Censorship

"Dominic Thomas" wrote:
be
I think the issue is not that the scenes are "sexy", the issue is
that it removes too much of the ambiguity about their relationship: in
other words, that the theme becomes one of underage sexual relationships.

I believe the cuts were voluntary, but I suspect that they would have
been involuntary if they'd presented to the BBFC in original form.



Start with BBFC rules:-

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Downloads.nsf/51b2a045e53ac0e080256a1100492b44/$FILE/BBFCGuidelines2002.pdf

They identify "problematic themes" as including "drug abuse and
paedophilia". Under the "rejects" section, they state that "The
following are of greatest concern: ... portrayals of children in
a sexualised or violent context ..."

In the "Version Integrale", there is no doubt but that Mathilda
(that is, Natalie Portman's character) is seeking a sexual relationship
with Leon (Jean Reno), and to a certain extent she finds it, at least
in her own mind. They do end up in bed together, after all.

In 1994, when Leon was filmed, Natalie Portman had her thirteenth
birthday. She certainly doesn't look any older than that in this
film. To my eyes, she looks younger. As you say, no normal
person would find NP sexy in "Leon".(*)

Jean Reno had his 46th birthday in 1994. I can't imagine any normal
person finding JR sexy, period - but stubble never appealed to me.

The discussion of their rules being good or bad is a much bigger issue.
My views may not be the same as yours, and there may be a lot of other
views here. But by BBFC rules, "Leon Version Integrale" should probably
be cut or rejected.

Now are those rules the correct ones? Discuss!



(* For that, fast forward to some of the recent "Star Wars"
films - and some of the "peanut smuggling" comments we had on
this list back then. ;-) In the year "Phantom Menace" was made,
Natalie Portman had her 21st birthday. That's more like it!)

So yes, technically, that is "... children in a sexualised ... context ..."

The fact that there is absolutely no sex in their relationship, and plainly
no possibility that there ever would be for the forseeable future, in my
mind makes it a sensible, well-adjusted film that deals with a sensitive
issue.

There's no denying that you can see children in a sexualised context just by
walking around the shopping centres on a Saturday afternoon. The fact that
there we saw a film where common sense prevailed, and the adult quite firmly
explained that the girl was too young, makes this a scene worth keeping,
because that's a message that's not getting out, and ignoring it doesn't
make it go away.

The film didn't show anything shocking or indecent.

What's that?
Hold the front page?
Shock Horror!

Underage teenage girls think about sex?

Whatever is the world comming to?
Stop them now, before they start playing with themselves! Cold showers all
round!

Oops! My email just breached standards of decency and censorship legislation
in half a dozen countries.

Dominic

PS. I wonder what the rules are on films depicting countries where it's
legal to marry 13-year-old girls? Also, I've definitely seen biopics of
Sonny Bono, and Jerry Lee Lewis where there was certainly a bit of that
going on. On UK Terrestrial television no less.... not to mention Bill
Wyman.

Simon Richardson wrote-
'Jean Reno had his 46th birthday in 1994. I can't imagine any normal
person finding JR sexy, period - but stubble never appealed to me.'

Well I just that I'm not normal 'cos I found JR rather sexy...but then I
have a thing about Gerard Depardieu too

Belle

'See the chameleon lying there in the sun, all things to everyone'




_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*