|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Video | Cuts | Cert | Run Time | Details | ||||||
| A Serbian Film aka
See
trailer from
youtube.com
|
uncut |
Unrated |
2010 Serbia adult horror by Srdjan Spasojevic US: Invincible Pictures have a announced A Very Limited Edition uncut DVD release on 22nd May 2012 Denmark: The Danish release on the Cinematic Vision label is uncut but has no English subtitles for the Serbian soundtrack |
|||||||
|
banned |
banned |
Australia: Banned
Norway: Banned Norwegian Media Authority (Mediatilsynet) banned A Serbian Film because it contains violence with the sexualisation of children. Ove Wathne of Mediatilsynet told daily Dagens Naeringsliv that it is usually an ingredient that provides a basis for an assessment of the Authority. In Norway films are self rated by the distributors. The Norwegian media censors step in on demand, presumably in response to complaints or controversy. |
||||||||
|
pre-cut ~1:00s
|
Unrated |
~104:00s =~100:00s |
The US release is pre-cut by about 1:00s and is MPAA
Unrated for:
The cuts are:
|
|||||||
|
4:12s |
![]() |
95:20s |
Passed 18 after 49 BBFC cuts totalling 4:12s for:
The BBFC commented: Cuts required to remove portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context and images of sexual and sexualised violence which have a tendency to eroticise or endorse the behaviour. Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy. These include cuts to the juxtaposition of images of children with sexual and sexually violent material. Although the Board does not regard these images as likely to contravene the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Guidelines state that intervention is most likely with, amongst other things, portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context. See also BBFC case study from sbbfc.co.uk BBFC
Extended Classification
Information: Srpski Film - A Serbian Film is a Serbian language drama, subtitled in English. It tells the story of a retired porn star, Milos, who is lured out of retirement by an offer of money from a mysterious figure called Vukmir. Vukmir wants Milos to star in what he describes as an artistic film for the foreign market but it soon becomes clear the project will require Milos' participation in various acts of sexual violence and paedophilia. The film was classified 18 for very strong sexual violence, sex and violence. The BBFC's Guidelines state that In line with the consistent findings of the BBFC's public consultations and the Human Rights Act 1998, at '18 the BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the principle that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment. Exceptions are most likely [...] where material or treatment appears to the BBFC to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society - for example, any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts [...] which may cause harm to public health or morals. This may include portrayals of sexual or sexualised violence which might, for example, eroticise or endorse sexual assault'. More generally, the Guidelines state that A strict policy on sexual violence and rape is applied. Content which might eroticise or endorse sexual violence may require cuts at any classification level and that intervention, even at the adult level, is more likely with sexual violence or sexualised violence which endorses or eroticises the behaviour and with portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context. Before awarding an 18 classification to Srpski Film - A Serbian Film, the BBFC required forty-nine individual cuts, across eleven scenes. A number of cuts were required to remove elements of sexual violence that tend to eroticise or endorse sexual violence. Further cuts were required to scenes in which images of children are intercut with images of adult sexual activity and sexual violence. It is important to stress that the film makers took precautions to avoid the exposure of the young actors to the film's most disturbing scenes and that, in the BBFC's view, no scene is in clear breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. Even after cuts, the film's scenes of very strong sexual violence remain potentially shocking, distressing or offensive to some adult viewers, but are also likely to be found repugnant and to be aversive. They are not credibly likely to encourage imitation. In some scenes Milos witnesses, or is forced to witness, acts of sexual violence, including the suggestion that a new born baby is being raped. In the cut version, the rape of the baby occurs entirely offscreen, implied only by the sounds of the baby crying and by the reactions of the onlooking Milos and Vukmir. Although all clear shots of the baby being raped have been cut by the BBFC, it is worth noting that the film makers used a prosthetic model during the filming of this scene and that no real baby was harmed. Later in the film, when Milos refuses to participate in the acts required of him by Vukmir, he is drugged and forced to continue filming against his will. As Milos regains consciousness, he begins to remember what he has been compelled to do, including decapitating a restrained woman during sex and raping his unconscious wife and son. He also recalls, with the assistance of video recordings, some of the acts perpetrated against himself and others during his period of unconsciousness. This includes one of his female friends being suffocated with a man's penis, after her teeth have been extracted, and Milos himself being raped. Once again, the cuts