| David Cronenberg´s Crash, based
on the novel of J.G. Ballard, has caused a lot of excitement, notably in
Great Britain. One can´t help thinking of Cronenberg´s remark on
censors and psychopaths. Before its release, the film was already the
target of the UK yellow press.
Finally, it was up to the British Board of Film Classification to decide if Crash was to be banned in Britain or not, who release the following argumentation, (taken from their website):
CRASH
The BBFC has received much
unsolicited advice about the film Crash, even before it was submitted
for classification, most of it coming from people troubled or outraged
by rumours. Those rumours have now been carefully and thoroughly checked
against the internal evidence of the film itself.. . Crash is an unusual and disturbing film. It concerns a couple, James and Catherine, who are unable to find sexual satisfaction inside or outside marriage, and who fall in with a group of people who associate sexual excitement with car crashes. The obsessive leader of the group, Vaughan, believes that a car crash results in "a liberation of sexual energy," and he spends his time reconstructing the fatal car crashes of movie stars who became sex symbols by dying young. He is killed pursing . The director, David Cronenberg, treats this theme with clinical detachment. The car crashes are stripped of exciting spectacle. The mood is often slow and dreamlike, and the audience is not encouraged to share the feelings of the characters. . Some may find the film intriguing, but many will be perplexed by its focus on perverse behaviour. . With every film or video, the Board must consider two overriding factors: first, is it legal? and second, is it harmful? Legality means the legality of the film, not of the attitudes or behaviour of its characters, since the film may portray depraved characters without being depraving or corrupting in itself. . On the issue of legality, the Board consulted a QC with extensive experience in prosecuting and defending obscenity cases. He agreed that the film did not romanticise or glamorise sexual deviancy; nor did it encourage it. Few car crashes are seen, and there is no violence at all of an interpersonal kind. . A forensic psychologist, Dr Paul Britton, was consulted on the question of harm, particularly the link between sex and disability. He made it clear that there is no sexual deviancy known as '"orthopaedic fetishism" as alleged by critics. Nor is the sex scene with a woman in calipers fetishistic, since she is shown to be sexually attractive despite her scars or limb supports and not because of them. . The Board also had a screening for disabled people, who were not offended by the film's treatment of disability and who did not wish the able-bodied to be embarassed or offended on their behalf. They emphasised that the disabled had the same sexual feelings as others, and that the depiction of a disabled woman struggling with limb supports mirrored the difficulties many of them had to overcome. . Dr Britton also dismissed the view that the film is concerned with sado- masochism by pointing out that there is no evidence of sexual sadism in the film, since no character seeks or obtains sexual pleasure from the infliction of fear, pain, or humiliation on others. Nor do any of them use violence or aggression as a source of arousal. . Given the cultural link between motor vehicles in pristine condition and feelings of sexual potency, it seemed unlikely to either of our consultants that this would be displaced by images linking sex and damaged motor cars. It was also reassuring to note that the film maker had gone to considerable pains to ensure that no deliberately caused traffic crash or a psychological desire to harm others was shown on the screen. . It is clear that, in the absence of the film, many of its critics had based their impressions either on the book or the published script. Both are significantly different from the finished film. . In conclusion, our legal adviser took the view that, rather than sympathising or identifying with the attitudes or tastes of the characters in this film, the average viewer would in the end be repelled by them, and would reject the values and sexual proclivities displayed. On legal grounds, therefore, he concluded that there was no reason for banning the film and no reason why the Board should not classify it for the cinema. (Video is a separate decision.) . James Ferman welcomed this advice, "which confirmed the view of the Board's examiners that the work was neither illegal or harmful. Now," he said, "the debate can move to the public arena, where the film can at last be judged on its merits." . The British Board of Film Classification has today classified the film Crash '18' without cuts. . James Ferman 18th March 1997
|
| back |