Laid back Australia

GePap · July 5, 2003, 16:12

Quote:

Entertainment
07/05/2003 13:43:35 EST Australia Police Shut Down Film Showing

Police shut down a public screening of a U.S. movie banned in Australia because of its explicit sex and violence, sparking outrage from free speech advocates.

"Ken Park," a provocative film by "Kids" director Larry Clark and Edward Lachman, catalogues the dysfunctional lives of teenage skateboarders in the suburbs of Visalia, Calif.

Its underage sex scenes and graphic violence led Australian authorities to refuse it a classification - effectively banning it from cinemas across the country.

To protest the move, about 500 people attended a public viewing of the movie late Wednesday in the upscale Sydney suburb of Balmain.

No one was arrested, but police seized the DVD on stage and took the names of four people who admitted to pressing the play button, among them movie critic Margaret Pomeranz and Australian Broadcasting Corp. broadcaster Julie Rigg. If they are charged with illegally screening the banned film, they face a maximum sentence of a year in prison.

Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Evil Knevil · July 5, 2003, 16:16

Australia has a long history of bigotry and stupidity. Look at the white Australia policy

Still, it can be nice.

Nubclear · July 5, 2003, 16:41

"For we are young and free........"

Provost Harrison · July 5, 2003, 17:20

Censorship of the worst variety...Gore would be proud

Sirotnikov · July 5, 2003, 19:17

bah.

I wonder if the people who banned this "bunch of nudie pics" realized what statement the movie was making.

I guess movies are not allowed to show reality or make statements about it.

Good work, Australian government

SlowwHand · July 5, 2003, 19:29

Underage sex scenes. You commies are even for that?

Dang. I was all set to come in here and say there was a big difference between being laid back and being comatose; then I find a lair of pediophiles.

Asher · July 5, 2003, 19:38

Censorship trumps actors portraying underage sex between consentual people.

Sorry Sloww.

Agathon · July 5, 2003, 19:40

Only the sheep are laid back in Australia.

Trust me, we have to destroy Australia before it is too late.

PLATO · July 5, 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Censorship trumps actors portraying underage sex between consentual people.

Sorry Sloww.

As long as the actors are not underage themselves of course!

Asher · July 5, 2003, 19:41

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
As long as the actors are mot underage themselves of course!

You think they're really having sex?

PLATO · July 5, 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

You think they're really having sex?

Regardless of weather they are "really" having sex, involving underage actors in sexually explicit scenes trumps censorship. If the actors were of age and merely playing underage characters then the censorship issue is valid

Asher · July 5, 2003, 19:45

Personally I don't think it should be illegal for underage people to pretend to have sex in a movie.

But that's just me.

Maybe you should get over the fact that kids will have sex, and it's not going to hurt anyone to pretend to for a film?

Dauphin · July 5, 2003, 19:46

It would be interesting to apply similar logic to "DO you really think these actors are being knifed and shot?" or "Do these actors have firearms licences?".

The reality of the actors lives are unimportant, its the portrayal of what is being shown and told in the movie that counts.

SlowwHand · July 5, 2003, 19:48

Asher, you're not noted for having moderate views.
But that's just me.

Imran Siddiqui · July 5, 2003, 19:48

Quote:

Regardless of weather they are "really" having sex, involving underage actors in sexually explicit scenes trumps censorship.

I think that's Bull personally. Movies portray reality. This is portraying what happens in real life (ie, people under the age of 16 or 18 have sex

). Since it is not actually underage sex, I see nothing wrong with it at all. The reality is what matters, IMO, contrary to BC's idea

.

Dauphin · July 5, 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Regardless of weather they are "really" having sex, involving underage actors in sexually explicit scenes trumps censorship.

I think that's Bull personally. Movies portray reality. This is portraying what happens in real life (ie, people under the age of 16 or 18 have sex

). Since it is not actually underage sex, I see nothing wrong with it at all. The reality is what matters, IMO, contrary to BC's idea

.

