One of my films: Boy

[The Feral Underclass]

This film caused a bit of controversy, and it also provided ammunition for some unknown assailant to construct some theory about my secret paedophilic agenda, which started on this forum, but quickly became quite a problem.

In any case, it was selected to be hosted on the BBC Film Network site (and has just been put up). I know some people have been very interested to see it, so feel free to peruse at your own leisure. (It's only 15 minutes long, so don't worry.)

Praise, criticism, rejection all welcome (but just remember I'm an admin) :)

BBC Network (http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/films/p009rnbl)

[Widerstand]

If you were no pedophile you would not make movies about pedophilia. :mad:

[The Feral Underclass]

If you were no pedophile you would not make movies about pedophilia. :mad:

Does that mean people who make films about Nazi's are also Nazi's? What about Ed Norton? Is the person that directed Dumbo really an elephant? What kind of fucking absurd logic is that? Get a grip for fuck sake.

I find this narrow-minded attitude to be incredibly saddening. These kinds of views are traditionally harboured in the far-right, who are far more likely to condemn and persecute unconventional expressions of understanding than they are to attempt to appreciate it. If art is confined inside your myopic parameters then the world would be a very dark place.

[leftace53]

Is the person that directed Dumbo really an elephant?
:lol::lol:

Well spent 15 mins I'd say.

[Sam_b]

Does that mean people who make films about Nazi's are also Nazi's? Is the person that directed Dumbo really an elephant? What kind of fucking absurd logic is that? Get a grip for fuck sake.

TAT I think he just levelled you.

For the record I enjoyed it. I'll post my thoughts after watching it again later.

[Widerstand]

What kind of fucking absurd logic is that? Get a grip for fuck sake.

No, you!

On a serious note, it was an okay watch. Some good moments, but nothing that made me too excited. Do you have other works online?

[The Feral Underclass]

TAT I think he just levelled you.

What? Please don't tell me he was joking?

:blushing:

[The Feral Underclass]

No, you!

On a serious note, it was an okay watch. Some good moments, but nothing that made me too excited. Do you have other works online?

Were you making a joke?

[Widerstand]

I thought it was obvious =( Sorry "bro".

[The Feral Underclass]

I thought it was obvious =( Sorry "bro".

I'm incredibly overly sensitive to these kinds of criticism because of the nature of some peoples opposition to the film.

I should lighten up. Sorry.

[The Feral Underclass]

On a serious note, it was an okay watch. Some good moments, but nothing that made me too excited. Do you have other works online?

No, I would only put them online in an official capacity, such as this. My other two films are currently in post-production anyway.

[Widerstand]

I'm incredibly overly sensitive to these kinds of criticism because of the nature of some peoples opposition to the film.

I should lighten up. Sorry.

I can understand, I've seen quite a bit of the rages in the pedophilia threads on RevLeft (and other places). People get so emotional and upset about this topic.


No, I would only put them online in an official capacity, such as this. My other two films are currently in post-production anyway.

Oh. Baw.

[Il Medico]

I kinda wish you hadn't said anything about it in the plot, because what the internal conflict the main character was going through wasn't obvious until quite late into the film. (The part were he yelled at [his son?] to put a shirt on.) Connect that with the build up scences with the boy and you should make the connection. After that it is just seemed to be about the suspense of whether or not he would let his urges get the better of him. He almost did, but he also deeply regrets almost having done so. I found it to be very good TAT. :thumbup1:

[The Feral Underclass]

Yo Doctor. Glad you appreciated it.

Thanks :)

[M-26-7]

Praise, criticism, rejection all welcome

The website's one-sentence description of the plot was: "A middle-aged man battles to cope with unwanted desires."

Yet, the main character's 'unwanted' desires didn't seem too 'unwanted' to me. On the contrary, he attempted to initiate actual intimate contact with the boy no sooner than he had learned his name. This intimate contact wasn't just apparent to the viewer (or this viewer): the man's intent was clear enough to prompt the boy to say "I'm not queer."

It also didn't seem that the filmmaker's own 'unwanted' desires were too 'unwanted'. An angel-faced blond boy approaches the man (who is sexually attracted to angel-faced blond boys--surprise surprise) in the forest, in the middle of the day (doesn't he have school? some friends his own age? what exactly is he doing in this woodsy area all day for several days in a row? and why, unlike normal boys his age, does he decide to approach random men to share his snacks with?), and befriends him by offering to share his food for no apparent reason.

