DL: Maybe it’s very simple, maybe they are (like me) very easily disgusted by bodily fluids and excrement but don’t dare to frankly admit it. Since this anyway wouldn’t count as an argument they are forced to react like bigots and say it’s the violence, it’s the barbed-wire-penis-prothetic, it’s the sandpaper-masturbation etc.
SG: Do you think that THCII really causes a risk that it was harm the viewers like the BFFC said it would?
DL: Not at all: There’s too much art in it, too much black humor to be able to meet these criteria - it might be tasteless but this can’t be a reason for a rating board to ban it. Only the viewers have the right to decide about questions of taste.
SG: Do you think that the BBFC (or any other film classification company) should be able to ban a film? Or should it just be left up to the viewers to decide what they watch?
DL: If it comes to child pornography, documentary torture, snuff movies etc. - yes we need them badly! As we know by history and as we can see every day in the news The Human Beast is just a sleeper deep down inside me. We only think we have a personal guarantee for our own humanity.
SG: In A Serbian Film, there is a scene where a man rapes a newborn baby still attatched to it's mother, a man kills another man by sticking his erect penis into his eye and also a man rapes his 7 year old son. Do you think that this sounds worse than the content in THCII?
DL: That sounds much worse than the content in THCII - all kinds of penetration and rape seem to be subconsciously more acceptable than poo in your mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment