is disturbing as all hell. Great. Rate it, if necessary tell me why. Apparently this film needs to carry a disclosure warning. Cool, whatever.

But let me decide for myself what I want to see and don't want to see. Please, don't attempt to tell me what's good for me and what isn't.

Posted by: Lennon at August 30, 2010 10:12 AM

Well, you guys tell me: has A Serbian Film officially become the next Human Centipede around these parts or what?

That's sort of up to you, but I hope to hell not. Human Centipede is disgusting but ultimately ridiculous, and the victims are adults. A Serbian Film is, from what I gather, sincere in its choices, and that (I believe) makes it vile to anyone past the "let's see how much I can take" stage of movie-watching.

Posted by: sansho1 at August 30, 2010 10:18 AM

I should clarify that I'm answering the question, will A Serbian Film be an enduring Pajiba punchline, or will it be packed away as soon as possible? This is one vote for the latter.

Posted by: sansho1 at August 30, 2010 10:21 AM

Having missed the review thread (and glad for it), I'm not surprised that the Brits yanked it.

Whatever point the makers of this movie wanted to make, I doubt it will ever reach anyone willing to listen to it. More than likely, it'll become one of those movies like Faces of Death that only the most daring will seek out and try to outlast.

Posted by: Fredo at August 30, 2010 10:29 AM

You can't replace The Human Centipede, you can only hope to add on to it.

Is it even in good taste to try and convert this film into a verb?

"Oh man, I'd like to Serbian Film the shit out of Michelle Malkin".

"Wow, that dinner was a sumptuous palette of culinary taste, too bad the five of us were too busy Serbian Filming it to actually enjoy the cacophony of flavors."

"Well, my friends it seems we're up the creek without a proverbial paddle. Too bad Frank here left all our gear car and Sean forgot the check the weather. You boys really Serbian Filmed us on this one, hoopleheads."

I leave the rest to you.

Posted by: D-Day at August 30, 2010 10:51 AM

Human Centipede is disgusting but ultimately ridiculous

Exactly. I vote nay on Serbian Film: glad Brian reviewed it, and fairly. But it just ain't easy for makin' the lulz, like The Human Centipede is. I mean, c'mon, that little "Doot doodley-oot" Human Centipede song? Priceless.

Plus, Human Centipede will quite simply never go away: sequel upcoming, thus more to talk about!

Posted by: MM at August 30, 2010 11:32 AM

When will this get a remake for the US?

Posted by: seth at August 30, 2010 12:34 PM

RE Lennon: "Censorship is censorship, however you decide to dress it up.... But let me decide for myself what I want to see and don't want to see. Please, don't attempt to tell me what's good for me and what isn't."

Maybe not terribly relevant, since this is the UK we're talking about, but in the U.S., private entities are pretty much free to censor whatever they want. Being that they're private and not the government. You can not like it all you want, but unless you're willing to pony up to stage your own international film festival, the administrators of any film festival can have whatever standards they please and require participants to abide by them. Griping about "censorship" as a result of their decision is just kinda dumb.

Posted by: Slash at August 30, 2010 12:38 PM

private entities are pretty much free to censor whatever they want. Being that they're private and not the government... Griping about "censorship" as a result of their decision is just kinda dumb

I understand their right to censorship and wholly support it. That said, I don't have to like it.

Posted by: Lennon at August 30, 2010 1:07 PM

RE Lennon: "I understand their right to censorship and wholly support it. That said, I don't have to like it."

Apparently, you don't support it, either. Or I was confused by the phrases "But let me decide for myself what I want to see and don't want to see. Please, don't attempt to tell me what's good for me and what isn't."

People decide these things for you all the time, they're just not explicit about it. And for things a lot more important than a Serbian faux snuff film.

Posted by: Slash at August 30, 2010 1:56 PM

The private entity Frightfest did not censor the film -- it was submitted to the public entity BBFC, which decreed that it could not be shown in unexpurgated form. This is, in fact, censorship as we understand it on this side of the pond.

So Lennon's position is coherent -- Frightfest should be able to decide what they want to show, and what they do not want to show, free from governmental interference.

Posted by: sansho1 at August 30, 2010 3:02 PM

The censorship debate is a revolving door that never settles in one place, and it shouldn't.

But only on a personal note: I think I'd feel a bit like a pervert, not to mention pretty embarrassed, to be sitting in a theater full of people watching this, even at a 'Frightfest', with most of us self-aware that we just want to see the truly disgusting shit that everyone else is condemning. But then, that didn't keep me from going to the porn theater a few times in my youth.

But movies like Serbian Film don't really fall into a 'horror' or 'sci-fi' movie category, do they, so why would the 'Frightfest' be interested in the first place?

It might be censored in the UK, but films this polarizing are going to end up being watched by every person who really wants to; however, just like porn, we can enjoy(?) these extreme types of movies where it's appropriate - in the privacy of one's own home.

Posted by: Bill (Formerly Bill) at August 30, 2010 4:01 PM

RE sansho1: "The private entity Frightfest did not censor the film -- it was submitted to the public entity BBFC, which decreed that it could not be shown in unexpurgated form. This is, in fact, censorship as we understand it on this side of the pond. So Lennon's position is coherent -- Frightfest should be able to decide what they want to show, and what they do not want to show, free from governmental interference."

But apparently they're not, since they're in the UK. So Lennon's position isn't all that coherent. On either side of the pond. The fact is, stuff gets censored all the time. By governments, by non-government entities, by individuals... I'm guessing censorship is the rule, rather than the exception, in most parts of the world. Not saying this is great, just that it is the reality. And that it affects things a lot more important than a fictional movie made in Serbia. I don't care if no one ever sees this movie. Doesn't seem like a huge loss to humanity, much less cinema. Unlike what gets censored in Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, etc.

It's hard for me to conclude that someone's inability to see an uncensored* torture porn movie is a terrible thing.

From the review of it on this site, if anybody censored it in a truly meaningful way, it'd be a really short film.

Posted by: Slash at August 30, 2010 4:15 PM

Slash, the fact that you are willing to let a line be drawn in a different place than Lennon is doesn't make his point incoherent. It just means you differ on where the line should be drawn.

Lennon's point as I read it is this -- if a privately owned film festival decides not to show this, then fine. That's their business. But if it does, knowing full well what it contains, then it should not be the government's place to say no. It's stipulated that they evidently assert such authority. The question is whether that ought to be the case. You say yes, he says no.

It's an interesting debate, and it should definitely be had -- because the question of what should be censored BY DEFINITION requires examining the stuff at the margins of acceptability.

Posted by: sansho1 at August 30, 2010 5:21 PM

Strictly speaking, the BBFC doesn't censor or cut films. What it is does is set a classification, without which, the film cannot be released or played in public (private showings of unclassified films are legal). To make the '18' classification, this particular film needed to make the recommended cuts. It chose not to, hence it doesn't get a classification.
Furthermore, once it had made the cuts and been given the classification, the local authority, wherever it was being screened, could have banned, it, cut even more, or even changed the classification for cinemas and showings in the area.
The festival could have shown the film if a) it didn't charge for showing it and b) didn't advertise it as a public showing. Presumably, the organisers don't wish to do this.

Posted by: Ponytail at August 31, 2010 10:12 AM

A Serbian Film will be playing at our upcoming film festival at Portage Theater in Chicago on Saturday, October 23rd. http://www.horrorsociety.com/festivals/

Posted by: Horror Society at October 21, 2010 10:51 PM