Why was this banned in Australia from 1992-2000? - Ai no korîda (1977) Discussion

[–] H-o-n-g 21 years ago

if your not aware of the australian classification system it is:

G - for general exebition
PG - parental guidance recommended
M15 - recommended for mature audiences
MA15 - persons under 15 must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian
R18 - restricted to adults 18 years and over
X18 - contains sexually explicit material

actually, i would think that was pretty obvious why it was banned. it contained [actual] sex scenes that went beyond what was acceptable under an R rating. initially it was classified X when it first came out, then after its first screening it was cut to get an R rating, but instead it was banned, then it was cut again and got an R rating, then it was re-released in the 90s then banned again. Its had a big history with the Australian sensors. Now its availible in totally uncut form with a strong R rating.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] prince_corum 19 years ago

Can someone give me a list of mainstream movies that actually show oral sex/masturbation/explicit intercourse? Apart from baise-Mois, Romance, 9 songs, Pola X, Ken Park and this movie? I need reply real fast! My mail is [email protected].
Thanks in advance.

reply

[–] jlms 19 years ago

There are tens of them, such exercise is completely pointless.

reply

[–] Hazzer_99 19 years ago

And you need this list for proffesional reasons, right?

Go to the loo, 'cause all the *beep* is coming out your mouth instead of your a-hole...

reply

[–] niibu_yaa 21 years ago

Pretty sure it was the oral sex.

reply

[–] mmhebe 21 years ago

Yeah. I'm positive that's what did it.

Not just the BJ but the fact that it went to completion probably sealed the deal for the ban.

reply

[–] BbaySMH 21 years ago

Some countries have a problem with the scene of the naked kids and the lady pulling the kids...uh, 3rd arm. That too may have caused trouble for screenings in Australia (but not the Australia they teach you about in school, the REAL Australia with Gods who eat mountains, and the leopard queen...taunting me.)

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MercedesCLK_GTR 21 years ago

Yep that's pretty much it the sex got it banned

reply

[–] rmpp 21 years ago

It was banned in Australia??? lol
It was broadcasted in the portuguese national television two times and it had the egg scene. I don't if it was total uncut but it showed many explicit sex images including the final scene where the penis is....argghhh... cut off

reply

[–] c_L_a_R_m_E_d 21 years ago

'Australia is notorious for being very hard on censorship'

We are? No we're not. I've always thought that america and the uk have insanly strict ratings. Freakin Henry and June is americas big bad-ass rating...its all ages certificate here. If anyone is hard on censorship, its the US and UK. Bleh!

Make Movies, Not War

reply

[–] jaxopia 20 years ago

Maybe "Banned" in Australia dosn't meen what it meens here in the US. Maybe "Banned" in Australia meens they put a rubber band around the DVD so it's a little harder to open it.

You think!

reply

[–] UncleBobMartin 20 years ago

two words for you, Aussie; Pier Pasolini. To most of the world, an artist. In Australia, a pornographer.

Pheh!

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GeorgeWaltonLucasJr 19 years ago

Dope. The U.S. doesn't ban films at all; they have a voluntary film classification system run by the MPAA. Australia, by contrast, has a government-enforced, mandatory one that results in films being banned if they offend mainstream sensibilities. I don't expect you to know much about the U.S., but learn a bit about your own country, at least!

reply

[–] x1nd0lent 17 years ago

I've always thought that america and the uk have insanly strict ratings.

Sort of. In the US we have no official censorship at all, instead there is a voluntary ratings system. The problem is that 99.99% of the theatres won't show anything which has not been thus rated, so it's turned into something of a monopoly. It was a lot easier to get things released between the late 1950s and mid 1970s when there were more independent distributors and cinemas. Since the blockbuster culture of the late 1970s a few big studios have bought most of these and support few channels to showing media in broadcast culture.

Most other countries are far more diverse in their media ecology, so it is easier to get non-Hollywood and other types of more challenging things shown, and seen. But this is true only up to a point, as many countries will officially censor things which depict what they consider goes beyond taste, virtue, etc. So movies which are then censored are made illegal to show in any situation, and in the worse countries might mean legal trouble or harm for the creators.

So in the US you can make almost anything, just don't count on getting anybody else to see it, unless you don't mind giving it away. Censorship is just a superstitious idea that forbidding difficult questions makes them disappear. Whether it is the anti-sex new religious right of the US or the economic agenda of totalitarian China, the idea is the same. Define the culture of tomorrow by controlling the flow of ideas today - the problem is that people can't really control what they don't understand!

reply

[–] c_L_a_R_m_E_d 21 years ago

'the REAL Australia with Gods who eat mountains, and the leopard queen...taunting me'

What are you talking about?

