The controversial film 9 songs shows real sex scenes. It is the most sexually explicit film in UK cinema history and been passed uncut and granted an 18 certificate by the British board of film classification. The film was first screened in Cannes where it caused quite a stir.

Will this now pave the way for an abundance of sex movies to be released into the mainstream cinema?

Do you agree that an adult should be able to decide for themselves what is suitable and what is not?

Is this decision an enlightened one or is it a further slide into moral decay?

The film will show preview screenings on Valentine’s Day next year, followed by its nationwide release.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3725545.stm

It's about time we had a proper uncut controversial film released in the UK.
I am of the view that If you do'nt like it, Do'nt watch it!.
I am sick of some out of date panel watching films and deciding what 'I' can and can't watch!.

I think we have a rather odd film censoring set up at the moment - they seem quite happy to put out the most grossly and explicitly violent movies but throw in a bit of sex and it gets cut. When you consider that, for the most part, sex is two people being rather pleasent to each other and violence is two people being rather unpleasent to each other what sort of message is this sending out? That its better to beat the living cr*p out of your fellow man than be pleasent to them??

I have to say that there are some areas that I believe should be censored for general release - explicit sexual violence, for example. It's possible to indicate that something very unpleasant has happened without going in to gory details.

If the film maker goes in to the explicit details of something like rape when the plot of the film doesn't require that level of explicitness, then they're doing the scene for titilation and they're making their film a 'specialist' film that shouldn't be given a general release.

This would allow you to go to the cinema to see a film without being horrified about content, whilst also allowing people who want to watch scenes of gory rape to get their kicks by renting the film from a suitable outlet.

The '9 songs' film is explicit but I don't see too much of a problem. However, because of the juxtaposition of explicit sex and violence I'd certainly have issues with the film 'Baise moi'.

And given what you can get to on the Internet with little effort and a credit card, I believe it's quite possible that the 'specialist' film making business mentioned above will be amongst the first people to make money out of the much vaunted 'Broadband revolution'.

Joe

I downloaded one which was also banned at the Sydney movie doodah - cant remember what it was called - it was a boys name.

Anyway the most contraversial thing I saw was a guy knocking one off. As I fast forwarded I noticed that it showed him ejaculating.

So what?!

I'm sure this new one is not going to be filmed like most of the hardcore films I have in my collection so therefore will be pretty tame in comparison. And I'm not talking about the use of animals!!

It seems to me that there is no such thing as film censorship in this day and age, ok films will be banned from showing in cinemas in this and every other country but all banned films are available to buy over the internet.
As an adult i believe that it is my right to watch any film that i see fit as long as they dont depict children or animals in sex scenes.
How can it be right in the year 2004 that a censor can sit in a small theatre in London watch a film and dictate weather i or any other adult should be allowed to see it? Its the nanny state out of control!

Just watched IRREVERSIBLE (banned from film theatres around the world) a brilliant french film that i bought on the internet. The film includes a shocking rape scene that lasted around 8 minutes but was central to the story and violance that had even my stomach churnning.
If like me you are into world cinema its a must have!
As for the film that COOPSTER 1974 was on about i think the film was called KEN PARK directed by Larry Clark (Kids - Bully).
The film told the story of teenagers in a small American town who spent their days bored, smoking dope and having sex. One scene shows one of the lads watching tennis on television in his bedroom whilst he is masturbating, and yes it does show him ejaculating.
The film was first banned in Austrailia then most countrys followed suit.
I have the film in my dvd collection, i bought it over the internet, just goes to show that censorship does not work anymore.
Thank god for the internet!!!!!!!

The rape scene in Irreversible is not that bad to be honest-- true it does go on for 8 minutes... but I still think it is quite tame.

I'm really interested in how an 8 minute rape scene can be central to the plot / characterisation / storyline of a film, rather than being there for people to be titillated by.

Surely to get the point over you could shoot a shorter scene and leave something to the imagination of the viewers.

Joe

MUST ADMIT IF YOU THINK YOU MIGHT FIND IT OFFENSIVE THEN DONT WATCH. I DONT MIND A GOOD SEX SCENE. SEE IT LIVE AT LA CHAMBRE - ATTERCLIFFE

theres too much sex on tv/movies nowadays, call me a prude but there should be more to a movies than boobs and things

If I'm likely to find stuff offensive I will give it a miss.

I was coming to this from a creative / film-making point of view. 8 minute rape scenes are f***ing lazy writing / film making - both literally and metaphorically.

I believe that if you're getting that sort of scene in to a film then you're making a porn / exploitation film rather than a general film. Even if the rape is the jumping off point for the whole plot of the film, then you don't need 8 minutes of it.

It's easy to titilate or scare people out of their wits by showing explicit sex or gore. What's difficult and challenging is to do it without being explicit.

Joe