Contemporary Media Regulation Case Study:
SERBIA
“The starting point (of the film) was to express our anger about the last two decades of wars in Serbia and the moral nightmare that exists there…(A Serbian Film) was never intended to shock” and that it is “a diary of our own molestation by the Serbian government”. The director claims: “It’s about the monolithic power of leaders who hypnotise you to do things you don’t want to do” and that audiences “have to feel the violence to know what it’s about”.
BBFC considerations: • • • • • •
Violence Sex Horror (the genre!) Sexual violence Imitable techniques Beyond age ratings • Piracy • Accessing online content
How is the regulator ‘protecting’ people from potential harm?
The regulator was effective – it decided that the film was a ‘political’ statement by the director. Is this double standards? Is this a throw back to the late 60’s attitude that an art-house film is likely to cause less offence than one that is destined for the Multiplexes? Therefore is this a middle-class attitude?
Desensitisation, cultivation and reception theory could all be used here.
Conversely, is this a ‘grown-up’ attitude towards film? Is the effect on society one of trust in making an informed choice by guidance rather than a parochial attitude?
The future of regulation is (still) dependent on the interpretation of a film by a few people. However, remove regulation and what is the alternative?