They teach you about Australia in school?

Make Movies, Not War

reply

[–] tom311_nut 20 years ago

What the hell are you talking about??? what do they teach you about australia??
"Now I know im pretty, but I aint as pretty as a couple of titties"

reply

[–] in2film 20 years ago

I don't know whether or not any countries had a problem with this but I did. Not because of the content of the scene within a piece of film that is in may ways quite beautiful, but rather because of the way this particular scene was manufactured. What we are looking at is a scene in which two children are playing a (to them) real game. The only person in the scene who is acting is the woman. Children are not capable of making such a decision to be in such a scene. They did not make the choice. They were taken advantage of by people who should have known better. No matter the beauty of the art direction and the camera work this is an example of abuse to those children - mental, physical, and spiritual. Those involved need to rethink their views of children. So many films have a disclaimer at the end that states: "No animals were harmed in the making of this film." Don't we owe a similar amount of consideration to our children?

reply

[–] BbaySMH 20 years ago

I guess I can see the problem people would have with that then. But really it's just the "tugging" on boy's "swinger", if you will, that would cause all the uproar. If it's non-sexual nudity, then it is in fact legal to have people under 18 naked in a movie, only if their parents are present for the filming of said nude scene (see "American Beauty", "The Blue Lagoon", Pretty Baby", etc, which in the first film, it's Thora Birch who was only 17, and "Lagoon" uses a body double in most scenes of actual nudity).

And in response to my Australia comment made years earlier (only now have I recieved a "reply to post" e-mail), it's a reference to "The Maxx", a TV show that aired on MTV in the mid-90's (also a comic book). It's about a homeless bum who wears a superhero costume and also trips out into thinking he's a superhero in some kind of ancient Australia. No one got it, I guess proving why only 13 episodes aired.

reply

[–] jlasseter 19 years ago

Agree whole-heartedly with in2flim's comment. I'm no bible-thumper, and will defend ART but this one scene cited is an abomination. It really should have been edited out, but perhaps was left in only to show how deranged the central character was. That's the only justification. If the movie were made today, that scene would not have been included. IMHO the child actor could probably sue for abuse.

reply

[–] senbee-norimaki 19 years ago

There is nothing sexual in that scene, what's the problem?
The child actors were just playing happily with the actress, who pretends to harm the child just picking him from his "little thing". Many parents play like this with their children, moreover in not puritan-influenced countries (Asian and Mediterranean moreover) and this is for sure the way they shot the scene. Obviously Mr. Oshima did a great job to make the scene to result disturbing to the audience, but believe me, children were not abused at all.

reply

[–] pauldanielhenrik 19 years ago

The problem is, as stated above, that they're not "playing happily" from the moment that Sada grabs hold of the boy's penis. Both the boy and the girl stop laughing and suddenly look very confused. You can clearly see that the boy is in pain.

I think Realm of the Senses is an excellent film and that this scene's very effective in showing us another side of Sada's obsession, but it's definitely exploitative. You certainly don't have to be a puritan to believe that (if you were, you would've stopped watching the film long before this scene...).

reply

[–] crazy_child_of_the_south 21 years ago

egg? this was the film with the....egg incident wasnt it? i havent seen it but it was on 100 greatest sexy moments. i was disturbed

laura

'whats a dvd player? is it for pornography?!'

reply

[–] gottfrid 21 years ago

the egg scene is right there alright... quite creative after all... but i still hav some doubt, after all these years... was the egg cooked or natural... with shell and all that...

reply

[–] EmperorKagato 21 years ago

cooked egg. Kichi eats the egg whole after she "lays" it.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ariennye 19 years ago

Wait a second. Nevermind the banning, what's this about an "egg scene"?! Can someone explain?

Excuse the fuzziness of my recollection of the details -- it's been awhile since I've seen this film.

The two main characters -- Sada and Kichi -- are sitting around, intermittently going at it. There's a third party in the room entertaining (a geisha, I believe) and a plate of food set out before them. One of the items on the plate is a whole, hard-boiled egg. Something prompts Kichi to insert the egg into Sayo, there's some dialogue, and he says something along the lines of "...you've seen a hen lay an egg." Sayo 'lays' the egg, then grabs it, tackles Kichi, and tells him to eat it. If memory serves (and some of the above posters say so, so I think I'm right), he does.

