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

[elkangorito]

I've said it before & I'll say it again: the inane & moronic activities by the Thai "moral thought police" are exactly as stated. It appears that certain people wish to support their nationalistic & totalitarian ways.

This has nothing to do with what type of movie it is. It has everything to do with who decides what I see & what I don't see. If certain people "choose" to be offended by the movie, that is up to them but please, if "common sense" is permitted to prevail in the least order, let their decision not affect my decision.

In a recent discussion at college, I had to persuade my Thai colleagues to "allow" normal human emotion in a speech reading contest. To explain, a student had to deliver a speech, which I suggested have a certain "power" at a certain point (not violent power but power in voice only). At first, my Thai colleagues protested at this display of "power", saying that it was not the "Thai way". One of the retorts went somethging like this, "This is not the Thai way. Thai judges will be present & they may deduct points for not behaving like a Thai".

I couldn't believe this reaction, not after knowing these people for over 1 year & especially knowing that they had spent over a year in Australia.

My reply was simple, "It saddens me to realise that certain people would inhibit required emotions in a speech competition just because it didn't "morally" fit in. This is simply "acting". Will the person giving the speech permantly live the emotions displayed? Or is it just a "speech? Are they acting the part or are they permanently like this?"

Further to these comments, I then said that if I chose to see a "blood & guts" film, I would expect to feel the appropriate emotions ie total anxiety, wanting to almost throw up, wanting to be completely shocked. I said this to emphasise the point that each of us has a choice when it comes to chosing & dealing with emotions (this obviously does not fit into the PROGRAM). If I wasn't expecting this, I would always have the option to walk out & NOT want to change the whole film just because I didn't like it (control freaks do this - when they think something is "wrong", they think that the whole world must follow their rule). Apparently, being shocked is no longer permitted, according to some "people"...or should I say "Gestapo".

Needless to say that all of what I did toward this speech competion was not in vain...my college won it. It was the only college to not follow the same old dreary "poor people, country, king" ploy as all the other colleges seemed to do.

For those who are all for censorship, please move to a country with an "active" dictatorship. I'm sure your wonderful control freak moral values will be fully substantiated there. Try Iran...there are no homosexuals there & I'm sure the government will more than adequately control the violence in all those horrible movies for you. In other words, you can look forward to years of Julie Andrews.

You won't have to awaken a brain cell. The added benefit is that you may get to see the live beheading of people who have committed deadly sins like...having sex with the same sex or being raped by someone you could have easily stopped (especially if you are a woman).

Is this how you want Thailand to be? I realise that certain things here are best left unchanged but when it comes to humanity, do you, the passive censor, wish to control what I see without acknowledging all the other shit that is going on around you? Is my life that important to you?

Please get real!

[DamianMavis]

Hear hear!

Damian

[Pepe']

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.

------------------------

Yes your reading my mind.

However it begs the question how many creatures have we eaten that have had their throats cut...

[JetsetBkk]

Hear hear!

Damian

I see you're on the telly again tonight, Damian (aka "Robber #1" )

"Blackbeard", Hallmark, 23:45 - 03:00

[LivinLOS]

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%.

Its tim burton.. Gothic / Horror / Etc..

Of course it will be dark etc..

[LivinLOS]

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.

No one is suggesting that kids should watch porn or that rating graphic images from children is a bad thing..

But I am not a child.. In 'western countries' you nearly always have access to an 'unrated edition' a 'directors cut' etc.. Show me where I as an adult can do that here and then censorship for children is moot.

[LivinLOS]

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]

How very appropriate..

I am entitled a view ?? Thats our very point.. We should be allowed as adults to see it and make up our own mind !!

I am an adult.. I make my own decisions.. I can choose to view something or I can choose not to.. What gives ANYONE the right to decide what is suitable for me to view ?? And what makes it suitable that a censor can watch these things and not be effected and yet I cannot ??

I also find this kind of strange when AXN has all night long non stop 'video bloopers' of real people getting gored by bulls, tumbling like rag dolls down mountain sides, run over by cars, etc etc.. But thats ok cos thay are funny ?? Such hipocracy !!

[MrSnrang]

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%.

If you didn't want to stomach that then you probably shouldn't have gone to see the movie.

