Irish censor passes utterly filthy '9 Songs' uncut

Agent Orange

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/in04d.htm#Song_Contest_Tied

Song Contest Tied

Based on an article from The Irish Independent

A new film features extensive graphic sex scenes, but the censor has chosen not to ban it. Ireland's censor, John Kelleher, has just given the go-ahead to one of the steamiest and most explicit films in the history of mainstream cinema. This week it was reported that 9 Songs, a movie featuring real sex between actors, was passed uncut for public release in Ireland early next year.

Cinemagoers who like a bit of the 'bould thing' as they munch their popcorn in the multiplex will have a feast. The British movie, which opens in Dublin early next year, features close-ups of penetration, oral sex and ejaculation.

Declining to comment on his reasons for passing the film (he will explain when the film is actually released), John Kelleher talked in general terms about his role, suggesting that he no longer sees himself as a censor at all. He hopes that his title will be changed to that of "film classifier".

In all but a tiny of number of cases, the former RTE producer now simply classifies films; and it is up to Irish adults themselves to decide whether they go to see them. The changes over the past few decades reflect the changes in public attitudes to morality, says John Kelleher. Sex is not our primary concern.

It is all a far cry from the early days of censorship, when the stern guardians of public decency held a firm grip on our viewing habits. In the heyday of Catholic supremacy, kissing, dancing, divorce, contraception or any kind of intimacy between consenting adults were all targeted by the censors.

James Montgomery set the tone as the State's first censor when he said of his job: I take the Ten Commandments as my code. According to a fascinating new history, Irish Film Censorship - A Cultural Journey from Silent Cinema to Internet Pornography by Kevin Rockett, Montgomery saw himself as a "moral sieve". To him the greatest danger to Irish society was not Anglicisation, but "Los Angelesation".

After a lengthy struggle in the 1980s and 1990s, Kevin Rockett finally gained access to the archives of the Irish Censor's office in 1998. His new book is the most thorough investigation of Irish film censorship ever published.

A film did not even have to be sexy to incur the censor's wrath. The word virgin was cut from films up until the 1960s and seemingly innocuous phrases such as "Jeepers! Creepers!" were also removed. As late as the 1970s, expressions such as "for Christ's sake!" were excised along with all references to condoms.

It was inevitable that Woody Allen's 1970s comedy Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex would be banned in 1972, but the film was eventually passed with cuts in 1979.

The censor slashed the 'What is Sodomy?' scene in which a shepherd goes to see a doctor and tells him how he has fallen in love with a sheep. His description of their tryst as "the greatest lay I ever had" was cut out. Bizarrely, however, the censor allowed a subsequent scene where the doctor himself falls in love with the sheep. Another scene in which a man is shown enjoying sexual intercourse with a loaf of bread was cut.

One can hardly imagine what Montgomery would have made of 9 Songs, a short feature that charts a relationship from the first date to the break up. The film has already gained a certain notoriety after it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival. Although the title refers to nine bands that the couple go to see, music merely provides short breaks between orgasmic episodes; the movie is made up almost entirely of scenes showing genuine sex filmed with hand-held cameras. The lead parts are played by an unknown actress who used the pseudonym Margo Stilley and an English actor Kieran O'Brien, who previously had a role in the TV drama Cracker.

Irish Film Censorship - A Cultural Journey from Silent Cinema to Internet Pornography by Kevin Rockett is published next week by Four Courts Press, €65

Chevano Riley

all im thinking is: €65 for some ****ing book?

Rabies

Agent Orange wrote:

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/in04d.htm#Song_Contest_Tied

Song Contest Tied

Based on an article from The Irish Independent

A new film features extensive graphic sex scenes, but the censor has chosen not to ban it. Ireland's censor, John Kelleher, has just given the go-ahead to one of the steamiest and most explicit films in the history of mainstream cinema. This week it was reported that 9 Songs, a movie featuring real sex between actors, was passed uncut for public release in Ireland early next year.