This seems about as realistic as....well, as a personal fantasy, frankly. If pornos for pedos featuring plotlines were legally produced, this is how I'd imagine the plotline of one of those to be.

All in all, this movie was disturbing and did not give me any amount of sympathy for either the main character (who was quite willing, even eager, to physically follow through on his so-called 'unwanted' desires) or the filmmaker (who portrayed the man in a light which was neutral at best, sympathetic at worst). All in all, I'd rather watch an episode of To Catch A Predator than to watch this short film again.

[The Feral Underclass]

The website's one-sentence description of the plot was: "A middle-aged man battles to cope with unwanted desires."

Yet, the main character's 'unwanted' desires didn't seem too 'unwanted' to me. On the contrary, he attempted to initiate actual intimate contact with the boy no sooner than he had learned his name. This intimate contact wasn't just apparent to the viewer (or this viewer): the man's intent was clear enough to prompt the boy to say "I'm not queer."

It also didn't seem that the filmmaker's own 'unwanted' desires were too 'unwanted'. An angel-faced blond boy approaches the man (who is sexually attracted to angel-faced blond boys--surprise surprise) in the forest, in the middle of the day (doesn't he have school? some friends his own age? what exactly is he doing in this woodsy area all day for several days in a row? and why, unlike normal boys his age, does he decide to approach random men to share his snacks with?), and befriends him by offering to share his food for no apparent reason.

This seems about as realistic as....well, as a personal fantasy, frankly. If pornos for pedos featuring plotlines were legally produced, this is how I'd imagine the plotline of one of those to be.

All in all, this movie was disturbing and did not give me any amount of sympathy for either the main character (who was quite willing, even eager, to physically follow through on his so-called 'unwanted' desires) or the filmmaker (who portrayed the man in a light which was neutral at best, sympathetic at worst). All in all, I'd rather watch an episode of To Catch A Predator than to watch this short film again.

That was singularly my favourite review of my film I've ever had.

[The Feral Underclass]

The website's one-sentence description of the plot was: "A middle-aged man battles to cope with unwanted desires."

Yet, the main character's 'unwanted' desires didn't seem too 'unwanted' to me. On the contrary, he attempted to initiate actual intimate contact with the boy no sooner than he had learned his name.

Having unwanted sexual desires doesn't mean you're not going to act on them.


It also didn't seem that the filmmaker's own 'unwanted' desires were too 'unwanted'.The film is actually based on my own personal experience (as the boy) with a similar character.


An angel-faced blond boy approaches the man (who is sexually attracted to angel-faced blond boys--surprise surprise) in the forest, in the middle of the day (doesn't he have school? some friends his own age? what exactly is he doing in this woodsy area all day for several days in a row?I'm not sure where you're from, but in England we have the very old tradition of allotments. To most British people, it's very clear that he's on an allotment. In some cases, people spend all their time on them. Ed spends his time there, seemingly to escape his family life.

Firstly, I'm surprised you're able to pin-point the time of day. Presumably it's a lunch time, or at the end of his school day, since he's eating lunch and wearing a school uniform. Secondly, the answer, clearly, is no. He doesm't have any friends. That's why when Ed says "why are you always on your own", he evades the question. It may give some foresight into why he spends time there.


and why, unlike normal boys his age, does he decide to approach random men to share his snacks with?), and befriends him by offering to share his food for no apparent reason. No, you're right. There's no apparent reason. I have no interest in being apparent. Admittedly this is very frustrating to a lot of people, but that's just tough.

Why does he approach him? For attention maybe? Perhaps he has some interest in him in a sexual way. Perhaps he wants a friend? I invite that question in the hope that the audience will be able to think for themselves. It's called, in the film world, subtext.


This seems about as realistic as....well, as a personal fantasy, frankly. If pornos for pedos featuring plotlines were legally produced, this is how I'd imagine the plotline of one of those to be.I suggest you watch The Woodsman or Happiness. Both by established film makers, featuring very established actors, which are far more explicit than mine. That's not to mention the adaptation of Lolita. The assumption that a film about paedophilia is predicated on some personal paedophilic fantasy is just patently absurd.

Frankly, what your views demonstrate are a very narrow understanding of the world. The world isn't paint-by-numbers; what you seem to assume as standard normal human dynamics aren't the reality. These things happen, people behave in these ways and that's something you should learn to understand.

