Borat

[nomadologist]

1. Campus speech codes, usually directed at suppressing "hate speech";

Do you think that forcing a code of conduct (a politically correct one) wherein any form of speech is completely silenced in public discourse for the sake of quashing racism or sexism or classism or elitism would work? Because I don't. I think Americans could all be saying the best, most correct things according to leftist ethical codes, and that black people would still not have money to feed their children, the average middle class family would not have health insurance, and things could continue on forever that way. The changes need to be made on the level of policy here first. Until that happens, I don't know if policing language and reinforcing sensitivities by hystericizing speech will have any net effect against racism/sexism/classism/etc.

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

RE: A Clockwork Orange Tolchocking

i'm not being a dick, but why wasn't it withdrawn in the US then?

i had heard he had no problem with the film itself...

This was already alluded to in a previous post, where I wrote:

Indeed, if Kubrick's request to Warner Bros, who owned and controlled the negative, had been fully respected, the film would have been withdrawn from world-wide circulation back in 1973; but Warner's just settled for Britain, as Kubrick resided there. Yes, Kubrick did have serious regrets about the first 20 minutes of the film, which is why he banished the movie from all further consideration, refusing even to discuss it with anyone right up to his death.​

I think it might be more helpful and productive to concentrate on what actually happened rather than simply repeat tabloid hearsay, myth, and "impressions" that completely contradict all the available evidence ...

Ari then responded in a post with:

I thought Kubrick banned the film because he got fed up with the controversy that surrounded it. I didn’t think it had anything to do with the films actual content ... What concerns did he have about the films first 20 minutes?​

To which I responded, with:

First, to repeat, the film was not banned. On the contrary, John Trevelyan, the then Chairman of The British Board of Film Classification (from 1956-71), passed the film with an "X" certificate and said it was "...an important social document of outstanding brilliance and quality". It opened in Britain in January 1972 soon provoking a great deal of controversy - to the extent that it only ran in one cinema (the Warner West End in London) for over a year. After the controversy seemed to have filtered away, the film then went on general release for a number of weeks - so unleashing a new, more determined hysterical hate campaign. On Kubrick's request, Warner's quietly withdrew the film from circulation, nobody even being aware or noticing, until many years later when a cinema tried to show the film ... Nobody imposed anything on anyone, it was Kubrick's own choice, albeit in a heated, seemingly threatening environment ... Secondly, are you suggesting that there was no connection between the film's content and the controversy surrounding it?​

To which Ari responded, with:

Not at all, I was merely implying that the controversy was generated by tabloid media and Britain’s moral guardians. My impression was that Kubrick had the film withdrawn because he got fed up with the constant harassment he was receiving at the time. That does not mean he had a problem with films content, it just means others did and they gave him a hard time over it. That’s only my impression though and I stand corrected if it’s not true.​

The problem here, Ari, is that you fail to provide any basis for your "impression"; it's an ideologically loaded interpretation [not your fault, just a narrative myth perpetuated for decades by that same tabloid media everyone likes to complain about] that is completely inconsistent with all the available evidence, and my response above provides more than sufficient detail and evidence to demonstrate this. But to elaborate further:

[1] Aside from the controversy the film provoked, if Kubrick had no problem with the film, if he believed it to have been harmless, then why on earth would he withdraw it? And in total secrecy? Are you implying that he was irrational, that he was behaving in an utterly stupid manner by requesting the withdrawal of a film he believed to be harmless (the logical corollory to this implication being that he would not have withdrawn the film if he believed it to have been harmful)? No, I'm very far from being facetious here, but simply exposing lazy reasoning based on imaginary "facts." The conclusion is that it would be absurd to subscribe to such "reasoning": he withdrew it because he considered it to be dangerous, and did so independently of the raging controversy (whether the film is or isn't harmless is an entirely different issue, I'm concentrating here instead on what actually happened, not what people imagine happened).