[chiang mai]

I've said it before & I'll say it again: the inane & moronic activities by the Thai "moral thought police" are exactly as stated. It appears that certain people wish to support their nationalistic & totalitarian ways.

This has nothing to do with what type of movie it is. It has everything to do with who decides what I see & what I don't see. If certain people "choose" to be offended by the movie, that is up to them but please, if "common sense" is permitted to prevail in the least order, let their decision not affect my decision.

In a recent discussion at college, I had to persuade my Thai colleagues to "allow" normal human emotion in a speech reading contest. To explain, a student had to deliver a speech, which I suggested have a certain "power" at a certain point (not violent power but power in voice only). At first, my Thai colleagues protested at this display of "power", saying that it was not the "Thai way". One of the retorts went somethging like this, "This is not the Thai way. Thai judges will be present & they may deduct points for not behaving like a Thai".

I couldn't believe this reaction, not after knowing these people for over 1 year & especially knowing that they had spent over a year in Australia.

My reply was simple, "It saddens me to realise that certain people would inhibit required emotions in a speech competition just because it didn't "morally" fit in. This is simply "acting". Will the person giving the speech permantly live the emotions displayed? Or is it just a "speech? Are they acting the part or are they permanently like this?"

Further to these comments, I then said that if I chose to see a "blood & guts" film, I would expect to feel the appropriate emotions ie total anxiety, wanting to almost throw up, wanting to be completely shocked. I said this to emphasise the point that each of us has a choice when it comes to chosing & dealing with emotions (this obviously does not fit into the PROGRAM). If I wasn't expecting this, I would always have the option to walk out & NOT want to change the whole film just because I didn't like it (control freaks do this - when they think something is "wrong", they think that the whole world must follow their rule). Apparently, being shocked is no longer permitted, according to some "people"...or should I say "Gestapo".

Needless to say that all of what I did toward this speech competion was not in vain...my college won it. It was the only college to not follow the same old dreary "poor people, country, king" ploy as all the other colleges seemed to do.

For those who are all for censorship, please move to a country with an "active" dictatorship. I'm sure your wonderful control freak moral values will be fully substantiated there. Try Iran...there are no homosexuals there & I'm sure the government will more than adequately control the violence in all those horrible movies for you. In other words, you can look forward to years of Julie Andrews.

You won't have to awaken a brain cell. The added benefit is that you may get to see the live beheading of people who have committed deadly sins like...having sex with the same sex or being raped by someone you could have easily stopped (especially if you are a woman).

Is this how you want Thailand to be? I realise that certain things here are best left unchanged but when it comes to humanity, do you, the passive censor, wish to control what I see without acknowledging all the other shit that is going on around you? Is my life that important to you?

Please get real!

In reading the replies here after having been away for a week I thought I had conceded the point I made early when someone wrote, "nobody forces you to pay to see art", or something akin to those words - that was a well thought through and well stated argument that achieved a middle ground in this debate for me. Your response, clearly you had not read the preceding posts in their entirety, interested me until you started to rant and recommend all manner of perverse things and generally rant and I thought that detracted hugely from the points you made at the outset, shame really.

[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%.

If you didn't want to stomach that then you probably shouldn't have gone to see the movie.

Would you also argue the same point of the stage version which was well acted and very stimulating? There was no word of caution at the theater entrance when I saw the play and I enjoyed the entire experience. Now along comes the movie version, and by the way, who is Tim Burton, I had never read or heard of him before and I don't lead too much of a sheltered life. But all of a sudden, it's a series of scenes akin to terrorist beheadings in the Middle East! Personally I don't need to view either but that's my choice.

So here you have a reasonably experienced, educated and tolerant mature male who says no to the graphics in the movie. I wonder how the Thai nationals who went to see the movie feel, those who don't have my experience or maturity and went seeking entertainment?

[arkom]

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.

You are so right, now I know how to process, cook and load heroin in syringes, and prepping my arm. But after that I have no idea how to shoot it up!! Also when Frank shot the dude in the head, and they blurred out the gun, I mean come on!!! Not only is it annoying its unnesscary, I paid money to see this movie and I desevere to see the original version!!! Its rated NC-17 in Thailand and R in the states for a reason, the Cultural Surveillance Department at the Ministry of Culture are stupid!!!

