Excuse me Simon,Get off your high horse, I never said or even thought the De Frutos, should not be presented, yet again you have not read what was said..
Neither have I compared your nature to Mashinka's I do not know you, so that is the last thing I would do To be honest and no reflection on your opinion, but I prefer to accept her view, as I could relate to what she said.. Why are you so concerned about differences in how people re-act. You are who you are, And I am not concerned. I was brought up that if you do not agree beg to differ, and move on,
We all have our own opinions, and I refuse to be bullied into changing mine. you are entitled to your own, and I have not questioned them. As far as I am
concerned you are still the free person you were before this thread started,
The Board of Censors in the Film Industry has been around for years, and has protected people rather than denying them access to the media, whether you agree or not it is there. So do you think you have the right to abolish it?
I do not think you have fully understood what I mean, I am not suggesting an official goes along to a theatre or Ballet and says "Cut this or Cut that".
What would make me feel more comfortable about what I was about see (New Works rather than ones I know ) Is more detalied information prior to the performance.. It is too late afterwards.Perhaps I should tell you I am partially sighted and cannot see to read a programme, and it is now very difficult for me to see even from the front row. But I still know what us going on, using special binoculars. I am not against free expression and idea's, but will continue to critisise if I see fit. I have designed and written ballets myself, so creativity is very inportant to me.
I'm actually more than just a bit annoyed by your attacking me, I was not condemning you at all and I think you're taking this far too personally. I was merely using the repellent/silly example to illustrate how personal classifications and moral censure and censorship is - I wasn't attacking you at all. And yes, of course you don't have to see a piece based on the description of the content, but you can't judge or condemn it if you haven't seen it on anything more than heresay and personal moral code. And the problem with detailed synopsis is how unworkable it would be, should De Frutos have written a graphic breakdown of the drama in the piece? Yes, there were depictions of appalling acts, and taken out of context they are untenable, De Frutos would then have had to have written a contextualised essay of why those acts were depicted - indeed must one then do that for everything? Scenes of an adult nature is sufficient and if you or any other audience member wants to know more, all you have to do is ring up the venue and ask. Or just google something before making a choice as to whether or not you see it.
You use of film classification and censorship in the UK is again a very fluid and inaccurate example as film classification and censorship is one of the most inexact example of moral censorship there is, changing depending on country and culture which the same film is shown. And indeed in the case of the UK there have been huge changes in what can and cannot be shown.
The most famous example is perhaps the case of Pasolini's Salo or The Hundred and Twenty Days of Sodom and Oshima's In The Realm of the Senses both released in the mid 70s. At that time the UK had some of the strictest classification in the world with the criteria for banning a film being in the words of the British Board of Film Censors "'anything which an ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting and revolting', or, which 'offended against recognised standards of propriety'"
Both films have the most graphic and in the case of Realm, non simulated scenes of sex, sexual depravity and torture, and no way could they be anything but banned at that time. But both films aren't pornography and neither are they gratuitous, they're vastly important films. Realising this one of the head censors of the BBFC at that time, James Ferman, felt that these were films which had to be seen, and he exploited a loophole in British censorship law, whereby private cinema clubs could show non-classified films. At that time in the early 70s the only private film clubs with large enough auditoriums to make a screening financially valid and guaranteed to reach a big enough audience were Soho sex cinemas - so feeling that the message of these films was so vitally important that it merited the risk, that's what Ferman covertly helped promote.
Yes, the films are obscene, but obscenity and art are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and obsene acts have been the basis of all art forms for centuries.
The draconian UK film censorship laws have indeed been abolished. Indeed even at the time Ferman realised how constraining they were and how censorship his very job was stifling the right of people to make informed choices to view material which while challenging, obscene and deeply disturbing had an emotional, intellectual and artistic validity and importance.
Now every film from Lars Von Triers Antichrist,
Vergenie Despentes, Baise Moi, Salo
, In the Realm of the Senses
, the entire film works of Catherine Breillat etc can all be seen at cinemas, and they all carry the 18 certificate. Films that until the early 90s were illegal in the UK, or would have been under the old censorship laws. Because the BBFC has decided that we as a nation are grown up enough to police ourselves and decide what we are capable of viewing.