Movie Censorship, Wtf! "sweeney Todd, Demon Bar..

[thaidiver]

Just went to see "Sweeney Todd, Demon barber of fleet street" at Big C in Pattaya last night. The movie was very well done but I recommend that everyone save there money and not see this movie in a Thailand Theatre as the Thai censors have blotted out all the scenes of graphic violence. Not that I'm a huge fan of people getting there necks slashed, but I paid to see the whole movie and and they censored out many of the highlighted scenes of the movie. It was irritating and would give a second thought to seeing another movie in a Thailand Theatre before putting down my ever weakening dollar for a ticket. The censorship blotting really ruined the movie!

Of course I can turn on the TV and watch Pattaya news where people lay creamed and run over on the streets with their guts hanging out, but heaven forbid I see a highly stylized theatrical musical release displaying violence.

[sgunn65]

What was even better they censored the label from the drink the boy had when he was drinking then in the following two scenes where the bottle was on the table next to him they showed it. It said Gin. The woman had already said it was gin, the bottle said it was gin; did they think that when he put it into his mouth we wouldn't guess he was drinking Gin???

[popshirt]

Movie censorship in Thailand is very irritating. These so-called guardians of public morality have a highly-skewed view of what may undermine Thai society and what will not. They are also very capricious and inconsistent in their cutting/blurring.

I saw Ang Lee's new film "Lust Caution" in California and again in Bangkok. This is a fine movie from a famous Asian director and starring Tony Leung. The Thai censors cut and blurred so many scenes that it hardly seemed the same film to me. It is no wonder many of us wait for the original versious to hit the DVD stands.

Rating films as to appropriateness for certain ages and sensitivities is a form of censorship that involves judgment also; but at least the film is left intact for those who want to see it!

[MrSnrang]

American gangster... Shows heroin being processed/packed by naked women, cooking on spoons, loaded into syringes with hypodermic needles, people strapping their tourniquet on, but when the needle touches the skin they blur it.

At least now I'll never know how they manage to use heroin.

[chiang mai]

We were actually quite pleased that the scenes were obscured. There must have been some ten separate victims of Sweeney's razor and all were filmed in very close proximity of the action and the ensuing spurting blood was enough for us. This is a musical, in case you were not aware, and the graphic visuals seem at odds with the the way the movie is produced.

[Florin]

I walked out after half an hour, completely unacceptable censorship...

chiang mai, this is much more than just a musical, it's not meant for people who expect to see a Moulin Rouge-type production...I think most people went for this movie expecting lots of gore and having seen a pretty much uncensored Eastern Promises just a little while ago, I can't possibly understand what they're enforcing here

[chiang mai]

I walked out after half an hour, completely unacceptable censorship...

chiang mai, this is much more than just a musical, it's not meant for people who expect to see a Moulin Rouge-type production...I think most people went for this movie expecting lots of gore and having seen a pretty much uncensored Eastern Promises just a little while ago, I can't possibly understand what they're enforcing here

Why is it so necessary to show graphic detail in close up of a person having their throat cut, it adds nothing to the story line, the viewer experience or the quality of the movie overall. I am all in favor of artistic liberty and artistic freedom but that goes too far in my book. If people want to watch the last (acted) moments of death in graphic detail, the next step is watching snuff movies and that step can't be far away for some. I am no prude by any means but I am with the censors on this one, 100%.

[popshirt]

chiang mai, you don't have to go and see it in the first place! Wait for the reviews and then decide, but leave the rest of us to make our own decisions.

Any creative work should be presented in its original form, as the artist/creator intended.

I once borrowed a book from a public library and found that someone had used a black marker to obscure certain passages he or she disagreed with.

What the censors are doing is no different from that.

[chiang mai]

chiang mai, you don't have to go and see it in the first place! Wait for the reviews and then decide, but leave the rest of us to make our own decisions.

Any creative work should be presented in its original form, as the artist/creator intended.

I once borrowed a book from a public library and found that someone had used a black marker to obscure certain passages he or she disagreed with.

What the censors are doing is no different from that.

Rubbish, we went to see the Sweeney Todd this after noon at Junceylon in Patong, Phuket and my views stated previously are based on that experience. As arguments stand nobody will convince me my views should be other than as stated.

[kmart]

The censorship thing really bugs me so much that I've not been to see a movie here for years, and get my dvds from Amazon or knock-offs.

Censorship here is heavy-handed, childish, authoritarian, and did I say stupid? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[kankaroo]

We were actually quite pleased that the scenes were obscured. There must have been some ten separate victims of Sweeney's razor and all were filmed in very close proximity of the action and the ensuing spurting blood was enough for us. This is a musical, in case you were not aware, and the graphic visuals seem at odds with the the way the movie is produced.

Are you for real ? If so then I think the boys and girls at the good old 'Ministry Of Culture' could do with someone like you on their staff.