[Fawkes]

All in all, this movie was disturbing and did not give me any amount of sympathy for either the main character (who was quite willing, even eager, to physically follow through on his so-called 'unwanted' desires) or the filmmaker (who portrayed the man in a light which was neutral at best, sympathetic at worst)
What's wrong with that? He was portrayed in a realistic light. Despite what a lot of people like to think, there does not exist a dichotomy between good guy/bad guy. The man's attempts to initiate sexual relations with the boy are obviously reprehensible, but is the enormous inner turmoil going on that prompted him to not only scream at his own son, but actually attempt to act upon these feelings he is obviously trying hard to suppress in the form of touching the boy not at all deserving of sympathy? The man, at least in my eyes, is very deserving of sympathy, I mean, just look at the pain this is causing him, it's a lot more complex than pedo=bad. I would hesitate also to say he was "eager" to follow through on these desires, it's not like he was exactly pursuing the boy vehemently and pushing himself on him. Also, the fact that on multiple occasions he was shown to be drinking is not I think because the filmmaker needed the actor to be doing something, but is indicative of an attempt to suppress these feelings that cause him so much pain.

I liked it, TAT. The very fact that little attempt was made to demonize the man solely for the purpose of doing just that immediately garnered extra points from me. It would have been interesting if there had been more hinting at the relationship that existed between the man and who am I assuming was his son, though a pretty good understanding of it can still be discerned. I like the shaky camera style too, and the lighting in that last part in the shed was spot-on.

As a final note:

All in all, I'd rather watch an episode of To Catch A Predator than to watch this short film again.
Why don't you have a seat over there? Come on, have a seat. Come, sit.

[The Feral Underclass]

What's wrong with that? He was portrayed in a realistic light. Despite what a lot of people like to think, there does not exist a dichotomy between good guy/bad guy. The man's attempts to initiate sexual relations with the boy are obviously reprehensible, but is the enormous inner turmoil going on that prompted him to not only scream at his own son, but actually attempt to act upon these feelings he is obviously trying hard to suppress in the form of touching the boy not at all deserving of sympathy? The man, at least in my eyes, is very deserving of sympathy, I mean, just look at the pain this is causing him, it's a lot more complex than pedo=bad. I would hesitate also to say he was "eager" to follow through on these desires, it's not like he was exactly pursuing the boy vehemently and pushing himself on him. Also, the fact that on multiple occasions he was shown to be drinking is not I think because the filmmaker needed the actor to be doing something, but is indicative of an attempt to suppress these feelings that cause him so much pain.

I liked it, TAT. The very fact that little attempt was made to demonize the man solely for the purpose of doing just that immediately garnered extra points from me. It would have been interesting if there had been more hinting at the relationship that existed between the man and who am I assuming was his son, though a pretty good understanding of it can still be discerned. I like the shaky camera style too, and the lighting in that last part in the shed was spot-on.

As a final note:

Why don't you have a seat over there? Come on, have a seat. Come, sit.

Let's get married.

[leftace53]

Fawkes talkin in normal werds creeps me out.

[Soviet dude]

Most pedophiles tend to believe children 'seduce' them. The depiction of Ryan is just that, as a boy trying to seduce a grown man. The viewer is supposed to feel sympathy for a man who has to keep his pedophilia secret, but I don't think the viewer can get over the obviously erotic overtones between the interactions of the boy and the man. It could just as easily be the lead-up to a porn movie instead of a man crying in a shed.

If this movie is supposed to be a portrait of how bizarrely pedophiles think of children, then it was a smashing success.

[revolution inaction]

Most pedophiles tend to believe children 'seduce' them. The depiction of Ryan is just that, as a boy trying to seduce a grown man. The viewer is supposed to feel sympathy for a man who has to keep his pedophilia secret, but I don't think the viewer can get over the obviously erotic overtones between the interactions of the boy and the man. It could just as easily be the lead-up to a porn movie instead of a man crying in a shed.

If this movie is supposed to be a portrait of how bizarrely pedophiles think of children, then it was a smashing success.
it didn't look like the boy was seducing the man to me, it reminded me of how some children interact with older people, and i've never thought of this as seduction.

[Widerstand]

it didn't look like the boy was seducing the man to me, it reminded me of how some children interact with older people, and i've never thought of this as seduction.

This precisely. I thought the behavior of the boy was rather realistic. I don't know about the man, but he was portrayed in a manner that made sense. I didn't find any part of the movie to be overly unrealistic. Okay, when the man touched the boys face and he responded "I'm not queer", that was a bit too rushed on the man's side (then again it's a short movie and I had no way of identifying how much time passed between various scenes). And the boy's response was a bit too ... hm. It revealed that he knew about the mans attraction to him, else he wouldn't have been so spot on with seeing it as a sexual act (I would consider that form of caress borderline normal for some parent-child relations), which implies that he knew before he decided to eat and sit next to him, which is weird IMO. But yes, nothing too strange about the plot.

