More political correctness gone mad over in the US where the TV channel PBS are replacing scenes of nudity from a movie for fear of it upsetting the audience.
This is a movie which graphically depicts the detonation of a dirty bomb, a slightly adult subject, in central London and the aftermath including the tracking of other dirty bombs through the city. So nothing too scary for little kids who might get offended by seeing a naked woman.
What?! If anyone is watching this programme who would be offended by the image of naked people surely should not be watching the graphic images of a dirty bomb and it’s effects on a busy London city! It’s also not like there’s a couple of naked people having rampant sex thrown in there for the hell of it, it’s pictures of people being stripped and decontaminated with their clothes burnt, it’s part of the procedure for cleanup after such an attack. It’s what happens.
At least HBO have the guts to show the movie as is. PBS have paid to recut scenes especially to replace those that are shown. They believe they will be fined by the US Federal Communications Commission following complaints from viewers.
The BBC carry the story:
It is not worth showing “non-essential” nude scenes when indecency complaints are “aggressively pursued” by US TV watchdogs, said PBS’ Jacoba Atlas.
I’ve seen this film, and it’s not non-essential. It’s part of the process that people are subjected to during a cleanup operation, it’s humiliating, degrading and the people are lined up and they basically loose all humanity. It’s an important part to understand that even not being in the vicinity of the explosion can be a terrible experience.
Ms Atlas said PBS could put itself financially at risk if it showed the uncut version of Dirty War, and it could also deter many of its 170 individual stations from airing “an important film”.
“You want to pick your battles,” she said.
I do understand their position, especially with the current climate in the US. However in the airing of a documentary on Auschwitz they even blocked out the image of a naked man as they thought the viewers might be upset about the nudity, and the more official line was given that it was degrading to the man. The documentary was made and it would be safe to assume that all film included the relevant permissions from families and survivors, and it was about the mass murder of Jewish people within the camp as well as the experimentation that was carried out on them by the Nazi’s.
Isn’t that a bit more upsetting than a picture of a naked man, for which consent must well have been received to include in the documentary? Surely the relevance of this is to educate people on the horrendous crimes against humanity that occurred. However, no mention of the disturbing material other than the picture of a naked man.
I don’t get it. People are getting more upset about pictures of naked bodies, one of the most beautiful and natural things there is, but not at pictures of murder, genocide, human experimentation, etc. There’s pictures of dead and burnt bodies on the news every night for god’s sake!
PBS mention the Janet Jackson incident. That was such a big joke in the UK, no one could get what the fuss was all about and one show in particular interviewed US people in the streets. Some of them were manic about their condemnation, and the UK programme commentators were astounded at their response.
Political correctness gone mad, and totally focused on matters that aren’t important at all. Then when it causes TV channels to edit and even re-film sections of a movie after it’s made I find incredible, especially when you consider the subject matter.
I shake my head in despair.
I find it hard to believe what is happening with TV and movie censorship. Adult nudity has become such a nono that the breast cleavage or ass cleavage is blurred out or something as mundane as Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction becomes a national/world wide issue.With so called “religious” groups and/or persons saying how wrong it is to show adult nudity or part of or even some semblance to so called naughty adult bits.Yet they make no such out-cry about the use of children in advertising or movies in which their nakedness is used to promote what-ever reason. Me thinks this boads ill of society, to accept the nakedness of children above that of adults……….Think about it..PLEASE……….
isn’t it wierd that one day after the inaguration we find out that mike powell is gonna step down.
“You want to pick your battles,” she said.
I would think THIS is THE battle to fight…expecially for PBS…perhaps if the FCC did fine them, we could finally get more of the the people in this country (not the politiicians and their puppets, the born-agains)to get pissed off enough about the absurdity of this obsession and fear of the human form unclothed, to DO something about the insane amount of editing, censoring, (not to mention censuring), and pressure to edit and censor these REAL reality pieces, when there is CLEARLY NO pressure to edit or censor the incredible amount of gratuitous violence shown in children’s video games, prime time Television, the news and so on.
We NEED a respected television network, with an intelligent viewership to enter this dabate and actaully take it up a notch….so far the debate is really just a rumbling of us film and media consumers on the internet……what we need is a full out confrontation, public debate, a revolution if necessary, to stop this insanity!
