ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Postoji mogucnost da se u novom Zakonu o kinematografiji u Srbiju vrati CENZURA! Naravno, kao i uvek kod nas, cak i u najmracnija vremena na mala vrata. Pomozite da to sprecimo! (http://dobanevinosti.blogspot.com/2005/12/fight-power.html)

na koja mračna vremena misliš... prije ili poslije Kraljeve diktature

Izvestan vid CENZURE je u ovoj zemlji trebao da se uvede odavno.

To ne bi smela da bude cenzura koja bi na bilo koji način ograničavala slobodu umetničkog izražavanja!

To bi trebala da bude cenzura koja bi regulisala da:
-pornografski časopisi na kioscima ne sadrže eksplicitne scene na koricama, ili da budu upakovani u odgovarajuću ambalažu,
-svaki film, strip, časopis, cd i sl. na plakatu, početku, naslovnoj, omotu  sadrži natpis koji upozorava da sadržaj nije pogodan za mlađe i eventualno do koliko godina,
- televizije ne emituju sadržaje neprikladnog sadržaja (filmovi sa brutalnostima, SEX&THE CITY, npr.) u dnevnim terminima, već kasnije uveče,
-se ne dozvoli javno izvrgavanje ruglu maloumnih osoba i zloupotreba dece (GRAND SHOW) itd.

Tačno je da su neke stvari regulisane drugim zakonima, nisam pravnik, ali Pajkić reče svojevremeno nešto ovako: cenzura ne služi da zabranjuje odraslima, več da zaštiti decu!!

alexts, mnogo širiš temu: o prodaji pornografije na trafikama – slažem se, ili da je nema uopšte, ili da se pakuje u neprovidne kese...

što se tiče onoga čime je cripple začeo temu, tj odredbe zakona o kinematografiji – ja to ne vidim kao posebnu opasnost, iz prostog razloga što su bioskopi ionako mrtvi i pred zatvaranjem i uopšte NISU U POZICIJI DA IKOGA VRAĆAJU SA BLAGAJNE!
da ne govorim o tipično srpskom odnosu prema poštovanju zakona, a posebno u unutrašnjosti... prosto NE MOGU DA ZAMISLIM tamo nekog čiču na blagajni u Leskovci ili Donjem Galibabincu kako nekom tinejdžeru traži ličnu kartu da bi ga pustio na, npr. ZEMLJU MRTVIH.

ukratko, taj zakon je NEPRIMENJIV u srpskim uslovima, sve i da neko bude dovoljno zaludan da se aka njegovim donošenjem...

Mislim da niste do kraja razumeli u cemu je problem sa ovim zakonom. To me, moram prizanti cudi jer je Sagita glavno mesto u Srbiji na kome se raspravlja o MPAA i ostalim cenzurama.

Tinejdzeri ce opet da gledaju sta god hoce. Ja sam osvedoceni pornofil koji nikada nije uzeo porno kasetu u video klubu i nikada nije kupio porno casopis na trafici. Moj dosije je spotless kad je rec o takvim stvarima.

Proveo sam ceo pornofilski zivot off the grid, a zivim ga dosta intenzivno...

Problem je u sledecem. Ukloliko se uvedu rejtinzi, to samim tim znaci ogranicavanje distribucije odredjenih filmova. Ko zeli da ih vidi, videce, to nije sporno. Problem je u tome sto svako ogranicavanje distribucije znaci da postoji mogucnost da se producent iscrpljuje i onemogucuje da pravi `takve` filmove. Kakve filmove? Mozda decju pornografiju. Sa decom. Za decu. Whatever. Da.

A mozda i provokativan politicki film koji ne odgovara vlastima. Sta onda?

Kao sto Ghoul zna, u nasoj zemlji je samo nekoliko filmova eksplicitno zabranjeno, sudskom odlukom, Svi ostali su sklonjeni i proglaseni za nekomercijalne, sund, nedovoljno dobre za distribuciju, ili dovoljno dobre za marginalnu distribuciju. Sve to na bazi jednog vrlo slicnog zakona.

Ukoliko kao komparaciju uzmemo Spaniju, zemlju koja je razvila ozbiljnu kinmatografiju upravo zahvaljujuci tranziciji, kod njih je prvo ukinuta i zabranjena CENZURA. Mi se nalazimo u paradoksalnoj situaciji da nam je film ne samo gori nego u vreme najcrnjeg Milosevica, to vise niko ni ne spori, vec se vracaju represivni zakoni.

Ako vec zele da pomognu mentalni, duhovni i moralni razvoj maloletnika, neka se drzava obaveze da snima bar po jedan decji, omladinski ili sportski film godisnje, jer kreacija je uvek bolja od represije.

Ili kada bi npr. Zdravku Šotri smjestili metak u potiljak.

Kriple, tupiš ga opasno. Prvo i prvo, član se odnosi na maloletna lica i ono što ona ne bi trebalo da gledaju, zato ne zamenjuj teze. Drugo, naša kinematografija je takvo neopevano govno da cele filmove treba zabraniti na osnovu njihovog imbecilizma, a ne eksplicitnosti. Treće, bioskopi treba da propadnu, ako ih niko ne posećuje, živeo DivX.. Četvrto, tresla se gora, rodio se pimpek, zato što je zakon u potpunosti neprimenljiv kod nas ko što reče Gul. Punktum.

Hmmm, koliko vidim iz tog isecka zakona koji si postovao na blogu, clan 34 eksplicitno kaze da se takvi i takvi sadrzaji 'ne preporucuju licima' tim i tim. Ne govori ni o zabrani ni o represivnim merama.

Sad, ja niti sam pravnik niti sam nesto zabrinut za omladinu, stavise, boli me penis za nju, ali ovo je slicno MPAA rejtinzima u smislu da se radi o preporuci a ne o zabrani. Ono sto moze da bude represivni detalj je da se odvojenim clanom zakona eksplicitno odredi da film bez rejtinga ne sme da udje u bioskopsku/ video/ dvd distribuciju, to jest da MORA da bude 'rejtovan' da bi uopste smeo da se javno prikazuje. Kako ovo nije slucaj u Americi (ne znam za druge zemlje na koje se ugledamo, npr. EU, ali sumnjam da postoji obavezno rejtovanje) pittam se da li iko razmislja da to uvede ovde. Ako razmislja, onda se slazem, to je represivan mehanizam i treba ga srusiti.

Hm... ja mogu da govorim samo za Nemacku. Tamo nista ne sme na trziste bez rejtinga FSK (Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle - Dobrovoljna samokontrola - tako se kod njih zove komisija), a po meni je to ok. Toliko.

plasim se da ne razumete u potpunosti o cemu ovde govorim...

pokusajmo da zanemarimo debilni defetizam tipa nek` crkne bioskop i sl.

kad je rec o implementaciji, prvo nece Srbija zauvek ostati na ovom stepenu ruiniranosti, drugo, zakon ce se kao i uvek prevashodno zloupotrebljavati.

rejtinzi sami po sebi uvek uticu na plasman filma. i sami ste videli kako je MPAA unistila americki film. film moze da ne ide pred komisiju i da bude `unrated`, ali samim tim ostavsi bez pecata MPAA biva prokazen i sumnjiv. zasto studiji drze do toga koji ce rejting imati film? pa upravo zbog distribucije koja je uslovljena politikom bioskopa, televizija, videoteka, trznih centara, i sl.

primera radi, srpski film moze da racuna na stotinak hiljada evra od prodaje filma televiziji kako bi bio emitovan kao serija od nekoliko delova. ukoliko dobije rejting, on ne moze biti prodat za taj novac jer se ne moze emitovati u adekvatnom terminu. a ko odredjuje sta utice na moralni, mentalni i fizicki razvoj. OK, za mentalni i fizicki postoje merila koja bi se mogla naucno dokazati, a sta je mera morala? svako drustvo ima neki svoj moralni kodeks, i ja zaista ne znam koji ce uvesti nova vlada. zato je mnogo bolje da se pitanja morala resavaju na neki drugi nacin a ne cenzurom.

Covece sta pricas? Uvek moze u videotekama da bude odeljaka kojima maloletni nemaju pristup, a i roditelji bi mogli malo vishe da vode racuna o svojoj deci.
Opet ja o Nemcima:
Dok mene moja majka nije pitala koji cu film u bioskopu da gledam, moj drugar iz razreda je 1994 (valjda tad beshe) morao kroz inkviziciju svoje majke da bi ga pustila da gleda Mrs. Doubtfire, odnosno dok se nije saznalo da li je film dopusten od 12 godina ili ne.
A u videoteci u koju sam ja bio uclanjen bilo je filmova koje je komisija odredila da su dozvoljeni za oe iznad 18 godina u odeljku kom svi imaju pristup, ali se vecina tih filmova nalazila u posebnom odeljku. A ja zaista ne vidim sta je tu strasno. I sta je strasno u rejtingu filma. Ili tome da ne bude rejtovan. Ili da ne dodje u bioskop.
I sta nije/jeste "moralno"?
Prikazivati filmove sa eksplicitnim scenama jebanja i nasilja u terminima pre 22 ili 23 h, a kod nas mozda i kasnije. Na nemackim (opet ja) televizijama pre svakog takvog filma (koji je za televiziju svakako vec adekvatno montiran) bude najava da nije preporucljiv mladjima od 16/18 godina.
Zatim (kad smo vec kod morala) da nema reklama za hotlajnove preko dana. Dodje curica od osam godina i kaze "mi smo vesele devojke".
Da na decijoj televiziji ili happy-ju nema teleshopa. Dodje klinac vidi multimix i kaze da ima "rotaciono secivo" i da samo je "samo jedna kap ulja dovoljna da se napravi domaci majonez bolji od kupovnog". Klinac od 4 godine!
Da u dnevniku i vestima inace ne smeju prikazivati eksplicitne slike leseva sa raznih saobracajnih nesreca, ratova i tako dalje (pogledati izvestaje u novinama o onom profesoru iz Nisa koji je motorom udario u automobil, slike leseva u autu i njegovo telo raskomadano po autoputu).
I tako dalje, i tako dalje.
Sve ovo je daleko ozbiljnije od Granda i dece u Grandu u kog kurca vec. Ali eto, valjda nam je lakse da nam deca gledaju komade leseva nego sto pevaju besmislice... :roll:

ja bih –ako je već ili/ili izbor- radije da mi deca gledaju leševe nego grand.
ali to sam samo ja.