[Fawkes]

Let's get married.

That we shall, though there is one minor issue: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1851363&postcount=10


Fawkes talkin in normal werds creeps me out.
da fuck yall talkin bout?

[bcbm]

i thought we weren't allowed to post personal information?

[Fawkes]

That rule's stupid anyway, if someone is going to post something that's personal on here, they most likely know full well that it is the internet, and therefore, anyone can see it, so as long as the person posting it is fine with it, who cares?

[bcbm]

i mean i dont give a shit but everybody else gets slapped on the wrist for itso

[black magick hustla]

i liked it. it reminded me of the stranger by camus a lot

[Fawkes]

bcbm:
yeah, i know what you mean

[black magick hustla]

also i think its good someone did a movie about this. being a pedophile is probably a living hell. i cant think of anything worse.

[Os Cangaceiros]

also i think its good someone did a movie about this. being a pedophile is probably a living hell. i cant think of anything worse.

What about if you're a paraplegic pedophile? That would suck pretty bad too.

[synthesis]

i thought we weren't allowed to post personal information?

Anarchists don't follow your bourgeois "rules."

[Lyev]

I honestly tried to watch but I gave up after quite a long time because it kept on stalling and buffering so I only got to about 1 min 30 secs, sorry. What I saw I liked though.

[Panda Tse Tung]

You should do something to make the Camera less shaky (like using a tripod), in some parts it added something to the movie. But in most parts it was a little annoying.
I found the story to be pretty boring, it didn't really appeal to me. But maybe it does to some people. I'll give props for the fact i almost fell asleep in a 15 minute film. Plus the relationship of the boy with the man was somewhat vague.
It's well done, but just not my thing. And the camera.

edit: i also thought the guy was rather creepy, not at all sympathetic as some claim. And the calm reaction of the kid seemed odd.

[Il Medico]

You should do something to make the Camera less shaky (like using a tripod), in some parts it added something to the movie. But in most parts it was a little annoying.
.
He is using realistic filming. Using hand held cameras and such to create a heightened sense of realism. It is supposed to be like that. (Take a movie like Bloody Sunday for example). I think the movie would have seemed odd if it was filmed in a bit more formalistic manner.

[The Feral Underclass]

You should do something to make the Camera less shaky (like using a tripod)

So these tripods? They make the camera still?

Hand held film making is a particular style of film making embraced by a huge community of established and rising film makers. It's a style I've embraced in all my films, and I can't imagine ever stopping that.

You're not the first person to be annoyed by it. I'm sure you won't be the last.


relationship of the boy with the man was somewhat vague.Yes. That was intentional.


edit: i also thought the guy was rather creepy, not at all sympathetic as some claim. And the calm reaction of the kid seemed odd.That's because most people have pre-supposed assumptions about how people should behave.

[The Feral Underclass]

He is using realistic filming. Using hand held cameras and such to create a heightened sense of realism. It is supposed to be like that. (Take a movie like Bloody Sunday for example). I think the movie would have seemed odd if it was filmed in a bit more formalistic manner.

Plus most scenes were shot in one take, so using a tripod would have seemed absurd, which would mean having to break the scenes into various shots, which I don't like.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Needs a car chase.

[Soviet dude]

also i think its good someone did a movie about this. being a pedophile is probably a living hell. i cant think of anything worse.

I would think being a child repeatedly raped by a pedophile might be slightly worse.

[Bilan]

What about Ed Norton? Is the person that directed Dumbo really an elephant? What kind of fucking absurd logic is that? Get a grip for fuck sake..

That is by far the best analogy ever.

[Adi Shankara]

The photography and acting was good in my opinion, and it was entertaining...

...but what bothered me, as with other users, was the way it was made to show the boy as the seducer, as if the boy was asking for attention (remember George Carlin?), and the adult as an innocent victim being tempted by a boy who seems to talk to random grown men in a seemingly unrealistic fantasy-world setting that would pretty much never happen in real life.

Also, even if this is a bit prude of me, I really don't know what seeing Ed jacking off adds to the film.

[The Feral Underclass]

that would pretty much never happen in real life.

Except it does. Not to be rude, but to think otherwise is woefully naive. In any case, the film is based on personal experience.

Look, I know it's difficult for some people to grasp the inversion of, standard, "normal" human dynamic assumptions, but that's the challenge of the film. Some people get it, some people get angry about it. What's interesting is the way that people try and deny it as realistic. It would seem that people live in very sheltered worlds. (this sentence is not meant aggressively).


