Have the rules on hardcore changed on TV? I watched Basie-Moi on Sky Box Office and Bilmey-O-Riley, you saw everything, and I mean everything. Even the adult subscription channels wouldn't be able to show this. Full oral and penetrative sex all graphically displayed.
Not that I am complaining mind, it just I didn't think the ITC allowed this sort of thing (Boo to them!)
Yes, I have watched Spice and it was softcore. Baise-Moi was full on graphic penitritve sex. The "Adult" channels would never get away with showing that without sanctions from the ITC, like Babylon Blue and The Satisfaction Channel got.
AIUI a number of recent French mainstream movies, which in the UK would be considered "art house", have been pushing the boundaries as to what can be shown in a mainstream cinema release.
I believe Film Four (which is not PPV) have also shown "Romance" - which also contains content one would imagine would not normally be shown.
Both films were granted BBFC certification - as the censors took the view that there was justfication artistically for what they showed. I guess this means that they can be shown on PPV and subscription satellite channels.
It is an interesting argument though - does context justify content?
Personally I think it shows how backward-thinking and illiberal we are in this country, when pay-porn channels here are not allowed to show real sexual intercourse between consenting adults, and yet 20 miles over the Channel the French are liberated enough to include it in their mainstream cinema. Good on them, bad on us, as far as I am concerned.
There have been a number of French films with such "shocking filth" included over the last few years. It does surprise me a little that these are being shown broadly uncut in this country, when straightforward pornographic material is still banned. Most peculiar.
Film Four have shown a couple of other films as well as "Romance" noggin (wasn't that the one that kicked this whole thing off?). As for context justifying content, if that's the argument used I find that arrogant, insulting and patronising -- who are the BBFC to determine what is artistic and what isn't?
I feel with French (and to a certain extent now Italian as well) cinema the time will come when there will be a film produced that is little more than hardcore porn with a storyline (as let's face it, there have been a number of French films over the years that amount to little more than soft porn anyway) -- at this point, if that is allowed in the UK, there will be no more "justification" for banning real porn.
Film Four have shown a couple of other films as well as "Romance" noggin (wasn't that the one that kicked this whole thing off?). As for context justifying content, if that's the argument used I find that arrogant, insulting and patronising -- who are the BBFC to determine what is artistic and what isn't?
I feel with French (and to a certain extent now Italian as well) cinema the time will come when there will be a film produced that is little more than hardcore porn with a storyline (as let's face it, there have been a number of French films over the years that amount to little more than soft porn anyway) -- at this point, if that is allowed in the UK, there will be no more "justification" for banning real porn.
Yep - I agree that the rules are arbitrary - however whilst we still have a film censoring body I am glad that they take the view that content CAN be justified by context. Better this than just demanding edits on a purely image/content basis
Their adverts are erotic enough, I'm sure the channels themselves are as well. Not that I could watch them, even if I wanted to... (I don't have Sky)
so why don't you shut up as clearly you can't have an opinion....
I said I don't have Sky, not that I've never had it - I had analogue until that closed down, and porn channels used to broadcast on that, didn't they? Grow up!
I assume all these soft-porn films have 18-certificates from the BBFC?
Film Four have shown a couple of other films as well as "Romance" noggin (wasn't that the one that kicked this whole thing off?). As for context justifying content, if that's the argument used I find that arrogant, insulting and patronising -- who are the BBFC to determine what is artistic and what isn't?
I feel with French (and to a certain extent now Italian as well) cinema the time will come when there will be a film produced that is little more than hardcore porn with a storyline (as let's face it, there have been a number of French films over the years that amount to little more than soft porn anyway) -- at this point, if that is allowed in the UK, there will be no more "justification" for banning real porn.
Yep - I agree that the rules are arbitrary - however whilst we still have a film censoring body I am glad that they take the view that content CAN be justified by context. Better this than just demanding edits on a purely image/content basis
That's fair comment. I do feel though that where 18-cert films are concerned, we should be in a position in 2003, as a mature western society, the censors should be taking a hands-off approach, in general. Showing real sex on film never hurt anyone -- it only serves to offend the easily-offended (and overly vocal) minority. I find it petty and embarrassing that this country still has such a childish and immature attitude to the most basic and natural acts.
Their adverts are erotic enough, I'm sure the channels themselves are as well. Not that I could watch them, even if I wanted to... (I don't have Sky)
so why don't you shut up as clearly you can't have an opinion....
I said I don't have Sky, not that I've never had it - I had analogue until that closed down, and porn channels used to broadcast on that, didn't they? Grow up!
I assume all these soft-porn films have 18-certificates from the BBFC?
You are missing my point. Baise-moi isn't soft core. It has real sex. Penetration shots, full oral sex secens, ecrect penises, and so on. Rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly) the ITC doesn't allow this on TV.