inače, jake, toliko ne shvataš poantu, da je to neshvatljivo.
poanta je da cripple veruje da će srbija biti kao usa, pa će neki zakon o rejtingu ovde da ima iste ili slične posledice kao tamo, odnosno da njegov film o gubljenju nevinosti neće moći da gledaju tinejdžeri u bioskopima, odnosno neće moći da ide kao tv serija nedeljom u 20.00 između 2 reprize boljeg života i šurde.
pošto se upravo opekao sa cenzurom, jer su mu skinuli sa novogodišnjeg programa projektovani scenario za 'još 2 sata kvalitetnog programa' (zbog pedofilskih šala i teenage golotinje), ja crippla razumem –ali njegovu brigu ne delim.

mene (više) ne zanima sudbina propalih srpskih bioskopa, niti sudbina trule srpske 'kinematografije': fućka mi se za njih.
što reko nietzsche – 'ono što pada treba još i odgurnuti!
amen, man!

sve i ako se ikada desi da snimim film IN VIVO (a upravo na repeat slušam 'instrumental' od borghesie koji bi se SAVRŠENO uklopio, možda čak i kao main theme!), i sve i ako mi nalepe na njega najgori zamislivi rejting koji im padne na um (što jes' – jes', taj film, dosledno napravljen, ionako bi morao da ima takav) – baš me zabole. sa njime bih pucao pre svega na svetsko tržište. t.t. sindrom, sa svim manama, ali i vrlinama, puko je ko zvečka u ovim bioskopima – bez ikakvog rejtinga. u ovim okolnostima, par iljada gledalaca gore-dole ne čini bitnu razliku (sve i da, ponavljam, neko bude toliko zaludan i blesav da PRIMENJUJE taj zakon, i vraća sa ulaza decu koja bi da kupe karte!)

što se tiče uvoznih filmova: pošto naša država ide u pravcu vazalskog statusa, igraćemo kako nam sviraju – pa tako i sa filmovima. ako strani mejdžori traže da neki film igra ovde, on će da igra, rejting ili ne-rejting.
a pošto nisam toliki optimista da verujem kako će bioskopi ovde 'oživeti' – zabole me za više šta će da dođe u njih ili ne.
neka dođe na dvd, i neka ima nc-17 xxx uber-sicko gore-sexxx rejting – idućeg dana biće na svim trafikama.

Gulo, mislim da smo ti i ja opet rekli jedno te isto, samo drugim rechima.  :wink:

Hmmm, ja se nacelno slazem sa Crippleom ali zapravo samo u nekoj dalekoj perspektivi...

Mislim, Amerika i Holivud su nam poucni primeri sta cak i dobrovoljni rejting sistem moze da ucini od industrije. Proizvodnju filmova koji umesto da budu vodjeni nekakvim umetnickim nagonima rade akrobacije kako bi se uklopili u PG 12 ili vec koji rejting. To je naravno jedna smesna, apsurdna i stetna praksa koja je posledica puritanskog americkog nasledja. S druge strane, nasa filmska produkcija je jako daleko od ovoga pa za sada (a to pretpostavljam znaci i u narednih desetak godina) ne vidim da ce ovo imati neki realan uticaj na nas. Uvoz i distribucija stranih filmova je vec nesto drugo...

U Evropi stvari stoje i ovako i onako. Eto, culi smo da je u Nemackoj rejting obavezan, a koliko se secam obavezan je i u Britaniji, dakle tamo unrated film ne moze da udje u distribuciju.

Sto se mene tice, ovo je totalni bullshit. Prevashodno zato sto sam nemoralna, neodgovorna osoba koja bi drzavu i crkvu najradije videla u pepelu (pre svega srpsku ali i generalno) a osim toga i zbog toga sto je uvredljivo i ponizavajuce sugerisati da je drzava (koju predstavlja Rating Board ili kako ce se vec komisija zvati u srbskoj izvedbi) ta koja treba da se brine o vaspitanju maloletnika, umesto da ta odgovornost pada na njihove roditelje. Ovo ne samo da dovodi do generalnog zaglupljivanja industrije zabave (ovo je izraz koji zdusno mrzim ali nije sad vreme i mesto) - ne samo filmske - nego i nema efekta. Urbano nasilje se ne smanjuje, ne dolazi do povecanog priliva vernika u crkve, maloletnicki seks ne postaje odgovorniji i bezbedniji. Jedini efekti koje ovakav mehanizam postize su jeftinopoliticke prirode i oni koji takve mehanizme predlazu, dizajniraju i sprovode pokusavaju da uberu politicke poene pricama o moralu, brizi za moralno/ mentalno/ fizicko zdravlje i dobrobit zajednice a sve sto rade je da roditeljima daju precicu za skidanje odgovornosti sa sebe.

Skandal oko igre GTA San Andreas i Hot Coffee moda koji je izbio pre nekoliko meseci je sjajan primer citave price. Jedna gotovo potpuno bezazlena karakteristika igre (saljiva seks miniigra sa potpuno obucenim likovima), uz to potpuno nedostupna korisniku koji nije aktivno promenio kod igre da bi je pronasao je potresla Ameriku na vrlo opipljivom nivou - Hilari Klinton je napravila ogromnu halabuku i predlozi da igre u buducnosti budu u obavezi da imaju drzavni rejting (ne samo dobrovoljni rejting kao do sada) dolaze u veikoj meri od nje. Izdavac igre je izgubio preko 50 miliona dolara za jedan vikend kada mu je vrednost akcija na verzi pala kao posledica ovog skandala, da ne pominjemo kasnije stete oko povlacenja igre, ciscenja koda i ponovnog launcha.

A zasto sve to? Igra je imala M rating koji pretpostavlja igraca ne mladjeg od 17 godina. Posle otkrica Hot Coffee sadrzaja igra je rirejtovana na R rejting, za igraca - ne mladjeg od 18 godina. Dakle, da rekapituliram: dok su u igri postojali samo: otimanje automobila, ubijanje civila, policajaca i suparnickih gangstera, seks sa prostitutkama (prikazan iz ugla iz koga se nista ne vidi), dekapitacije, gazenja automobilima, zaletanje avionima u zgrade i tome slicno, igra je bila prikladna za sedaemnaestogodisnjake ali kada je otkriveno da je u igri moguce (kroz intervenciju na kodu) otkljucati bezazleno dizajniran, prakticno karikiran seks, odjednom je postala prikladna samo za osamnaestogodisnjake. Jel' to logicno? Naravno, razgnevljeni roditelji su uglas urlali da su prevareni jer su deci kupili igru za koju su mislili da je nevini gangster-simulator prepun krvi i psovki a ispalo je da u njoj ima i *gulp* seksa!!! Jel' to nije malo apsurdno?

Izvinjavam se na detaljisanju ali ne znam koliko je slucaj ovde poznat.

Generalno, mislim da ova apsurdna epizoda demonstrira idiotizam rating sistema koji postoji u USA a uzburkano javno mnjenje bi trebalo da se zapita da li je ESRB (Entertainment Software rating Board) ili neka drzavna komisija onaj ko teba da se bavi time sta igraju deca ili su to njihovi roditelji...

Sa stripovima je stvar jos gore stajala u svoje vreme, mada ni sada nije blistavo. Ipak, tokom sezdesetih je CCA efikasno uspeo da pretvori strip u najimbecilniji deo pop-kulture (ponovo kroz 'dobrovoljni' rating sistem) i tek je tokom sedamdesetih, najvise zahvaljujuci kurcevitosti Stena Lija (covek je naneo i puno zla stripu, ali ucinio je i mnogo stvari za koje mu treba skinuti kapu) mejnstrim strip u Americi je malo mogao da se razmahne.

Sad, da se razumemo, ne smatram da su nasilje i eksplicitni seks nuzno indikatori kreativnog napretka bilo kog medija, ali apsolutno smatram da je sasvim besmisleno davati bilo kom trecem licu ili telu snagu da odlucuje o tome sta je za mene ili moje dete (koje, Alahu hvala, nemam) stetno a sta ne. 'Dobrovoljni' rating sistemi deluju bezazlenije od obaveznih sve do momenta kada dati deo industrije postane zavisan od velikog trgovinskog/ distributerskog lanca koji ce odredjeni rejting smatrati nespojivim sa svojom politikom. Otud Wal Mart u Americi diktira sadrzaj igara - od uvodjenja ESRB rating sistema pre desetak godina svega 18 igara je dobilo R rating (GTA SA je bio devetnaesti) a od tih 18 nekih 14 su bile japanske hentai igre koje su neznano zasto uvezene za prodaju na americkom trzistu. Dakle, americke igre (i japanske igre u uvozu) mogu da imaju M rating koji podrazumeva odredjeni stepen nasilja i seksa ako zele da budu u prodaji u Wal Martu - R rating moraju izbeci po svaku cenu. A sve zele da budu na prodaji u Wal Martu, bar sve igre vecih izdavaca koji mogu da razvojnom timu neki ozbiljniji budzet za pravljenje igre. U praksi, igra kao God of War ima intenzivno nasilje i vrlo stidljiv seks jer je to u skladu sa gorepomenutim puritanskim idejama koje su i dalje utkane u americki nacin razmisljanja. Sto je naravno, totalni apsurd.

Uhh, tebalo bi ovo da zavrsim nekim efeltnim panclajnom ali nemam snage ni vremena. Samo cu podsetiti na stav koji jednako dele i Alan Moore i Frank Miller: knjigama nije potreba rating sistem - zasto uporno sugerisemo da su stripovi (filmovi, igre...) nesto na nizem ontoloskom nivou?

Ova slika je, verovali ili ne, nedolicna.

Zbog "ekstremne obdarenosti" Brendona Routha studio je odlucio da u Supermen Returns budu koristeni digitalni efekti da se zamaskira njegova "budza".

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supermanhomepage.com%2Fimages%2Ffan-art%2Frouth-ny.jpg&hash=99c50eb5cf35f7111cb11f5aa3885edf89449c91)


[Monday, December 12th, 2005]

Superman's Bulge Too Large In 'Superman Returns'


Brandon James RouthProducers are reportedly worried about the size of Brandon Routh's bulge which would make his profile in the superhero's skintight costume distracting, reports the Sun.

Hollywood executives have ordered the makers of Superman Returns to cover it up with digital effects.

The Sun's source said: "It's a major issue for the studio. Brandon is extremely well endowed and they don't want it up on the big screen.