I mean everyday in a Thai newpaper you see a picutre of a dead body on the front page, where everybody in Thailand can see it including kids, but in a theater where you have to pay to see the movie they censor everything!!!

[mrt273nva]

[i wait for the DVD - they seem to be untouched by the censors.

I bought a copy of "boogy nights" from a Tesco about 2 years ago and the movie didn't even make sense because they cut out so many scenes. It was the first time i've seen Thailand censors get their hands on the DVD market. now I only buy pirated DVD's because they haven't been tainted by the illogical censors of Thailand.

[arkom]

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.

People who pay to see a movie, expect to see the full verison that has not been censored by Thailand. If they want to censor it, show it for free or not all. Its a freaking movie, where will be much more just like this, get over yourself.

[arkom]

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>!!!!!

I agree with you 100%, whats the point of a rating system if they are going to censor it anyways!!

[chiang mai]

I see lots of people against any form of censorship in the movies and everyone keeps throwing in their ten cents along the same lines. But nobody seems to want or be able to answer the questions I raised about including extreme violence in a movie that is shown in Thailand. Oh ok, the guy before said censorship is a bad thing so I'll say the same. Has anyone really thought about the issue I wonder!

[A_Traveller]

^ This is a little difficult, since you make the point that you've never head of Tim Burton, the Oscar nominated director, of Sweeney Todd. His 'Gothic' style and more than a passing homage to Hammer and Kensington gore, is well known, as is the predilection to cover Johnny Depp with goo {in this movie blood} at one stage or another. His take on this fantasy, along with the counterpoint of the songs clearly created a comic book feel to both the characters and, in my view, the violence, which I think was his intent at the outset.

Is the film unremittingly violent, I would say no, though I have difficulty understanding the attraction of the Saw, series for example, let alone Hostel et al. One problem which does beset us though is the censorship of reality, for example, the unwillingness of western media to broadcast the realities of war, leaving their viewers sensibilities safe, and perhaps a little too unquestioning?

Regards

[chiang mai]

Sorry to belabor this point and now to be pointed but, Damien Mavis, since you are in the profession and clearly an ardent proponent of non-censorship, perhaps you can explain why there is a need to show in close up the throats of some ten plus people having there throats cut and the ensuing death throes? Surely there is a more palatable option for the Director to portray his "artistic talents" and tell a story.

[arkom]

I see lots of people against any form of censorship in the movies and everyone keeps throwing in their ten cents along the same lines. But nobody seems to want or be able to answer the questions I raised about including extreme violence in a movie that is shown in Thailand. Oh ok, the guy before said censorship is a bad thing so I'll say the same. Has anyone really thought about the issue I wonder!

Even if this movie was censored cause of nudity I would still be against it. The fact that the movie was censored is the reason for the arguement, not casue of how much violence it had. You're probably right there's no need for that much violence in a movie, but then again its just a movie, made for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. There's a reason that it is an R rated movie.

Besides it won a Golden Glode for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy, and is nominated for several Oscar's so it possibliy can't be that violent could it?

[jbowman1993]

Of course its hypocrasy. Thailand is nothing if not a contradition in terms. Hopefully all of your complaining has made you feel better, cause it's not likely to change a thing lol...

[A_Traveller]

CM, I have respect for your position, that presumably if you'd known what you were going in to you wouldn't have gone?

In many countries the movie was tagged as 18 or over, in the US as R, and the lowest age limit I've noted was 14 {Cantons in Switzerland}. The movie was heavily trailed, and many reviews {including local} made the point that it was a graphic movie for a mature audience.

Again, I take the view that the movie succeeded in creating a Gothic Horror comic book feel throughout and the repetition after all formed the backdrop to the elevation of Mrs Lovett's Pie shop, so was not in and of itself, gratuitous.

Regards

PS I really enjoyed Enchanted too.

[chiang mai]

so it possibliy can't be that violent could it?

Um, er, yes!

[chiang mai]

CM, I have respect for your position, that presumably if you'd known what you were going in to you wouldn't have gone?