I see some Americans complained about the levels of nudity and simulated sex shown on (now get this) The Olympic opening ceremony! Why are Americans afraid of nudity and sex, yet guns, violence and war are excepted?
When I was in Florida last year, one TV stationy showed The Revenge of Porky’s at about 9.00pm at night. All sexual swear words were edited, as were any scenes involving nudity. The following morning, whilst get ready to go to the Land of the Mouse, we flicked on the TV, and there in full view at 7.30am (on an American Bank Holiday) was a programme about Deer Hunting! And not showing how bad it is, but how good it is! Was giving tips on where to find them, what guns to use and how to use them, what is the best “stealth” technique and showed fairly graphic pictures of dead deers! So a child orientated audience can watch hunting but an adult audience cannot see nudity or hear swearing!
I also agree that anyone who would be watching something like this is mature enough to see a couple of boobies. (Forgive my crudeness, it’s 2 in the morning.)
I remember a few years back NBC was proud to present Schindler’s List commercial-free and unedited (which was a lie. Some of the more gratiuitous nude scenes, like the ones pertaining to sexual acts, were shaved off slightly, but all of the language, violence, and historical nudity were completely intact). Now, PBS is far more artistic and reputable than NBC (at least nowadays), so I see no reason why they can’t run the unedited version.
Oh, and Screen Rant, I fully agree with your comment about the R-rated movie commercial thing, but that’s a rant for another post. We can chat about that later.
AG, you have nailed it.
agreen, so anything goes during times/programming where it’s likely that children are watching/listening?
Put a rating label/announcement on something so we know what the upcoming content is and I don’t have a problem. Pop a commercial for an R-rated movie on while my 8 year old is watching Spongebob Squarepants and I’m going to have a problem with that.
Aurora, along those lines, if something is targeted at an adult audience there is no censorship issue. PBS is well known for being left wing and as AG suggested they are probably doing this to bolster their point of view.
Vic
its so sickening to see how far back we have gone. as long as americans keep voting the republicans back into office, we will continue to take these steps backward. we might as well just accept it and live with the fact that our rights as americans are beeing taken away. does anyone know that there is a bill sitting on the presidents desk that says broadcasters themselves will be fined for indecentsy, not the networks.
It’s sad to see the increase in censorship that has occurred in the U.S. during the past four years. As a filmmaker, I abhore the idea of altering anyone’s work especially if the scene to be deleted is essential to the story line and/or is needed to demonstrate an issue. It’s as if the truth itself is being deemed to be offensive.
our country has gotten so far out of control with this whole indecentcey thing. the right is starting to control every thing. you guys probably dont know that it is just a handful of extremist religous right peolpe who send letters every day to the fcc. they complain about everything that they believe to be indecent, or obscene, which causes fines to the networks. all of the networks are so scared to even be on the edge anymore because there is no set laws on what is indecent. it first has to air and then if anyone has a problem with it offending them they write. micheal powell and the chairmen of the fcc are a bunch of fonies! their not even voted into there jobs, they are appointed. and we all know how mike powell got his job
In citing the Janet Jackson imbroglio as their defense, PBS is clearly pandering to all those cultural war-mongers on the left who think the re-election of Bush has given conservatives of the country free rein to burn books and ban anything they find distasteful. This just isn’t the case. America continues to adore great heaping doses of sex and violence in any possible form. The Jackson incident hinged on the gratuitious nature of her exposore, along with the fact that the Superbowl is designated lowest common denominator programming: it appeals to everyone, young and old, red and blue. PBS, with its selectively upscale programming and politely sweatered hosts, does not, and the folks who run that publically funded joint ought to know their viewership would never phone in complaints, particularly in the conext of a grave social issue such as terrorism or even the Holocaust. NBC ran Schindler’s List unedited in primetime w/o any major upset in the moral fibre of America. Reason being, that if you look at what else is on the cultural radar in the U.S., from the “anything goes” genre of reality TV to the iconship of Paris Hilton, it should be evident to all that the unwashed masses of this country are not nearly as conservative as the leftie Chicken Littles, both here and abroad, seem to think. PBS is doing this to (a) garner attention for themselves; and (b) promote their own political agenda, ie that Bush not makes us go to war, he makes us censor our art! A giant finger wag to the coward at PBS who thought up this ruse. Just run the bleeping film as is….
