Hostel: Part II banned and butchered

Horrorphile

follow this blog

975 followers

4455 daily readers

rank of 1

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

THEY BAN TORTURE PORN, DON'T THEY?

October 15th 2009 23:18

A curious, belated piece of news came to my attention yesterday as I was searching for a clip on youtube. Someone had uploaded a short New Zealand television news piece from 2007 that addressed how the Office of Film and Literature Classification in NZ had made the decision to ban the theatrical release of Eli Roth’s Hostel: Part II (2007), but probably would allow the movie to be released on DVD later, however minus a scene they felt to be too offensive for the common good.

The scene they found to so objectionable was, perhaps a little contentiously, one of the movie’s highlights; the “Elizabeth Bathory” sequence where a client gets to slice open a young girl who’s hanging upside down like a pig on its way to be slaughtered. It’s a potent nightmare moment that juxtaposes the extreme dark pleasure of the older woman and the abject terror of the innocent younger girl; Mrs Bathory (Monica Malacova) paying top dollar to indulge her wildest, darkest desire, and the poor young tourist (Heather Matarazzo) who’s been abducted and ended up as a disposable horror toy. But hang on, there’s another scene in the movie which involves gleeful castration,now isn’t that just as morally volatile? Seems a double standard rears its ugly head.

This bloodbath a no-no said NZ Chief Censor

Hostel: Part II was better than Hostel (2006). Others will disagree, but I found the sequel to be more disturbing, more intelligent and intriguing (even though the conceit of the original is laid bare, and even though the whole idea is far-fetched), far more atmospheric (in that sumptuous, elusive Euro fashion), and much more convincing with its special effects (most of the first movie’s prosthetic work looked too rubbery). All these elements were integral for the movie to work well. It’s a hardcore horror movie; it takes no prisoners.

I remember when Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) came out I read that it had been banned in Queensland. My friend and I shook our heads, pitying the poor Australians who were being denied such a fabulously imaginative and indulgent nightmare. It’s always the wicked and tenebrous ones that are deemed “problematic”. More to the point, it’s the beef of the chief censor that’s gone rotten. They’ve got a bone to pick, ‘cos a raw nerve was hit, and they want a scapegoat.

Kiwis were denied a cinema screening ...

Kiwi Chief Censor Bill Hastings (who looks like a right tosser) made the final decision that the scene in Hostel: Part II had taken things too far, and so he was denying the discerning public the right to make up their own minds. According to Hastings; “The sadistic violence was combined with the protagonist taking sexual pleasure from the torture and killing of the victim.”

Oh, so it’s fine to screen the Saw series that delights and wallows deeply in graphic sadism, yet one scene in another “torture porn” movie that depicts behaviour tenuously linked to sexual pleasure is deemed beyond the pale. Apparently if sexual arousal is involved its taboo. Society has such strange moral codes.

... and the NZ DVD release got butchered

Fuck, I loathe censorship! Pardon my French. I mean, for the most part I abhor how a small, supposedly intelligent-minded protectorate, has the power to tell us what we can and cannot see in the world of art. Censorship is a can o’ worms, I know, but before I get too carried away, I will say that there is some material released to the public that is reprehensible, but not Hostel: Part II. I Spit on Your Grave (1978) and Last House on the Left (1972) are far more dodgy movies in they way their content is presented. But more so, these movies have little to no artistic merit to them whatsoever, and that’s the real crime! Movies made that scrap the bottom of the aesthetic barrel should be banned, or at least have a big sticker on the poster or the DVD cover that warns any potential viewer that there are virtually no production values, intelligence, style, or atmosphere to be found in the following 90-odd minutes.

For the record, Hostel: Part II was released uncut in USA, UK and Australia. Two other countries joined NZ’s precedent; Malaysia it was banned outright, and in Germany a slightly cut version was allowed as an “Unrated” theatrical release (the uncut was banned).

Here’s the news piece:

101

Vote

subscribe to this blog

follow this blog on Orble

start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: vitriol

Related Posts:

Relate This Post

[ Previous - THE ART LAIR - XI ~ Joshua Hoffine ]

[ Next - POSTER GALLERY 15 ]

Comments

9 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by JohnDoe

October 16th 2009 02:20

Film & TV on DVD

Fuckin censors...have you seen "This Film has Not yet been rated", talk about a horror film!

As i say if a gun is to my head and I have to choose something to censor then make it fantasy violence. things taht make violence look fun. Guns that shoot people with no blood..movies that make violence look heroic...wrestling.....damn you got me going

Comment by Bryn

October 16th 2009 03:41

Horrorphile

JD, yeah, I wanna see that doco, it hasn't had a DVD release down under yet, as far as I know ... True, I find the Lethal Weapon school of violence a lot more offensive than the Martin Scorsese school, if you get my drift.

Comment by Journeywoman

October 16th 2009 04:59

Great Hair Style Tips
I Dream of Hollywood
Fashion Peach

Oops - next one...

Comment by Journeywoman

October 16th 2009 05:00

Great Hair Style Tips
I Dream of Hollywood
Fashion Peach

"Movies made that scrape the bottom of the aesthetic barrel should be banned, or at least have a big sticker on the poster or the DVD cover that warns any potential viewer that there are virtually no production values, intelligence, style, or atmosphere to be found in the following 90-odd minutes."

Love it! Problem is, that would account for more than 50% of movies being released these days.

I'm anti-censorship myself, although I sit on the fence when it comes to genuine extremes. That's not to say I would watch this film - I personally don't have the stomach for it - but as free-thinking adults we should be given the right to make our own choices.

Comment by Kelly Wand

October 16th 2009 20:28

Sprocket Holed

Censorship boards don't seem to get the difference between fiction and reality, which is ironic since it's people with that condition they claim to be concerned about.

Comment by Chris Champion

October 18th 2009 01:49

Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither

Great post Bryn.

Comment by Bryn

October 18th 2009 22:41

Horrorphile

Journeywoman, I hear you. I Spit on Your Grave has a gratuitous gang rape scene that goes on for more than twenty minutes, and is filmed subjectively so that the audience are made to feel like they're participating. I don't feel this is justified at all. And I agree, a movie that justifies pedophilia is reprehensible. There are movies that present it unflinchingly, and it makes for uncomfortable viewing, but there is an intelligent context and the consequences don't try to justify the disease. Have you seen The Horseman? Happiness? There is a Spanish movie called In a Glass Cage, which is banned in Australia. A man who was abused as a child seeks retribution on the man who abused him, now that the man is trapped in an iron lung, something like that. Apparently it's a very well made and intelligent, albeit disturbing, movie, however Australian censors have made a decision for the rest of us. Just as they made the decision on Pasolini's Salo. The depiction of child abuse and rape in movies walks a very thin moral ice, where does one draw the line?