[2] As stated, the film was withdrawn privately after it had been running in cinemas in Britain for around 60-plus weeks, withdrawn without any public announcement, without the media or the public knowing that it had even been withdrawn (and they were not to discover that it had been so withdrawn for another 6-plus years). Now, please correct me if I'm mistaken here, but why, if Kubrick withdrew the film in order to end the controversy, was it removed without telling anyone? Surely its withdrawal would have been publicised as widely as possible in order to calm everyone down (with the tabloid media then barking "Well done Stanley! Good show old chap! Proper order!" etc)? The reason this did not occur is [a] The controversy had already died down (otherwise it would have continued, because nobody knew that the film had been withdrawn, just that it had ended its natural theatrical run, like every other film) and As the film was actually withdrawn after the controversy, it was therefore, by definition, withdrawn for reasons unrelated to the controversy itself, for Kubrick's own reasons (reasons that remained right up to his death, during which time a reverse controversy developed, viz "Why won't he let it be shown, now that the film is distinctly tame relative to numerous other non-controversial films?").

Despite this, however, in a total reversal of both causality and chronology, the myth soon developed that the film was withdrawn because of the insane controversy itself, that it was withdrawn as a direct result of all the threats, and that Kubrick and his harmless film was the victim of a crazed witch hunt. Moreover, if he believed that the film was completely innocent, that it had no relationship to the mad controversy, then why couldn't he, instead, for example, just go out and feed the dogs, water the plants, and clean some camera lenses? Do something equally innocent? "Look you damn crazy people, I've fed the dogs, watered the plants, and cleaned my lenses! What more do you want? Now will you please leave me in peace, goddammit!" Yes, of course this is totally ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than believing that Kubrick withdrew a film because he believed it to be totally innocent and unrelated to any controversy ...

Have we yet syphilised our civilised yarbles?

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Do you think that forcing a code of conduct (a politically correct one) wherein any form of speech is completely silenced in public discourse for the sake of quashing racism or sexism or classism or elitism would work? Because I don't. I think Americans could all be saying the best, most correct things according to leftist ethical codes, and that black people would still not have money to feed their children, the average middle class family would not have health insurance, and things could continue on forever that way. The changes need to be made on the level of policy here first. Until that happens, I don't know if policing language and reinforcing sensitivities by hystericizing speech will have any net effect against racism/sexism/classism/etc.

Of course the underlying problems are structural, are in the realm of political economy and ideology, but you are here suggesting that nothing can or should be done at the political level to address them, that, indeed, openly racist/sexist/classist discourse should be encouraged and is actually preferable to all attempts to confront it, that such an "approach" will in fact lead to less racism/sexism/classism. So if a colleague or boss of your's systematically hurls sexist or classist abuse at you, ruthlessly calling you "white trash" and a "cheap whore", verbally sexually harassing you, your response would be to say "Great, keep it up, colleague, because permitting such abuse is the best way to overcome sexism/classism/racism in the workplace, whereas affirmative action programmes make it all worse. "

Marvellous. I'm sure that'll qualify you for an immediate salary increase.

Is there any room for the subversive in your ideology, Hundredmillion? If not, I'd say it's too bleak for me.

Abjectly conforming to the racist/sexist/classist status quo is subversive? Finding Borat "hilarious" is subversive? Oh right, defending the dominant ideology is subversive, questioning it is oh so boring, oh so deja vu, "Why don't you just get with the programme and come on in for the big win ... let's all have sweet subversive consensus and to hell with all dissensus, that's just trouble ..."

 

[nomadologist]

So if a colleague or boss of your's systematically hurls sexist or classist abuse at you, ruthlessly calling you "white trash" and a "cheap whore", verbally sexually harassing you, your response would be to say "Great, keep it up, colleague, because permitting such abuse is the best way to overcome sexism/classism/racism in the workplace, whereas affirmative action programmes make it all worse. "

Oh have I been there. The worst time was when I was working for a bigshot corporate lawyer as a nanny, in his home, so you can imagine that it went from bad to far worse than just slander. Of course, being a lawyer, having a reputation, standing, loads and loads of money made it almost impossible to take the high road--which would have been to litigate every last cent out of him and make it so he'd never work in this city again. But because I had to eat, and pay my rent, [edit: i was also working under the table] I didn't immediately quit. I just pitied the idiot. Unfortunately, the class disparity made it such that the balance of power was so off that I was in a lose/lose situation. Not sure what your example has to do with watching Borat, unless you mean that people shouldn't watch Borat, like people shouldn't take money from their abusers.