Also, even if this is a bit prude of me, I really don't know what seeing Ed jacking off adds to the film.To symbolise the nature of his attraction and his alienation from himself.

[Adi Shankara]

Look, I know it's difficult for some people to grasp the inversion of, standard, "normal" human dynamic assumptions, but that's the challenge of the film. Some people get it, some people get angry about it. What's interesting is the way that people try and deny it as realistic. It would seem that people live in very sheltered worlds. (this sentence is not meant aggressively).

I think that's why I liked it in the end. It's subject matter that is very often not tackled, is of a sensitive nature, and, and is mostly portrayed as a linear black and white.

[Guerrilla22]

I could see how watching that film would make certain people feel uncomfortable (perhaps that was what it was meant to do) often very good films deal with subject matter that exists in society that most people would rather not think about or confront.

[Soviet dude]

Except it does. Not to be rude, but to think otherwise is woefully naive. In any case, the film is based on personal experience.

The only people who believe children try to seduce adults all the time are pedophiles.

[The Feral Underclass]

The only people who believe children try to seduce adults all the time are pedophiles.

I seduced older men as a "child" (in the legal sense), but that's a different story.

In any case, I was referring to the idea that a child would talk to "random" men not about him seducing him. I'd also like to point out that it's other peoples interpretation of this film that the boy is seducing the man. Since I've never said that this is happening or made any explicit reference to that fact, how are people coming to this conclusion? If children don't seduce adults, why are you saying this boy is?

It's purposely ambiguous. The film is designed to question assumptions and generate debate.

[Sasha]

I seduced older men as a "child" (in the legal sense), but that's a different story.

so did i, one turned the next morning to be an young vice-cop, that was an bit embarising for both sides.

[The Feral Underclass]

:lol:

Shit. Yeah, I can imagine

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I seduced older men as a "child" (in the legal sense), but that's a different story.

In any case, I was referring to the idea that a child would talk to "random" men not about him seducing him. I'd also like to point out that it's other peoples interpretation of this film that the boy is seducing the man. Since I've never said that this is happening or made any explicit reference to that fact, how are people coming to this conclusion? If children don't seduce adults, why are you saying this boy is?

It's purposely ambiguous. The film is designed to question assumptions and generate debate.

It still needs a car chase.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

You can ban me if you want TAT but that is some sick shit. How dare anyone try and put a human face on monsters who prey on the most vulnerable people in society countless lives have/ are destroyed by sexual predators who prey on children and your attempt to paint them as a victims of their own sexuality is a disgrace and you are an embarrassment to yourself your family and your political ideology you should seriously think about seeking medical advice as by the looks of that film it is coming from personal experience.
And this joker is an admin?

[Widerstand]

You can ban me if you want TAT but that is some sick shit. How dare anyone try and put a human face on monsters who prey on the most vulnerable people in society countless lives have/ are destroyed by sexual predators who prey on children and your attempt to paint them as a victims of their own sexuality is a disgrace and you are an embarrassment to yourself your family and your political ideology you should seriously think about seeking medical advice as by the looks of that film it is coming from personal experience.
And this joker is an admin?

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

If not I feel really sorry for you, and don't even know where to start...

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

http://communitiesonline.homestead.com/files/troll_2.jpg

If not I feel really sorry for you, and don't even know where to start...

No chara Im Republican Socialist Marxist-Leninist Father activist and all round normal fella who is disgusted by TATs portrayal of the worst type of Lumpen degenerate underclass I am sickened and so should every other right thinking leftist, and this person TAT is on bragging about this peice of filth film I have a right mind to report it to the RSPCC or maybe sit this TAT fella down with some victims of sexual abuse and see what they have to say about his portrayal of sexual monsters as victims of circumstance.
I am not a troll I am a person who is disgusted and outraged.

[F9]

http://kanada.siteboard.eu/images/smilies/yawn.gif

[revolution inaction]

no matter how ovbiuse and rediculars a parody may be there is someone who actually holds that view

[scarletghoul]

cant wait for Boy 2.

[The Feral Underclass]

You can ban me if you want TAT but that is some sick shit. How dare anyone try and put a human face on monsters who prey on the most vulnerable people in society countless lives have/ are destroyed by sexual predators who prey on children and your attempt to paint them as a victims of their own sexuality is a disgrace and you are an embarrassment to yourself your family and your political ideology you should seriously think about seeking medical advice as by the looks of that film it is coming from personal experience.
And this joker is an admin?

