 Nerine Shatner Friendly House
This non profit organization is one of the nation's first residential
homes for women recovering from alcohol and substance abuse.
Donate
Here>>>
|
| |
Hollywood
Charity
Horse Show
For the past eleven years, William Shatner has spearheaded the HCHS
which features some of the best western reining riders in the country
while simultaneously raising money for charity.
Donate
Here>>>
|
| |
William
Shatner also
Supports:
 March
of
Dimes Canada
 The Jewish
National Fund
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
|
Post subject: Censorship 40 years on
 Posted: Sep 29, 2008 - 10:04 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 7573
Location: 221B Baker Street London
|
|
It wasn't just nudity and homosexuality which fell foul of the censor's red pen. A reference to the poet Walt Whitman didn't get past the Lord Chamberlain either. This month marks the 40th anniversary of the Theatre Act, when theatre censorship was abolished. Until then, theatre productions were subject to rigorous rules.
Theatre managers wanting to produce a new play were required to submit their scripts to that arbiter of moral taste - the Lord Chamberlain's office - for a licence.
Even something as seemingly innocuous as a reference to Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass in John Osborne's Personal Enemy was disallowed - because it was seen as a codified reference to homosexuality. But changes in society were beginning to grate - and the authorities were forced to revise their attitudes. There was the pressure of a more permissive society in the late 1950s and 1960s; there was also the pressure from inside the theatre itself.
Eventually, of course, the idea of censorship was unsustainable and the Theatre Act was passed. The American hippy musical Hair opened in London featured scenes containing nudity and drug-taking as well as a strong anti-war message at the height of the Vietnam conflict .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 638553.stm
Should censors have the right to deceide, what we consenting adults see and hear, shouldn't we be allowed to choose for ourselves..?
or
Censorship is a good thing, it protects us,from bad things, that we don't want to see, hear, or be exposed to..?
thoughts? |
Last edited by britstarfan on Sep 29, 2008 - 10:44 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2008 - 10:18 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 14, 2004
Posts: 8400
|
|
| The only thing I would censor is shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Now some people might argue about what that shout might consist of... |
_________________
Yes we can!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 29, 2008 - 11:46 PM
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 12, 2005
Posts: 9896
Location: I destroy my enemy when I make him my friend.--Abraham Lincoln
|
|
Wow! I always thought that it was the Americans who were Victorian in their censorships. I remember the time when a TV or movie couple could not even be seen in the same bed together, thus the production of the so called, "Hollywood Beds." And nudity of any kind was plain out of the question. Even Elvis Presley's wiggling hips were censored.
Sometimes, movies can be a safe way to explore environments that would be otherwise unsafe. Examples: war, violent crimes against women, alternative lifestyles, etc.
As long as the movies or productions are done safely, then the artistic ability of the writers and actors should be allowed to perform. If something it too far out into left field, then word will get around and no one will go and see it.
Personally, I think there should be a lid put on some of the movies that require dangerous stunts. It seems like the producers of action movies keep trying to do a one-upmanship on their competitors and the actors and stunt performers are paying the price with broken bones, and even death. Not worth it folks! If I want to watch something dangerous, I will simply observe my husband trying to give our cat a pill. 
Just my opinion. |
_________________
Let's do it as a memorial to Joyce Mason
|
| |
|
|
|
|
rdb |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Sep 30, 2008 - 02:06 AM
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 735
Location: Lakeland Florida
Status: Offline
|
|
My opinion- as long as there is no deception about what is portrayed/done in the advertising, then it should be up to the individual. I also agree (again) with Sue- I think that they need to make sure that people don't get hurt trying to outdo each others stunts.
If there's going to be something gross or too much sexuality in the movie, I just won't go or watch it. Ditto for horror shows- those I just don't like anyway. As long as I'm not forced to watch it (and there are reasonable alternatives), well: "whatever floats your boat"...
I will say this (and this I wish the Hollywood producers/writers would get)- you don't have to put gratuitous sex or violence in every movie just to sell it... you don't have to make things overt (subtlety can often have more effect than "in your face"), and a lot of people (1) like movies that make you feel good at the end, and (2) appreciate intelligent movies. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