In many countries the movie was tagged as 18 or over, in the US as R, and the lowest age limit I've noted was 14 {Cantons in Switzerland}. The movie was heavily trailed, and many reviews {including local} made the point that it was a graphic movie for a mature audience.

Again, I take the view that the movie succeeded in creating a Gothic Horror comic book feel throughout and the repetition after all formed the backdrop to the elevation of Mrs Lovett's Pie shop, so was not in and of itself, gratuitous.

Regards

PS I really enjoyed Enchanted too.

Difficult to answer that. I enjoy watching Jonny Depp, movies about the old London and of course the story line of Sweeney Todd so on balance the answer is probably that I would have gone to see it anyway.

But I have to say that of all the tools at the Directors disposal, shock and gore are probably the least useful in creating a good movie and are far too easy to apply to get an instant reaction. Think about how many different ways the movie could have been constructed that would have left viewers at the end saying, boy, that was just a brilliant movies instead of, boy, that was pretty gory. Methinks the line between what is art and what is entertainment if confused, not least in the minds of many viewers.

[t.s]

Sorry to belabor this point and now to be pointed but, Damien Mavis, since you are in the profession and clearly an ardent proponent of non-censorship, perhaps you can explain why there is a need to show in close up the throats of some ten plus people having there throats cut and the ensuing death throes? Surely there is a more palatable option for the Director to portray his "artistic talents" and tell a story.

and why didn't jackson pollock paint fruit, andy wharhol do nice water colour ladscapes, and michealangelo paint pictures of little bunnies? there is no "need" for anything beyond food and shelter.

you like it or you dont, but it is the story of a murderer.

[t.s]

I see lots of people against any form of censorship in the movies and everyone keeps throwing in their ten cents along the same lines. But nobody seems to want or be able to answer the questions I raised about including extreme violence in a movie that is shown in Thailand. Oh ok, the guy before said censorship is a bad thing so I'll say the same. Has anyone really thought about the issue I wonder!

your view is patronising and assumes that thais are not adult enough to decide what they will or will not watch.

[A_Traveller]

CM, you claim that the line between art and entertainment if confused, not least in the minds of many viewers. Well you are entitled to your opinion, however, I do detect a hint of alleged superiority creeping in here. You noted that you had not been aware of Tim Burton's work prior to this, and to be blunt you are starting to remind me of the Barrister who commented, re Lady Chatterley's Lover, that it was not a book you would wish your wife or servants to read.

The movie, despite your misgivings was viewed by many as one of the top ten films of 2007, including critics from The New York Times, Time, and Newsweek.

I'll not belabour this, but it was and is a well crafted enjoyable romp, not for all tastes I agree, but not an encyclopaedia of violence either.

Regards

/edit typo//

Edited February 16, 2008 by A_Traveller

[chiang mai]

Apologies if my post came across as "superior", that was not my intent or purpose. I continue to maintain however that Art and Entertainment are often confused, certainly the distinction and overlap between the two is fuzzy in my mind at least hence I presume it must be similar for many others also. It's easy for me in my simplistic view of life to categorize movies as entertainment, art galleries and sculpture displays as art, despite the fact that I am often entertained when I view some sculptures or works of art and often fail to see the artistic content - the distinction starts to get blurry, even at this level. So when I think about movies being, as some posters have stated, an art form, I wonder about something such as pornography - art form, entertainment or something else entirely. Maybe the whole thing is simply subjective.

[TheGameJustIs]

chang mai lost this debate, and it was not close.

[chiang mai]

chang mai lost this debate, and it was not close.

Well thanks ref. I'm relieved you were around to do the Admin! BTW, were you here for the debate or the result?

Actually I conceded the point back on page 1 when Jinthing made his very accurate point. But then I saw lots of people chiming in with the same old story line about Thailand censors being bad without trying to answer the fundamental questions I raised. But I'm happy to leave it all rest here since a debate is not a debate when it's a one way flow.

Edited February 16, 2008 by chiang mai

[chiang mai]

I see lots of people against any form of censorship in the movies and everyone keeps throwing in their ten cents along the same lines. But nobody seems to want or be able to answer the questions I raised about including extreme violence in a movie that is shown in Thailand. Oh ok, the guy before said censorship is a bad thing so I'll say the same. Has anyone really thought about the issue I wonder!

your view is patronising and assumes that thais are not adult enough to decide what they will or will not watch.

