Australia bans award-winning Swedish film Children's Island over child porn concerns

[Aidan_088]

[quote]
Censors have refused classification for a 30-year-old award-winning Swedish film, in effect banning it, after an application by the Australian Federal Police.
The Classification Review Board’s decision to refuse classification for Children’s Island, handed down in October but not reported until now, has echoes of the 2008 controversy over Bill Henson’s photographs of naked children.

Titled Barnens ö in Swedish, the arthouse film focuses on an 11-year old boy grappling with the onset of puberty and contains scenes in which the boy is naked. It won Sweden’s most prestigious film prize, the Guldbagge, when it was released in 1980 and was Sweden’s official selection for the 54th Academy Awards. The film was directed by Kay Pollak, who later won acclaim for his box office hit As it is in Heaven.
Advertisement
Fairfax Media has not found any evidence of the film being refused classification in other countries.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority referred it to the Australian Classification Board last year after receiving a complaint.
The classification board originally gave the film an R18+ rating, but this decision was overturned on appeal following an application by the federal police.
In their ruling, three Classification Review Board members found that a 49-second sequence depicting the boy masturbating was likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult.
The boy’s erect penis is clearly shown in a three-second close-up.
‘‘The review board considered that although the scene was relevant to the story and was brief in duration it is still the depiction of actual sexual activity by a minor and is not justified by context,’’ the members wrote in their decision.
The review board found that other scenes — including of a boy lying naked in the bath and posing nude in front of a mirror wearing a wig — were justified by their context.
Anyone buying, selling or showing the film publicly will now face fines of up to $275,000 and a maximum 10 years’ jail. In Western Australia and parts of the Northern Territory, possessing the film would constitute a criminal offence.
[/quote]

[url]http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/australia-bans-awardwinning-swedish-film-childrens-island-over-child-porn-concerns-20140227-33lxx.html[/url]

[Sgt-NiallR]

[quote]49-second sequence depicting the boy masturbating was likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult[/quote]

God forbid a film put someone out of their comfort zone.

[PolarEventide]

"49-second sequence depicting the boy masturbating was likely to cause offense to a reasonable adult."

Have we really grown this sensitive? Masturbation is a reality of life.

[boibon]

[QUOTE]Anyone buying, selling or showing the film publicly will now face fines of up to $275,000 and a maximum 10 years’ jail[/QUOTE]

For a 49 second clip are you serious?

[Elecbullet]

hurr freedom of speech

i don't think films need closeups of 11 year olda' wangs

[Rixxz2]

[QUOTE=PolarEventide;44237752]"49-second sequence depicting the boy masturbating was likely to cause offense to a reasonable adult."

Have we really grown this sensitive? Masturbation is a reality of life.[/QUOTE]

It's not banned because of a scene that includes masturbation, it's more the fact that it's a relative close-up of a 13-something year old doing it

[MatheusMCardoso]

They could've easily censored it instead of banning the whole movie.

[ZenZill]

[QUOTE=PolarEventide;44237752]
Have we really grown this sensitive? Masturbation is a reality of life.[/QUOTE]

What non-Christian rock did you come out from under?

(PS. He's always watching)

[Antdawg]

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44237746]God forbid a film put someone out of their comfort zone.[/QUOTE]

[Quote]The boy’s erect penis is clearly shown in a three-second close-up.[/quote]

I don't think this ban is entirely unreasonable.

[Ganerumo]

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;44238025]hurr freedom of speech

i don't think films need closeups of 11 year olda' wangs[/QUOTE]

Yeah well there's a pretty uncomfortable and dragged on sex scene in the name of the rose and that movie wasn't banned in Australia so fuck that shit

[BlueChihuahua]

This comes back to the question of what actually constitutes child pornography.

[Sprockethead]

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44238403]I don't think this ban is entirely unreasonable.[/QUOTE]

Its art for fucks sake.

There is a context, im not really interested in watching the dicks of other people, but its annoying that you have to censor because you think some sexual predator could be getting a jolly from a 30 year old picture.

[Antdawg]

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;44238737]Its art for fucks sake.

There is a context, im not really interested in watching the dicks of other people, but its annoying that you have to censor because you think some sexual predator could be getting a jolly from a 30 year old picture.[/QUOTE]

Where do we draw the line?

What if some sick fucker published a video where two 12 year old kids go at it and defended it by saying it was 'art' and had a context (such as part of a wider plot)?

[Zet]

If it's going to put people out of their comfort zone/cause offence, then they shouldn't buy something that will do that.

