Theater of Cruelty

Free movie – or?

The film censorship in its present form must go away. This is the reason for the start of the Free Film Association, says editor Bjørn Bjørnsen Orientering.


23.March 1968
By: Kjell Cordtsen, editor

The association aims to show Vilgot Sjömans total ban I'm curious – yellow which closed the show first in April. Members can become members who either subscribe to one of our film magazines, who are a member of a film club or subscribe to Free Film by filling out the enclosed form in a PAX book, written by Vilgot Sjöman on the preparation and recording of this film. .

If Free Film wins the probable case against the Department of Justice, the movie censorship will in reality be eroded.

“The censorship today shames a number of artistically valuable films. It can do this without any kind of control. In other cases, it has chosen a total ban rather than breaking the artistic whole of a movie.

An immediate requirement must therefore be access to appeal. We need to find a system where the function of the film control becomes more advisory than it is today, ”says Bjørn Bjørnsen.

"The way it all works now, film censorship is the only branch of the administration whose decisions cannot be reviewed.

I believe that the film censorship has been at the same level as the prosecution in the case against Christian Krohg and Hans Jæger in the last century. There is no kind of inflamed sex in the movie in question, but open eroticism.

"If the film control believes open eroticism is biased or violates the blueness, then it has acted on the side of the reaction.

"This is a serious film, and I can see nothing but that film today must in principle be in the same position as theater and literature."

Many people have called "I am curious – yellow" a political movie.

"The film is political in that it represents a resentment over the society we have. In West Germany, then, it is not the sex that has been cut away, but the most political sequences.

I'm curious - yellow No one is all sharing successful movies. But it is honest, ambitious and denotes an attempt to create a new film tradition. That's why it's forbidden to ban it, "says Bjørnsen.

"It will consequently be exciting to see what the Ministry of Justice will do. Fri Film aims to lift the effects of a total ban, and it is my impression that the ministry has set heaven and earth in motion to stop the screening. Among other things, the Ministry has been in contact with the importer, and it is perhaps no coincidence that we were subsequently refused a loan of a copy.

We now hope to obtain a copy from Sweden, so that the screening can go as planned on April 3. "

The state film control denies itself

The state film control denies itself

March 23, 1968
By: Bente Von Der Lippe

"I am tired of the state having a censorship body that tells me where the limit for indecency goes, it is my private matter to decide," says Bjørn Bjørnsen in an interview with Dagbladet on Saturday 2 December. He also reproduces the criteria that he believes the Norwegian Film Control uses as a basis for its assessment of films.

«I is curious – yellow og Bonnie and Clyde are products that contain more of the components sex and crime than Norwegians can tolerate, states our film control. Are we not Norwegians we have in this instance?

It amuses me that those who state that a film is intolerable, have themselves tolerated the intolerable. The privileged film tolerants in Norway are the importers themselves, the Norwegian Film Control and a narrow circle of press critics. Their task is to run through everything that is available by Norwegian and foreign directors, dubious sequences are run again for the foundation to be the best possible for a conclusion on behalf of the Norwegian people. These men conclude:

"We let it go – for 'children', for 'youth, for' adults' – use the scissors, this does not even work for adults," etc. But are not the adults we have in these positions?

I would like to know how they feel – e.g. in the Norwegian Film Control – after watching a film that they decide to crop. Are the minds disintegrating, hearts hurt, criminal tendencies encouraged, or perverted lusts teased? In that case, it is clear that these men must be denied access to the product. We cannot allow by the law of 1913 that a group of our own good citizens be destroyed.

It would not be better if we distributed the evil to more people in a shift system. We could leave the control to the importers, but they are also Norwegians. In order for no Norwegians to be harmed by Norwegian and foreign films, we must reduce the censorship selection of Swedes or Danes – something that excludes itself, as our neighbors lack the moral standard necessary in assessing a film's artistic value.

We must probably go further back – to Vilgot Sjöman, and take the evil at its root, as it is called. Then it is asked if the root is not found in several, in all, and acts as a vaccine against the finished product. So that will endure I'm curious – yellow! The more we have in us of the disease on a daily basis, the better we tolerate the deadly soot.

But back to the State Film Control's reaction. If the participants, after banning a film, can pack their bags at 16 pm, take the tram home, eat their wives' food, love them according to good morals and raise their children to coexist, I can only understand that the film has had "a good effect". In any case, it has not been harmful. Unless the participants are completely unchristian, they should treat their neighbor the same.

Finally, it can be argued that the privileged have better conditions for judging the quality of a film than lay people in the field, and that they have been better equipped than us in the event of repeated atrocities. But this leads back to the vaccine's mission: Why should we not have the same opportunity to "equip" ourselves and the same training in judging the quality of the films?

I have a suspicion that we are being discriminated against, and moreover a paradoxical conclusion. If the Norwegian Film Control has not been harmed by the totally banned films, there is no danger associated with closing down such a control. If, on the other hand, there is to be any meaning in the censorship body's existence, it must be because the body has personal experience with the film's harmful effects, and then the body should be closed down.

You may also like