"We may be forced to erase his package with digital effects."

Brandon, 26, has taken over the superhero's cape from the late Christopher Reeve.



Wardrobe artists have had to fit him with a special codpiece for the new film out next year.

Parker Posey, 37, who co-stars as bad girl Kitty, told how he was constantly being messed about by costume staff.

She said: "He's got everyone touching him all the time.

"He's lying on his stomach and he's got five people coming up and pulling his underwear down, sticking their hands up the butt of his suit."



There was lots of early Internet buzz about the suit's being too dark, or the "S" 's being too small, but the biggest issue for the studio, according to costume designer Louise Mingenbach, was about Superman's trunks. Or, more specifically, what's in them. "There was more discussion about Superman's 'package' than anything else on the suit," she says, laughing. "Was it too big? Was it not big enough? Was it too pointy? Too round? It was somebody's job for about a month just working on codpiece shapes. It was crazy." And the final verdict? "Not big," she says, and laughs again. "Ten-year-olds will be seeing this movie."

QuoteSa stripovima je stvar jos gore stajala u svoje vreme, mada ni sada nije blistavo. Ipak, tokom sezdesetih je CCA efikasno uspeo da pretvori strip u najimbecilniji deo pop-kulture (ponovo kroz 'dobrovoljni' rating sistem) i tek je tokom sedamdesetih, najvise zahvaljujuci kurcevitosti Stena Lija (covek je naneo i puno zla stripu, ali ucinio je i mnogo stvari za koje mu treba skinuti kapu) mejnstrim strip u Americi je malo mogao da se razmahne.

Dobro znaš da je kampanja protiv stripa onog fanatika prouzrokovala stvaranje CCA. Dakle, nije reč o dobroj nameri koja se pretvorila u nešto drugo, već je u ovom slučaju namera od početka bila loša.

Uh, ako je gore delovalo kao da sam implicirao da je CCA imao 'dobru' nameru onda su mi writing skillovi ozbiljno propali. Citava poenta mog gornjeg posta je bila u tome da su rating sistemi imanentno losa stvar, 'dobrovoljni' ili ne.

Jedino sto za sada nemam utisak da ce se to ozbiljno odraziti na nasu scenu zbog praistorijskog trenutka u kome se ona trenutno nalazi. Mada, naravno, u nekoj mracnoj buducnosti...

Ljudi ne znam koji vam je. Uvek ce postojati dvd/vhs za one koji to zele, a po zakonu mogu dobiti.

Paaaa, dva problema su tu:

Prvi je ako rejting bude obavezan. Onda nece postojati DVD/VHS za filmove koji ne zele da budu rejtovani. Stvari su jos gore ako filmovi budu rejtovani najvisim rejtingom (na primer R ili X, kako ce se vec zvati) a onda distributeri odbiju da ih uzmu u mrezu (kao sto sam gore naveo primer Wal Marta koji na taj nacin prakticno diktira sadrzaj vecine mejnstrim igara ili kao sto je bilo u slucaju americkih stripova sezdesetih godina gde bez CCA stambilja nisi mogao da udjes u velike distributerske sisteme). Onda neces moci da nabavis (legalno) kopiju toga sto zelis ili ces morati da se oslanjas na uvoz iz Japana/ Koreje ili vec cega (mislim, Ichi the Killer recimo tesko da bi prosao u tom nekom fiktivnom scenariju - poznato je da je to film iz koga je britanski bord za rejting isekao najvise minutaze ikad da bi ga pustio u distribuciju).

Drugi problem je identican prvom ali se odnosi na domacu produkciju. Kada rejting postane obavezan ILI nezaobilazan zbog distributerskih uslova, sadrzaj filmova ce biti pod njegovim direktnim uticajem....

Quote from: "alexts"
Dobro znaš da je kampanja protiv stripa onog fanatika prouzrokovala stvaranje CCA. Dakle, nije reč o dobroj nameri koja se pretvorila u nešto drugo, već je u ovom slučaju namera od početka bila loša.

E? Kog stripa kog fantatika?


Ja sam mislio da je CCA formiran zbog knjige kvazi-psihoanaliticara Dr. Frederic Werthama "Seduction of the Innocent" koji je tvrdio da su Betmen i Robin homoseksualci a Wonder Woman bondidzu skona lezbejka i slicne gluposti za ispiranje mozga roditeljima pa su jadni autori morali da ubacuju Bat-girl+Batwoman, razdvaju Betmena i Robina u posebne serije.

Pa to je on i napisao, samo krace.

Quote from: "Meho Krljic"Paaaa, dva problema su tu:

Prvi je ako rejting bude obavezan. Onda nece postojati DVD/VHS za filmove koji ne zele da budu rejtovani. Stvari su jos gore ako filmovi budu rejtovani najvisim rejtingom (na primer R ili X, kako ce se vec zvati) a onda distributeri odbiju da ih uzmu u mrezu (kao sto sam gore naveo primer Wal Marta koji na taj nacin prakticno diktira sadrzaj vecine mejnstrim igara ili kao sto je bilo u slucaju americkih stripova sezdesetih godina gde bez CCA stambilja nisi mogao da udjes u velike distributerske sisteme). Onda neces moci da nabavis (legalno) kopiju toga sto zelis ili ces morati da se oslanjas na uvoz iz Japana/ Koreje ili vec cega (mislim, Ichi the Killer recimo tesko da bi prosao u tom nekom fiktivnom scenariju - poznato je da je to film iz koga je britanski bord za rejting isekao najvise minutaze ikad da bi ga pustio u distribuciju).

Drugi problem je identican prvom ali se odnosi na domacu produkciju. Kada rejting postane obavezan ILI nezaobilazan zbog distributerskih uslova, sadrzaj filmova ce biti pod njegovim direktnim uticajem....

Blablablablabla! Jeste vi ljudi dubili na glavi??? Kao sto rekoh, u normalnim zemljama se film rejtuje za trziste dostupno svima - bioskope, raznorazne Wallmartove i bla bla. U Nemackoj kao sto vec rekoh u trznom centru ne mozes kupiti film koji je rejtovan ab 18, odnosno za starije od 18 godina. Ti filmovi se za to trziste adekvatno montiraju, te u Total recall ne mozes videti kako onom tipu lift otkine ruku i tako dalje, sto samo po sebi i nije strasno, a vi pizdite. Ko hoce da gleda necenzurisane filmove, on ih kupuje na odredjenim mestima - u videotekama itd, i tu apsolutno nema nista ni inkvizicijsko, ni strasno.
Vas problem je ocigledno sledeci (gledam u one koji ocigledno zive od toga): Plasite se da ce vam se publika smanjiti, jer maloletnicima nece biti dostupne neke stvari i vi cete imati manje u dzepu. Gospodo, jebite se. Jos malo pa ce se dileri droge i oruzja buniti sto ne smeju da prodaju javno svoju robu, jerbo bi tako imali vise musterija. Pih.

Kampanja fanatika, a ne strip fanatika!

Jake, malo si preoštar, ali i ja bih rekao da se radi o tome.

Alekse nisam preostar. Pokusavaju da dizhu prashinu i proglashavaju inkvizicijom nesto sto je sasvim normalno i sto je ovoj jebenoj zemlji oduvek falilo. Jebe nas mentalitet, znas.

Quote from: "Jake Chambers"Blablablablabla! Jeste vi ljudi dubili na glavi??? Kao sto rekoh, u normalnim zemljama se film rejtuje za trziste dostupno svima - bioskope, raznorazne Wallmartove i bla bla. U Nemackoj kao sto vec rekoh u trznom centru ne mozes kupiti film koji je rejtovan ab 18, odnosno za starije od 18 godina. Ti filmovi se za to trziste adekvatno montiraju, te u Total recall ne mozes videti kako onom tipu lift otkine ruku i tako dalje, sto samo po sebi i nije strasno, a vi pizdite. Ko hoce da gleda necenzurisane filmove, on ih kupuje na odredjenim mestima - u videotekama itd, i tu apsolutno nema nista ni inkvizicijsko, ni strasno.
Vas problem je ocigledno sledeci (gledam u one koji ocigledno zive od toga): Plasite se da ce vam se publika smanjiti, jer maloletnicima nece biti dostupne neke stvari i vi cete imati manje u dzepu. Gospodo, jebite se. Jos malo pa ce se dileri droge i oruzja buniti sto ne smeju da prodaju javno svoju robu, jerbo bi tako imali vise musterija. Pih.

Jake, jebi se.

Rado. A sta sam to pogresno rekao? Osim tog jebite se sto bi malo ostro (mada je to nesto najlepse sto mozes nekome pozeleti). Dize se prasina oko neceg sto je oduvek bilo potrebno.

Ma, ja nemam nikakve, apsolutno nikakve veze sa filmskom, niti bilo kojom drugom industrijom (zabave ili otherwise). Moje pisanije na ovom topiku je samo odraz mojih licnih i, materijalno govoreci, potpuno nezainteresovanih stavova. Ako te primeri koje sam naveo, a koji govore o tome kako rejting sistem vrlo realisticno utice na kreativni proces stvaranja umetnickog dela (na, ima li potrebe naglasiti, negativan nacin), nisu ni malo ubedili, to je OK, nemam nameru da se lupam glavom o zid i histericno cupam kosu. (Niti sam to 'gospodo, jebite se' shvatio kao neku uvredu, to je just a figure of speech.) Ipak je ovo diskusija a ne rvanje u blatu.

Džejk dečko, ti si pobrkao lončiće, a usput si se i malo zaleteo.

Ne možeš mešati zabranu slobode umetničkog izražavanja sa dilovanjem droge. To što ti navodiš kao primer da "nije strašno" je u stvari dokaz da imaš pogrešno izgradjen sistem vrednosti. A i najgore (najbosanskije) od svega je što uporno ne pokušavaš da shvatiš šta ljudi pišu i da se malo raspitaš, već opet odjebavaš ljude jer preterano razmišljaju.

Treba li naglasiti rečitu činjenicu da ljude pokušava da ućutka ljubitelj Harija Potera? Daj bre, stvarno se malo iskuliraj...

Hajde da pretpostavimo da se naucno moze utvrditi sta utice na mentalni i fizicki razvoj maloletnika. Do sada nije bilo rezultata na tu temu, ali pretpostavimo da se to moze utvrditi.

Ja sam licno celo detinjstvo svasta gledao i mama kaze da sam normalan, ali OK, to je individualno. Mozda je zaista vise stetno nego korisno da deca gledaju kojesta. Medjutim, voleo bih da vidim naucni dokaz toga.

Naime, kao sto znamo sve bajke i narodne junacke pesme su vise nego R-rated. A one se citaju deci i uce u skoli. A tu postoje vrlo graphic prikazi. OK, nije Argento pa da usput jos neko dahce iz offa `Raviojla, Raviojla...` ali bukvalna ekranizacija toga bi bila NC-17.

Medjutim, deca nisu masovno sisla s uma, a tradicija izucavanja i pripovedanja tih sadrzaja jeste dosta duga. Imajte na umu da deca ne percipiraju stvari kao mi. Recimo, kad je ljubavna scena, cak i neka graphic, deca vide sta junaci rade, ali ne razumeju zasto to rade. To njih ne uzbudjuje.

No, kako rekoh, ako nauka utvrdi sta steti mentalnom i fizickom razvoju, mozemo da polemisemo.

Sta cemo sa `moralnim` pitanjem? Ko odredjuje sta su `moralni` kvaliteti i razvoj maloletnika? Da li to recimo znaci rejting na film ukoliko se mozda bavi nekom temom iako na naucnoj bazi nije stetan mentalnom i fizickom razvoju. Da li je recimo film o Ratku Mladicu nesto sto bi moglo biti zabranjeno mladima zbog morala? Pa, mogao bi biti.

Posto je to politicko pitanje, mislim da bi cak i u bespravnoj drzavi kao sto je Srbija to odmah moglo biti implementirano na politicke protivnike, a ubrzo cemo se baviti mentalnim i fizickim razvojem maloletnika.

Dakle, ubrzo bi mogli dobiti citav niz filmova koji su i tematski sterilisani.

Konacno, cak i fizicki prikazi nekih stvari mogu biti ideoloski tumaceni, posto je karakteristican porast nasilnih scena i brutalnog seksa u filmovima uvek u sprezi sa porastom drustvenih tenzija. Cenzura je dakle delimicno uvedena i kao modus za uklanjanjanje implicitnih prikaza drustvenih tenzija iz filmova.

Konacno, slazem se sa Mehom, da razvoj scena seksa i nasilja nije u neposrednoj proporciji sa razvojem umetnickih formi, ali ukoliko pogledamo neke od osnovnih psihoanalitickih teorija filma slozicemo se da su seks, razaranje i nasilje najfilmicniji segmenti ljudskog postojanja, zbog voajerskog pristupa stvarima, tako da nije bez Djavla pomisliti da seks i nasilje imaju ipak neke veze sa razvojem filma.

Ipak cripple tvoja teorija o padu kvaliteta američkog filma poslednjih godina, kao posledici cenzure i rejtingovanja ne drži vodu.

To što je USA kinematografija na nižim granama nego ranije posledica je vrlo kompleksnog dejstva raznih činilaca, što bi se moglo rasvetljavati obimnim esejom ili knjigom na ovu temu, mada mi se čini da bi se suštinski svelo na jednostavnu želju producenata za velikim zaradama, bez obzira na kvalitet proizvoda. Reč je naravno i o principu funkcionisanja velikih multinacionalnih kompanija  itd itd.

Svi znamo da su mnogo bolji filmovi pravljeni u vremenu mnogo veće cenzure, iako su sadržavali mnogo manje eksplicitnih scena nasilja, seksa, pa čak nije bilo ni psovki.

Quote from: "Lurd"Džejk dečko, ti si pobrkao lončiće, a usput si se i malo zaleteo.

Ne možeš mešati zabranu slobode umetničkog izražavanja sa dilovanjem droge. To što ti navodiš kao primer da "nije strašno" je u stvari dokaz da imaš pogrešno izgradjen sistem vrednosti. A i najgore (najbosanskije) od svega je što uporno ne pokušavaš da shvatiš šta ljudi pišu i da se malo raspitaš, već opet odjebavaš ljude jer preterano razmišljaju.

Treba li naglasiti rečitu činjenicu da ljude pokušava da ućutka ljubitelj Harija Potera? Daj bre, stvarno se malo iskuliraj...

Lurde, ajde Potera i poreklo cu da progutam. Sto rece alexts, cela prica o kvalitetu NE STOJI. Ako ti hoces da ti dete gleda svakakve bljuvotine u bioskopu bez ikakve zakonske regulative, ok. Ali hoces da kazes da je vecina ostalog civilizovanog sveta u zabludi? I rekoh, ne vidim cemu frka, kad su ti filmovi svakako dostupni onima kojima treba da budu dostupni. No, neko bi da se ovajdi o decji dzeparac, a?
I da, ono sa dilovanjem droge je naravno bila metafora.  :roll:
A vo sto cripple prica je na nivou "naucnika" koji se bore protiv Diznijevih stripova, Toma i Dzerija itd, jer su "puni nasilja". I hajde mi posle ovog poslednjeg crippleovog posta reci da sam pobrkao loncice.

Rejting nikada nije uticao ni na sta sto se tice samog STVARANJA filma. Rejting utice na krajnji proizvod koji se daje u bioskopu, na televiziji i svima dostupnoj prodaji. Ako si dovoljno star da kupis "neseckano meso" imas mesta za to. Cemu frka?

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.allposters.com%2Fimages%2FGB%2FMP0227.jpg&hash=1ca6437ba6a99bee89ba749f9d111ee154f07a02)

Nisam video da je neko ko pravi muziku (posto nju valjda slobodno mogu da poredim s filmom) ustuknuo pred ovom nalepnicom i poceo da pishe "moralne" tekstove.
I Lurde, ne vidim sta to nisam pokusao da shvatim? I o cemu se to nisam raspitao? Cemu prodaja Pan Erotike sa natpisom ZA ODRASLE ako je svaki klinac moze kupiti? I prodaja cigareta iako pise NE PRODAJEMO MALOLETNICIMA? Ja sam ziveo u zemlji u kojoj se rejtuju filmovi, pa sam opet dobio sve filmove (zahvaljujuci balkanskoj toleranciji/ignoranciji moje majke) neskracene, i ne vidim sta sam ja tu sad pogresno shvatio. I ne vidim da je rejtovanje vani ikoga sprecilo da snimi film KRESNI ME, otsecanje ruke u vec pomenutom Total Recall, sve zive horor filmove itd.
No recicu i treci put: Neko se plasi za svoj dzep.

Jake, plasim se da ne znas o cemu pricas.

Quote from: "crippled_avenger"Jake, plasim se da ne znas o cemu pricas.

Ma da. Ja volim Harija Potera, ja sam Bosanac, i ne umem jasno da prepoznam odredbe zakona zacudo napisane sasvim razumnim jezikom.
I ako hoces da mi kazes da ce ti film propasti zato sto se neciji djoka koji si snimio u bioskopu nece moci videti ili neko eksplicitno klanje ili sta vec - odma' to kazem, jebes film koji se oslanja samo na takve detalje.

EDit:

I evo cisto, da se razume da pricamo o istom zakonu:

ЗАШТИТА МАЛОЛЕТНИКА

Члан 34.

Уколико садржина кинематографског дела може да нашкоди моралном, физичком или менталном развоју малолетника, такво дело се сматра неподобним за малолетнике и његова доступност се не препоручује лицима млађим од 7, 14 односно 18 година. - Ja ne vidim ovde ISTA o tome da se filmovi sa doticnom sadrzinom ne smeju snimati ili da ce biti zabranjivani. Ja vidim samo da ne smeju biti dostupna odredjenim licima. No ipak, ja sam ljubitelj Harija Potera i ja sam samo glupi Bosanac koji ne moze da prodre u smisao jednog demagoskog zakonskog teksta.

Министарство надлежно за послове културе доноси Правилник о категоризацији кинематографских дела, по прибављеном мишљењу Центра.

Працилником из става 2. овог члана ближе се уређује начин одређивања подобности садржаја кинематографског дела, изглед и ознака категорија, обавезе произвођача, дистибутера, јавних приказивача и изнајмљивача у погледу примене категорије и њихових ознака.

Koliko ja vidim potpuno isto kao vani. A ako mi sad hocete reci kako smo mi na daleko visem moralnom nivou od drugih zemalja pa kod nas deca bez problema mogu svasta da gledaju... :roll:[/b]

Pa.. Ako procitas moj prvi post na ovom topiku i ja sam rekao da je, ako se sve zadrzi na nivou preporuke, stvar manje uznemirujuca. Ali sam takodje posle obrazlagao kako i takvi rejting sistemi dovode do vrlo ociglednog 'zaglupljivanja' sadrzaja umetnickih dela (filmova, stripova, a usudio bih se da kazem i igara) jer se trzisni i moralni mehanizmi udruzuju i jednu zvanicno dobrovoljnu praksu pretvaraju u prinudnu proceduru.

Na kraju, ponovo bih citirao Alana Moorea (ili Franka Millera): rejting za knjige ne postoji. Niko se ne trudi da skrene roditeljima paznju na to da bi 'Parfem' ili '120 dana Sodome' ili 'Poslednje skretanje za Bruklin' ili 'Americki Psiho' ili 'Majstor i Margarita' ili 'Suplji covek' ili 'Satanin Dnevnik' ili '1984' ili 'Goli rucak' ili 'Venera plus iks' mogli da uticu na njihovu decu na nacine koji mozda nisu bas najpozeljniji (iz, ah, moralnih ili psiholoskih razloga). Zasto? Zato sto je za knjizevnost, kao jednu od starijih kulturnih institucija u nasim drustvima podrazumevano da je:

a) umetnost kojoj valja i treba garantovati slobodu ekspresije jer je sloboda jedini nacin za umetnost da, jelte, napreduje
b) odluka da se odredjeno delo cita ili ne cita jedna voljna stvar i da niko nikog nikada nije naterao da procita knjigu
c) roditeljska odgovornost za to sta ce njihova deca citati uvek prisutna jer ti i takvi roditelji i sami, valjda imaju mozga i znanja da procene je li doticno knjizevno delo prikladno za njihovo dete ili ne.

Naravno, kontraargument bi uvek mogao da bude da su knjige 'teska' zabava i da decu bas boli penis da ih citaju kad vec imaju da gledaju filmove, citaju stripove ili igraju igre. Sto je naizgled validan argument dok ne shvatis koliko se ljudi (i na sta) inspirise knjigama poput Mein Kampfa, Protokola sionskih mudraca, Puta kojim se redje ide, bede studentskog zivota, Dianetiks itd...

Prema tome, ako se i pored svega knjigama garantuje potpuna sloboda od bilo kakvog rejtingovanja jer je jasno da je to jedna vestacka, nasilna praksa i da nista ne moze da zameni licnu odgovornost, zasto se implicira da su ostale grane umetnosti imanentno nize i da je, jos gore, odgovornost konzumenta u njihovom slucaju manja nego u knjizevnosti, pa mu se serviraju readymade misljenja?

Vidis, o upravo istoj stvari sam ja sinoc razmisljao... o knjigama. One su svakako mnogo surovije od bilo kog filma. No, izgleda da se radi o onom prostom da je drugacije kad imas nesto vizuelno pred sobom... blesavo, ali izgleda da se time povode.

Quote from: "somebody"Hajde da pretpostavimo da se naucno moze utvrditi sta utice na mentalni i fizicki razvoj maloletnika. Do sada nije bilo rezultata na tu temu, ali pretpostavimo da se to moze utvrditi.
...

No, kako rekoh, ako nauka utvrdi sta steti mentalnom i fizickom razvoju, mozemo da polemisemo.

...  iako na naucnoj bazi nije stetan mentalnom i fizickom razvoju.

Quote from: "somebody else"No, izgleda da se radi o onom prostom da je drugacije kad imas nesto vizuelno pred sobom... blesavo, ali izgleda da se time povode.

Nije blesavo, postoje istrazivanja na temu covek kao primarno vizuleno bice. Zahvaliti evoluciji ili je "tuci po usima" zbog odabira, pitanje je. Uostalom, think for yourself - opazanjima kog cula pridajes najvise znacaja?

Pitanje je, naravno, kako se moze polemisati o temi ukoliko ucesnici u  diskusiji nemaju bar neki minimum osnovnih znanja iz oblasti. Da, onda je rec  o kafanskoj prici, i ok, forum moze da bude i kafana, i jeste - ljudski je, ali  prodavati takvu pricu za diskusiju i polemiku sa argumentima je bezobrazluk.  Da bi se tvrdilo da nauka nesto jeste ili nije dokazala, mora se znati koja tacno nauka je od znacaja za pricu. I koje su metode koje koristi u ustrazivanju. I sta su falinke metodologije i kakve greske u interpretaciji rezultata mogu nastati, od cega zavise. I da li se prati relevantna strucna literatura. I da li se samo probira sta ce se citati i citirati.

Elem, nije mi namera da raspravljam o predlozenom zakonu, za mene je samo  postojanje rangiranja filmova na naki nacin predaja drustva koje je priznalo  da ne ume da se bavi andragogijom, niti ga zanima, niti je vidi vrednom.

Ali mi konstantno ide na ganglije povlacenje nauke za svasta, pri cemu je vise  nego ocigledno da se ne barata ni osnovama iz iste. Niti postoji ni najmanja  zelja da se malo oznoji i zagreje stolica. Istina, i nazalost, to je prilicno  rasprostranjeno, te samo ponekad prevrsi svaku meru trpila.

I zato, koga zanima dva jako stara popularna clanka na temu - molim da se  ulozi napor i ne zakaci za "TV" odrednicu u prvom clanku, niti za "adult" u  drugom. Oba clanka jesu na temu, ah, polemike. Po mom misljenju, naravno. Ukoliko se temom nece baviti  samo laicki,  najpostenije bi bilo potraziti originalne radove ciji su  rezultati citirani i tumaceni u clancima, zar ne? Clanci su preneti u originalu, rec je o naucno popularnom casopisu sa sedistem u UK.


iz 1993.


When the medium's message is violent . . . : Does violence on TV make children aggresive? The link is often taken for granted-but can it be proved?


Does blood on television necessarily mean blood on the living room carpet? Or  if not blood, then at least increased levels of aggression and antisocial  behaviour? The idea that it should seems intuitively right. After all, if  television has no effect on behaviour, why spend millions to link romance with  coffee or action man with chocolates? Children learn by imitation, so the  estimated 7000 acts of crime and violence they see on television every year  must surely be an unhealthy influence. But are they?

Many people believe so. In March, Britain's Prime Minister, John Major, warned  television and film producers to 'think whether a relentless diet of violence  won't have a serious effect on the young'. And last week, the Broadcasting  Standards Council gave BSkyB a sharp rebuke for beaming down violence on its  satellite channels. In the US, the American Medical Association, the American  Association of Paediatrics and the American Psychological Association all  believe there is a link between violence on screen and off.

Leonard Eron, research professor emeritus at the University of Illinois in  Chicago, has carried out some of the key studies in this area. 'Heavy exposure  to televised violence is one of the causes of aggressive behaviour, crime and  violence in society,' he told a US Congressional hearing last year. And, like  Major, Rowell Huesmann, professor of communications and psychology at the  University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, is concerned about the effect of TV  violence on young children. 'We know it desensitises them, we know they  imitate it and that it encourages an attitude that tolerates violence.'

But not everyone agrees. 'Aggressive children like violent television. There's  no question about that,' says Jonathan Freedman, professor of psychology at  the University of Toronto. The real question is whether violence on screen  makes them aggressive. 'The evidence is inconsistent, contradictory and does  not provide a scientific basis for a causal effect,' he says. Freedman, who  reviewed research on the subject, is one of the few North American academics  to publish sceptical reports on studies that are usually held up as showing  that TV violence affects children.

In their attempts to explore the relationship between violence on and off  screen, researchers have tried laboratory experiments and studies of children  in their daily lives. But some of the most dramatic claims come from  epidemiological research.

Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington in Seattle studied the  annual toll of murders before and after television was introduced in the US,  Canada and South Africa (Journal of the American Medical Association, 10 June  1992, p 3059). He reasoned that as the first generation of young viewers of  violence reached adulthood, the murder rate would increase.

'What we found in each case was that within 10 to 15 years the homicide rate  had more than doubled. Initially I thought that the widespread use of firearms  in the US was the most likely reason, but the same effect happened in Canada  where there is strict gun control.' The results from South Africa make these  findings all the more impressive, he says, because the social changes there  were different from those in the North America.

Centerwall says he controlled for confounding factors such as urbanisation,  alcohol use and civil unrest. He admits his findings cannot prove a causal  connection but suggests they make it likely. 'Because TV sets were expensive  the white population in America got them on average five years before the  blacks. What we found was what you would expect if there was a causal  relationship - white homicide rates began to rise in about 1958, while the  blacks, after a decline, began to go up about four years later,' says  Centerwall.

Freedman urges caution when interpreting these results. The rising numbers of  murders in the US also coincided with other significant trends such as the  baby boom. This produced more young men, who carry out most violent crime; a  huge increase in divorce and broken homes which, in turn, increased poverty;  and more use of illicit drugs which has often been blamed for much of the  increase in violent crime.

There are also other ways of viewing national data. 'Social and cultural  features are far more important than television when it comes to levels of  violence in a society,' says Freedman. 'Japan, for example has very violent  television with gruesomely graphic cartoons but very low levels of violence,  while the US and Canada have very similar television but Canada's crime rate  is a fraction of America's'

MAN ATTACKS DOLL

Many investigations into the effects of TV violence, some dating back to the  1960s, have been carried out in laboratories. Everyone agrees that in a  psychology laboratory people can be made to behave aggressively by showing  them violent scenes - and that means episodes of Charlie's Angels or Tom and  Jerry, rather than snuff movies.

In one of the most famous laboratory studies, by Albert Bandura of Stanford  University in California, children were shown scenes of a man attacking a  large doll with a mallet. Afterwards, when left alone with the doll they  attacked it in the same way. But when the sequence showed the man being  spanked for attacking the doll, the children were much less likely to attack  it themselves.

'Right here you get one of the issues that has bedevilled all this research -  the effect of context,' says Guy Cumberbatch, a lecturer in organisational  psychology at Aston University in Birmingham. 'Violent acts on TV don't occur  in a vacuum, they are part of a narrative and viewers give them meaning  depending on how they fit into the story.' Yet researchers continue to count  violenct acts as they would the number of sheep or cars in a programme, says  Cumberbatch, who has carried out studies of violence on television and is  sceptical that it has a big effect on children.

'Take the case of the doll,' he says. 'The sequence that had twice as much  violence actually made the children less aggressive.' All sorts of other  things can make people behave more aggressively in the laboratory. One of them  is simply being aroused, by watching erotic scenes or comedy. 'Exposing people  to white noise makes people just as aggressive as showing them violent  scenes,' says Cumberbatch.

IMITATION OF LIFE

Taken together, laboratory studies also show that when violence is seen to be  justified, or is rewarded in some way, people are more likely to imitate it.  But, random or gratuitous violence tends to make people anxious, rather than  aggressive. This leads to the curious prediction that scenes of gratuitous  violence are less of a problem than a John Wayne movie. When people are made  angry before watching a film it has more effect. And, scenes of real-life  violence also have more effect than fictional fighting.

Cumberbatch says: 'If you tried to work out a programming policy based on some  of the findings of what makes people behave more aggressively in the  laboratory after watching violent films or TV extracts, you would come up with  an absurd set of proposals: no live action footage of violence on the news, no  cartoons, erotic films or anything that get people aroused, no films that show  the good guy getting his own back on the bad guy.'

Barry Gunter, head of research at the Independent Television Commission which  regulates channels in Britain, argues that laboratory studies are not always  reliable because 'subjects' in laboratories play a role and do what they think  the experimenters want them to.

Beyond the laboratory, another approach has been to measure the impact of TV  violence on children in their daily lives, by asking the youngsters  themselves, their peers and teachers or parents, to rate their level of  aggression; and then finding out what sort of programmes they enjoy. The  results generally show that aggressive children like to watch more violent  programmes. Trying to prove that one causes the other has been much more  difficult.

One of the most detailed studies of this type was carried out in 1978 by  William Belson, then at the London School of Economics. Cumberbatch describes  it as 'incredibly systematic', involving more than 1500 adolescent males. Boys  were matched by a large number of variables such as age, intelligence and  level of education. Then their viewing habits were compared. The study found  that boys who were high viewers of violent TV were 49 per cent more likely to  commit acts of aggression than low viewers.

