| April
1998
Film censorship: speak no blowjobs
|
|
|
I thought the cuts were so silly and prudish that I am going to do something about it. A few movie-goers had written to the press to protest, which efforts I won't duplicate, but instead, I am going to describe here the cut scenes. I know many under-21's access Yawning Bread. All the better! See what damage it inflicts on you to read this! The remarkable thing is that the cuts were dialogue scenes. They involved someone sitting about and telling jokes. No clothes were removed, no skin was to be seen. No kissing, tonguing, smooching -- all of which, by the way (if opposite-sex), would probably have been left uncut. Instead, the mere dialogue was considered subversive of our morals. With the help of a reader who pointed me to the URL for the movie's script -- thank you -- I give you the excised segments. The first of these was the joke Skylar told Will Hunting's friends in a bar:
The other injury the censors did to the film was a joke that Will Hunting told Sean, in one of their therapy sessions.
All it takes to understand the two jokes is the concept of a blowjob (and cunnilingus) [2]. Our censors somehow believe that our under-21's should be protected from such a notion. I can bet you that virtually all the teenagers reading Yawning Bread know what a blowjob is. Some of them, first hand too. Once again, we have this idea that sex is a subject that young minds cannot handle, least of all sex in something other than a missionary position, e.g. blowjob. Nobody bothers to ask if they know about it anyway, and the only people ending up looking rather stupid in the whole affair, may well be the dour censors themselves. But the thing I am truly annoyed about is how as a result of Singapore's censorship system, even adults are denied the full version of the movie. We are all being treated like children. This is because of some strange rules in the system, which the government pretends is rather liberal, but which I will show is political passing-the-buck. The rules allow a film distributor to request the censorship board to censor a film to any of three standards: G, PG and R(A). If a film is R(A), it is restricted to those 21 years and older. A film distributor may not have two versions of the same film, in other words, Good Will Hunting could not have been shown as a PG version and a R(A) version at the same time. Why not has never been made clear. In addition, only downtown cinemas may screen R(A) movies. Suburban cinemas may not. This is to protect the "homeliness" of the residential suburbs, never mind if suburban cinema foyers all too often have Ah Bengs and Ah Hueys loitering around. Hemmed in by these rules, distributors often ask for a film to be censored to the PG level. They believe that they can get wider cinema distribution (not restricted to downtown theatres), and wider reach (not restricted to 21 and above). Whenever there is any protest by the public that a film has been mutilated, the censorship board tends to reply, "but, but ... the distributor asked for it to be censored." This may be true in its final detail, but the fact is that the system has been configured such that other options have been made impossible. The government configured the rules, yet when faced with irate movie-goers, they like to pass the responsibility to the 'commercial interests'. As far as I am concerned, the day cannot come
fast enough when we can purchase movies through the internet. Pay with your
credit card and get it downloaded from the original distributor, be it in the
US, Europe or anywhere else in the world. Then, blowing away our censors would
be the ultimate blowjob. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|