Abjectly conforming to the racist/sexist/classist status quo is subversive? Finding Borat "hilarious" is subversive? Oh right, defending the dominant ideology is subversive, questioning it is oh so boring, oh so deja vu, "Why don't you just get with the programme and come on in for the big win ... let's all have sweet subversive consensus and to hell with all dissensus, that's just trouble ..."

Is there no way to not find Borat hilarious, but understand the level of satire as too inflamatory but not racist? I love dissensus. I just happen to think that dissent shouldn't be silenced because of any academic or "PC" status quo/normativity, either.

What do you think about sex-positive feminism? Do you think that due to the underlying political structures that comprise heteronormativity, all heterosex is tantamount to violence, to rape? That women dressing provocatively couldn't possibly be for their own pleasure, but that the gaze structurally determines all heterosexuality?

 

[nomadologist]

Oh, and affirmative action in the U.S. is a really fascinating story. I will find a good link, since I don't have the stamina or raw data at hand to go into it in my own words. But from what I remember from a couple years ago, everything in the data (at least in the U.S.) is suggesting that using sex/race-based affirmative action doesn't correct class-disparity, and that, in fact, where class disparity is corrected by affirmative action, the sex/race disparity follows.

 

[nomadologist]

Also, I was saying that everything has to happen on the most basic political level--i.e., policy.

 

[D84]

OK I'm summarising your arguments here re Kubrick's reasons for withdrawing A Clockwork Orange - I hope that's cool:

1. He withdrew it in secrecy and andependently of the controversy

2.

[a] The controversy had already died down (otherwise it would have continued, because nobody knew that the film had been withdrawn, just that it had ended its natural theatrical run, like every other film) and As the film was actually withdrawn after the controversy, it was therefore, by definition, withdrawn for reasons unrelated to the controversy itself, for Kubrick's own reasons (reasons that remained right up to his death, during which time a reverse controversy developed, viz "Why won't he let it be shown, now that the film is distinctly tame relative to numerous other non-controversial films?").

Yes, of course this is totally ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than believing that Kubrick withdrew a film because he believed it to be totally innocent and unrelated to any controversy ...

OK appart from the last bit being an obvious straw man I'm not convinced by these arguments either.

This is what his wife said on the Kubrick site's FAQ on the question:

A Clockwork Orange opened in Britain in January 1972 amid a great deal of controversy - so much so that it only ran in one cinema (the Warner West End in London) for over a year. After the fuss seemed to have died down, the film went on general release - whereupon the hate campaign in the British tabloid press really started in earnest.

Effectively, the film was blamed for every single act of violence committed in Britain during 1972 and 1973, regardless of whether the perpetrators were even aware of the film's existence. Finally, Kubrick quietly asked Warner Bros. to withdraw the film - which has not been legally shown in Britain since August 1973.

No one noticed at the time (in that pre-video era, people just assumed it had finished its natural cinema run), and in fact no-one noticed for a further six or seven years - it was only when London's prestigious National Film Theatre ran a Kubrick retrospective and omitted the film (an omission that stuck out like a sore thumb considering that Kubrick was never exactly prolific). Needless to say, since the ban pre-dated the introduction of the domestic video recorder, the film has never had a legitimate video release in Britain and neither has it been shown on television.

There were a couple of high-profile cases regarding the film - Channel Four ran a documentary incorporating several clips, while the Scala Cinema in King's Cross showed an illegally-obtained print of the film. In both cases Warner Bros. attempted to sue - unsuccessfully in the case of Channel Four but successfully in the case of the Scala (though it's not true, despite countless allegations in the British press, that the case led directly to the cinema's closure a couple of months later).

