Screenwriter »

  • Swearing is f%6*ing great!

    March 7, 2012 @ 10:40 pm | by Donald Clarke

    We’ve been here before. But let me say again how much I love swearing and violence in the movies. I bow to no one in my devotion to sentimental pictures such as Now Voyager, Random Harvest and Goodbye Mr Chips. As you pick yourself off the floor and mop your sopping face, you can’t help but feel a little happier about the universe. Nothing, however, beats a stream of creative cussing or an outbreak of invigoratingly bloody beheading. Though I fully understand (and share) feminist worries about the c-word, it just wouldn’t be the same if, in Withnail & I, the title character referred to his uncle as “a terrible codger”.

    What brought this on? Well, you may be aware that Harvey Weinstein is currently engaged in a stand-up fight with the Motion Picture Association of America, the shadowy body that oversees film certification in the United States. It seems that the MPAA has slapped a 17 cert on Bully, Harvey’s new documentary, for the awful offense of allowing six unbleeped uses of the word f**k. (As those asterisks make clear, the MPAA is not the only organisation that frowns on the Germanic expletive). Harvey and his chums quite reasonably argue that the film, which deals with the curse of bullying, will now prove difficult to view for much of its intended audience. Over 200,000 signatures have been gathered on a petition urging a reversal of the decision.

    This is not the first film to fall foul of language puritanism. Ken Loach’s Sweet Sixteen got the 18-cert treatment for suggesting that teenagers from Glasgow might utter the odd profanity. (As if!) Tracy Emin withdrew her film Top Spot following a similar dust-up with the British Board of Film Classification. You might reasonably wonder why this week’s Stella Days, a harmless film about an Irish priest starting a cinema, embarks with a surprisingly harsh 15A cert. Well, make your way to the Irish Film Classification Office’s website and you will find a reference to “infrequent very strong language”. There is also a stabbing in the picture. But that single use of a word that rhymes with “punt” cannot have helped the film’s cause. (The IFCO does not comment publicly on individual cases.)

    What the f**k is going on? It hardly needs to be said that any  young person will, most likely, hear more than six uses of the dreaded word while making his way to a screening of Bully. Any kid sufficiently bright to seek out a Ken Loach movie will not, after hearing young Scotsmen utter a few blue words, be suddenly propelled into a life of heroin addiction and petty crime.

    It is only reasonable to protect those who might find themselves distressed by scenes of extreme violence or horror. You could, of course, reasonably argue — after noting how robust today’s youth seem — that an 18-cert is probably of more use to squeamish 30-year-olds than  it is to supposedly vulnerable adolescents. But there is an argument to be made here.

    I genuinely cannot, however, understand in what way hearing the odd “f**k”, the occasional “c**t” or even a stray “motherf**er” will damage any young person. Parents can still impose their own rules on the household. If their young tearaways attempt to argue that Ken Loach or Harvey Weinstein says it’s okay then they should be deposited on the couch and asked whether, just because the bible says it’s okay to sacrifice your son to God, mummy or daddy should feel comfortable about dragging young Cian or Imelda up the mountain while clutching a machete.

    Okay, that’s a terrible argument. But I am hampered by the fact that I don’t have children and I genuinely don’t mind hearing young people flinging about swearwords. I also, as previously noted, rather enjoy hearing robust language in the movies. “Tut, tut. All that swearing is so unnecessary in Tarantino’s nasty films,” some imaginary correspondent says to me. Oh f**k off! It’s not “necessary” to make a film at all. What you want to ask yourself is whether the profanity adds to the robust music of the prose. Actually, you don’t want to ask yourself that question; you’d almost certainly say that it doesn’t. But you, imaginary whinger, are clearly a f**ing idiot. Now, get out of my sight.

    I’m glad I got that off my chest. Now, I’m off to watch a Doris Day film.

  • What’s the point of censorship?

    June 12, 2011 @ 11:04 pm | by Donald Clarke

    The question is prompted by news from across the water. As you may be aware, the British Board of Film Classification has refused to issue a certificate to the even-more-gruesome sequel to the already fairly hideous The Human Centipede. That film concerned a mad scientist who grafts the mouth of some captors onto the bottoms of others, thus creating a particularly hideous process of defecation and consumption. Let’s not dwell on the variations that Tom Six, mischievous Dutch director, has dreamt up for The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence. Suffice to say, the events are very unlike those depicted in Curious George: The Movie.

    The decision has prompted some wringing of hands in the UK. The BBFC has strongly objected to suggestions that they have “banned” the film — The Guardian felt minded to belatedly remove that word from all reports — but this is, surely, dallying in semantic wonderland. Yes, you can, if the distributor allows, show the film to your friends in a private screening room. But, for all intents and purposes, “ban” describes the Board’s intentions fairly accurately.

    Many have, quite rightly, pointed out that, in the current digital age, it will be quite impossible to stop punters from seeing the film. Indeed, the BBFC’s actions positively ensure that younger viewers — those particularly adept at locating illegal files — will search out the film in the magic cinema on the internet. Territories such as Australia have granted the film a cert. We can, thus, safely assume that it will be floating about the electronic ether fairly soon.

