Comments on: Possession http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/ The Darkest Corner of the Web Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:50:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.0 by: Michael Brooke http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3259 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:46:37 +0000 http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3259 Every Zulawski film I've seen has been borderline hysterical - it's obviously the mode he's most comfortable working in. Every Zulawski film I’ve seen has been borderline hysterical - it’s obviously the mode he’s most comfortable working in.

]]> by: paulwjm http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3221 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:25:48 +0000 http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3221 It is certainly uncomfortable to watch in places - the first third or so is pretty tough as it's near constant conflict between man and wife: hardly the epitome of optimism! Remember though that the actors still had a choice and neither one of the primary players seemed to suffer lasting damage, at least at retrospective glance anyway. Saying that, it can't do a person much good going through that kind of emotion even for make-believe. It is certainly uncomfortable to watch in places - the first third or so is pretty tough as it’s near constant conflict between man and wife: hardly the epitome of optimism! Remember though that the actors still had a choice and neither one of the primary players seemed to suffer lasting damage, at least at retrospective glance anyway. Saying that, it can’t do a person much good going through that kind of emotion even for make-believe.

]]> by: anephric http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3210 Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:22:27 +0000 http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3210 This is an interesting film, no doubt, but I have to admit I have trouble enduring the histrionics that Zulawski directed his actors to perform. This is an interesting film, no doubt, but I have to admit I have trouble enduring the histrionics that Zulawski directed his actors to perform.

]]> by: Michael Brooke http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3199 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:17:53 +0000 http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3199 The problem with the DPP list was that it seemed completely random - I suspect it was just a list of titles that someone or other had made a formal complaint about. But it caused havoc for years, because the BBFC was (understandably) reluctant to pass films that might be at risk of prosecution, and appearing on a list drawn up by the Director of Public Prosecutions couldn't have spelled it out more clearly! The BBFC has always been petrified of a (still thankfully hypothetical) scenario whereby a film they approved gets successfully prosecuted, because it would open up loads of other decisions to legal challenges by concerned <strike>interfering busybodies</strike> individuals - which is why they've always trod very carefully in situations like this. It's just unfortunate that a film like 'Possession' got caught up in the madness. The problem with the DPP list was that it seemed completely random - I suspect it was just a list of titles that someone or other had made a formal complaint about.

But it caused havoc for years, because the BBFC was (understandably) reluctant to pass films that might be at risk of prosecution, and appearing on a list drawn up by the Director of Public Prosecutions couldn’t have spelled it out more clearly!

The BBFC has always been petrified of a (still thankfully hypothetical) scenario whereby a film they approved gets successfully prosecuted, because it would open up loads of other decisions to legal challenges by concerned interfering busybodies individuals - which is why they’ve always trod very carefully in situations like this. It’s just unfortunate that a film like ‘Possession’ got caught up in the madness.

]]> by: paulwjm http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3195 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:54:54 +0000 http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3195 I thought you'd know a bit about Zulawski, Michael, what with his Polish origins, etc.! I'm glad you made the distinction there because the BBFC have come under some unwarranted flak over the years. At least as you say it was never technically 'cut' in this country but the DPP list did result in some of the most ridiculous occurrences in the video industry of this country during the 80s, Possession obviously being caught up in the fuss. I thought you’d know a bit about Zulawski, Michael, what with his Polish origins, etc.! I’m glad you made the distinction there because the BBFC have come under some unwarranted flak over the years. At least as you say it was never technically ‘cut’ in this country but the DPP list did result in some of the most ridiculous occurrences in the video industry of this country during the 80s, Possession obviously being caught up in the fuss.

]]> by: Michael Brooke http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3185 Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:40:31 +0000 http://filmjournal.net/paulwjm/2008/04/20/possession/#comment-3185 A small correction - the BBFC never had a problem with the film, giving it an X certificate on its original release without asking for cuts (here's the <a href="http://bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/0D86B8508336FEF1802566C8004CB39C?OpenDocument" rel="nofollow">entry</a> in their database). The list you're referring to was drawn up by that well known film authority the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it was one of the more controversial entries because it was (a) by a director with a serious reputation (in fact, it was probably the most artistically heavyweight entry on that list), and (b) it had been passed as suitable for theatrical screening - thus worrying the industry because if a BBFC-approved film could be threatened with prosecution, what would be next? (Which is the reason it took so long to get a video certificate - if it hadn't been on the DPP's list, it would undoubtedly have come out much earlier!) A small correction - the BBFC never had a problem with the film, giving it an X certificate on its original release without asking for cuts (here’s the entry in their database).

The list you’re referring to was drawn up by that well known film authority the Director of Public Prosecutions, and it was one of the more controversial entries because it was (a) by a director with a serious reputation (in fact, it was probably the most artistically heavyweight entry on that list), and (b) it had been passed as suitable for theatrical screening - thus worrying the industry because if a BBFC-approved film could be threatened with prosecution, what would be next?

(Which is the reason it took so long to get a video certificate - if it hadn’t been on the DPP’s list, it would undoubtedly have come out much earlier!)

]]>