As to why Kubrick asked for the film to be withdrawn, Kubrick would never discussed the matter, not even with journalists like Alexander Walker and Michel Ciment who were good friends. Recently the reason for the ban was revealed by his widow in the Channel 4 documentary, "The Last Movie" shown in the UK. Christiane, sitting in the garden of Childwick Bury told Paul Joyce: "the reason the film was withdrawn was because we got so many threats that the police said we must do something and he withdrew it. [He was] both artistically hurt and also scared. He didn't want to be misunderstood and misinterpreted and you don't like to get death threats for you family.

Paul Joyce
It's difficult to believe looking here at all this exquisite privacy that you thought your lives were in danger.

Christiane
That's not paranoia, that was on paper many time over [..] it was uncomfortable; difficult for the children, and we wanted to stay in England, so... don't show the film.

Paul Joyce
Was the withdrawal successful in stopping those threats.

Christiane
yes.

Kubrick didn't have any legal power to withdraw the film, Warner Bros. did it at his request. Former CEO, Terry Semel explained, "It wasn't a contractual request, [Kubrick said] "if you want to keep me safe and comfortable, don't do it"."

Notes:
(1) Christiane Kubrick and Terry Semel quotations taken from The Last Movie: Stanley Kubrick and Eyes Wide Shut a film by Paul Joyce, shown on Channel 4 in the UK, 5 Sept 1999.

I've done a few searches but couldn't find any other documented reason for the withdrawal of the film. Help us out here with some references if you can.

If what you say is true then why didn't he try to buy up as many of the prints as possible as he tried to do with his first film Fear and Desire which he seems to have regarded as embarrassing juvenalia?

Do you think A Clockwork Orange should have been withdrawn from public concumption or are just winding us up?

 

[nomadologist]

Oh have I been there. The worst time was when I was working for a bigshot corporate lawyer as a nanny, in his home, so you can imagine that it went from bad to far worse than just slander. Of course, being a lawyer, having a reputation, standing, loads and loads of money made it almost impossible to take the high road--which would have been to litigate every last cent out of him and make it so he'd never work in this city again. But because I had to eat, and pay my rent, [edit: i was also working under the table] I didn't immediately quit. I just pitied the idiot. Unfortunately, the class disparity made it such that the balance of power was so off that I was in a lose/lose situation.

My point above also illustrates how, if in the U.S. we had some sort of universal health care, a much higher minimum wage, and/or a legally supported and financially viable way for people to NEVER have to work under the table, this situation would have been avoidable. Or at least a little more avoidable. I do agree that academic dissent from the status quo would play a role in this, but I'm not sure i think it is the most immediately way to involve oneself in the public sphere in America. Being a politician probably would be.

 

[ari]

The problem here, Ari, is that you fail to provide any basis for your "impression"; it's an ideologically loaded interpretation [not your fault, just a narrative myth perpetuated for decades by that same tabloid media everyone likes to complain about] that is completely inconsistent with all the available evidence, and my response above provides more than sufficient detail and evidence to demonstrate this. But to elaborate further:

[1] Aside from the controversy the film provoked, if Kubrick had no problem with the film, if he believed it to have been harmless, then why on earth would he withdraw it?

I’ve already answered this. I thought he withdrew the film because of the harassment he was receiving at the time. The basis for this comment was a handful of articles I’ve read over the years. I had know reason to question them at the time but I’m happy to accept that they where not accurate and that’s why I sought clarification when I asked you to elaborate on your comments re that Kubrick had problems with the films content.

Begs the question though, if he believed the film was dangerous, why did he go to the trouble of making it in the first place?

 

[nomadologist]

Or why didn't he pull it from US distribution (a much much bigger market) and stop taking royalty checks from his distribution co? Seems like if it were a moral or political issue for him, he would have been sure to do this.

So as not to sound antagonistic, which I never really meant to, but probably did: Hundredmillion, I understand how you feel about Borat--emotionally, I have the same reaction.

I remember hitting up against the same wall about The Family Guy when that was on. To me, it was the same kind of reaction you're having to Borat, and a perfect example of taking The Simpsons kind of Americana satire to a pointless level of nihilism that seemed, frankly, irresponsible to me. Maybe not sexist/classist/racist, but completely empty. Especially knowing for a fact some people (because I watched and discussed it with them) didn't know it was even trying to be satire.

