censcorship - A Serbian Film

Ugh, yeah, I saw the trailer and read a bunch of reviews about it when it came out, haven't seen it cos I really, really don't want to. All the reviews I read were along the lines of 'pretending to be something really arty and meaningful and avant garde whilst actually being a massively crude shock-value thing to get some attention' and I can't be arsed with that.

I'm often kinda annoyed about the lack of info available about films and think it should be easier to find out about potentially triggering content BUT that's just so you can make an informed choice. If you've a strong stomach or are just some sick fuck then feel free to watch whatever but some of us with a wussier disposition appreciate a bit of a heads up!

With regard to censoring A Serbian Film, I'm curious to know what you think the benefits of censoring it vs. giving ample warning about the graphicness of it all would be?

That film is just pure shock value. It's a disgusting movie that I wish I didn't watch. Best thing to do with these sorts of films are to ignore them. Those that I have talked to about the movie and warned them about not watching it usually end up doing it (and then regretting).

I must be desensitized. I thought the film was OK, not espcially shocking, although it covers shocking subjects. Thought it was worth a watch and I don't expect nightmares, would watch again.

The film didn't disturb me, but then again I'm a 'youngster' we're all for violence right

Anyway, the film is much more depressing then it is disturbing, but watching it feels like watching a Chinese film, the implied cultural references and assumptions can't ever be properly translate to someone who has never lived in or even been to Serbia, although I assume the bald-man-fucking-a-kid-scene isn't too embedded in their national culture.

As for being banned, that's truly terrible, and in my humble opinion anyone who wishes for such things cannot be an anarchist. To even have things banned, we'd have at least some people who are watching a film, to then decide the rest of the 'herd' are too basic in their cognitive ability to deal with the film's content, and need to have it taken away from them for their own good, and if they watch a 'banned' film, to be punished for not complying. Because of course, to ban something means there needs to be punishment.

I'm also surprised anarchists are shocked by this, it's partially my interest in anarchism and history that's lead me to read and learn about the sorts of things that happen in the name of countries, religion, wealth and territory that is truly disturbing. What the Japanese did to the Chinese in WW2 kept me up for about a week, as did some others thing you lean studying history (informally also). Hell, even some stuff I read from Chomsky on American-backed dictatorships has made me shudder. These are the real things in real life that 'need' to be censored, in fact we should take the books from people like Chomsky and burn them, outside, en masse, right?

I'd say we need to have anyone exploiting people for a film to be punished, but this is a prerequisite to anarchism anyway. We need to ensure people know what sort of film they're going to be watching, we need to try and socialise the methods for art distribution and we need to try and remove the real-world basis for such things. We don't need an official body deciding what can and what can't be seen by the unthinking collection of beasts. A Serbian Film is a smoothly directed gross-out horror to watch with your mates stoned. True injustices happening now is what keeps me up at night.

So yeah anyway, fuck censorship.

Weirdo

My friend told me what it was about and I almost threw up on the spot, so I won't be watching it. I'm not one for horror films anyways... I wonder if the Spartacists (sp?) have a line on the censorship debate, possibly denouncing critics as 'bourgeois moralists' or some shit. lol

Pretty sure being an anarchist isn't incompatible with not wanting to watch a woman being beheaded while raped, or child rape, not even when stoned with my mates (actually especially not stoned with my mates). I mean obviously there's people who enjoy watching that for a whole bunch of reasons but I wouldn't say that's got anything to do with anarchism.

And yes obviously there's plenty of horrific shit that happens in the world every day that we as anarchists need to confront, but yeah rape and child abuse are pretty fucking common abuses of power too.

I think this is spot-on. The director obviously made it for some notoriety and a few quid. Remove the need for this, and maybe bad art like this will become obsolete.

From the reviews I've heard, any (supposed) allegory about the Serbian Government is completely lost under all the gore. This is one of my main problems with allegories in art. They are either misunderstood, not understood at all, or just given as excuses to legitimise a bad creation. I'm sure there are better ways of communicating the "monolithic power of leaders who hypnotize you to do things you don't want to do", even in the horror genre. But that probably wouldn't get him famous. If getting across this message was his purpose with this film, then, by most accounts, he has failed.

Yeah. They're just so bad the allegories. For example, infant rape = we're fucked by our government as soon as we're born. Not exactly subtle. But when they're that simple, it just becomes infant rape.

