Ken Loach bemoans censors' cuts

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Film director Ken Loach has criticised British film censors for asking him to remove swear words from his new film in order to qualify for a 15 certificate.
Loach said the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) asked for cuts to some language in The Angel's Share.
The British middle class is "obsessed by what they call bad language", he said at the Cannes Film Festival.
The BBFC said the film company chose to reduce the number of uses of very strong language in order to get a 15.
An 18 certificate was available for the uncut version, they said.
The Scotland-set comedy tells the story of young, unemployed father to be who discovers a talent for whisky tasting.
It is in competition for the Palme d'Or, six years after Loach won the festival's top prize for The Wind That Shakes the Barley.

(more at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18157711)

Personally never viewed swearing or bad language to be a problem in and of itself...it's more about the context and how it is used. 15 year olds sear plenty..I know I did.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

This is to be expected from an institution who refused to have Lars von Triers´s The Antichrist released in the UK. Having a film cut because of censors demands is just absurd, as well as 18 certificate because of "bad language".
Death to the BBFC!

[Invader Zim]

This is to be expected from an institution who refused to have Lars von Triers´s The Antichrist released in the UK. Having a film cut because of censors demands is just absurd, as well as 18 certificate because of "bad language".
Death to the BBFC!


Actually, Antichrist was released uncut with an 18 certificate.

Secondly, the notion that there should be no formal rating system is patently ridiculous. There is an ethical obligation to prevent minors - who lack the intellectual maturation to comprehend potentially disturbing footage, themes, language (and with it the social consequences of employing it) - from attending screenings or purchasing copies of these films. Now that isn't to say that they should be barred from watching them, but that is down to parental discression. I, for one, would not allow a child of mine to watch a film with excessive violence, violent sexual content or extreme language uintil I felt that they had reached the level of maturity to deal with it adequately. I vividly recall at a relatively young age watching the film Possession (10 or 12, something like that) and it being a very unpleasant experience that I simply wasn't old enough to understand or deal with. However, when I was a little older I was able to return to the film, and others like it, in a far better position to appriciate it. And of course films like Possession and Antichrist are not designed to be seen by 10 year olds.

Of course, thay isn't to say I agree with the rating system as it currently is. The idea that you can fight, witness actual violence and potentially die in the armed forces at the age 17, enter a work place where all manner of 'adult vocuabulary is employed, and legally engage in intercourse at the age of 16, but cannot purchase films depicting any of these until the age of 18 is absurd. But the idea that a body like the BBFC, which is actually remarkably liberal these days, is just idiotic. It implies that there should be nothing to prevent a young child from walking into a cinema to watch films like Antichrist.

Thirdly, Loach is being a jackass - as usual. The film isn't being censored and nor is he being forced to make cuts to allow the films release. What he has been given is a choice, either he makes cuts allowing the film to be seen by 15 years olds in the cinema or he can refuse to make the cuts and it be given an 18 certificate. So really, this isn't the case that the BBFC are preventing the film from being released or anything like that.

I haven't seen the film to know if that is a fair application of the rating. But I have seen Kickass, which had extremely strong language and from a young girl, plus strong violence and torture and I was amazed - and pleased - they only gave it a 15 (evidence of just how far the BBFC has come over the last few years). Yet they awarded that the 15 certificate. So I wonder just what Loach has included in this film - presumably multiple uses of the 'C' word (which is, incdentally, banned on this site) and likely by children - to see it pushed upto the 18 certificate.

Finally, Antichrist is a steaming load of shit, von Trier couldn't direct traffic. For that matter, so are most Ken Loach films. In fact he hasn't made one worth watching in nearly two decades. The Wind That Shakes the Barley is an abysmal affair and I still feal cheated out of the fiver and couple of hours of my life I spent going to see it.