I think you should write a complaint to the BBC, the UK Film Council and Screen Yorkshire and tell them exactly how you feel.

I also suggest you write to Todd Solondz for his film Happiness and to Kevin Bacon and Nicole Kassell for The Woodsman. They're in on this with me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Really good work Tat!!! I remember so many years ago you posted announcing that you had enrolled in film school and I replied something like--can't wait to see the much needed anarchist films that you'll make.

I'm no film critic but I thought the production was outstanding and the sound quality was Oscar! Nor could I detect any agenda bias of the director.

There is something very compelling about low budget filmmaking that eludes the other types--- and that is Realism. You have captured across gender, culture/nationality,time period lines and documented a very universal story of longing and lust, that had the "boy" been any younger may not have projected the same neutral-positive universatality. The many contextual subtleties are pure genius!

Congrats The Anarchist Tension on your film getting picked for the BBC site!! You are wayyyy talented!!! Casting and production A++.

I'm curious--what's the ballpark cost to make a film like this? Is this still university level? Do you find and cast your own actors?

good luck man.. and don't forget to make that anarchist film a la Ken Loach!
I recently watched an independent low budget film called "4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days" that had very much same production values as your 15 minute film and was an excellent, excellent foreign film that won the 2007 Palm D'Or. i see great stuff from you, TAT. Bravo!!!

I was totally inspired by 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days when we decided on how to shoot it. I'm pleased you got that reference.

Thanks for your comments. They're much appreciated. I have another two that will be done soon.

Thanks again :)

[The Feral Underclass]

I have a right mind to report it to the RSPCA

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? I'm not sure they'd be that interested.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm curious--what's the ballpark cost to make a film like this? Is this still university level? Do you find and cast your own actors?

Actually it was funded by the UK Film Council. The budget for that film was £4,000. My other UKFC films were £10,000 and £16,000.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? I'm not sure they'd be that interested.

Typo you know what I am getting at.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

I think you should write a complaint to the BBC, the UK Film Council and Screen Yorkshire and tell them exactly how you feel.

I also suggest you write to Todd Solondz for his film Happiness and to Kevin Bacon and Nicole Kassell for The Woodsman. They're in on this with me.

If I thought it would do any good I would, the BBC are a pro capitalist pro imperialist broadcasting company you have sold out you ideology your class and dignity.

[Adi Shankara]

If I thought it would do any good I would, the BBC are a pro capitalist pro imperialist broadcasting company you have sold out you ideology your class and dignity.

lol someone has a ban in their future

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

lol someone has a ban in their future

Censorship? Just because I disagree with glorifying child molesters do I deserve a ban?

[Widerstand]

Censorship? Just because I disagree with glorifying child molesters do I deserve a ban?

Or maybe because you sound like a fucking douche with your immense hatred towards anything outside your moral acceptability zone.

But no, the truth is, that Sankara and TAT have a sadomasochist relationship of the special sort, that involves lots of teasing and subliminal accusations.

[Adi Shankara]

Censorship? Just because I disagree with glorifying child molesters do I deserve a ban?

yep, that's the end of you.



But no, the truth is, that Sankara and TAT have a sadomasochist relationship of the special sort, that involves lots of teasing and subliminal accusations.

I lul'd

[The Feral Underclass]

Censorship? Just because I disagree with glorifying child molesters do I deserve a ban?

But apparently you're perfectly happy with censoring films?

Please explain something to me: How, in your right mind, could you possibly think that I was glorifying child molesters? If that were my ambition, why did I portray the character as a deeply sad, pathetically desperate man who doesn't actually molest any children?

[F9]

cause your name says anarkkkist, and that makes you EVIL

[Il Medico]

You know TAT, I'm surprised you didn't just post this in the CU. It would have saved you having to deal with all the trolly wankers for the most part.


Also, can't wait to watch the next two. :)

[Adi Shankara]

You know TAT, I'm surprised you didn't just post this in the CU. It would have saved you having to deal with all the trolly wankers for the most part.


Also, can't wait to watch the next two. :)

but then there would be no conflict, and conflict is fun!

[Il Medico]

but then there would be no conflict, and conflict is fun!
Wherever you go there can never be 'no conflict'.

And you're blue,
thus, there must be conflict in the CU.

<3 Tommy.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

But apparently you're perfectly happy with censoring films?

Please explain something to me: How, in your right mind, could you possibly think that I was glorifying child molesters? If that were my ambition, why did I portray the character as a deeply sad, pathetically desperate man who doesn't actually molest any children?

