Copycat Crime Vs. Censorship: When Taboo Cinema Breaks More Than Just Boundaries

On February 12, 1993, in Merseyside, England, two ten-year-old boys abducted two-year-old James Bulger from a local shopping centre. They grabbed him by the hand and walked him 2.5 miles to the train tracks. They then threw blue paint over him and began to torture him by kicking and throwing bricks and stones. The two boys (Robert Thompson and Jon Venables) then dropped a 22 pound iron bar on Bulger and strapped him to the tracks, weighing his head down with rubble. After they fled the scene where they left the toddler to die, Bulger was sliced in half by a train.

During the investigation it was discovered that the 1991 movie Child’s Play 3 (part of the Chucky franchise) was rented by Venables’ father weeks before the murder. It appears as if the two boys were imitating a scene in the movie where Chucky is splashed with blue paint. The Judge outlined that violent films, especially Child’s Play 3, hold striking similarities to the details of the attack on James Bulger.

A piece of daring, subjective art exposed to the wrong audience influenced the murder of an innocent child. Tighter constraints on content mean minor or extreme events like this would cease to occur, however censorship’s archaic and controlling past revokes one of the most important human rights: freedom of speech. Copycat crime vs. censorship – will this fight ever end?

Life Imitates Art/Art Imitates Life

It is clear that two ten-year-old children should not have had access to a 15 rated movie (BBFC) however, this is an example of how life can imitate art, therefore should the art be controlled? It’s no secret that film has the ability to elevate and glorify elements of the human experience, but when a fictitious universe has the strength to dictate reality, that’s when censorship steps in.

From a filmmaker’s perspective, those who wish to censor their movies might as well be the Devil incarnate. A story/cinematic vision cannot be altered on the off chance some deranged, mentally ill spectator uses it as inspiration to kill or commit crime, especially since it strongly contradicts the first amendment. Many subversive directors are tired of arguing with the press and public on this issue.

Consider the most iconic example of all – Quentin Tarantino regularly defending the violence in his movies: when asked what the need is for so much violence, he shouts to the reporter “because it’s so much fun, Jan!” Watch the iconic interview here. Many believe Tarantino’s work glorifies crime and violence, and that might be the case, because there is an element of excitement around the taboo, which is precisely why people watch his work, go see horror movies or play violent video games for example.

It has also been said that the use of the “N word” in Django Unchained is far too extreme, for many have an issue around how much it is used throughout the movie, but arguably it isn’t used any more than it would’ve been in 1850’s America. If censorship aims to restrict life imitating art, then condemning it vice versa puts the first amendment in shackles. Looks like Django isn’t unchained after all.

On the contrary, it must be noted that Tarantino’s screenplay for the 1994 movie Natural Born Killers (which was later banned in the UK) sparked the influence for multiple copycat killings. The killers openly admitted that this film was the source of their actions. Some even stated that they killed to leave a love legacy for the film. How sweet.

Trainspotting Generation

Murder is obviously a very rare and extreme outcome from a taboo movie, however there is a higher correlation with crimes such as drug abuse; Trainspotting, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, Requiem For A Dream and Pineapple Express are often accused of this. Since the release of Trainspotting, drug abuse (typically in Scotland) has soared, and the users now in their 40’s are globally known as the “Trainspotting generation.”

Many people would refute Trainspotting for influencing drug abuse, for it shows an accurate depiction of the turbulence experienced as a heroin addict. Of course there are the literal highs: sinking into the carpet to Lou Reed, but the lows get just as much screen time, if not more (the scene with Allison’s dead baby is a prime example).

Trainspotting isn’t about a group of people getting high and having fun – if that’s what a viewer gets from it then they definitely need to re-watch. It asks the audience to consider their own life choices. It is glorifying in a sense, it persists to be a glorified reminder of what many missed out on, and assures the audience that they made the right choice in doing so.

The same can be said with the 2000 movie Requiem For A Dream; it is undoubtedly a scarring, harrowing film however not in the sense of glorification. It is hard hitting, uncomfortable to watch and haunting. It is a Darren Aronofsky film after all.

It’s A Film, Not A Gun

What can be said about the movies that faced bans for pushing the boat out even further? Delving into topics like incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and torture such as: Lolita, The Dreamers, A Clockwork Orange, The Neon Demon or even The Human Centipede? A justification shouldn’t have to be required when making a piece of art. Of course films of this nature are predicted to receive backlash, but that conflict and discussion elevates the controversial work. These films and stories provide friction, not loaded guns.

It’s clear these filmmakers are pushing boundaries – so far that it could potentially leave a mental scar through its unbelievable unorthodox depiction, but that’s not to say the appropriate audience cannot handle it. It is taboo works like this which revolutionise filmmaking, but because many fear the unfamiliar and possible after effects or consequences of the deranged, they are rejected by classification organisations.

If a film has the power to make someone feel; laugh, cry, get mad, scared etc., it has by default achieved its purpose. Look at the reactions around Jordan Peele‘s 2017 thriller Get Out – people were shouting and screaming in the cinema in fits of rage – Peele‘s intent was understood, and his frustration around racism became contagious. Not all scars emitted through film are negative. Cinema can pack a punch, which film theorist Roland Barthe‘s labels as punctum, “for punctum is also: sting, speck, cut, little hole – and also a cast of the dice. It is that accident which pricks me (but also bruises me, is poignant to me)”. If a film achieves some form of punctum, that’s when it exceeds boundaries, which is what all great films set out to do.

Conclusion

This is an ongoing issue which is highly debated not just within film, but regarding social media, the tabloids, literature etc. and one which will never reach a black and white conclusion. There is one conclusion however, that can be made: for censorship, it comes down to fairness, and for filmmaking, it comes down to taste. Taste is subjective therefore institutions like the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) have to fluctuate correctly (unlike what they did with the rating of The Woman in Black), to make sure the film is for the correct audience, yet also leaving room for creative osmosis between the filmmaker and spectator.

Censorship isn’t as tight as it once was, but minor restrictions by these organisations act as guidelines, e.g. for parents – so their children don’t turn into psychotic murderers (Bad parenting shouldn’t stand in the way of innovative cinema). Yes, censorship is important, but when creation goes head to head with suppression, the art will always come out on top. People watch movies to escape from reality and delve into someone else’s messed up world. They seek gratification, self-discovery, thrill, and depending on the spectator, those things are found in a broad range of genres and cinematic styles all because of taste. Look at the huge archive of film out there, inevitably there’s some good, bad and ugly work – but it is open to interpretation.

Someone might enjoy watching Patrick Bateman play out his base murdering fantasies in American Psycho, but that in no way means they will go into work the next day and drive an axe into their work colleague for having nicer business cards – if they do, that’s on them, not Christian Bale. Regardless of how controversial a film might be, a governing body has no right to tell someone what they can or cannot watch just because of a few bad apples. As long as the audience member is age appropriate (and isn’t a psychopath), it is up to them to make their own cinematic choices; whether that’s in the form of Paddington 2 or Texas Chainsaw Massacre (or both!).

Which films do you think should or shouldn’t be censored? Share your thoughts and comments below!