I think you misunderstood me. So I edited my above post.

Asher · July 5, 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Asher, you're not noted for having moderate views.
But that's just me.

I may not be moderate, but I sure as hell am correct.

SlowwHand · July 5, 2003, 19:51

It's a seed planted.

No, idiot! Not that kind of seed!

A seed of instigating, insinuating, and insincerity, as Jackie Childs might say.

PLATO · July 5, 2003, 19:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Maybe you should get over the fact that kids will have sex, and it's not going to hurt anyone to pretend to for a film?

I realize that kids are going to have sex. I actually remember fulfilling that concept. Using underage kids in sexu8ally explicit situations is exploitation. The are not legally (or emotionally for the most part) ready to make those choices. (Hence the term underage ). This speaks nothing to the fact of what kind of people want to go and watch underage kids having sex (real or pretend)? All around it is a bad idea to involve kids in this situation. Could there be that exceptional kid capable of making that decision? Probably. But how would we really know until we say the effect it had on their adult life?

Asher · July 5, 2003, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
But how would we really know until we say the effect it had on their adult life?

Indeed I bet every 16 year old boy would be absolutely traumatized by having 5-6 seconds of on-screen pretend sex under covers.

In fact, it's probably their worst nightmare.

We're not talking about 8 year olds having sex, they're 15/16...

Imran Siddiqui · July 5, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

I think you misunderstood me. So I edited my above post

Ah, I see now

. I agree totally

PLATO · July 5, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Indeed I bet every 16 year old boy would be absolutely traumatized by having 5-6 seconds of on-screen pretend sex under covers.

In fact, it's probably their worst nightmare.

We're not talking about 8 year olds having sex, they're 15/16...

Indeed it could be.

Asher · July 5, 2003, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Indeed it could be.

In fact my worst nightmare is engaging in sexual intercourse with more than one partner. It would be horribly immoral and disgusting, and certainly traumatizing.

I mean, it's just not natural.

On the other hand, it is perfectly natural for kids not to masturbate and to abstain from sex until they are married and 18.

It's all about being natural, baby.

SlowwHand · July 5, 2003, 20:05

How old are you, Asher?
Older than 16. And I remember your being traumatized.

Asher · July 5, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
How old are you, Asher?
Older than 16. And I remember your being traumatized.

Eh? I was "traumatized" for a different reason, and I assure you it was not pretend sex.

PLATO · July 5, 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

In fact my worst nightmare is engaging in sexual intercourse with more than one partner. It would be horribly immoral and disgusting, and certainly traumatizing.

How about your evil co-worker showing the film of that to your conservative boss when your up for that big promotion at 35 years old?? Bet his decision would be a natural also.

Asher · July 5, 2003, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
How about your evil co-worker showing the film of that to your conservative boss when your up for that big promotion at 35 years old?? Bet his decision would be a natural also.

For an acting part in a movie?

A better question would be why your 35+ year old coworker was looking for a movie in which you, as a minor, pretended to have sex.

And if your boss declined your promotion because you were an actor, well,

PLATO · July 5, 2003, 20:24

Quote:

And if your boss declined your promotion because you were an actor

...in a sexually explicit film.

Welcome to reality...

Asher · July 5, 2003, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
...in a sexually explicit film.

Welcome to reality...

Why don't you come back to reality, you think Ken Park is sexually explicit?

Why don't you see the movie man, the sex "explicitness" involves moving covers for a few seconds.

PLATO · July 5, 2003, 20:30

Quote:

"Ken Park," a provocative film

Quote:

Its underage sex scenes and graphic violence led Australian authorities to refuse it a classification

No, I haven't seen the movie. I am basing my thoughts upon the above quotes. It surely leads one to believe that it is more than moving sheets. But okay, let's say this film is acceptable. That doesn't change the notion that exploitation of underage people is a bad thing all aaround.