required by the BBFC have removed the more explicit moments from these scenes and much of the action is now brief or implied rather than explicitly depicted. Nonetheless, the scenes remain potentially distressing and offensive, even in their cut versions. Cuts were also required to remove shots which imply that children are witnessing sexual violence, sometimes enthusiastically, or where images of children are intercut with images of sexual activity and sexual violence. This includes a scene in which images of a young girl sucking a lolly are intercut with a scene of fellatio, a scene in which the same young girl appears to lean forward excitedly as she witnesses a scene of violent fellatio, and a scene in which Milos' brother is fellated by a woman whilst watching a family video, featuring his young nephew. All such intercutting has been removed from these scenes. In another scene, Vukmir attempts to persuade Milos to have a sex with an underaged girl. Although Milos refuses, cuts were required to remove shots in which the young girl appears to be encouraging Milos to have sex with her. In spite of the fact that care was taken by the film makers to avoid exposing any of the young actors to anything disturbing, violent or sexual, this juxtaposition of images of children with sexual and sexually violent material is a breach of BBFC policy and Guidelines. The film contains a number of scenes of very strong bloody violence, including sight of a man's head being repeatedly smashed with a heavy object until his skull caves in, a man's throat being torn out in close up, and a man being killed by having a prosthetic erect penis forced into his empty eye socket. These scenes considerably exceed the terms of the 15 Guidelines where Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable. Strong sadistic or sexualised violence is also unlikely to be acceptable. Srpski Film - A Serbian Film also contains a number of scenes of strong sex. This includes sight of masturbation, oral sex, group sex, and sexual thrusting, as well as simulated ejaculation onto a woman's face. These scenes significantly exceed the terms of the 15 Guidelines where Sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail. Srpski Film - A Serbian Film also includes very strong visual and verbal sex references, including to bestiality and paedophilia, very strong language, strong language, and strong nudity, including sight of prosthetic erections. See article from refused-classification.com: All cuts are noted as: Status: Compulsory
Pictorial Cuts: Review: So what did the BBFC find so cuttable?From Andrew. Review contains spoilers and may contain descriptions some people may find concerning. Against all my better judgments I've just sat through an uncut print of A Serbian Film. I say my better judgments, because for me these (I hate this term) torture porn films, hold absolutely no interest at all. How they can be branded horror films is beyond me. To me, horror is something that scares you, and makes you jump, not offends you. Anyway that's purely academic, back on point, I was lucky enough to see an uncut print of A Serbian Film, now for a lot of you this will seem like nothing special, but here in the UK, it's been trimmed by just under 4 mins. I've yet to see the BBFC approved print, but if all they have done is simply lessen the impact of scenes, this will still upset a lot of people. That being said, I can certainly understand the BBFC's point. While I'm no fan of censorship (I wouldn't be on here if I was), I do believe that a metaphorical line should be drawn in the sand, especially when dealing with children and sex in films. Even to this day, I'm still quite edgy around Larry Clarke's Kids. Which brings me onto the big problem with A Serbian Film. The use of children. While one scene involves newborn porn (sex with a baby), it does look very fake, and some might even say it's meant to, as it's supposed to be a metaphor and blah blah blah. The scene that really did make me think the BBFC had a point was a joint rape, involving two sheet covered bodies, our main character, Milos, and another man (who's masked) raping them. While this is not shocking as such, what is revealed later in the scene will be too much for some people, as it turns out the masked man, is Milos' brother (a sheriff), who's raping Milos' wife, and Milos is in fact raping his own (heavily drugged) young son. While you don't actually see anything as such, the repeat viewings could be seen as being titillating and arousing for certain viewers. Whether this scene is one of the 49 cuts I can't say, but I'd be surprised if theirs not a few in their, as it does suggest you can easily drug and anally rape a child, and not have to look at them. Although, their are a lot of violent sex scenes, I think the one the BBFC will have had a problem with, is suffocation via fellatio. One of the support characters (having had her teeth knocked out), is forced to have a penis rammed down her throat resulting in her suffocating and dying. The fact that this is played very real, and does go on, is, I imagine, something that hasn't sat well with them (the BBFC rarely allow these gagging scenes in R18 films (hardcore porn)). That being said, I'll be surprised if they were phased by the necrophilia / rigor mortis sex moments, as they can come off as laughable (as does the death via penis to eye socket), even in the context they're in, and movies like Donkey Punch, seem to have faired off fine, so I doubt they were a problem. While all the above scenes are shocking and