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_whitehouse

[Jingthing]

I just saw the movie, with the censored throat slashings. It is an insult to the movie makers and the audience. Either allow the film or ban it. I think I might have turned my eyes away at the raw film, but that is part of the authentic experience of watching a movie. My reaction to the frequent pixilation was <deleted>!!!!!

Edited February 2, 2008 by Jingthing

[thaidiver]

I read the reviews of this movie before going and knew that it wasn't going to be Mary Poppins. I think censorship in this case absolutely took a lot away from the movie experience, if only because I was upset and cursing that I spent money on a movie that I didn't see in it's entirety. It's Tim Burton for fuc_ks sake!

[DamianMavis]

chiang mai, you don't have to go and see it in the first place! Wait for the reviews and then decide, but leave the rest of us to make our own decisions.

Any creative work should be presented in its original form, as the artist/creator intended.

I once borrowed a book from a public library and found that someone had used a black marker to obscure certain passages he or she disagreed with.

What the censors are doing is no different from that.

Rubbish, we went to see the Sweeney Todd this after noon at Junceylon in Patong, Phuket and my views stated previously are based on that experience. As arguments stand nobody will convince me my views should be other than as stated.

Sorry my friend but I totally disagree with you. You are a bit of a prude and I mean that in a non homosexual affectionate way. Censorship is pure unadulterated EVIL and needs to be stamped out like the disgusting creepy crawly bug that it is. Either ban the movie or let it run with its full artisticly expressive heavy impact way.

Damian

[chiang mai]

Clearly there's a large number of purists out and about tonight, nevertheless:

I can see the argument that says there are three choices, show the movie uncut, censor it or don't show it at all and given those options I do have some sympathies with those who say that censorship is the poorer option and that banning it altogether might have been the better route. I suppose that where I have difficulty with all of this is in trying to understand the artistic merit associated with cutting a persons throat and of wanting to show such things to a losely controlled audience of the public. Does showing such things in the name of art improve anyone's appreciation of the art, doubtful; does showing such graphic detail enhance an understanding of the story line, no. It's not enough to say that just because someone made a movie they should be allowed to show it in the way that it was made, there has to be a reason and I fail to see what that is. Freedom of expression/speech, possibly there's an argument there.

So come on guys, help me out here, educate me, tell me why it is necessary to make and show these things.

[chiang mai]

I walked out after half an hour, completely unacceptable censorship...

chiang mai, this is much more than just a musical, it's not meant for people who expect to see a Moulin Rouge-type production...I think most people went for this movie expecting lots of gore and having seen a pretty much uncensored Eastern Promises just a little while ago, I can't possibly understand what they're enforcing here

Given the cast I expected to see a well acted movie and having seen the stage version some years ago I was aware of the story line. The original story is an interesting one, the quality of which I thought would be enhanced because it was a movie. Graphic sensationalism and gore in spades did nothing to improve this user experience and if anything detracted from the enjoyment it was meant to deliver. But perhaps you can help me understand when you say it is "much more than a musical" - what do you think it is?

[chiang mai]

We were actually quite pleased that the scenes were obscured. There must have been some ten separate victims of Sweeney's razor and all were filmed in very close proximity of the action and the ensuing spurting blood was enough for us. This is a musical, in case you were not aware, and the graphic visuals seem at odds with the the way the movie is produced.

Are you for real ? If so then I think the boys and girls at the good old 'Ministry Of Culture' could do with someone like you on their staff.

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_whitehouse

That's a borderline Troll but I'll go for it anyway: I guess I'm in the camp that says censorship, or is it perhaps "controlled viewing" is appropriate in our society today and most societies around the world seem to agree with that. Most westernized countries have a rating system for movies, kids aren't allowed to watch porn etc. It all had to start somewhere and in the UK it was kicked off by Ms. Whitehouse. Sure it was radical and extreme at the time but such controls are not implemented overnight and in the first instance she went too far. But years on there is something approaching a sensible framework for controls of who should see what and when and what acts can be portrayed - it's not a perfect system but I think it is helpful rather than destructive. Of course if one were a film producer, niche purist or idiot they might not agree all of the time.

[t.s]

We were actually quite pleased that the scenes were obscured. There must have been some ten separate victims of Sweeney's razor and all were filmed in very close proximity of the action and the ensuing spurting blood was enough for us. This is a musical, in case you were not aware, and the graphic visuals seem at odds with the the way the movie is produced.

yes, indeed. it is nice to have a censor saving us the effort of exercising free will and averting our own eyes.

