These three blog posts will be examining Censorship issues in film; the first post will explore if violence is censored in American History X (1998). Secondly A Clockwork Orange (1971) will discuss the relationship of sexual content and censorship in Kubrick’s film; and finally The Passion of the Christ (2004), which will be investigating religion and censorship in the film. This essay aims to consider whether censorship is applied to any of these controversial films, and if not how effective is the brutality which exists in the film. It will also evaluate freedom of speech and if the film certificates given are still appropriate or accurate to the films.
American History X (1998)
This late nineties crime, drama film tells the story of two brothers who become associated with the neo-Nazi movement. However when Derek, Edward Norton’s character, is released from prison he tries his hardest to prevent his brother from taking the same path. Ultimately the film discusses racism and due to the controversy of the topic, harsh violence in the film inevitably follows.
During the classic “curb stomp” scene in American History X (1998) the audience witnesses perhaps the most violent sequence of the film. Our protagonist commits a disturbing painful act, leaving audiences to cringe and turn away. Arguably, Derek’s younger brother – who runs out the front door trying to stop Norton from what he is doing, is a representation of how the majority of audiences want to scream and tell Derek to stop what he is doing – “Derek! No!” (American History X, 1998)
What is very interesting is the use of black-and-white for the flashbacks. Perhaps for an aesthetic reason, it contributes to setting a moody and serious tone, it could also reflect a time of the past. Black-and-white films were once the only films around; however with the progression of colour in cinema, they are now ‘a thing of the past’, and usually if used there is a deliberate reason as to why. Consequently the idea of black-and-white being an element of the past links to the flashbacks, these are his thoughts from a past and previous mind-set, before he went to prison. Tina Chanter also suggests “the fact that the flashback sequences of the past are filmed in black and white, in contrast to the use of colour in the rest of the film, highlights the oversimplified vision of race that Derek used to hold. (Chanter, 2008)
However, what is notable is that Derek has a turning point; he shifts from a racist and violent mind-set once leaving prison. He comes out a changed man and this proves the film’s motive; it may become clouded because the brutal violence distracts, but his turning point is important. Although there is a “detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts” there is reason for it (BBFC Classification Guidelines, 2014, p.23). In terms of censorship no violence in the film is dimmed or pampered, instead it utilises censorship with its use of the 18 certificate. This limits the amount of people who can view the film, protecting people below age from the mature themes. On the other hand, the people who are of age can still indulge in a shockingly violent film; however, the use of brutal violence warns audience members of the consequences that can follow – that be consequences through authorities, socially and morally. A fine example being what unfortunately happens at the end of the film.
REFERENCES:
American History X. (1998). [film] Directed by T. Kaye.
Chanter, T. (2008). The Picture of Abjection. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p.213.
BBFC Classification Guidelines. (2014). p.23.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Although this seventies Stanley Kubrick picture is too a very violent film, it also includes some extreme controversial sexual content – “the most widely and intensely debated film of the first half of the 1970s.” (O’Malley and Nicholas, 2013) Both rape and nudity appear in A Clockwork Orange (1971), specifically in the infamous “Singin’ in the Rain” scene. This is a moment in cinema which is unquestionably uncomfortable, however solidifies Kubrick as a bold and daring filmmaker.
This scene depicts Alex (Malcom McDowell) and the despicable gang members, who follow him around, invading a rich home. They aggressively beat the home owner and rape his wife while her husband is forced to watch.
In terms of censorship, this scene does not restrain from shocking its audience. The group of white boiler-suits and bowler hats swarm into the house slapping and beating the husband and wife whilst Alex eerily sings “Singin’ in the Rain”. Perhaps this song in particular because it mimics the feelings Gene Kelly’s Don Lockwood has in Singin’ in the Rain (1952) when he expresses his feelings of happiness. This feeling of elation and ecstasy that Kubrick’s protagonist obtains in this scene reflects his excitement because not only does he get a kick out of vile antics, he is also in control of the situation. As the song is a Hollywood treasure the use of it in this film scene contributes to the controversy.