That wasn't directly the implication of what I wrote but now that you mention it explicitly, no, I believe that a large segment of Thai's are probably not sufficiently adult to make those decisions, when it comes to western produced films.

[penkrew]

Thought you may like to read an editorial comment which was in the Bangkok Post last Saturday.

By Mark Beales

IF you’ve seen the new Thai action movie ‘Chocolate’ you’ll know it’s a fist-flying, bone-breaking type of film.

Barely a moment goes by when the movie’s heroine Yanin Vismitananda isn’t kicking, punching, or elbowing a foe.

However, when I saw ‘Chocolate’ my attention was more focused on the audience than the screen: half of those watching the fights were children.

For a movie peppered with so much violence it seemed incongruous that anyone should allow a five-year-old to watch it.

The youngsters seemed bewildered when, after ten minutes, they had witnessed sex, swearing and shootings.

After an hour, a young child wanted to go to the bathroom. Rather than accompany him, his mother whispered ‘outside, on the right’ and went on munching her popcorn. By the look on the child’s face, he just wanted to get away from the blood and the beatings.

‘Chocolate’ may be a great movie, but it obviously isn’t supposed to be family viewing. So whose job is it to protect Thai children? Officially, the role lies with the Film Censorship Board of Thailand.

The trouble is that this quango has the arduous job of having to pleasing all the people all the time. Anyone of any age can watch any movie in Thailand, and that is the crux of the problem.

Thai films carry no age restrictions, but censors generally allow both violence and swearing to remain in movies, while scenes of a sexual nature are usually the ones banned. Extreme violence is fine, but sex isn’t (Schindler’s List was initially banned as it contained nudity).

Television is just as maddeningly inconsistent; violence is acceptable any time of the day or night, but dare to light a cigarette and the Office of Pixilation will be onto you.

So just who is the Film Board supposed to protect? If it is adults, then their job seems a little patronizing. We don’t all go on a shooting rampage after watching ‘American Gangster’ so surely we won’t all get overly-amorous if we happen to catch a glimpse of human flesh on the big screen.

At present, decisions seem arbitrary and too often sensitivity often trumps sense.

If the Board is trying to protect the country’s youth, then wouldn’t it be easier to simply ban children from certain films and allow the rest of us to enjoy them as the directors first envisaged?

Most Western countries have a simple ratings system based on age. It works well and ensures films don’t have to be cut to pieces before they are fit for public viewing. It seems an obvious solution, and the Thai board should be encouraged to think more about controlling who gets in to the cinema, rather than what they watch.

Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul would certainly welcome change. Last year he fell foul of the censors with his movie ’Syndromes and a Century’. Scenes showing a monk playing guitar, a physician kissing his girlfriend and a doctor drinking whiskey didn’t go down well. Such things apparently aren’t good for national moral.

The resulting row over the film did at least provoke some debate over what should and should not be shown, but for the time being things remain the same.

Maybe Thailand’s new government will consider the issue. It may seem trivial compared to other matters, but children who see violence all around them from an early age have a habit of becoming adults who see violence as acceptable.

But perhaps we shouldn’t just be questioning the Film Board. After all, they aren’t the ones bringing children to the cinemas. It is parents who really need to think more about what their children see.

There may not be a ratings system in Thailand, but surely parents should be more discriminating about what their children view. It’s easy to forget that what we have become accustomed to may be a completely new, and shocking, image for a child.

‘Chocolate’ sees Yanin Vismitananda use sticks, butcher’s hooks and ice blocks to beat her opponents into submission. She pulls no punches, and neither do the directors. There’s no doubt that it’s an entertaining movie; it’s just not one that I’d want my child to see.

Thai censors have an unenviable job given the lack of any age restrictions, but a more consistent and realistic approach would help. At present, they seem unsure what to cut and what to leave in. Violence is OK (as long as you don’t point guns at anyone), smoking is all right (as long as you don’t light the cigarette), while nudity remains taboo.

Yet, even if Thailand’s Film Board remains unsure about how to deal with

censorship it doesn’t mean that we as adults should be just as irresolute.

We should simply take responsibility for our children and not rely on quangos to do it for us.