You Brits underestimate how easily turned-on Americans are.
—
More talk at http://loudboard.com
This may be off-topic but I am learning just reading your comments guys.
Vic – Wouldn’t say I’m blaming anyone outright, I just think it’s a terrible thing to be changing the content of someone else’s work again, especially when the piece that may offend is so tame in comparison to the rest of the film.
John – I understand it’s a business. However there’s more important steps involved in the production of a movie, much like any art, it involves creatives and their visions of a final piece of work, they are the ones bringing the ideas to reality and the business is the distributor and often the financer, not the creative vision.
In normal businesses it’s much more a case of create what the customer wants and distribute it, whereas with the movies the creatives build something and then get it financed, made and distributed. All the way through that process there is pressure to change the creatives vision purely for reasons of profit (perceived or known) and influences such as perceived public decency.
For me there are two important factors. One is bringing the creatives vision to the screen, and what they create is what is shown with any changes being agreed by those creatives. The second is the narrow mindedness of the people who deem what the public should be allowed to see, behaving like a nanny state.
I still believe that this scene is very relevant to the movie, and there are many scenes in it that are just as relevant but more distressing. It is there for a reason, the scene depicts the actual process for cleaning after such an attack, it is not nudity for nudity sake and isn’t indecent.
I just see over protective ideals everywhere at the moment, so much so that things such as movies are being altered because studios and the state are scared that they will affect or offend people. Let the people make the choice, and concentrate on things that are truly offensive.
When you say “we don’t want to put ourselves in the position where we think we can tell other people what they should or should not be offended by” – that is exactly what is happening here. Surely the decision can be placed with the viewer and they can exercise their freedom of choice and turn to another channel?
Oh, and “who are we to tell them they should do otherwise?” – The consumer, the customer, the person who is buying their goods and giving them their profit!
On another point, there are T-Shirts like that…you should see tshirt hell, that is offensive!
Right…that’s my two pence worth…or maybe four…and I don’t want to upset John or else I’ll be out on my ear! ;)
We all need to keep 2 important facts in mind.
1) There is no inherant problem in taking nudity OUT of a film if it is not considered vital to the story being told. The question can be reversed. Instead of asking “why would you fight to take it out” (which is a fair question to ask), you must also ask “why fight to keep it in” (just as fair a question.)
2) These people are running a business. If you ran a T-Shirt company, and one of your artists brought to you a crappy looking design that you feared would keep people from buying your product, then you would take out the design.
In the same vein, if your deigner made a t-shrit that said “Osama Bin Ladin is Awsome!”, then you would not release the product because it would be bad for business, few people would buy your products.
If (and I do emphasise the word “IF”) TV stations (as a business) think showing nudity would impact their business negativly in one form or another, and taking nudity out would be better for business… then who are we to tell them they should do otherwise? It’s a business decision, pure and simple.
If some people are offended by certain material, and a tv station (business) decides to edit content to keep those viewers… why is that bad? It’s their business, and they have a right to make profit by appealing to as many viewers as possible.
Further, we don’t want to put ourselves in the position where we think we can tell other people what they should or should not be offended by. That would be just as bad (or worse) as what the extreme religious right does.
Just my two cents.
Richard,
I understand your issue with PBS and what it’s doing to this documentary, but the finger of blame should be pointed at PBS and not the FCC or “the Right”.
It’s all about context and the target audience. If PBS is too stupid or weak to argue the point that this is adult material and that the scenes in question belong in the film, that’s their own fault.
To me that would be like some guy walking down the street in the hottest day of summer wearing a heavy coat, turtleneck sweater and wool cap and blaming it on the public nudity laws that he’s worried he might break.
Yeesh.
Vic
“When did it flip round to become the preserve of patrician right-wingers?”
When the right decided that they wanted to be victims too.
Didn’t political correctness used to be a stereotype that the traditionalist right applied to the “loony” liberal left? When did it flip round to become the preserve of patrician right-wingers? Odd.
And also, what’s that quote from Apocalypse Now – “We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won’t allow them to write “fuck” on their airplanes because it’s obscene…” Seems kind of appropriate to this topic.