His twisted intent is enough. Just because you portrayed the monster as a sad bastard is no defense if you had taken it any further you would be in jail locked up with the rest of the nonces.
Also putting the fucking BBC up on a pedestal you really are off your head.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Doctor, I did consider it, but I'm not ashamed of the film or afraid of the criticism and I want as many people to see it.

[The Feral Underclass]

His twisted intent is enough.

But he deeply regrets it. Are you suggesting that society shouldn't show compassion towards people who suffer from paedophilia?


Just because you portrayed the monster as a sad bastard is no defense if you had taken it any further you would be in jail locked up with the rest of the nonces.

Firstly, I don't really think you know what you're talking about. There's nothing illegal about what I did, it was totally sanctioned and above board. It's a fiction film, and the fact you don't like its content isn't a pre-requisite for nefarious illegalities.

Secondly, I'm not trying to defend my film. There's really nothing to defend. I have made a comment on the problem of paedophilia and I stand by it. If you want to understand why I've done that, I'll be happy to explain, but it seems to me that you're far too busy reacting to actually take the time to understand anything.

Thirdly, the implication that I'm a "nonce" is a criminal offence, and I've already sought legal advice for defamation because of this issue. Neither me nor my production company are afraid to prosecute people who defame me, and since I have access to your IP address it wouldn't be difficult to track you down and subpoena you. So I'd be careful how you tread.

Lastly, if you think my film was bordering on the illegal, then I suggest you look up the film Happiness. A film directed by Todd Solondz, it investigates the issue of paedophilia far more graphically than mine and without the political and social commentary.


Also putting the fucking BBC up on a pedestal you really are off your head.

The BBC take their duty of promoting emerging talent very seriously and irrespective of the editorial nature of those who run it, that doesn't stop me from appreciating their support of me as a film maker.

[ContrarianLemming]

I know it's difficult for some people to grasp the inversion of, standard, "normal" human dynamic assumptions, but that's the challenge of the film. Some people get it, some people get angry about it. What's interesting is the way that people try and deny it as realistic. It would seem that people live in very sheltered worlds.

This is good, sundance movie awards good

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

His twisted intent is enough. Just because you portrayed the monster as a sad bastard is no defense if you had taken it any further you would be in jail locked up with the rest of the nonces.
Also putting the fucking BBC up on a pedestal you really are off your head.

I really don't think you should be using the word nonce.


There is also evidence for a possible connection with nancy, a derogatory term referring to effeminate or homosexual males, and with a dialectical use of "nonse" to refer to a worthless person.

Revleft frouns on using homophobic slurs.

[Dimentio]

But apparently you're perfectly happy with censoring films?

Please explain something to me: How, in your right mind, could you possibly think that I was glorifying child molesters? If that were my ambition, why did I portray the character as a deeply sad, pathetically desperate man who doesn't actually molest any children?

Because he is shown as a human being and not as some sort of evil monster from the woods.

Most people in the western world consider children to be sacred, and I know that they would like to punish pedophiles for even being pedophiles, even if they haven't done anything. And they instinctively want to punish pedophiles with the most gruesome punishments imaginable. It is not some kind of prejudice, but more an evidence how much people are valuing children in general (if they are their own children).

[Widerstand]

It is not some kind of prejudice, but more an evidence how much people are valuing children in general (if they are their own children).

I find it hard to believe that a strong desire to cruelly punish pedophiles comes from the want to protect children, and not from personal hatred and bigotry.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because he is shown as a human being and not as some sort of evil monster from the woods.

That's not good enough. It barely even makes any sense.

[Adi Shankara]

I find it hard to believe that a strong desire to cruelly punish pedophiles comes from the want to protect children, and not from personal hatred and bigotry.

even if it is hypocritical at times in implication of their affection, Dimentio does have a point: there isn't a single culture on earth that doesn't value the lives of children.

[synthesis]

I find it very easy to believe that the desire to cruelly punish pedophiles arises from the desire to protect children. "Pedophiles" aren't a homogeneous group.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

even if it is hypocritical at times in implication of their affection, Dimentio does have a point: there isn't a single culture on earth that doesn't value the lives of children.

It doesn't excuse your bollocksy opinions.

[Adi Shankara]

It doesn't excuse your bollocksy opinions.

of everything and everyone you could've responded to, you responded to that. shaddap

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

But he deeply regrets it. Are you suggesting that society shouldn't show compassion towards people who suffer from paedophilia?