 

[ari]

Christiane, sitting in the garden of Childwick Bury told Paul Joyce: "the reason the film was withdrawn was because we got so many threats that the police said we must do something and he withdrew it. [He was] both artistically hurt and also scared. He didn't want to be misunderstood and misinterpreted and you don't like to get death threats for you family.

This kind of fly’s in the face of your assertions, hundredmillionlifetimes.

To me this implies that the films withdrawal was a direct consequence of the harassment he was receiving at the time.

 

[nomadologist]

Hmm...maybe a weird question...


What if Borat were a comic book character and the same things happened? Would it still be perceived as not having enough distanciation to avoid racism?

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

OK I'm summarising your arguments here re Kubrick's reasons for withdrawing A Clockwork Orange - I hope that's cool:

1. He withdrew it in secrecy and andependently of the controversy

Yes. So you're disputing the documented record?

OK appart from the last bit being an obvious straw man I'm not convinced by these arguments either.

What are you not convinced by? Or is it that you wish to remain coy, that you would prefer to keep your reasons for being unconvinced suitably mysterious?

His wife has reiterated some long-known details, but her interpretation is at variance with the actual sequence of events.

If what you say is true then why didn't he try to buy up as many of the prints as possible as he tried to do with his first film.

But he didn't need to - the film was withdrawn, and all known attempts in Britain (and Ireland) to exhibit the film (or openly sell/rent pirate videos) up to 1999 were successfully threatened with legal action.

Do you think A Clockwork Orange should have been withdrawn from public concumption or are just winding us up?

No and no. You're winding me up, but the clock's battery is long dead ...

 

[nomadologist]

But he kept taking checks from Warner Bros based on profits in countries where it hadn't been withdrawn. No?

 

[nomadologist]

By the time it became a huge cult classic in the US, the British market would have seemed like peanuts to Warner Bros. He wasn't exactly commercially divorcing himself from the film, being that there were 250 million Americans ready to join the ultraviolent orgy. To this day, I'm sure his family gets checks. Whoever inherited his estate does.

 

[IdleRich]

"[1] Aside from the controversy the film provoked, if Kubrick had no problem with the film, if he believed it to have been harmless, then why on earth would he withdraw it? And in total secrecy? Are you implying that he was irrational, that he was behaving in an utterly stupid manner by requesting the withdrawal of a film he believed to be harmless (the logical corollory to this implication being that he would not have withdrawn the film if he believed it to have been harmful)? No, I'm very far from being facetious here, but simply exposing lazy reasoning based on imaginary "facts." The conclusion is that it would be absurd to subscribe to such "reasoning": he withdrew it because he considered it to be dangerous, and did so independently of the raging controversy"

Is this supposed to be logic? Because it's not. Just to point out one hole (of many) in the reasoning. It would not be irrational to request the withdrawal of a film that he believed to be harmless if other people who didn't believe it to be harmless were threatening him.
Actually I can't resist picking out another because it's such an elementary mistake. You say that withdrawing an unharmful film has as "a logical corollary" the non-withdrawal of a harmful film. If you really think that (where A stands for "Unharmful Film" and B stands for (Withdrawal))

[A implies B] is equivalent to [(not A) implies (not B)]

then you have completely misunderstood the most basic rule of logic and pretty much forfeited your right to take any part in reasoned argument ever again.
In general HMLifetimes I find your arguments almost always misdirected and badly constructed. I suggest that you read and understand what the person you are talking to says slowly and carefully before you misunderstand it and charge off in the wrong direction as you almost invariably do. You always give the impression of someone shouting impotently at the screen as someone somehow fails to grasp the nonsense you are spouting.
The whole argument about how Clockwork Orange was withdrawn was completely unnecessary anyway because you were almost in agreement, you just took exception to the way someone questioned one of the specifics of your post.
By the way, in one of your earlier posts you use the phrase "beg the question" to mean "raise a question", if you do not understand how to use this phrase correctly please do not use it in future.
I'm sorry if this post seems aggressive but nothing annoys me so much as pseudo-intellectualism.