There you have it, the egg scene, lol. It was the one of only two things in the whole film that made me raise an eyebrow. Maybe food with sex isn't really my bag. *shrug*

"...my God, my country, my Harley Davidson. Not necessarily in that order." - Bravo Two Zero

reply

[–] gottfrid 21 years ago

was it?

reply

[–] gottfrid 21 years ago

not the nicest meal, isnt it?

reply

[–] limptriple 20 years ago

I think you got Henry & June mixed up with Benny & Joon...

reply

[–] bricewgilbert 20 years ago

They said censorship because it was actually banned in Australia. When in American movies dont get banned (they may just not get released for fear by a studio that they may lose money).

reply

[–] filmislove 20 years ago

the one film in the U.S. that was taken off the shelves for a short while was salt of the earth, in 1952. it was banned by the U.S. government due to their belief that it was communist propoganda. i have heard of a few other films close to being banned, but i know this was was. it is on video these days, and is quite a good film.

reply

[–] wilderfan 20 years ago

It wasn't actually banned...
It was actually available on video in the 80s. However, three scenes were cut.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lgron000 20 years ago

Just to clarify this a bit. Australia isn't out-and-out tough on censorship. The reason this was banned ~wasn't~ because of any particular sex scene, as we have legal, hard-core porn. The problem is the nature of the rating system itself:

A movie cannot be released in Australia without a rating/classification. Thus, a refusal to classify a film amounts to a 'ban' [enforced completely - we had a police raid when a major film critic held a screening of 'Ken Park' last year]. Now, as mentioned above, we have 2 ratings that are 18+. The R rating is for 'normal' films. The X rating is for porn. However, a film with 'porn' sections [eg, actual sex] cannot have an R rating. Similarly, movies with certain kinds of violence, depictions of underage sex [even if simulated - eg, half of American Pie] etc ~cannot~ have an X rating.

This system is ~meant~ to keep porn out of 'normal' movies, and to make sure that certian kinds of things [eg, rape] are kept out of porn. On the face of it, that seems to make sense. However, when a movie [such as Salo, Ken Park, or -until 2000, ITROTS] includes both these characteristics, then artistic merit is removed from the calculation, and the film is "automatically" banned [in principle]. In practise, the censors tend to eventually give up on most movies, and accept that rules don't always give a sensible solution to reality. However, now and then, to prove that they're 'paying their keep' - especially to the disturbing number of evangelicals in Parliament, who ~don't~ have popular support for their moralising.

So, in the end, we have a system that gives you all the porn you want - but no sex in our art, please.

reply

[–] onittray 20 years ago

question:
what the fowck is ITROTS? I'm familiar with the other two (NEVER want to see Salo, I've seen one of the first scenes in Ken park though...guy having a sexy time with his girlfriend's mother, lol.)
But can you elaborate on that one?

reply

[–] lgron000 20 years ago

ITROTS = In The Realm of the Senses. Ie, the movie for which this is the board.
It's a 'based on a true story' event of sexual obsession. Basically follows the seemingly perpetual sexual lives of a prostitute and her new husband/lover.

reply

[–] onittray 20 years ago

Yeah, I know what In The Realm of the Senses is, I just couldn't figure out the acronym ITROTS.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mats_carcass 20 years ago

Good post lgron000, however I disagree with you view that Australia is not tough on Censorship.

Australia is tough when the article itself attains enough criticism from the public. In other words, our Censors have no set standard, their pattern of Censorship seems comepletely random. For example:

- Grand Theft Auto 3 was released uncut with the higest possible classification (for games.... when will they bring this genre up to speed and introduce an R classification so adults can play crap games like Postal 2) MA15+. However after a month the game was recalled from shelves, due to complaints about its content. But for the time it was out, it topped the sales charts. It was eventually released without the ability to pick up hookers, and the removal of the graphic violence (heads popping, people blowing apart) and some language (i think).

However by the time San Andreas came around, all these features were back in the game, with little to no outcry.

- The U.S. Death Metal band Cannibal Corpse are banned from performing live on Australian shores. However in 2001 Norwegian band Mayhem had no dramas touring here. Whats the issue? Mayhem have a history of being involved with an Anarchistic group who burnt many churches throughout Norway. Cannibal Corpse just sing some gory songs. I remember the contention over whether Eminem should have been allowed a Visa, which he eventually was. Cannibal Corpse albums are freely available in Australian CD stores by the way.

- Baise-moi was released in 2000 with an R18+ classification, re-rated in the 2002 and refused classification.

The system with which The Office of Film and Literature Classification reviews film, TV, music and games needs a major overhaul so that a standard is met across all forms. I don't believe in banning either. I believe the classification sysmtem is supposed to be a guide as to what is contained within.