Firstly, I don't really think you know what you're talking about. There's nothing illegal about what I did, it was totally sanctioned and above board. It's a fiction film, and the fact you don't like its content isn't a pre-requisite for nefarious illegalities.

Secondly, I'm not trying to defend my film. There's really nothing to defend. I have made a comment on the problem of paedophilia and I stand by it. If you want to understand why I've done that, I'll be happy to explain, but it seems to me that you're far too busy reacting to actually take the time to understand anything.

Thirdly, the implication that I'm a "nonce" is a criminal offence, and I've already sought legal advice for defamation because of this issue. Neither me nor my production company are afraid to prosecute people who defame me, and since I have access to your IP address it wouldn't be difficult to track you down and subpoena you. So I'd be careful how you tread.

Lastly, if you think my film was bordering on the illegal, then I suggest you look up the film Happiness. A film directed by Todd Solondz, it investigates the issue of paedophilia far more graphically than mine and without the political and social commentary.



The BBC take their duty of promoting emerging talent very seriously and irrespective of the editorial nature of those who run it, that doesn't stop me from appreciating their support of me as a film maker.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen big bad anarchist revolutionary TAT threating to get the coppers cause he was called a nonce on the internet.
I couldn't give two monkeys fucks what you do it wont be the first time I was in front of a British court for my principals beliefs and ideology I look forward to it. If you want to know my name address etc dont waste your time checking IPs just ask for it and I will be happy to oblige I have nothing to fear from a plastic Anarchist.
You are a first, a Anarchist willing to work with the capitalist state broadcaster the coppers and the ruling classes justice system?
Not much of an Anarchist are you, "comrade"!

[Sasha]

Wow, you know you do more to make me apriciate TAT than he ever could for himself.

Anyway, since you so dramaticly requested so in this other thread (wich you confidiently seemed to have forgotten all about now)

REVOLUTIONARY32 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=19993) banned upon request ;)

[Il Medico]

Wow, you know you do more to make me apriciate TAT than he ver could for himself.

Anyway, since you so dramaticly requested so in this other thread (wich you confidiently seemed to have forgotten all about now)

REVOLUTIONARY32 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=19993) banned upon request ;)
Psycho, I request that you move this out of chit-chat so I can thank it.

[Sasha]

thank you, thank you, you can show your eternal gratitude for this purge by thanking my post in revolutionary32 his "delete my acount please" thread in the membersforum

[The Feral Underclass]

Perhaps he's right. Maybe I am a paedophile non-anarchist?

[Sasha]

the debate seem to be out upon the paedophile part but the non-anarchist bit is an clear cut case i think :lol:

[F9]

Psycho, I request that you move this out of chit-chat so I can thank it.

haha, i was pissed looking for the thanks button, and wondering where the fuck it gone:lol: then i realised this was in chit-chat :laugh:
I thanked your admin action though :p

[Jazzratt]

That's not good enough. It barely even makes any sense. If I read it correctly Dimentio was pretty much saying that unless you portray all paedophiles as irredeemale demons bereft entirely of humanity (i.e "evil monsters from the wood") then people like our recently banned friend are always going to make sure no pearl goes unclutched in their crusade against a film they've never watched.

That's a lot to infer from one sentance, I know, but that's how I understood it.

I've no opinion on the film as I've not watched it.

[Dimentio]

That's not good enough. It barely even makes any sense.

People don't want to imagine there are pedophiles amongst us. They want the pedophiles to be some kind of monsters outside of the communityl, since they fear it more if the gymnastics teacher, boy scout leader, local priest or the elderly retiree living across the street might have pedophilic urges. Most adults are cringing even at the thought of a pedophile being within 50 metres of their children.

[The Feral Underclass]

People don't want to imagine there are pedophiles amongst us. They want the pedophiles to be some kind of monsters outside of the communityl, since they fear it more if the gymnastics teacher, boy scout leader, local priest or the elderly retiree living across the street might have pedophilic urges.

No one I know, including those with children, have these opinions. So, who are you actually talking about? What are you basing these 'findings' on? Who are these "people"?


Most adults are cringing even at the thought of a pedophile being within 50 metres of their children.

But that doesn't make the idiots incapable of having independent thought.

[Dimentio]

No one I know, including those with children, have these opinions. So, who are you actually talking about? What are you basing these 'findings' on? Who are these "people"?



But that doesn't make the idiots incapable of having independent thought.

Mostly mass media, and from what I've heard people say during kitchen conversations and discussions in coffeeshops, as well as Swedish discussion forums.