'That seems impressive, and that is the figure that is usually quoted,' says  Cumberbatch. 'What is more often ignored is that the study also found that the  very high viewers were 50 per cent less likely to be aggressive than the  merely high viewers and that the low viewers were slightly more aggressive  than the moderate viewers.' Cumberbatch stresses that the correlation between  aggression and newspaper reading was as high as that between aggression and  watching violent TV - a fact that highlights the difficulties of drawing  simple conclusions.

In another study, Eron and Huesmann rated levels of aggression in children at  an early age, and then repeated the exercise several years later. The trial,  which separated boys from girls in each of seven countries, shows evidence of  cause and effect, they say. But Freedman points out that their finding holds  for only three of the 14 groups studied.

Inevitably, researchers have explored the roles of 'nature and nurture' - the  degree to which genetics and upbringing alter any relationship between viewing  habits and aggression. While Huesmann and other researchers say they have  controlled for the effects of class and education, Cumberbatch is not  convinced. He points to a study by Jim Halloran of the University of Leicester  in 1970, which found a significant difference in the amount of violent  television watched by young working-class offenders and middle-class boys of  the same age. But between offenders and ordinary working-class boys there was  no difference.

Studies of the impact of genetics have been carried out only in the last  couple of years, and appear to turn on its head the intuitive notion that TV  violence causes aggression in real life. Robert Plomin, doyen of behavioural  genetics at the University of Cambridge, has found that adopted children are  more like their biological parents in the programmes they watch than their  adoptive parents.

And Richard Lynn, professor of psychology at the University of Ulster focused  on ordinary children in individual families, and found that those who had a  high psychotic personality rating were aggressive and liked violent  programmes. Children from the same households with lower ratings chose to  watch less violence. 'What we are seeing here is the way that our genes create  their own environment,' says Lynn. These studies suggest that what you are,  rather than what you watch, is the key factor in deciding how aggressive you  are.

Huesmann is unswaying in his opinion that on-screen violence is one of the  roots of aggression. Holes can be picked in individual studies, but the bulk  of the research still stands. 'It is very like proving the link between  smoking and lung cancer, you can show it in the lab, you can show high  correlations, but to show a person's cancer was caused by smoking is very  hard,' he says.

Freedman argues that whereas there is clear evidence that the more you smoke  the greater the danger from lung cancer, research into the link between TV  violence and aggression has rarely, if ever produced a good dose-response  effect. He says if the effect TV violence has on children is strong, it would  be easy to detect. But it is not.

The trouble is that blaming television is so plausible. 'It's a great  scapegoat,' says Freedman. While it is difficult to solve the social problems  that make an obvious contribution to violence, such as poverty and  unemployment, he says, it is easy to attack violence on television.

Jerome Burne  



iz 1990. godine (NS)


Flesh and blood: Does pornography lead to sexual violence? Growing evidence  suggests that exposure to pornography changes men's attitudes and behaviour

(Nazalost on-line nisu dostupne slike)



SHE was a hitchhiker. He was a man away from home on business. The  circumstances of the rape were only mildly contested in court and the jurors  were in complete agreement on the 'guilty' verdict. There was, however, less  agreement on what would constitute a fair sentence. As might be expected,  women jurors were more severe than men; they suggested a sentence nearly 30  per cent longer. Less expected, and much more insidious, was the effect of  pornography on their judgment: men who regularly watched pornographic  videos suggested sentences half as long as those of other men.

Fortunately, this was not a real trial. The jurors were volunteers  participating in a re-enactment of a rape trial to test the effects of  exposing people to different amounts of pornography. This experiment is one of  a growing number of studies which suggest that pornography changes the  attitudes and behaviour of those who use it. And in the real world, these  are not just a few dirty old men in raincoats.

Pornography is big business. So-called 'top-shelf' soft-porn magazines will  sell over 20 million copies this year in Britain and will be read by about 5  million people. Several companies in Europe will secure multimillion-pound  turnovers on pornographic magazines and videos - a business with an estimated  worldwide value of several billion pounds. The 'product' in this vast business  varies considerably and it caters for all tastes. At the extremes of hard-core  pornography are sadomasochism, paedophilia and bestiality. In both American  and Australian classifications of pornographic magazines, a quarter of all  titles concerned some such form of sexual deviance. Less extreme hard-core  pornography portrays petting, intercourse, oral sex and group sex. By far the  most widely available and most widely read pornography is the top-shelf group  of magazines, such as Playboy, Men Only, Fiesta, Escort, Club International  and Penthouse. These portray nudity and include poses and gestures suggestive  of sexual acts but do not show any form of sexual contact. Their content has,  however, changed over the years. A study by John Rosegrant, an American  psychologist, found that between 1971 and 1984, Playboy centrefolds have shown  a clear increase in both genital explicitness and the incidence of fetish  symbols such as whips and bondage equipment. In the early 1970s, most covers  of pornographic magazine showed a woman posed alone. By the early 1980s, such  covers appeared on only 10 per cent of magazines; bondage, group sex and  transvestism now feature on almost a third.

A worrying trend is the increasing use of violent imagery in pornography. In  1980, Neil Malamuth, then working at the University of Manitoba, reported that  the number of images showing sexual violence in Playboy and Penthouse  pictorials, increased from 1 in a hundred to 5 in a hundred between 1973 and  1977. Similarly, Don Smith of Florida State University found that in  'adult-only' novels, the average number of rape scenes doubled between 1968  and 1974. And in a recent study of 45 widely available video cassettes, Gloria  Cowan at California State University at San Bernadino found that more than  half of the sexually explicit scenes were predominantly concerned with the  domination or exploitation of women.

Critics of pornography, such as Carolyn Itzin and Corrine Sweet, writing  recently in The Independent, also claim that pornographic imagery is  increasingly concerned with children. This does not, and indeed cannot  legally, involve pictures of children, but rather shows women with shaven  pubic hair, in children's clothes, such as school uniforms, and in scenes  reminiscent of childhood.

To many feminist writers, such material degrades women and has obvious links  to rape and child abuse. In their view, even soft porn portrays women as  objects, reducing them to something available purely for male gratification  and without any form of emotional attachment.

The publishers of pornography, meanwhile, maintain that an interest in female  nudity and sexuality is normal, healthy and can be educational. In addition,  they argue that pornography can provide a vehicle for sexual release, without  which marital infidelity, the demand for prostitutes, and sexual assault would  increase massively.

In the middle of this highly charged debate, scientists have been trying to  answer the central technical question: does pornography change men's attitudes  or behaviour towards women? For soft-core pornography, the answers have been  difficult to find. A short-lived increase in the frequency of sexual activity  between married couples was the only behavioural effect reported in two  studies, published in the technical report of the US Commission on Obscenity  and Pornography in 1971. Several other studies have applied great technical  ingenuity to proving beyond doubt that sexy pictures stop being sexy after  several viewings. Most studies, however, have failed to find anything harmful  in the way that soft-core pornography affects men's attitudes towards women.

One notable exception was an experiment conducted in 1982 by Dolf Zillmann and  Jennings Bryant of the University of Indiana. They gave a sample of college  students varying levels of exposure - either 'massive', 'intermediate' or none  at all - to explicit pornography which was nonviolent but depicted women in  degrading or subordinate roles. In the 'massive exposure' group, the students  watched a total of 4 hours 48 minutes of pornographic film over a six-week  period.

Following this, the students were asked to do several psychological tests,  including the rape trial re-enactment described above. Men who had not watched  the films suggested sentences of 7 years 11 months on average, while those in  the massive exposure group sentenced the rapist to only 4 years 2 months.

The researchers assessed the students' sexual callousness towards women using  a questionnaire which included an evaluation of statements such as, 'A woman  doesn't mean no unless she slaps you', and, 'A man should find them, fool  them, fuck them and forget them'. Students in the massive exposure group had  significantly higher callousness scores than those who had seen no  pornography. Massive exposure also led men to give higher estimates for the  proportion of people who practise group sex, sadomasochism or bestiality and  to adopt more liberal attitudes towards the censorship of pornography.

Two other studies by Zillmann and Bryant, published in 1986 and 1988, shed  further light on the effects of soft-core porn. They found that prolonged  exposure significantly reduced the subjects' sexual satisfaction with their  partners. In particular, the subjects exposed to pornography rated their  partners' physical appearance, affection, sexual curiosity and sexual  performance less favourably than the controls, who had seen no material, and  attributed greater importance to having sexual intercourse without emotional  involvement.

A taste for violence

In another, more devious experiment, subjects were again exposed to varying  amounts of pornography over a six-week period. In the seventh week, they were  given a series of psychological tests and were told to expect further tests  the following week. When they arrived for the tests they were told there would  be a delay because of equipment failure and were shown into a room containing  a television and a selection of videos, which varied in content from light  entertainment (non-sexual) to hard-core pornography (bondage, sadomasochism  and bestiality). During their 15-minute wait, the use of each video was  electronically logged. Those students who had previously experienced massive  exposure to soft-core pornography were more likely to view the hard-core porn  videos (see Figure 1).

Studies on the effects of hard-core pornography have been much more consistent  in their findings. The main conclusion is simple: pornography with violent  imagery does change men's attitudes about sexual aggression towards women. For  instance, studies by Malamuth have shown that watching a brief video of  violent pornography increases the subsequent number of rape fantasies that a  man has and lessens the extent to which a rape victim is judged to have  suffered. Edward Donnerstein at the University of Wisconsin demonstrated that  exposure to hard-core porn increases the attempts of male subjects to inflict  'experimental' aggression on a woman accomplice who was deliberately annoying  before the showing of the video. More prolonged exposure to such material  tends to make men enjoy the videos more. It can even make them think that the  films are less violent that they had previously thought.

But different portrayals of sexual violence have dramatically different  effects, and not all people react in the same way to pornography. Early  studies of people's reactions to violent pornography, conducted during the  1970s, produced mixed results: some studies showed that the material resulted  in strong sexual arousal, whereas others showed none. In some cases, there was  evidence of disgust and revulsion. Later studies by Malamuth, at the  University of California at Los Angeles in 1982, discovered that the viewer's  response depends on the way in which the sexual violence is portrayed. He  found that sexual arousal is inhibited by pornography that emphasises the  abnormality of the sexual act or the suffering experienced by the woman. But  equally violent pornography is highly sexually arousing if the woman is shown  to enjoy, or at least end up enjoying what had happened to her.