However, my definition of something that is banned is a little different to what people seem to beieve. TO me if something is banned, then it is illegal to be in your possession (like marijuana). So you can't just go and order Cannibal Holocaust from another country. However if something is refused classifcation, but you are prepared to watch, listen, read it yourself then you are allowed to ship it in for your own personal use.

reply

[–] hxc0148 20 years ago

i don't like censorship...it's bad....but i'm in the navy and my opinion of austalia is that god put it there as a gift to us...i don't think i'll ever have that much fun ever again.

reply

[–] AgentPaulZero 19 years ago

Well don't forget Ken Park that was banned in Australia as well. They actually had coppers out that night to stop the movie being screened at this premier.
The lastest movie that didn't get the censorship was 9 Songs and the scenes in that movie was almost explicit as In The Realm of Senses and Ken Park.
Honestely I'm sick and tired of my country happening to be strict on censorship honestely how long can this go for.

Oh In The Realm of Senses was banned here the same reason like Debbie Does Dallas because it carried an X-rating because Australia doesn't allow XXX films here either and yes it was the oral scenes that gave the movie its ban but it was rereleased in december 2000 in its full uncut version.

reply

[–] kalit-1 19 years ago

does anyone know where you can buy or borrow this film? in Australia?

reply

[–] petitsmurf 19 years ago

http://www.madman.com.au/actions/catalogue.do?releaseId=1742&method=view

reply

[–] sonnythefat 19 years ago

In the realm on the senses was played several times on world movies Aust.(sbs)payTV) and was uncut.
And Australia was one of the worst offenders of film censorship in the the late 1930, a woman in a cinema had a miscarrage while a horror film Freeks was on,I think? and a ban was put on Horror films for 25 to 30 years ? can,t remember now, my granmother was a great film buff and knew all the details first hand.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] antonio_uq 17 years ago

Consider this post just a brief tweak to the discussion.

There are/were two fundamental differences between R and X in Australia, one of which has now changed, the other which is still in place.

Firstly, it used to be the case that 'actual sex' or erections etc. would get an instant X rating. There was a doco on sex (not a porno masquerading as a doco) in about '96 that got an X because one scene showed a penis that went from hard to semi, so the image was blacked out until it went softer :-) This started to shift in the late 90s with stuff like Head On (erection though possible to convince he was just lying on his back with his penis lying on his stomach), The Monkeys Mask (erection definite), and finally Romance. Now there are many films (relatively speaking) with actual sex in them and an R rating, most of them rather depressing (Intimacy, 9 Songs) but with the occasional joyous exception (Shortbus).

Secondly, and what I think might be the case for In the Realm of the Senses given the date it was banned, is that X-rated films in Australia are not supposed to have ANY violence in them whatsoever. This was a shift in the early 90s. One notorious case was a high profile porn feature ('DreamQuest' I think was its name?) which was initially rejected for an X rating in Australia because in one scene the characters are escaping from a castle and the male lead hits a prison guard, knocking him unconscious. Yep, that was too violent for an X rating to be possible. Unlike the NC-17 (which can be given for sex, violence, language or even 'tone'!) in America, the Australian X is ONLY for sexual content and no violence is allowed. The knock on the head, btw, was off-screen and only heard. The film had to be altered to be allowed to be legally released in Australia.

Sooo... here's my impression from all that. ITROTS comes out, is given an X rating. I remember it being reviewed in one of the very first video guides in Australia (back when it was still possible for such books to cover EVERY film that was out on video!), so although controversial it was 'legitimate'. But when the 'no violence at all' diktat comes through in the early 90s, they look at the various violent acts (especially the castration!) and go, "Too violent for an X - it's banned." After the kerfuffle over 'Romance' - which has explicit real sex scenes AND some violence including a rape - which was initially banned (i.e not given an X) on the grounds above, but was then granted an R, other films have been looked at and re-graded. ITROTS was resubmitted at some point and it was decided "Real sex, but it's a valid artistic movie, so not X. Violence, but since it's not porn, it can get through... rated R."

Although Australia HAS had a few banning controversies that make us look dumb (none worse than the Ken Park farrago), one of the things that's amazed me is how many notorious banned films have quietly been re-graded and allowed in: Last House on the Left, Last House on Dead End Street, Cannibal Ferox... the moment I knew something had changed was when I walked into HMV in April 2006 and found the 2-disc deluxe edition of Cannibal Holocaust for sale.

reply

[–] brefane 12 years ago

Those lucky Aussies, I say. Awful film, so boring.

reply