[kankaroo]

Clearly there's a large number of purists out and about tonight, nevertheless:

I can see the argument that says there are three choices, show the movie uncut, censor it or don't show it at all and given those options I do have some sympathies with those who say that censorship is the poorer option and that banning it altogether might have been the better route. I suppose that where I have difficulty with all of this is in trying to understand the artistic merit associated with cutting a persons throat and of wanting to show such things to a losely controlled audience of the public. Does showing such things in the name of art improve anyone's appreciation of the art, doubtful; does showing such graphic detail enhance an understanding of the story line, no. It's not enough to say that just because someone made a movie they should be allowed to show it in the way that it was made, there has to be a reason and I fail to see what that is. Freedom of expression/speech, possibly there's an argument there.

So come on guys, help me out here, educate me, tell me why it is necessary to make and show these things.

What gives you the right to comment on what is and what is not art? Do you look at violent depictions in 500 year old painting masterpieces and say "hmm that painting is OK but you should stick some tape over the bits I don't like"

Or that rap song talking about life in the ghetto would be better with no swearing, come on ! I remember watching Goodfellas in Thailand on television and they shouldn't have even bothered showing it. Prison & crime flicks are another good example, I mean there is no violence in prisons and the inmates don't swear right - because it's not nice!

[chiang mai]

Clearly there's a large number of purists out and about tonight, nevertheless:

I can see the argument that says there are three choices, show the movie uncut, censor it or don't show it at all and given those options I do have some sympathies with those who say that censorship is the poorer option and that banning it altogether might have been the better route. I suppose that where I have difficulty with all of this is in trying to understand the artistic merit associated with cutting a persons throat and of wanting to show such things to a losely controlled audience of the public. Does showing such things in the name of art improve anyone's appreciation of the art, doubtful; does showing such graphic detail enhance an understanding of the story line, no. It's not enough to say that just because someone made a movie they should be allowed to show it in the way that it was made, there has to be a reason and I fail to see what that is. Freedom of expression/speech, possibly there's an argument there.

So come on guys, help me out here, educate me, tell me why it is necessary to make and show these things.

What gives you the right to comment on what is and what is not art?

[color="#483D8B"]Everyone has this right and everyone is entitled to a view, not just you!

[/color]

Do you look at violent depictions in 500 year old painting masterpieces and say "hmm that painting is OK but you should stick some tape over the bits I don't like"

I think even you would be forced to agree there is a significant difference in terms of impact when contrasting a still picture and a movie.

Or that rap song talking about life in the ghetto would be better with no swearing, come on ! I remember watching Goodfellas in Thailand on television and they shouldn't have even bothered showing it. Prison & crime flicks are another good example, I mean there is no violence in prisons and the inmates don't swear right - because it's not nice!

Er, we are talking about a movie, not a still picture painting or photograph and certainly not the spoken word.

If I get the drift of the point you are trying to make I sense it might be that whatever is produced in the name of art is ok? And there should be no boundaries for this?

Edited February 3, 2008 by chiang mai

[Jingthing]

If I get the drift of the point you are trying to make I sense it might be that whatever is produced in the name of art is ok? And there should

be no boundaries for this?

Why should there be, short of breaking laws to make the art? Does anyone force anyone to pay to enjoy art? No wonder totalitarianism from the right and left is still very much alive all over the world. Nauseating, really.

[chiang mai]

If I get the drift of the point you are trying to make I sense it might be that whatever is produced in the name of art is ok? And there should

be no boundaries for this?

Why should there be, short of breaking laws to make the art? Does anyone force anyone to pay to enjoy art? No wonder totalitarianism from the right and left is still very much alive all over the world. Nauseating, really.

Unfortunately for my argument your post does make perfect sense and is difficult to challenge.

[Florin]

I walked out after half an hour, completely unacceptable censorship...

chiang mai, this is much more than just a musical, it's not meant for people who expect to see a Moulin Rouge-type production...I think most people went for this movie expecting lots of gore and having seen a pretty much uncensored Eastern Promises just a little while ago, I can't possibly understand what they're enforcing here

Given the cast I expected to see a well acted movie and having seen the stage version some years ago I was aware of the story line. The original story is an interesting one, the quality of which I thought would be enhanced because it was a movie. Graphic sensationalism and gore in spades did nothing to improve this user experience and if anything detracted from the enjoyment it was meant to deliver. But perhaps you can help me understand when you say it is "much more than a musical" - what do you think it is?

It is a Tim Burton cinematic production of a musical...as such, I expected a dark atmosphere and in this case plenty of gore, that's one of the main selling points of this movie! If I don't want to see a razor cut and claret splashing, I can see the play sometime...but this is not the play!

I think that a lot of people paid money to watch what they thought would be just a slightly edited version of the original, which this is really NOT. What pisses me off even more is that the Thai censors have no standards!! If I knew that every movie would be censored to pieces, I would stop going to the theaters here (which after this major disappointment I will surely do, the h_ell with this nuisance). BUT, just a little while ago I had seen Eastern Promises, where throats were slashed, fingers were cut and one particular scene had Viggo Mortensen's balls in the middle of the screen! So this makes no sense! If they wanted to protect the kids, they would surely cut more than just the slight nudity that was removed from Eastern Promises, but they didn't. Instead, they picked on a movie with much more cartoonish gore and rendered it unwatchable!