Cinemagoers who like a bit of the 'bould thing' as they munch their popcorn in the multiplex will have a feast. The British movie, which opens in Dublin early next year, features close-ups of penetration, oral sex and ejaculation.
.
.
<snip>
.
..
The censor slashed the 'What is Sodomy?' scene in which a shepherd goes to see a doctor and tells him how he has fallen in love with a sheep. His description of their tryst as "the greatest lay I ever had" was cut out. Bizarrely, however, the censor allowed a subsequent scene where the doctor himself falls in love with the sheep. Another scene in which a man is shown enjoying sexual intercourse with a loaf of bread was cut.

So porn is finally main stream cinema I have heard of this movie before but wasn't expecting it to get past Irish censorship uncut. Quite surprised.

I can see where American Pie got its ideas

Juggalo

If he now considers himself a film classifier, will the previously cut The Isle get an uncut cinema release? Or will we be watching the edited one?

RuggieBear

What's so utterly filthy about it?

mike65

RuggieBear wrote:

What's so utterly filthy about it?

Its got the whole shebang - fellatio, penatration etc, so you're all going to hell!



Ted would proberly approve actually.

Mike.

RuggieBear

mike65 wrote:

Its got the whole shebang - fellatio, penatration etc, so you're all going to hell!



Ted would proberly approve actually.

Mike.

LOL...

i just find it strange that sex is still so taboo...

mike65

I'm presuming its "Art" as opposed to commerce. If the same elements were package as a straightfoward porn flick it would get banned I suspect.

Mike.

RuggieBear

mike65 wrote:

I'm presuming its "Art" as opposed to commerce. If the same elements were package as a straightfoward porn flick it would get banned I suspect.

Mike.

Cant resist must not ask......But WHAT IS ART????



well if it is going to accurately portray the beginings of a new sexual relationship....it aint gonna be sexy!

simu

RuggieBear wrote:

LOL...

i just find it strange that sex is still so taboo...

I agree.

This film should be interesting!

GuanYin

Its horribly engrained in Irish society. I still know people who feel uncomfortable with mild sex scenes on tv.

LFCFan

Sex is the most natural act on the planet and none of us would be here without it yet it's still something that society sees as dirty and evil. It rediculous.

Victor

LFCFan wrote:

Sex is the most natural act on the planet and none of us would be here without it

I was a test tube baby.*

*May be a lie

Miguel_Sanchez

Juggalo wrote:

If he now considers himself a film classifier, will the previously cut The Isle get an uncut cinema release? Or will we be watching the edited one?

Nope - it's been cut alright. It's the whole graphic genital mutilation that had to go. Now although 9 songs contains real, explicit sex there's nothing as extreme as meathooks tearing flesh from someone's vagina in it. Hence the passing of one and cutting of the other I'd say.

ixoy

Jeff_Lebowski wrote:

Nope - it's been cut alright. It's the whole graphic genital mutilation that had to go. Now although 9 songs contains real, explicit sex there's nothing as extreme as meathooks tearing flesh from someone's vagina in it. Hence the passing of one and cutting of the other I'd say.

Yeah, that's the way I viewed it. Which, to my mind, is a better approach. It shows that sex, perfectly natural, is seen as being more normal (and less requiring of censorship) than violence (far more abnormal, and generally more hurtful and unwanted). It's kinda the opposite stance taken by American TV where violence is generally a nice ok (zoom into that jagged neck would CSI cam!) but sex is absurdly cut all the time (naughty man and woman bits! Watch someone's neck snapped instead - it's far more OK!).

Sleepy

Is any one else wondering how long it'll be before he's fired for using common sense?

Hagar

Victor wrote:

I was a test tube baby.

So was I. My sign is Pyrex.

mwnger

I'm looking forward to this film actually, not so much for the sex scenes, but for the appearance of some of my favourite bands. Super Furry Animals, Primal Sceam, Franz Ferdinand, et al - to see their live performances on the big screen will be fantastic, I reckon.