This effect, called disinhibition, has an extremely potent influence on male  attitudes and behaviour. One example comes from Malamuth's study of students  at the University of Manitoba in 1981. The researchers asked them to sign up  for what were apparently two separate experiments. The first was a study of  films' certificate ratings in which the subjects were asked to watch two films  on consecutive evenings. Half the students were shown films with scenes that  contained sexual violence against women but which produced a positive response  from the victims. The other students watched neutral films, with no violent  scenes. The second study, conducted several days later, was a survey of sexual  attitudes with questions about sexual violence embedded in it. The results  showed that exposure to the sexually violent films increased male students'  acceptance of 'rape myths' - for instance, that women actually enjoy being  raped - and also made them more accepting of violence against women in  general.

The finding that different people respond in different ways to pornography  came from another study by Malamuth. He showed that the male population can be  divided into those who say they might commit rape if they could be assured of  not being caught and punished, and those who say they would not. Alarmingly,  his findings revealed that 30 per cent of men admitted to some likelihood of  raping women: the researchers called them the 'LR' group. A further 30 per  cent admitted some likelihood of using some force to coerce a woman into  sexual acts. This leaves only two in every five men who claim they would never  engage in sexual violence. In response to pornography, LR men are less  inhibited by violent imagery than other men. Indeed, several studies have now  reported that LR men find depictions of rape significantly more arousing than  depictions of sex where both partners consent.

Researchers have not overlooked the fact that these arguments could be  circular: that is, exposure to violent pornography may make men more  aggressive, but aggressive men may find violent pornography more attractive in  the first place. There is not sufficient evidence at present either to support  or refute this possibility, although a recent Canadian survey by Dano Demare  at the University of Winnipeg in 1988 found that men who were classed as LR  did report using violent pornography more than average.

We can conclude, however, that certain types of violent pornography worsen the  attitudes of certain types of men. At the extreme, LR men who had been shown a  video of a rape in which the women ended up aroused came to believe that one  in every three women would actually enjoy being raped.

The obvious prediction from this, and the acid test of all the research, is  that pornography should increase the incidence of sexually violent crimes  against women. Case studies and anecdotal evidence tend to support this  prediction. In 1987 and 1988, two studies of a total of more than 130  convicted rapists and child molesters have found that most used pornography  while preparing to commit an offence. Another study, by researchers at York  University in Toronto in 1987, reported that 39 per cent of battered women had  at some time been upset by their partners trying to get them to do what they  had seen portrayed in pornographic material.

The first attempt to test the prediction that pornography promotes sexual  violence was published in 1971 by Berl Kutchinsky, a criminologist at the  University of Copenhagen. The data seemed to disprove the prediction: after  the legislation on pornography in Denmark was liberalised, pornography became  more widely available, but the incidence of sex crimes decreased. This study  continues to be quoted as the authoritative evidence, but researchers began to  question the data only two years later, by Victor Bachy of the University of  Louvain in Belgium. The main problem was that sex crimes had not changed  uniformly. Minor crimes such as indecent exposure and 'peeping' did indeed  fall, but serious crimes such as rape and attempted rape increased, at least  for a few years after pornography became more widely available.

In Australia, the federal government has tended to relax its controls on  pornography since 1970. Different states have, however, implemented these  changes to varying extents and, as a result, have unwittingly conducted an  interesting experiment on the effect of pornography. Queensland, the most  conservative state, has maintained the strictest controls on pornography and  has a comparatively low rate of rape reports. By contrast, South Australia,  the most liberal state in relation to pornography, has seen escalating reports  of rape since the early 1970s (see Figure 2).

A more complex study in the US, by Larry Baron and his colleagues at the  University of New Hampshire in 1984, attempted to plot the circulation figures  of pornographic magazines in different states against the incidence of rape  reports. The researchers found a strong relationship: on average, every  increase of 2 per cent in the circulation of pornography was linked to a 1 per  cent increase in the incidence of rape reports.

It would be a mistake to think that any of this criminology data proves that  pornography makes men rape women. Correlated trends between two sets of data  may be caused by some so-far undetected third factor. For example, young  people tend to read more pornography and commit more rapes than older people,  and so differences in the age structure of populations in different states  might explain both the Australian and American results. In fact, this  particular theory was tested in the American study using a statistical  technique known as multiple regression, and was found to be irrelevant. But  the possibility remains that any number of social or cultural factors could be  the actual cause of the apparent relationship between pornography and rape.

It would, however, be an equally serious mistake to dismiss research on  pornography as inconclusive and so irrelevant. The weight of evidence is  accumulating that intensive exposure to soft-core pornography desensitises  men's attitude to rape, increases sexual callousness and shifts their  preferences towards hard-core pornography. Similarly, the evidence is now  strong that exposure to violent pornography increases men's acceptance of rape  myths and of violence against women. It also increases men's tendencies to be  aggressive towards women and is correlated with the reported incidence of  rape. Many sex offenders claim they used pornography to stimulate themselves  before committing their crimes.

Few of these conclusions could stand alone without qualification or without  being challenged by some inconsist ency in the experimental evidence. Each  one, however, is supported by at least one significant experimental result  and, as Zillmann and Bryant have pointed out, these have greater scientific  credibility than the inconsistencies. Anomalous findings can be the result of  poor experimental design as well as genuine underlying inconsistencies.

Taking all the current evidence together, I question whether the British  government's policy, established by the Williams Committee on pornography in  1979, is still valid. The committee concluded: 'It is still possible to say .  . . that there does not appear to be any strong evidence that exposure to  sexually explicit material triggers off antisocial sexual behaviour.' Earlier  this year, David Mellor, the Home Office minister, commissioned two  researchers, Guy Cumberbatch of Aston University, and Dennis Howitt of  Loughborough University, to 'review the available research on the effects of  pornography'. They are due to report their findings to the Home Office,  'sometime later this year'. Meanwhile, a group of Labour MPs headed by Dawn  Primarolo has launched a new anti-pornography campaign that aims to ban the  sale of 'soft-core' magazines at high street retailers.

Do we still know too little about the effects of pornography to seek to  control it? I argue that there must come a time when the demand for conclusive  proof gives way to 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt'.

* * *

1: The appeal of pornography: for men only?

WOULD you buy a magazine with a naked person on the cover? Pictures of full  frontal male nudes are much less effective in selling magazines to women than  female nudes are for men. In an American study of reactions to the magazines  Playboy and Playgirl in 1976, women rated Playgirl much less interesting than  men rated Playboy. For example, twice as many men as women said they would  choose to look at the photo-essay or centrefold. Eighty per cent of the women  said they would not buy future issues of Playgirl; by contrast, 84 per cent of  men in the survey said they would buy future issues of Playboy.

Despite this, several studies have found that women find pornography arousing.  Sexually explicit films or pictures produce physiological signs of sexual  arousal in women, such as an increased volume of blood circulating in the  vaginal area, which closely parallel an erection in a man. When men and women  are asked to assess how aroused they feel in response to pornography, the  patterns are again similar for both sexes, although in some of the studies the  average level of arousal reported by men was higher.

Exposure to pornography will even change women's attitudes towards sexual  violence against women, to some extent. In Zillmann and Bryant's study at the  University of Indiana, women who had been exposed to 'massive' amounts of  pornography reduced their recommended sentence for rape almost as much as the  male subjects on the study (from 12 years to 6.5 years). In the Manitoba  experiment, however, viewing films with rape scenes did not increase women's  acceptance of rape myths, nor did it increase their acceptance of  interpersonal violence against women.

If women are aroused by pornography, why don't they buy it? This question was  addressed by a follow-up questionnaire after the Playgirl/Playboy study. This  showed that fewer women than men had previously read the magazine, fewer had  recently bought any sexually-oriented magazine, and fewer thought that people  in general would approve of them reading it. In describing their reactions to  the magazine, one-third of the women said they felt guilty, dirty, cheap or  bad. Most of the women said they would have preferred the male nudity to have  been portrayed in the context of a relationship where nudity and sexual  activity would be expected. As far as reactions to pornography are concerned,  it seems from these findings that the differences between men and women are  social and cultural, and not biological.

* * *

2: Drawing the line - can we define pornography?

IMAGES of nudity and sexuality are becoming more prevalent. They have become a  feature of several tabloid newspapers and regularly appear in magazines that  are not ostensibly sex-orientated. In a recent survey of American detective  magazines, researchers found that 38 per cent of the covers depicted women in  bondage.

In trying to distinguish between what is and what is not pornographic, the  literal definition of pornography, 'the writings of harlots', is no more  useful than the 18th-century suggestion - 'books you read with one hand'.  British legislation hinges upon the concept of 'obscenity' and this is taken  to be material that corrupts and depraves its viewer or reader. This has been  recognised as an outmoded concept for many years, but the problem of finding  something better has remained. Public opinion on the subject seems fragmented,  and to make matters worse, the attitude of individuals can change quite  dramatically. In Zillmann and Bryant's study, massive exposure to pornography  made people judge it as substantially less 'pornographic' and liberalised  their attitudes towards the censorship of pornography, even concerning  children's access to pornography.

An American lawyer, Catherine MacKinnon, recently proposed a definition that  distinguished pornography from erotica. Pornography, she suggests, portrays  women being physically abused, in subordinate roles to men or dehumanised as  sexual objects. Erotica, by contrast, shows men and women in equal power  relationships that are based on emotional attachment. This distinction has the  advantage of corresponding to the research findings: pornography, as defined,  is linked to sexual violence whereas no such links have been found for  erotica. This may end up being an important consideration in the future.

Dr Mike Baxter is a specialist in animal behaviour based in Aberdeen.



Comment: (citalac, iz sledeceg broja)

Many of the experiments described in Mike Baxter's article ('Flesh and  Blood', 5 May) on research into the links between pornography and sexual  violence involved deliberately exposing subjects (mostly young, male, college  students) to massive doses of pornography. The results seem to show exactly  the strengthening of attitudes we might expect - an increased callousness  towards women and a correspondingly increased leniency towards rapists. How  does one justify this type of experiment when its very use involves the  apparent dehumanisation of numbers of young men? Such experiments must also  vastly underestimate the links, given the notoriously difficult problems of  getting men to be honest about misogynistic attitudes and trying to predict in  a laboratory situation possible future sexual behaviours in the 'real world'.  Combine this with the fact that many male subjects - and sometimes male  researchers too - have a personal interest in maintaining the pornographic  status quo and you can easily have 'dirty books, dirty films and dirty data'.