However, to an extent there is censorship applied to this film. It was originally banned on its release, and Kubrick decided to release a cut version which proves he had some anxieties involving the films controversy. During this scene, we do not see anything further than nudity, while Alex is raping the home owner’s wife we are forced to watch her husband in a disturbing and intrusive shot. Therefore in terms of its sexual content alone, its 18 certificate could possibly be lowered to a 15. Although rape and nudity can be very sensitive, within a society forty years later it appears a lot more publically, in terms of the news and internet. According to the BBFC guidelines a 15 rated film can include “sexual activity…but usually without strong detail. (BBFC Classification Guidelines, 2014, p. 20) This rings similar with the sexual content used in this scene. Censorship tends to have negative connotations; on the other hand by maintaining an 18 certificate it limits the amount of people that can see it, therefore proving that censorship can be a progressive and protective tool, after all according to The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, also known as the Hays Code, the “wrong entertainment lowers the whole standard of the nation.” (Artsreformation.com, 2006)
REFERENCES:
O’Malley, T. and Nicholas, S. (2013). Moral Panics, Social Fears, and the Media. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
BBFC Classification Guidelines. (2014). p.20.
Artsreformation.com. (2006). The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930 (Hays Code). [online] Available at: http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html [Accessed 7 May 2018].
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Gibson’s infamous biblical retelling is beyond powerful in what it achieves. The film outlines the last twelve hours of Jesus of Nazareth; therefore because of its controversial subject matter it triggered a multitude of negative critic response, additionally a backlash from biblical scholars.
Although the use of savage violence generated a lot of the criticism – “I was disgusted by the gratuitous violence” (Garber, 2006, p.135), one of the main concerns people targeted was its lack of accuracy. Unfortunately scholars forgot that Gibson had the hard task of managing to stay faithful to the scripture as well as retaining creative vision – this ultimately got clouded due to the film’s topic. One great example of this inaccuracy would be the portrayal of Satan. Satan is gendered, which is a very interesting choice from Gibson. Perhaps this is because historically women are seen as the origins of temptation; it was Eve after all who eats the forbidden fruit after being easily lead – “Greedily she engorged without restraint” (Milton, 2008, IX.791). Consequently by making the fallen angel female, it mimics old biblical origins, however in the Gospels there is no description of Satan’s appearance during the Passion – inevitably Gibson used his imagination.
The anger from biblical scholars and critics in general attacks the idea of freedom of speech – something a filmmaker should not be granted when creating their own artwork; freedom of speech also links to censorship. Censorship is often reactive, but in this case the lack of censorship, in terms of its brutality and exposure of the bible, has been just as reactive. However, surely a filmmaker is entitled to express their own thoughts, feelings and interpretations on screen; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29 states that “the free and full development of his personality is possible.” (Un.org, n.d.) Gibson stated that everything he told in his picture was from scriptures of the bible – “Gibson replied: Wow, the Scriptures are the Scriptures – I mean they’re unchangeable…I think that my first duty is to be as faithful as possible in telling them the story that doesn’t contradict the Scriptures” (Corley and Webb, 2004, p.172), perhaps biblical scholars do not appreciate seeing Jesus in such a vulnerable state where he is slashed with whips and tortured on the cross, except this is all in the bible, and Gibson just took it to the big screen. Consequently showing how censorship really holds validity to a films reception. It did however become the highest grossing R-rated film in the United States; perhaps more tickets were sold down to the controversy surrounding it, showing how powerful the lack of censorship has on a film, it grabs attention and has audiences talking.
On the other hand, its only form of censorship is its certificate. Rated still an 18 today, it prevents anyone younger from witnessing the violence; however everyone has been told the story since they can remember, thus Gibson’s choice to tell it honestly, the way most people would not have heard it, speaks volumes.
REFERENCES:
Garber, Z. (2006). Mel Gibson’s Passion. West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
Milton, J. (2008). Paradise Lost. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Un.org. (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ [Accessed 11 May 2018].
Corley, K. and Webb, R. (2004). Jesus and Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. London: Continuum.