 

[noel emits]

It's all so wrong isn't it?

But it is sort of funny. Sometimes humour is about opening up nasty wounds and seeing what's inside. Catharsis. Is sick humour off limits now? Was Nietzsche right about laughter?

Mind you, if I was from Kazakhstan I'd probably be very pissed off right now.
And catching drunk people off guard making tasteless comments on camera is pretty low. Shooting fish in a barrel really.

Are we all now to be extra wary of humouring friendly yet apparently clueless foreigners in case it's a sting? Definitely a lesson there.

 

[nomadologist]

There was so much affirming the consequent up there, I didn't even know where to begin, Idle.

I took my symbolic logic final 10 hours into an acid trip, and I still remember that much. Wish I had a keyboard with the pretty notation on it...

 

[lazybones]

it was even illegal to show clockwork in academic institutions or film clubs - this was no half-hearted ban at all. funnily enough it was the more effective than a bbfc ban!

also i have a interviews given by SK on clockwork post1971 and also a letter he wrote to the editor of the NY times regarding the film... will scan through them shortly and post any relevant information,

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

Is this supposed to be logic? Because it's not. Just to point out one hole (of many) in the reasoning. It would not be irrational to request the withdrawal of a film that he believed to be harmless if other people who didn't believe it to be harmless were threatening him.

Lovely, except your "hole" is not a hole - its your attempt to imagine one, and its irrelevant, because Kubrick did not withdraw the film due to threats, as my post was attempting to demonstrate. Really, you should take your own advice here: "I suggest that you read and understand what the person you are talking to says slowly and carefully before you misunderstand it and charge off in the wrong direction as you almost invariably do."

Actually I can't resist picking out another because it's such an elementary mistake.

You mean that you are unable to restrain yourself from your obsessional pedantry, here directed at strawmen.

You say that withdrawing an unharmful film has as "a logical corollary" the non-withdrawal of a harmful film. If you really think that (where A stands for "Unharmful Film" and B stands for (Withdrawal)

[A implies B] is equivalent to [(not A) implies (not B)]

then you have completely misunderstood the most basic rule of logic and pretty much forfeited your right to take any part in reasoned argument ever again.

Again, if you had actually bothered to read the post, even quickly, you might have spotted the bit about erroneous reasoning: "The conclusion is that it would be absurd to subscribe to such "reasoning"". To borrow from your own hysterical injunction, you have now "forfeited your right to take any part in reasoned argument ever again," along with elementary reading comprehension, Idlerich.

In general HMLifetimes I find your arguments almost always misdirected and badly constructed. You always give the impression of someone shouting impotently at the screen as someone somehow fails to grasp the nonsense you are spouting.

And you here engaging in personal abuse is an "example" of well-constructed argument? It is you who persistently spouts nonsense, and are here utterly vacuous in your post where your only agenda is to gratuitously hurl insult. Now have you something, however trivial, to contribute to this discussion, apart from yet more abuse and misdirected pedantry about first order predicate calculus?

The whole argument about how Clockwork Orange was withdrawn was completely unnecessary ...

No it wasn't, you insular, myopic idlebuffoon. It was the useless, thoroughly disingenuous garbage you call your post that was completely unnecessary.

you just took exception to the way someone questioned one of the specifics of your post.

Certainly, and I've every right to, but it wasn't a questioning of specifics, it was an alternative conflicting interpretation which I believed to be at variance with the evidence, and which I sought to clarify, and not an insignificant issue considering the widespread acceptance of that particular interpretation. You're here just nit-picking, and mistakenly so, for the sole purpose of provoking conflict.

I'm sorry if this post seems aggressive but nothing annoys me so much as pseudo-intellectualism.

Then do us a favour and stop parading yours in this thread ...

You're sorry in advance for your irresponsible insults, as if that let's you off the hook?

I'm sorry if this post insults you, but nevertheless it is intended to insult you