By the way, the actor in this, Keiran O'Brien, didn't he play Fitz's son in Cracker, yeah?

mycroft

ixoy wrote:

Yeah, that's the way I viewed it. Which, to my mind, is a better approach. It shows that sex, perfectly natural, is seen as being more normal (and less requiring of censorship) than violence (far more abnormal, and generally more hurtful and unwanted). It's kinda the opposite stance taken by American TV where violence is generally a nice ok (zoom into that jagged neck would CSI cam!) but sex is absurdly cut all the time (naughty man and woman bits! Watch someone's neck snapped instead - it's far more OK!).

Agreed I can't believe the fuss over "nipplegate in the states" with the FCA in an uproar (the likelyhood is the majority of us have intimate knowledge of at least one pair of nipples in our life time) it's a nipple! Let. It . Go. While at the same time showing really graphic and gruesome violence is acceptable.

I was living in the states with three born again college students (long story) who'd happily watch really violent films, I bring home "secrets and lies" and we all sit and watch it with their girlfriends (everyone saving themselves for marriage) the scene at the start with the tampon (nothing major woman on loo reaches for tampon) I got a lecture on exposing them to this filth. :rolleyes:

Also the current censors attitude is fairly healthy, as was our previous ones. The previous censor banned showgirls for it's gratitious nature with no redeming artistic message (incredibly true) and Natural Born Killers for having no redeeming social message, again true (I'd also have added exposing Stone as the blowhard arrogrant talentless showoff we know him to be). The censor has pretty much passed films which appear to have some attempt at striving for artistic credibility while at the same time rejecting sensationalist crap. Fair play to him.

Agent Orange

mycroft wrote:

The previous censor banned showgirls for it's gratitious nature with no redeming artistic message (incredibly true)

And how do you decide whether a film has a 'redeeming artistic message' or not?

ravenhead

I saw this at a screening in the states during the summer but at the time it wasn't named 9 Songs, it was called Ice. I have to say that I found it to be very tastefully done, not at all pornographic like some people are trying to make out that it is, Its a basic love story, nothing more, yes there are detailed sex sense in it but so what??? You'd see worse on Bravo any night of the week.....

ixoy

Another recent example, that pops to mind in this debate, was "The Dreamers". Slaughtered with a box-office death-rating of NC-17 in the States because of its nudity, it got passed without a scratch here. I saw the movie and the nudity is, generally, not designed to be there purely for titilation but more as just the natural state of the characters.

Mycroft - did you try rationalising with your roomies abouot the movie? Or is the concept of "rationalising" and "born again" mutually exclusive?

mycroft

ixoy wrote:

Another recent example, that pops to mind in this debate, was "The Dreamers". Slaughtered with a box-office death-rating of NC-17 in the States because of its nudity, it got passed without a scratch here. I saw the movie and the nudity is, generally, not designed to be there purely for titilation but more as just the natural state of the characters.

Exactly, I think the Irish censor has matured greatly, and takes the artistic merit and context of nudity, profanity and violence into consideration, I'm opposed to censorship on principle, but if a censor is going to operate, operating under those terms is better than operating under some rigid structure about nipples or the exact number of times the word f*ck is used to define a film's rating.

That being said remember the pompous message carried under Micheal Collins, saying it was P-13 but urging parents to let their child see it. Now theres marketing money can't buy.

Mycroft - did you try rationalising with your roomies abouot the movie? Or is the concept of "rationalising" and "born again" mutually exclusive?

Ioxy like most people there are good and bad born again christians. Secret and Lies is an incredibly powerful film, and imaging getting both barrels of Mike Leigh as a conservative hollywood watching bubble gum flick type. One or two of them really liked the film (aside from the profanity and "explicit" stuff they felt was unnecessary and vulgar) and lead to a solid debate about the themes of a film and cinematic realism, which was fascinating. The rest *shrug* they'd already made their mind up.


*LOL*

This whole thread is evoking a memory of one of them objecting to the manner a friend of mine and how she "used her breasts" while debating with him, Oh sweet christ.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i dunno, but good call on showgirls. (damn, a whole new page of replies I didn't see)

ixoy

Here's the type of narrow minded bigotry the censor has to put up with in a letter from today's Independent:

Christian country, our film censor should see fit to pass the film 9 Songs uncut.

In relation to its explicit sexual content, Kieran O'Brien, the male participant in this regrettable cinematic exercise, was reported as saying "it's only sex".