Why does not research concentrate instead on the evidence given by women and  children who have experienced actual sexual abuse and coercion as a direct  result of men's use of pornographic magazines and videos? These survivors of  sexual violence are painfully aware of pornographic links and yet their  testimony seems to carry very little weight in the scientific search for  'constructive evidence'.

It is interesting that Mike Baxter's round-up of research mentions only one  such survey, under the heading of 'anecdotal evidence'. Is this another case  of the direct evidence of women being treated as 'non-data'? If so then I  think we have to re-evaluate our research methods. It is no exaggeration to  say that the lives of women and children may be at stake.

Draga S., kao što vidiš; ma koliko tvoj post bio informativan, ipak ne uspeva da konstruktivno pridonese cvatućoj polemici.

Zašto, o zašto?

Možda zato što ti imaš pogrešan pristup komunikaciji...
... a možda zato što ovde polemike cvetaju upravo i jedino na bazi polu i dez-informacija.

Who knows?
Who cares?

(dopuštam, stvari bi bile malko drugačije da se u polemiku upustiš posredno, preko neke pičke vične pravilnom plasiranju infoa.  :twisted: )

Uz opasnost da delujem indiferentno, mene bas i nije briga, bar ne sto se tice domace filmske industrije. Koliko lose filmove snimamo, ne moze biti ni gore nego sto jeste. Nikakvo rejtingovanje ne moze da napravi vise stete, nego sto je vec ima. Kinematografija nam je ionako propast.
Doduse, nije mi bas najjasnije, kako to da smo u osnovnoj skoli morali da citamo stvari kao sto je Jama ili Na Drini cuprija (sa onom cuvenom scenom od koje sam godinama imala nocne more), ili Krvava Bajka, od kojih vecina normalne dece ima dozivotnu traumu, i vodili nas da gledamo film o logoru u Jasenovcu, koji izaziva trajne posledice na psihi svakog osetljivijeg deteta, jezive dokumentarce o narkomanima, i to je sve kao, bilo u redu, a horor filmovi, kao nisu za klince, jer deluju destruktivno, traumaticno (a zasto? To je FIKCIJA) ili ne daj boze, ako se negde vidi... joj... (sapatom) seks. Sta je onda bilo normalno da dete gleda pravo, istinsko ubijanje ljudi, propadanje i bolest, a nikako nije normalno da vidi nesto sto je fiktivno, ili nesto sto se odnosi na najnormalniji cin na svetu, tj seks. U Hrvatskoj je to islo dotle da su deci iz osnovnih skola prikazivani filmovi sa najkrvavijim abortusima koje su mogli da nadju (vidi Nemi krik) da bi deca videla i na vreme naucila koliko je seks stetan i gadan i koliko je to zlo. Mislim, koliko su ljudi opiceni i do kojih granica?

Quote from: "Bilja"
Doduse, nije mi bas najjasnije, kako to da smo u osnovnoj skoli morali da citamo stvari kao sto je Jama ili Na Drini cuprija (sa onom cuvenom scenom od koje sam godinama imala nocne more), ili Krvava Bajka, od kojih vecina normalne dece ima dozivotnu traumu  

Dobro zapazanje. Scena nabijanja na kolac u "Na Drini cuprija" je jeziva. A, za "Jamu", secam se da se nastavnica rasplakala dok je citala, pa je citanku predala jednoj ucenici da nastavi sa citanjem.  Desanka Maksimovic je ipak neprevazidjena, pogotovu kad pomislis da je bila nekakav nacionalni ambasador za kontakte sa decom, ej, zena koja ima pesmu "Nad sveskom umrlog djaka", ili pesmu u kojoj trazi da se Dusanov zakonik (sa precizno navodjenim stavkama istog: kolko iscupanih jezika itd.) primeni na sve koji su ubijali srpsku decu i da se nemackim majkama ZABRANi da radjaju decu. I sve to ispod Meri Popins sesirica. Najezim se pri samoj pomisli da je radila kao uciteljica u skoli.

Dobro de... ali kao sto rece S, covek je pre svega vizuelno bice i mnogo jace reaguje na ono sto vidi... 'besliga.

Pitao sam drugara krajem 80-ih, kako to da kupuje Dilan Doga, kad znam da ne podnosi, čak mrzi horor. Posebno se užasavao odvratnih scena, kojih je u tom trenutku u DD bilo na pretek.
Odgovorio je:"E, nije to isto kao na filmu, mogu da podnesem kad je nacrtano, a na snimku ne - jer je realističnije."
Otprilike je za isti stepen "realističnije" i "strašnije" kad je verno nacrtano, nego kad je samo opisano rečima.
Dakle priča o jačem uticaju vizuelnog, na neki način, na psihu -  definitivno stoji. Pored toga delimično ima istine i u povlašćenom statusu književnosti, kojeg je ova vrsta umetnosti ostvarila zbog mnogo duže istorije u odnosu na neke druge i samim tim ogromnog broja kvalitetnih dela.
Ipak nije potpuno tačno da se književnost ne cenzuriše, jer pisana pornografija njoj pripada, a podleže - uglavnom.
Tekstovi koje je S podnela ne govore ni o kakvim naučnim dokazima i teorijama, već samo govore o vršenim istraživanjima, čije rezultate pametan čovek može sam da pretpostavi, a nije loše da se potvrde, a većina njih ostavlja još veće dileme nego na početku.
Primeri sa književnim delima iz "nob" su recidiv komunističkog vaspitavanja omladine i nisu nešto na šta se treba ugledati, a Ćuprija i grozota zvana Jama (zar to nije izbačeno?) su se u moje vreme čitali u srednjoj, dakle nije za osnovce, a ne treba ići ni u drugu krajnost pa decu držati pod zvonom.

Ne znam kad su normalna deca radila JAMU, ali pošto sam ja išao u školu IVAN GORAN KOVAČIĆ u N. Banji, svake godine je cela škola –od najnižih razreda pa naviše- obeležavala dan njegove smrti tako što su najodličnije učenice (po pravilu, najgluplja deca, i najmanje ideološki svesna) sa posebno melodramatskim glasovima recitovale najgroznije deonice iz JAME, a potom bi direktor lično crvenim maramama vezao oči vukovcima i sličnim ovcama (iz recitatorske sekcije) i pustio ih da lutaju po šumi, dok ovi glasno jauču i u sebi vizuelizuju kako iskopanih očiju danima lutaju šumom, dok se napokon ne strovale u jamu sa leševima koje ustaše polivaju živim krečom koji im lagano cvrlji kanaliće kroz kožu i meso i rastače ih u smrdljivo ništavilo... Poslednji ko upadne u specijalno iskopanu jamu zvao se 'Toša', i njega smo potom zatvarali u posebnu, ogromnu ljudsku figuru od pletenog pruća, koju bi onda zapalili na proplanku, a odlikašice su uz vrištanje žrtve-paljenice u horu glasno čitale pesme CRVENI CVET SLOBODE, SLOBODA PLAĆENA KRVLJU, PREKO KRVI BUDI PRVI, NAŠA BORBA ZAHTIJEVA KAD SE GINE DA SE PROSPU CRIJEVA i slične. Pošto bi bili pročišćeni tim ritualom, mogli smo da mirnije uđemo u narednu godinu, tokom koje smo pomno studirali KRVAVU BAJKU i ostale bajke za malu decu, i pisali sastave o mučenim i streljanim logorašima, iz čije krvi je nikla naša sloboda...
  Ehhh, to su bili dani...
  Ova današnja deca ne znaju šta propuštaju u svom obrazovanju...

Quote from: "Ghoul"Ne znam kad su normalna deca radila JAMU, ali pošto sam ja išao u školu IVAN GORAN KOVAČIĆ u N. Banji, svake godine je cela škola –od najnižih razreda pa naviše- obeležavala dan njegove smrti tako što su najodličnije učenice (po pravilu, najgluplja deca, i najmanje ideološki svesna) sa posebno melodramatskim glasovima recitovale najgroznije deonice iz JAME, a potom bi direktor lično crvenim maramama vezao oči vukovcima i sličnim ovcama (iz recitatorske sekcije) i pustio ih da lutaju po šumi, dok ovi glasno jauču i u sebi vizuelizuju kako iskopanih očiju danima lutaju šumom, dok se napokon ne strovale u jamu sa leševima koje ustaše polivaju živim krečom koji im lagano cvrlji kanaliće kroz kožu i meso i rastače ih u smrdljivo ništavilo... Poslednji ko upadne u specijalno iskopanu jamu zvao se 'Toša', i njega smo potom zatvarali u posebnu, ogromnu ljudsku figuru od pletenog pruća, koju bi onda zapalili na proplanku, a odlikašice su uz vrištanje žrtve-paljenice u horu glasno čitale pesme CRVENI CVET SLOBODE, SLOBODA PLAĆENA KRVLJU, PREKO KRVI BUDI PRVI, NAŠA BORBA ZAHTIJEVA KAD SE GINE DA SE PROSPU CRIJEVA i slične. Pošto bi bili pročišćeni tim ritualom, mogli smo da mirnije uđemo u narednu godinu, tokom koje smo pomno studirali KRVAVU BAJKU i ostale bajke za malu decu, i pisali sastave o mučenim i streljanim logorašima, iz čije krvi je nikla naša sloboda...

Zajebavaš, zar ne?  :P

Trole, vidi se da si mlad, i da ne znaš, ne pamtiš...

Šta li bi tek bilo kad bih ti opisivao Ritual Obnove Proleća: svakog maja meseca se kroz celu zemlju nosio magični lingam, odnosno falusni simbol plodnosti i energetskog plama, koji se u svakom bogovetnom mestu u tadašnjoj YU zalivao krvlju najveće lokalne device; kada bi se tako napunio moćnim energijama, taj falus je u pompeznom ritualu masovnog žrtvovanja na vrhu piramide, po uzoru na astečke, predavan Arhi-Mumiji, radi obnove njegove Večne Mladosti. Predavala mu ga je najčistija od svih vestalki, koja je takođe bila obavezna da s njim provede narednu noć, a kad bi se Sveti Vampir i Mumija napio njene vaginalne krvi, narednog jutra (odnosno, 26. maja po starom kalendaru) Drug Tito je obavljao ritualno kupanje u njenoj krvi, i tako pred svima obnavljao svoju Mladost.
Bio je to ritual mističkog prosvetljenja i obnove, apoteoza okultnog bratstva i jedinstva na astralnom planu kao i na fizičkom

Počinje da mi se vraća. Stani. Taman je mozak izbacio te traume...