uncomfortable to watch, this film IS very good. And I think that will be it's downfall, you won't forget it, and that scares censors. It doesn't look like some snuff film from Tijuanna. It looks glossy, Hollywood, the cinematography is excellent, the acting top notch (especially as it's subtitled), it looks like a well made, well polished mainstream film. Maybe that's the problem. It's just too damn good. Review: A Serbian Film re-visitedFrom Andrew. Please note, this will contain spoilers and may contain descriptions some people may find concerning. Ok, a while back now, I wrote an article that took a look at A Serbian Film. Since then, all manner of hype, and backlash, has hit this film. However, now that that has died down (at least until the DVD releases), I find myself in a frame of mind to watch it again. Is this a morbid obsession with the films subject matter? Hardly. It's more a case of wanting to analyse the film in a more neutral light. The first time I watched it, I was concerned, the publicity had taken its toll on me, and after re-reading my last article, I found myself sounding slightly biased. This is due to the content of this film, and me having my teenage head on (the sort of mindset you get into when your a mid teen, listening to Rage against the machine, and siding with an opinion you understand nothing about) Now though, after 2 months, I find I actually want to watch this again. But as a film fan, as an art form, and not as something that strikes a blow for artistic license or what the censors deem appropriate. Which looking back on myself, is what I'd slipped into on my previous viewing. Chainsaw massacre syndrome So, how does this film fair up? Now that I have had time to chew the proverbial cud. Well. I still find it a brilliant film. Also, the political message is still very much lost on me. I don't see it, but that's academic. What I do see though, is a film that suffers from what I like to call chainsaw massacre syndrome. This is something that came about in the 1970's, during Hollywood's new found lease on horror, when people were claiming to have seen more in the film than was actually their. I was bought up to believe that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a bloodbath, when in actual fact, theirs very little blood, and most of the violence is psychological. this is something I fell into with A Serbian Film. While it does contain a great deal of violence, a lot of it is off screen, or shown in poorly edited camcorder moments. One I will get to in a minute. Scene to be believed The Alice in Wonderland scene is actually the tamest of the film, while it is quite nasty, the child element (something that has caused the main problem with this film) is not that bad. This is due to the fact that girl, dressed as Alice, is not that young. She is in her early teens yes, but she's not as young as Milos' son. While she serves no real purpose to the scene, it does give you a nice entry level of shock and intrigue of what's to come. Something that shows a nice direction, rather than a director who wants to get to the nasty crowd upsetting moment. Pace. Something the new Elm St failed to have. I'm not going to lie, the NEWBORN PORN scene is still very unpleasant to watch. However, it's the idea that provokes the reaction. Because, you actually don't see a great deal, and you have to ask yourself what's he doing?. Of course when you realise, THAT'S when the horror kicks in. It's more the notion, the idea, that scares. Especially when you think of how many babies are born outside of hospitals (I was born in the car on the way). As I said earlier, this was a moment in my first viewing where I thought I saw a lot more. But I didn't. I thought the baby scene was longer, done from different angles. It's not. It's all shot from behind, and there's no gratuitous moment of penetration. Something I've heard certain IMDBers claim to see. Another scene I thought I saw more was the death of the nurse. While you see her death in it's entirety, you DON'T see her getting her teeth knocked out, they're already on the floor. This time I noticed the camera man kick them (to illustrate them being there), something I missed last time, as I knew what was coming (due to internet spoilers). So I was ignoring the peripheral, and waiting for the crunch. The joint rape, is something I missed a lot in. Mainly due, again, to spoilers. I wanted the impact. When what I should have done, is paid attention to the tone and atmosphere of the scene. I missed the shot of Milos' son bleeding, I missed the brothers climax. In fact all I remember from that scene the first time, is the shot of Milos' sons drooling face and the violence that followed. While the rape scene is horrific, it's the violence that really struck a chord with me this time. I don't remember the brothers bludgeoning going on as long as it does, I was now able to pay attention to Vukmir dying words, and the penis in the eye was now more painful, as a didn't remember the close ups. Wince and you'll miss it Does this film disturb a second time? Yes. This film does what so many fail to do. It gives you a new reaction each time. Most probably because you were wincing the first time. Is it something I will watch a third time? Yes. I probably will. But it will have to be for a good reason. This is not something I'm going to strive to own. It does however deserve to be seen by serious film fans who can look past the media frenzy. Something it took me a second viewing to do. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|