It's all about expectations, I don't need gratuitous gore to enjoy a movie, but in this movie Tim Burton, the DIRECTOR, decided that he would include rivers of blood all over the place, so that's what I bought the ticket to see! And I don't think the people complaining here are being purists...a purist would start complaining about the scenes cut here and there in most of the movies shown in Thailand, which I for one don't feel detract too much from the overall value of the movie, but this particular movie was pure and simply unwatchable!

[chiang mai]

I walked out after half an hour, completely unacceptable censorship...

chiang mai, this is much more than just a musical, it's not meant for people who expect to see a Moulin Rouge-type production...I think most people went for this movie expecting lots of gore and having seen a pretty much uncensored Eastern Promises just a little while ago, I can't possibly understand what they're enforcing here

Given the cast I expected to see a well acted movie and having seen the stage version some years ago I was aware of the story line. The original story is an interesting one, the quality of which I thought would be enhanced because it was a movie. Graphic sensationalism and gore in spades did nothing to improve this user experience and if anything detracted from the enjoyment it was meant to deliver. But perhaps you can help me understand when you say it is "much more than a musical" - what do you think it is?

It is a Tim Burton cinematic production of a musical...as such, I expected a dark atmosphere and in this case plenty of gore, that's one of the main selling points of this movie! If I don't want to see a razor cut and claret splashing, I can see the play sometime...but this is not the play!

I think that a lot of people paid money to watch what they thought would be just a slightly edited version of the original, which this is really NOT. What pisses me off even more is that the Thai censors have no standards!! If I knew that every movie would be censored to pieces, I would stop going to the theaters here (which after this major disappointment I will surely do, the h_ell with this nuisance). BUT, just a little while ago I had seen Eastern Promises, where throats were slashed, fingers were cut and one particular scene had Viggo Mortensen's balls in the middle of the screen! So this makes no sense! If they wanted to protect the kids, they would surely cut more than just the slight nudity that was removed from Eastern Promises, but they didn't. Instead, they picked on a movie with much more cartoonish gore and rendered it unwatchable!

It's all about expectations, I don't need gratuitous gore to enjoy a movie, but in this movie Tim Burton, the DIRECTOR, decided that he would include rivers of blood all over the place, so that's what I bought the ticket to see! And I don't think the people complaining here are being purists...a purist would start complaining about the scenes cut here and there in most of the movies shown in Thailand, which I for one don't feel detract too much from the overall value of the movie, but this particular movie was pure and simply unwatchable!

I suppose Florin this is all about expectations. You went to see this movie because you were aware of Tim Burton's style - I went to see this movie because I had enjoyed seeing different adaptations of Sweeney Todd previously and was a little nostalgic for Fleet Street. You make a fair point about Thai censor standards and think the difference between what is "art" and "entertainment" is perhaps unclear, to me at least.

[toptuan]

Unfortunately for my argument your post does make perfect sense and is difficult to challenge.

Amidst all the flaming, ranting, and forays into the illogical in order to defend one's position on TV.com, a sentence rarely seen!

My hats off to a debater with class!

Edited February 3, 2008 by toptuan

[chiang mai]

Unfortunately for my argument your post does make perfect sense and is difficult to challenge.

Amidst all the flaming, ranting, and forays into the illogical in order to defend one's position on TV.com, a sentence rarely seen!

My hats off to a debater with class!

Oh bugger, I hope I haven't screwed up the natural order of things!

[toptuan]

Quite possibly!

[khunopie]

I saw S.T. and enjoyed it immensely. The last half hour I welcomed the pixelation. It was gory and grim and I left feeling like I had witnessed a mass execution.

This is a masterpiece and better to see it censored than not at all IMHO

[CarlBkk]

The Thai censors are a funny bunch. They are absolutely despised by Thai artists of all types. It's quite strange how they decide to blot out certain scenes yet still allow non-rated films, therefore affecting everyone's viewing.

However, they definitely missed Eastern Promises (maybe they thought it sounded like a romantic comedy?). That has some seriously realistic close-up slashing, stabbing, penis and testicles. I looked around the cinema at those moments and the Thais were open-mouthed with disbelief.

[Rajah]

The censorship thing really bugs me so much that I've not been to see a movie here for years, and get my dvds from Amazon or knock-offs.

Censorship here is heavy-handed, childish, authoritarian, and did I say stupid? Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Many years ago I watched "The Piano". I was so angry about the cuts and the blurring and when I saw it again back home it was a completey different movie. Since then I am not going to the movies in Thailand anymore. I wait for the DVD - they seem to be untouched by the censors.