Page 1 of 9 Songs

Should the BBFC certify this film in its entirety?

I personally think explicit sexual images, such as what is apparently shown in 9 Songs, should not been seen as "acceptable" content.

Adam

The only excuse for censorship is if children or animals are involved or some kind of illegal act. Not heard of this film but unless it involves one of these then I`m all for it.
Quote:
I personally think explicit sexual images, such as what is apparently shown in 9 Songs, should not been seen as "acceptable" content
Why?

Click here to read what the film is about.

Personally I think there`s not enough sex in films these days. Or is it me not getting enough sex these days. :/


floyd


My dvd collection
My DVD Collection

Nah, its not you.

Whatever happened to the 80`s glory days of gratuitous nudity? When every film had to have an obligatory pair of tits? (im thinking Caddyshack, trading places, airplane, police academy..........)

---

Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent.
Forty percent of all people know that.

Quote:
I personally think explicit sexual images, such as what is apparently shown in 9 Songs, should not been seen as "acceptable" content.

Well, given that you seem to be in something of a minority on this, I suppose the only question to ask is why don`t you think such images should be seen by anyone? Is it going to thrust all of its viewers into a horny lather? Will the sight of ejaculation dissolve the social frame-work? And, it should be noted that there is a hypothetical element to your post, given that none of us have seen the film so jumping to any conclusions about its alleged obscenity might be a little bit premature. Personally, I can`t think of any good reason to censor sexual activity between consenting adults regardless of how cynically exploitative it is, given the imbedded restrictions that are already installed within our current film classification system.

--Mike

Though I have no objection to this film I just wonder if what is portrayed in the film can be called acting. If you look up the word acting in a dictionery you will find words like - feign, simulate, impersonate, pretend and that is not what is shown in the film. What next? If the script calls for someone to be killed then kill them? Come to think of it that`s not a bad idea, if they`d done that in Executive Decision it would have saved us from a lot of bad Steven Seagal films :D

This item was edited on Saturday, 29th May 2004, 23:58

I think the hype the film has already got (not due for nationwide release until Feb 2005) will ensure that anyone buying a ticket for the film will know exactly what they are going to see. Regarding the explicit content, I know this is a cliche, but sex is something most of the over-18 audience would have tried, or at least wants to try, so why is there still such a taboo when it comes to natures most natural act? We all have choices and I personally congratulate the BBFC for finally growing up and giving us this freedom of viewing choice.

I suspect because its an arthouse type of movie then BBFC have been a bit more lax in this case. They have done this in the past but would probably not sanction some of same images if they were to appear in some Hollywood blockbuster. Its a British film too so anything they can do to increase audience numbers may be at the back of their minds - or am i being cynical?

Andy

Response to original poster. Your opinion. Guess you won`t go to see the film so its content needn`t worry you.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 20th October 2004, 15:01

Quote:
"Books deal explicitly with sex, as they do with any other subject. Cinema has been extremely conservative and prudish. I wanted to go to the opposite extreme and show a relationship only through sex. Part of the point of making the film was to say, `What`s wrong with showing sex?`"

Exactly, what is wrong with showing sex? Obviously its not the type of film you are going to sit down and watch with your in-laws but what`s wrong if adults who are over the legal age wanting to go see this if they want to? We are all old enough to make up our minds and I think sex is already too much of a taboo subject in this country as it is. It`s like people don`t want to admit that behind closed doors, shock horror, people are actually having sex! :o

When you see films regarding romance/love etc you see all the `nice` stuff but where are the shots of the woman giving her partner some head or him returning the favour? The most you will get to see is a woman`s head disappearing from shot indicating that that is what she is intending to do. And as for oral sex on women, we need to see more of this, if not at least to teach some men out there some pointers! :p Where`s the sweat, the passion, lube, sex toys?? Let`s be honest, how many of you have not tried experimenting in some which way or form with regards to spicing up your love life? Because that`s what the film is about isn`t it, showing a relationship through sex only.

Quote:
The most sexually explicit film in the history of mainstream British cinema, containing unsimulated sex scenes including fellatio, ejaculation and cunnilingus, many in close-up

TBH I think its all hype to get people to go and see the film but I reckon it's nothing you all haven't already seen in a soft porn film. We are all adults and we all have sex (except anyone who maybe a virgin) if I want to see a man ejaculate, or be given a BJ there is lots of free porn on the net. ;)

As for the `actors` actually having `real` sex, like I said before, there`s no real difference between this and a porno, its just that this film has been passed off as `Art`.