Don't understand how people can get stoned and watch this (not judging btw)... I would get completely paranoid and really messed up. And I actually like horror movies (but draw the line around Tokyo Gore Police stuff; just can't watch that stuff). But maybe I'm older than I think I am

Sure, being an anarchist doesn't mean you want to watch a horror (I don't like the moralising tone though, sounds reminiscent of Mail columnists who ignore every aspect of something bar the most emotion-revoking parts) and yeah there will be a whole bunch of reasons for people watching any sort of violent film, from appreciation, shock, morbid interest, competitive 'who can gross who out', to some weird deviant pleasure gained from it.

Oh yeah, rape and child abuse are two of the most terrible crimes, and always involves power abuse and exploitation (I hate how statists and legal positivists seem to think that legal imposed authority is all that we anarchists are against, and will let rape and pedophilia occur because there's no 'law' ) but the fictional depiction of such in horror is meant to...horrify. That's why it''s in there. We don't have the days where the state reels out dissenters to be publicly executed, but we do have films which are designed to send an adrenaline rush due to fear related to empathy with a portrayed victim. The scariest/funniest/most enjoyable films are ones where you relate to characters. That's why the end scene has no rape and little violence, but was the only part the really got to me. You probably haven't read about it (not due to your fault), because it doesn't fit well with morally outraged reviews and doesn't sound as provocative as 'women being raped with her head cut off'.

But yeah, the film isn't compatible with anarchist ideals (unless the director is telling the truth in his statement on the kosovo war and serbian government) but the suggestion the few dictates what the many will see isn't either.

Is it worse than Salo or Human Centipede, neither of which made me loose a wink of sleep. Saying that, I am not really into pedophile imagery as an artistic devise to make us 'realize how fuckin' stuffy we are maaaan'. Reminds of the the idiots who just open a libcom account so they can apologise for Hakim bey on the threads that nail him for his pedophilia.

I don't think Ramona is moralizing. I think she's saying she wouldn't want to see any of that sick shit, and I agree.

I have seen a lot of violent movies, violence in movies doesn't really bother me (except sexual violence -- there is really no way to do that "tastefully" as a director). That said, this movie doesn't sound worth watching.

In terms of censorship: I would not support censorship of this or any other sick movie, really. The main reason (beyond abstract philosophical arguments) is that if you don't want people to see something the worst thing you can probably do is to tell them they can't/shouldn't. In high school my English teacher told us not to read this one Phillip Roth book and I promptly went to the library and checked it out. If you censor a movie that will just lead to more people wanting to see it because it makes it seem more exciting if what you are doing is illicit "they don't want me to see this", etc. And with modern technology it would be impossible to enforce such censorship, so its simply not a good idea. The best thing to do is ignore it. Most people aren't into this sort of thing anyway. If we remove the taboo around gory movies people won't feel like they're rebelling by watching them and they will probably become less common (that is to say, movies that rely on shock value and crass exploitation of horror will become less common because without the transgressive feeling some people get from watching one, there will be little or no actual merit to them as art/entertainment. Movies will still have gore, but they will not rely on gore as a device to lure in viewers).

Serbian film is much more boring than shocking really, especially if you have enjoyed Marquis de Sade and similar authors and/or movies such as Salo. And there is nothing specifically Serbian about it, except the name obviously.

It is just living in the center of capitalism that made you guys softcore.

People have given some good reasons why censorship might be undesirable. But I don't see any suggestions as to why it might be desirable - why does the question arise?

If it's because it upsets you, you don't have to watch it - provided you get ample warning (I'm all in favour of that). That's obvious. If you want to stop someone else watching something, is it because you are concerned it will upset them? Are you concerned it will negatively affect their behaviour? Is it something to do with how it might affect the makers of objectionable material?

Is there some criteria you would apply to the viewer to determine whether they should be allowed to view certain material? Personally I don't think a minor should be watching this, I'm not a minor.

I am of course predicating my position on the assumption that the film is an illusion. When I found out about "snuff" films (recordings of actual murder) I was truly shocked and denied the possibility for a long time. I still, of course, find the notion of recordings of actual atrocities quite sickening, just as I find the atrocities themselves sickening. I'd censor that, to put it mildly.

Pikel, do you not see a problem with your 'I don't like real snuff' caveat as undermining your general anti-cencorship (if that is even a useful term) position? I think you need to perhaps unpack that a bit more ?

(I didn't say "I don't like real snuff", which implies "I like fictional snuff", which isn't the case! I do enjoy films which explore darker territory, but I don't make a hobby of it.)

Yes, I saw a problem as soon as I hit "save", but I'm not sure exactly how I feel about it, so I left it unmentioned. As I'm not sure, the rest of this post is a bit meandering, sorry!