I find it sad that Mr O'Brien should so trivialise the act of sexual intercourse, the ultimate physical expression of love between married couples. I also feel that it is debasing and degrading that two people should sell themselves to engage in scenes of loveless copulation.

What next for Michael Winterbottom, I wonder? Perhaps a similar exercise with members of the gay community? Or scenes from a bathroom with cleverly crafted shots of anal passages, etc?
Brendan Shortall,
Coolmine Lawn, Dublin 15

Sex is between married couples only? Is he delusional? Does he really think this is the way things operate? And to imply that that the coupling is loveless, without having seen the movie or knowing anything about the characters, shows he's the sort of fevrent bigot who had a stranglehold on this country's morality for decades. I particularly like the way he says "perhaps a similiar exercise with members of the gay community", as if the gay community represents the epitome of moral debaseness. Grrrr....

mycroft

ixoy wrote:

it is debasing and degrading that two people should sell themselves to engage in scenes of loveless copulation.

loveless copulation. Gotta love it.

Every time I think I live in a forward thinking and progessive society someone crawls out of a hole somewhere to interupt their decade of the rosary with moral outrage spat at us "godless" types.

simu

ixoy wrote:

Here's the type of narrow minded bigotry the censor has to put up with in a letter from today's Independent:
Sex is between married couples only? Is he delusional? Does he really think this is the way things operate? And to imply that that the coupling is loveless, without having seen the movie or knowing anything about the characters, shows he's the sort of fevrent bigot who had a stranglehold on this country's morality for decades. I particularly like the way he says "perhaps a similiar exercise with members of the gay community", as if the gay community represents the epitome of moral debaseness. Grrrr....

There are about a dozen people in this country who write in to newspapers regularly to complain about stuff like this. It's quite fascinating from a psychological point of view how they manage to keep their heads so deeply burried in sand as not to realise how attitudes to sex have changed in Ireland in the last few decades.

mike65

I think its great such letters are written and published as it reminds us all of where this country used to at (man!) and that we are'nt there any longer.

Mike.

Hugh Hefner

mycroft wrote:

loveless copulation. Gotta love it.

Every time I think I live in a forward thinking and progessive society someone crawls out of a hole somewhere to interupt their decade of the rosary with moral outrage spat at us "godless" types.

Did anyone else notice how mycroft was being just as bigoted as the person being insulted?

Not that I'm saying he's right. He's not. But your not being much better.

Thankfully we have full access to British films which might not be cut like ours. I mean has a censorship ever stopped you from seeing the full film you wanted to?

mycroft

Hugh Hefner wrote:

Did anyone else notice how mycroft was being just as bigoted as the person being insulted?

Not that I'm saying he's right. He's not. But your not being much better.

Why yes there I am implying all homosexuals are degenerate's, no wait that's the bigot. But then I also express how debasing and degrading how consenting adults choose what to do with their bodies, no wait that's the bigot, and implying that there's no artistic merit to, no wait thats the bigot, again

You're right shame on me.

Thankfully we have full access to British films which might not be cut like ours. I mean has a censorship ever stopped you from seeing the full film you wanted to?

Your point being?

ixoy

Hugh Hefner wrote:

Did anyone else notice how mycroft was being just as bigoted as the person being insulted?

Not that I'm saying he's right. He's not. But your not being much better.

Umm yes he is. The letter writer is applying a broad, sweeping judgment to a whole swathe of people he knows nothing about. Mycroft is attacking the narrow minded nature of one particular individual who, by virtue of reading his opinion in a letters page, he DOES know something about. There's a difference in my book.

Thankfully we have full access to British films which might not be cut like ours. I mean has a censorship ever stopped you from seeing the full film you wanted to?

If it's banned/cut here, we're not legally meant to see it. Occasionally there'll be a conflict if a UK station shows it - Life of Brian, the Bad Liutenant, From Dusk Till Dawn 2 & 3 offhand - but that's not the point.

The main issue here is one of classification versus censorship. I have no problem with classification, but I do generally disagree with the notion of cutting and removing scenes. Thankfully that's not the case here, and more power to it.

