Laid back Australia - Page 2

Asher · July 5, 2003, 20:32

Provocative as in, thought-provoking & controversial, not as in softcore porn.

Imran Siddiqui · July 5, 2003, 20:33

For the life of me I cannot see how 15/16 year olds are being 'exploited' here.

GePap · July 5, 2003, 21:13

First of all, since showing actual people under 17 (or 18 more likely) having sex ius a crime, if the actors were undergae, the director and othewrs would have been prosecuted already. So I am sre the actors were NOT underage. But the point is that the film borad refuse to give it a rating: why not give it it's harshest rating (whatever they give films with sexually explicit things, for I am sure such films are shown legally in Australia) and get on with it? instead they refuse to give it a rating, thus making showing it a crime. That is the problem.

The simple thing would be to give it Australia's equivalent of X or NC-17 and be done with it, instead of this.

Agathon · July 5, 2003, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
First of all, since showing actual people under 17 (or 18 more likely) having sex ius a crime.

Hey, I was always having sex when I was sixteen.

But that makes me a criminal.

Right on...

Imran Siddiqui · July 5, 2003, 21:19

So you were taking videos of yourself back then having sex and showing it around

.

Agathon · July 5, 2003, 21:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So you were taking videos of yourself back then having sex and showing it around

.

Shut up man, someone might hear.

Sadly, no.

Anyway, do you think home video cameras existed then?

Imran Siddiqui · July 5, 2003, 21:22

What, you are that old?

GePap · July 5, 2003, 21:23

So you are about 60 now? (there were home movie cameras beforte video cameras)

Agathon · July 5, 2003, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What, you are that old?

No, I was kidding. I'm not quite that old. But at the time a home video camera was a rare and expensive item.

I just find it odd that people fret about sixteen year olds having sex. I mean it's stupid not to as you have the best stamina at that age.

On a serious note, when I was sixteen my town had the world's highest rate of teen pregnancy. My girlfriend at the time said it was because there was nothing else to do.

(No teen pregnancies caused by your humble narrator; he always covered his stump before he humped).

Bkeela · July 5, 2003, 23:12

I think the main gripe the censors had with this film was an actual depiction of a guy performing Autoerotic Asphyxiation. Not simulated or acted, but the real thing. If it was the underage sex thing, films like Lolita would have been banned.

Either way, I couldn't give a fudge about this matter. The incestous plight of suburban Californian teenagers is not my idea of art.

Bkeela.

finbar · July 6, 2003, 00:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Trust me, we have to destroy Australia before it is too late.

I would second that.

Skanky Burns · July 6, 2003, 01:46

If our board of censors were destroyed, Australia would be a better place.
However, I don't really care about this particular movie being banned.

Bane Star · July 6, 2003, 01:47

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
First of all, since showing actual people under 17 (or 18 more likely) having sex ius a crime, if the actors were undergae, the director and othewrs would have been prosecuted already.

If the movie is made outside of australia, then we have no jurisdiction to prosecute (well we do but its just too much work to do anyway) so its easier to BAN the movie...

Quote:

The simple thing would be to give it Australia's equivalent of X or NC-17 and be done with it, instead of this.

The real problem is the lax attitude cinemas have to movie ratings, the cencorship board knows full well that even with the harshest rating at least 10,000+ kids around the age of 9-15 are going to see it... parents are idiots these days, tied up with work and all that, they aren't parenting properly... What do you do.... tighten the rules or simply restrcit the movie in the first place....

I for one, say that Violence in all forms should be reduced and restricted and nudity made more relaxed and laid back... australia used to have a 80/20 relaxation about nudity, these days with the american cencored movies we get more violence and less nudity, and so our society goes more violent less nudity...

just my 3 cents

MattyBoy · July 8, 2003, 03:04

Quote:

I for one, say that Violence in all forms should be reduced and restricted and nudity made more relaxed and laid back... australia used to have a 80/20 relaxation about nudity, these days with the american cencored movies we get more violence and less nudity, and so our society goes more violent less nudity...

Hear hear.
American censorship priorities are all wrong and Australia is increasingly adopting them.

We are way too lax on violence and still too tight on sex. IMHO, we over-react to bad language, which is ugly but harmless.

Lung · July 8, 2003, 03:26

The film was publicly screened, not because of the proponents' disputing the film being banned, but because they believe that they should be able to watch whatever they want.

That would be all well and good if they didn't simply oppose censorship whenever it suits them

If someone wanted to show a film that depicted something that was politically incorrect, they would be up in arms!

Either you agree with censorship at some level, or you don't agree with it ever. That idiot from Britain that denies the holocaust is censored at every opportunity, and rightly so. If you agree with that, then the government has the right to appoint censors to deem what is appropriate or not. They should have disputed its censorship instead of making a public statement in the form that they did.