It could be argued that the harm involved in the making of a real snuff video is over and done once the recording is complete. Subsequent viewing of the recording does not repeat the harm involved in the production. So, ignoring the psychological consequences to the viewer, it doesn't make sense to censor real snuff either. Or child porn, or any objectionable activity, although the activities themselves should rightly be prevented, and if they're not prevented the perpetrators should be subject to, um, censure.

Is this what you were getting at?

When there is a financial incentive to produce snuff (i.e. under capitalism), then perhaps censorship destroys the market and reduces the likelihood of further objectionable acts taking place.

There is also something different about watching something in the belief that it is illusion, and watching it thinking it is real. If I thought "A Serbian Film" was a faithful recording of actual events, I don't think I'd have been able to watch it, and if I'd somehow forced myself to watch it, I probably would be having nightmares. If real snuff is somehow successfully "censored" then we might be confident of being in the "watching an illusion" state and avoiding the negative psychological consequences of the alternative.

But what snuff producer submits their film to the censors?

Of course the best "censorship" of snuff, child porn, etc., is preventing its actual production. Perhaps it's a good thing that fictional portrayals of highly objectionable events are allowed, in order to deflate demand for the "real thing".

Yep, this is exactly right. In the Eighties, this was shown with all the drama over the "Video Nasties". Because of the big fuss, police raids on video shops, etc, kids flocked to get them from the shops.

Whilst we can build an easy consensus on the question of censorship as it is posed in capitalist terms (i.e. at the point of consumption) this ignores what to me seems the real problem with bad films (including ones that rely on shock value, but others as well) which is at the point of production. How should people deciding how to allocate the large amounts of resources needed to make films come to decisions? At present the determining factor in this decision is 'will it be profitable for investors?'. That is the real material limit on what films we get to see, censorship is virtually irrelevant compared to that. In a communist mode of production you no longer get your decisions made for you about what films to produce by the market, you have to start thinking about what kinds of films are worth making. And that is the point of view from which a communist can legitimately criticise a film like the one being discussed here, in my opinion.

Great reply, my feelings exactly. FWIW this film didn't shock me nearly as much as say The White Ribbon or Saló. If the market demanded, and I use this term in the worst possible sense so far away any real human needs, films about grass growing then film producers would be buying really low tripods and vast green gardens. A Serbian Film's producers thought that making a live film of your average 4chan browsing session would get them lots of viewers. I don't think they were right as the film got outright banned in several places like Netflix and banned is out of the market and out of the profit loop. But look at The Human Centipede... must have been successful as they even made a sequel!

But if someone does choose to watch it, surely it doesn't make them "a sick fuck" as suggested?

Something about censorship must conjure up the video nasty era, people then moaned about films they hadn't seen using shock tactics in place of talent. Even if that was true, some people enjoyed them because of that. And that's fine, because one person's rubbish is another's treasure. I think the Transformers films are shit, but they're not causing me any harm and I don't pretend that I'm the arbiter of good films.

I mean no, just because someone watches it that in and of itself does not make them a sick fuck, and I don't think Ramona said that. But there are some people who are sick fucks who really just want to see people getting hurt and get off on it in some way, as opposed to enjoying a horror flick for the artistry or the thrill of being scared. Like these two creeps I went to middle school with (one of whom wanted to be a riot cop when he grew up, the other of which tried to join the military) who enjoyed watching graphic videos of accidents and people dying horribly.

As I said I am not for censorship. However, if somebody showed me a real snuff film I would probably try to destroy it. It's simply disrespectful to the victims and the videos being widely viewed or even paid for encourages evil fucks to kill more people and film it. Fictional films, no matter how sick, are different. If nobody actually gets hurt than feel free, although I might find it distasteful.

Sometimes the line is blurry. I believe the makers of the film Cannibal Holocaust (which I haven't seen) were accused of actually killing people for their movie, and had to prove they didn't.

Though if I'm getting you wrong Ramona, feel free to put me in my place.

And wasn't having a go at specifically you tastybrain, sorry if it looked like that! On the point of those two lads you mentioned, as long as no one's actually getting hurt, what's the harm? Alright, violence isn't my cup of tea but if it keeps them out of real trouble, it's all for the better right?

flaneur, Ramona leaves you (and me) the honourable option of simply having a strong stomach!

Ah but what if you're a non sick fuck with a week constitution!?

Then you have some explaining to do.

I mean I guess there's no harm directly from them watching it. But they were kinda violent fucks in general and loved to pick on people (including my friends, for which I tossed one of them down a hill once...). Their love of violence was actually connected to real violent behavior and aspirations on their part.