RuggieBear

dammit....two great rebuffs and i canna give you +rep for it.

Altho....i do think hugh was getting at something that is becoming more prevalent in Irish Society (and i know i'm guilty of) which is blatent prejedice against religion, the church and its followers. Not that i'm saying that is the case with Mycroft or Ixoy.

Recently, it does seem to be an acceptable prejedice, up there with travellers and Compustore....

Victor

Hugh Hefner wrote:

Thankfully we have full access to British films which might not be cut like ours. I mean has a censorship ever stopped you from seeing the full film you wanted to?

Actually you will find classification and censorship values will vary from country to country. While the Irish censor might give "manipulation" a 12 or 15 rating, it could attract an 18 rating in Spain. Meanwhile, we give the full on sex an 18 and Spain gives it a 12 or 15....

mike65

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1278137&issue_id=11620

A FAMILY values organisation has written to the film censor, John Kelleher, asking him to reverse a decision to allow 9 Songs, regarded as the most sexually explicit mainstream film ever, to be shown here uncut.

The move by the Family and Media Association (FMA) comes as it holds a conference today which is to be addressed by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin

The letter from the FMA to Mr Kelleher, reads: "We appeal to you to consider your decision to release the film for screening in Irish cinemas."

It says the sexually explicit behaviour in the movie "is deeply private and intimate and should not be for public viewing."

The FMA also raises concerns about whether an over 18 certificate for the film will actually prevent it being seen by those under 18...

Anyone remember the Mothers Of Seven?

Mike.

Agent Orange

There's an interview with Kelleher on wow.ie where he mentions '9 Songs': click here

ixoy

Oh shock, horror, some groups want him to rescind his descision according to the Indo:

THE Film Censor has defended for the first time his controversial decision to allow the showing of the sexually explicit film, 9 Songs, on Irish screens from next February.

Responding to an objection from the Family and Media Association (FMA), John Kelleher said that "subject to the law, adults should be free to choose for themselves what they may wish to watch".

The FMA wrote to Mr Kelleher last week and urged him to reverse a decision to allow the film to be shown uncut, even though it shows numerous scenes of a couple engaged in sex acts, including intercourse. It is the first time such a film will have been seen on Irish movie screens.

The organisation is also concerned that under 18-year-olds will be able to view it because of what it claims is a lack of proper supervision in cinema multiplexes.

It says that once a person buys their ticket and has it checked, it is easy for them to view a movie other than the one they purchased a ticket to see.

However, Mr Kelleher responded: "The decision to certify this film as Over 18, ie restricting it to adults, was based, as would always be the case, upon a range of other factors that I take into account.

"Chief among these would be my belief that, subject to the law, adults should be free to choose for themselves what they may wish to watch, rather than have me make that decision for them unilaterally.

"Other important factors that I would take into account would be the film's context, impact and totality, as well as the purpose and approach of the filmmaker."

He concluded: "As regards your reference to underage persons being able to gain access to a cinema where a film with a higher certification is playing, I have had extremely few complaints in this regard - literally a handful in the last 18 months.

"However, if you are aware of specific instances in this regards, I will he happy to bring this to the attention of the appropriate authorities."

Hah! Stick it to them Kelleher! Perfect response - adults should be free to watch films, and not have their range decided by him. Their argument, that kids might see the movie, is a rather poor one. That's the role of the cinema to monitor. He's in charge of saying who the audience should be, not enforcing that audience. It wouldn't be long ago that interest groups like the FMA would have swayed him. Kelleher, if you have an account here post something so I can +rep you...

RuggieBear

lol... ixoy, you wanna be careful you don't try and +rep anybody in real life!!!

The organisation is also concerned that under 18-year-olds will be able to view it because of what it claims is a lack of proper supervision in cinema multiplexes.

I liked this quote....what about a lack of proper supervision from the parents making sure that their children aren't heading to the cinema to break the law and try and watch a film they are not allowed to see.....

Nuttzz

I would like to thank the FMA and others for bringing this film to my attention, I wouldnt of heard of it otherwise and would have missed its cinema release......