[Sprockethead]

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44238774]Where do we draw the line?

What if some sick fucker published a video of two 12 year old kids going at it and defended it by saying it was 'art'?[/QUOTE]

Well that wouldnt fly in our society today, Theres just no way you could get that past the law.
But this video is an insight into a bigone society, Different age, different priorities, and i think that has some value,

And that someone took all that and focused just on three seconds of an erect penis just communicates some sort of obsessive cultural watchdog mentality.

[fruxodaily]

There was a time when a movie called Ken Park was banned here and these movie critics called Margaret and David who host a popular review show called At the Movies were detained for attending an underground screening of it, they're both opposed to censorship

So I expect the same thing again from those two

[Mbbird]

Sorta annoying when movies do this though. Australia has this weird thin with banning and censoring things but aside from that:

[quote]The boy’s erect penis is clearly shown in a three-second close-up.[/quote]

Like really? Did that need to be in there? It's just there to shock people isn't it?

[Sally]

If it was truly that short then it could of been cut out without issue

[Uber|nooB]

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;44238737]Its art for fucks sake. [/QUOTE]

sick-in-the-head art apologists like you are [I]exactly[/I] why all art needs to be banned!!

[Sprockethead]

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;44239062]sick-in-the-head art apologists like you are [I]exactly[/I] why all art needs to be banned!![/QUOTE]

The human body shouldnt be illegal is all im saying.

Also fuck you.

[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Rude" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[Uber|nooB]

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;44239073]The human body shouldnt be illegal is all im saying.[/QUOTE]

wow that's disgusting

[redback3]

There has to be a reason why it was in there otherwise it just throws the entire movie off, I've never seen [I]Children's Island[/I] so i can't really say

Knowing that scene is within the film makes me really uncomfortable and will probably make me not want to watch the film, at least the filmmakers have evoked some sort of emotion.

[Sharo]

The only thing that matters is whether or not the boy was harmed. That's why child porn is illegal, you know. And I'm assuming that since nothing has happened by now, and the film actually won awards, that no harm ever came from it. Ergo the ban is ridiculous.

[redback3]

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;44239096]The only thing that matters is whether or not the boy was harmed. That's why child porn is illegal, you know. And I'm assuming that since nothing has happened by now, and the film actually won awards, that no harm ever came from it. Ergo the ban is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

It's just the fact that it involves a child so it's a really huge uncomfortable grey area - if it was a late teen or an adult male then there would be no issue - but then again like I said before: it's if it works within its medium.

All the animal deaths in Cannibal Holocaust are real, but it works with the medium so you kind of forget/forgive (can't think of a better word) the content - same as how the gross use of nazi imagery/racism in American History X is more forgiveable because of how it is used.

Imagine if Springtime for Hitler from the producers was completely serious - there would be an outcry, but it is the product of Mel Brooks / it's complete ridiculousness makes it acceptable.

A final example (because I just fucking love talking about film) is the juxtaposition of comedy/grotesque violence in Man Bites Dog, it's a huge contrast and it's quite nasty/graphic but it just works because of how it plays, once again, "within the medium"

anyway i'll shush

[Jsm]

[del]So its a coming of age film but made with a Swedish mindset? This reminds me of a (hilarious) Swedish cartoon that was apparently dumped in the US by its broadcaster because it included scenes where the characters tried to find porn on the internet and counterfeiting money amongst other things. Apparently showing what (some) people of that age do is bad as people of that age might do it?
[/del]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Friends_and_Jerry"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Friends_and_Jerry

[/URL]
Okay so after having fully read the article it seems the word "depict" is used when the correct phrase would be "actually doing it". Justifed I guess.

[abcpea]

gross

[Jsm]

Although based on what others have said in this thread, the ban in this case might be justified as a legit reason. Still seems a bit heavy handed to ban the entire film.

[Midas22]

I dunno facepunch. Last time I checked kids masturbating is classified as child porn, don't see what the big deal is.

"But its art!"

[redback3]

[QUOTE=Midas22;44239238]I dunno facepunch. Last time I checked kids masturbating is classified as child porn, don't see what the big deal is.

"But its art!"[/QUOTE]

Pornography is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal. I don't think a 47 second clip within an entire film is just for the purpose of causing sexual arousal.

[Midas22]

[QUOTE=redback3;44239255]Pornography is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal. I don't think a 47 second clip within an entire film is just for the purpose of causing sexual arousal.[/QUOTE]

I don't find a lot of the shit you find on the internet arousing yet its still pornography.