UK film censors forced to watch a 2-day long movie of paint drying

[renke]

@sodiumlights

Since when is 600min 2 days? That’s 10 hours.

time dilation?

(if I calculated correctly they need to watch the movie at a speed of ~ 0.978c)

[Snowlark]

[anon55609254]

A major point being made in this protest is that movies that might be banned are not even being made. The system is so ingrained that filmmakers are resigned to it, and avoid spending money if they’re afraid it might be banned. Clearly that is a kind of prior restraint. A better (not perfect) system might be to rate films by age, as is done in the US.

[LurkingGrue]

Anybody have a torrent of this?

[phuzz]

Most of the filmmakers — even those who’d had trouble with the BBFC in the past — seemed totally resigned to the censorship imposed by the board, even supportive of it.

So people with more experience of the system don’t mind it? Well they must be wrong then!

[CarlMud]

I would have put in a little more to license a short clip of the Never Gonna Give You Up music video in the last 30 seconds of the film.

[shaddack]

@stinkinbadgers

Can’t wait for the sequel, “Watching Grass Grow”.

Rumours say there will be a hot bug-on-bug action somewhere along day three.

[nickle]

Reminds me of the 1970s in the UK. The police were forever raiding sex shops seizing films and videos.

It’s a fair cop one says, bundle off, films seized. Turns up in court, pleads not guilty.

Police say that he was caught with porno etc.

No I wasn’t is the defense.

So out comes the projector, and its cartoons of snow white.

Case dismissed.

[Clifton]

Boing Boing: bad at math.

(5963 - 101.50)/7.09 = 822.92 minutes, not 607, so it should be an 822 minute film if he lives up to his pledge.
607 minutes / 60 minutes per hour = 10+ hours, a whole lot less than 2 days.
822 minutes / 60 = 13 1/2 hours, still a whole lot less than 2 days.

It should have taken less time to check that than it did to copy and paste the links to the other articles.

ENGAGE BRAIN FIRST!

[renke]

@Clifton

ENGAGE BRAIN FIRST!

y u stoopid? haha. lol.

[miasm]

@phuzz

So people with more experience of the system don’t mind it? Well they must be wrong then!

It’s a just world after all, nothing to see here! You can all ignore the censorship and the impact on creativity and the invasive practices hobbling art. Some people have managed to work to their own benefit within the system, it’s all ok now, you can all go home.

[miasm]

Production costs other than the per minute charge, cameras, a wall, lighting, paint etc.

8 hour working days.

[Clifton]

No. You didn’t read the original article or the Kickstarter. He produced 14 hours of film before he started the fundraiser; the fundraiser was supposed to purely pay the British Censor Board charges:

All the money raised by this campaign (minus Kickstarter’s fees) will be put towards the cost of the certificate, so the final length of the film will be determined by how much money is raised here.

(I did forget to deduct for Kickstarter fees, though.)

[HMSGoose]

[Purplecat]

I still think what I did the last time this article came up.
The BBFC really seems like a misplaced target for this sort of driving trollies.

Watching paint dry: epic crowfunded troll of the UK film censorship board

That’s what I thought as well. I’d also note that their title is the “British Board of Film Classification” which is a lot closer to their actual role. Most films are passed uncut, and they really do act as an information service, not a censorship board. The real target of the protest is probably the funding mechanism, which does appear to hit small, indie producers. But it’s difficult to see how to fund this otherwise, because if it’s paid for by general taxation, that would make them worrying…

[miasm]

Hehe, and neither did you.

But I have the advantage of having said ‘etc’, which is where the money went:

I must apologise. An invoice arrived earlier today from the BBFC, requesting a sum of money 20% larger than expected, and I realised that the fees quoted on the BBFC’s website are, of course, excluding VAT.

(A note for international backers: in the UK, a 20% value-added tax is levied on most goods and services provided by registered businesses in the UK.)

Individuals wishing to have their films rated by the BBFC should therefore remember that — once VAT is added on — the effective cost of a certificate is £121.80 plus £8.51 per minute of runtime, not £101.50 plus £7.09 per minute as previously stated.

In the case of ‘Paint Drying’, that means the film’s runtime has now been shortened to 10 hours and 7 minutes.

[Ministry]

[quote=“Shuck, post:20, topic:72712, full:true”]
Except: isn’t the classification mandatory?[/quote]
Literally, no, but in practice, yes. As I understand it, classification isn’t legally compulsory, but local authorities are unlikely to allow an unrated film to be shown in their districts.

@Shuck

And some classifications can result in a movie being banned?

I’m sure someone will prove me wrong, but my understanding is that it’s extremely unlikely nowadays - the BBFC of the 1960s isn’t the BBFC of 2015. The primary objective is to classify films as ‘suitable’ for different age groups, with an outright ban being the nuclear option for something truly startling.

As I sort-of said earlier, I don’t have a problem with the possibility of banning - I do not support the principle that absolutely anything - anything - goes. If that’s censorship, I support censorship.

ETA: Again just my understanding, but I think it’s common for the BBFC to say “we’ll give it an ‘18’ as it is, but if you change this, this, and this, we’ll give it a ‘15’.” There’s obviously a commercial pressure to agree, as it’ll affect the size of the potential audience, but I still don’t see it as a problem.

@BernardDeems

A major point being made in this protest is that movies that might be banned are not even being made. The system is so ingrained that filmmakers are resigned to it, and avoid spending money if they’re afraid it might be banned.[/quote]
I’m entirely with you on that. The cost of classification shouldn’t be such a barrier - but I do think classification is a good idea.

[quote=“BernardDeems, post:23, topic:72712, full:true”]A better (not perfect) system might be to rate films by age, as is done in the US.

That’s broadly what we have in the UK:

• U (Universal) - all ages.
• PG (Parental Guidance) - 8 and over; parents are warned that younger children might be disturbed.
• 12
• 12A (12 if accompanied by an adult)
• 15
• 18
• And apparently there a ‘Restricted 18’ for… specialist films.

[Jim_Kirk]

My movie will be several hundred hours long, and intended to be an artistic statement examining the interaction between image and audience. The important part of a movie isn’t what happens on the screen but what happens in the mind of the viewer. Given the opportunity to be completely unencumbered by plot, character or action for a prolonged time, (miss the start or end, watch as long as you like, it doesn’t matter) what “movie” will play itself out in their brain?

[renke]

@Jim_Kirk

what “movie” will play itself out in their brain

I hope the BBFC will never see my movie - instant ban by nuking from orbit

[shaddack]

@Jim_Kirk

Given the opportunity to be completely unencumbered by plot, character or action for a prolonged time, (miss the start or end, watch as long as you like, it doesn’t matter) what “movie” will play itself out in their brain?

Depends. What stuff are we supposed to be smoking?