    Ah yes, the moralists mutter. But that is not the point. We know that we’ll never stop people killing one another. We do not, however, make moves to legalise murder. The fact that Mr Six relishes the ban is neither here nor there.

    Fair point. But the real question, surely, is  whether we should be banning fictional entertainments merely because we find the events depicted objectionable. To anyone of an even vaguely liberal disposition, the answer must be a firm, aggressive no. The only argument that could hold any water here would be one suggesting that the impressionable viewer might be tempted to capture his own collection of innocent people and graft them together in imitation of Mr Six’s horrible improvised creature. Hardly likely. Indeed, efforts by The Daily Mail faction to prove links between notorious acts of violence and “video nasties” have always failed miserably.

    Here’s the thing. If you believe in freedom of expression then you should argue most strongly for those works that you find somewhat suspect. Any duffer can put up a case for nice, liberal films — or books, poems or plays — written by political prisoners in Chinese prisons. Such beliefs only mean anything when one is confronted with a threatened art work that seems a little politically or morally dubious.

    It reminds me a little of those posters you used to see round universities saying “No Free Speech for Fascists” Huh? If you don’t believe in free speech for fascists then you don’t believe in free speech. Simple as that.

    None of which is to suggest that I think Mr Six is a Nazi. Actually, I thought The Human Centipede was a bit of a lark. For the record, part 2 has not yet been submitted to our own Board.

    YouTube Preview Image
  • Britain bans something.

    November 3, 2010 @ 8:57 pm | by Donald Clarke

    (Parental alert: this post contains images which, according to certain watchdogs, may cause frail, scaredy-cat children to run screaming from the computer and back to the 19th century where they belong.)

    It has emerged that the British Advertising Standards Authority has — sometime after such a decision had any practical worth — banned the poster for first-class horror film The Last Exorcism. The body claimed that the image, which shows a young girl in blood-soaked torment, had triggered 80 complaints from members of the public. Having glanced at the snap, the ASA agreed that it should not be let out in daylight, lest any infants suffer undue and unexpected distress. Here it comes. Escort the little darlings from the room. It’s a real vomit-maker.

    Aaaaaaaaa! Bleurgh! Bleurgh! My eyes, my eyes!

    I don’t know. I guess there are children who, after strolling past the poster, might feel a little unnerved. But I can’t say the odd scare does such delicate souls any serious harm. Anyway, it tends to be the case that over-protective parents simply assume (and rather hope) that their little ones have been shaken silly by such supposedly horrific images. From the horror comic fiasco of the 1950s through Mrs Whitehouse‘s objections to Dr Who to the banning of The Evil Dead, unimaginative, psychologically deadened parents have imposed all kinds of imaginary torment on largely unconcerned, entirely undamaged young people. A decade or so after each fuss, the general public ends up accepting the outrageous entity as a charming exercise in harmless provocation.

    Like waving placards at suspected child-killers or campaigning for the execution of Russell Brand, such campaigns exist to make the campaigners feel better about themselves. Look at us. We’re taking care of the innocent. We’re whitewashing the foul charnel houses. Won’t somebody please think of the children!

  • I spit on your grave again.

    September 22, 2010 @ 3:38 pm | by Donald Clarke

    Just a quick update on the kerfuffle surrounding the banning of Meir Zarchi’s lovely I Spit on Your Grave. Ger Connolly, the acting classification officer, has issued the following cautious statement: “IFCO does not wish to be drawn into what appears to be a publicity drive on the part of the film’s director, but stands over the decision to prohibit I Spit On Your Grave (1978) for sustained, graphic and brutal sexual violence.” Hmm? It is true to say that the distributors have done a very good job of getting the information about the media. The IFCO has, moreover, confirmed that the company in question has, somewhat unusually, so far failed to request that the decision be put before the independent review body.

    So, the folk behind I Spit on Your Grave — repeating strategies employed in the original video nasty controversy — may be using the ban to help promote a DVD. So what. If you don’t want them to behave in that fashion then don’t prohibit sales of their product.

  • I flout the law!

    September 20, 2010 @ 10:00 pm | by Donald Clarke

    Welcome back to 1983 (or so). News reaches us that the Irish Film Classification Office has refused to issue a certificate for the DVD re-issue of first-generation video nasty I Spit on Your Grave. They have, in other words, banned the thing. Does this mean that I am now in possession of an illegal item? Will the thought police be breaking in the door at any moment to drag me away? I’ve tried flushing it down the lavatory, but it won’t go. Maybe they’ll issue an amnesty and criminals such as myself will get a chance to dispose of these dangerous, corrupting items in a safe environment. Plus there’s the worry that, just by having the thing in my house, I will be transformed into a homicidal maniac.

    I know. I’ll just keep repeating the mantra. It’s only a movie. It’s only a movie. It’s only a movie. Oh, hang on. That was Last House on the Left. Wasn’t it?


Search Screenwriter