China Bans Horror Movies

KublaiKhan writes "According to an article on Reuters, the Chinese censors have decided that horror movies are verboten. 'Offending content included "wronged spirits and violent ghosts, monsters, demons, and other inhuman portrayals, strange and supernatural storytelling for the sole purpose of seeking terror and horror," the administration said. This is apparently a sort of Chinese version of the Jack Thompson effect, as the "mental health of adolescents" is cited as one of the reasons for the ban. Presumably, this ban — much like the spitting ban — is intended to improve China's image in the rest of the world before the Olympics open; but given the Streisand effect, would this ban perhaps unintentionally spur a surge of horror movie popularity in China?" Blizzard has had trouble with skeletons in World of Warcraft , and I imagine this decision stems from similar objections.

Comments

So much for Documentaries...

[houstonbofh]

I guess "An Inconvenient Truth" can't be aired in Chine now... This is only half a joke.

Improve their image?

[geekgirlandrea]

And just how exactly is it supposed to improve their image with the rest of the world to look like a bunch of censorious tyrants?

I didn't know what it was either

[rolfwind]

Figured it came from Southpark or something but it didn't...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Ban Horror, Monsters or Shlock Stock?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And maybe I'm suffering from old fartism, but some of the more shlocky stuff lately seems to be, uh, more of the same gore for gore's sake."

Al Gore:The movie and it's Sequal Al Gore gets gored.

Re:Ban Horror, Monsters or Shlock?

[pilgrim23]

problem with Chinese horror movies is.... they are good and all that, but..... an hour later.....

What a worthless government

[rastoboy29]

How long will the Chinese people tolerate this stuff?  They have to meet with their Western colleagues, and explain that they may not be allowed to visit a certain internet sight, see a certain movie, etc. because their government doesn't think they can handle it.

It's embarrassing.

Re:What a worthless government

[sydneyfong]

[ Disclaimer, I am Chinese, and I live in China. Specifically I live in Hong Kong, which may or may not be "China" in your definition. ]

I have always been perplexed by Westerners' belief that they are somehow responsible for human rights and democracy in China. I have been more perplexed at how they believe sticking their noses into another country's matters will make things better.

I don't live in Mainland China (which is the part under direct control of the CCP), so I don't claim to have authentic first hand facts. However, my proximity with mainland China is probably good enough for me to tell you what I believe is a fact: Most people in China would like to have more civil/political rights, ARE aware of abuses by their government, but nevertheless loathe any foreign attempts to meddle with the problems. Basically it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems ourselves".

If you're asking why China has been so resistant to external pressures to human rights reforms... this is the reason. Basically nobody in China wants "Western democratic countries" to dictate their path. I'd add that the recent Iraq disaster is deemed to be a telling story of what it could be like to be "liberated" from a dictatorship.

If you think I'm misguided, and have good reasons for that, please let me know.

Re:What a worthless government

[oddfox]

Nobody in America with half a brain and true concern for the flagrant abuses of basic universal human and civil rights is advocating doing anything with China other than cutting off the (economic) lifeblood that's keeping this despicable government in power in the first place. We are entirely within our rights to advocate this sort of policy because many of us cannot stand the idea of supporting that government financially through trade. A violent overthrow in the style of Iraq and Afghanistan isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen, I can't see America attacking China unless we slip pretty far (Nevermind how far we've slipped already in the past eight years).

It's not that we're responsible for democracy and human rights in China, but rather that every responsible conscientious human being is responsible for ensuring the spread of the basic values that the Chinese government refuses to allow its citizenry. It doesn't matter how proud the Chinese people are or how powerful they think they could possibly be against the government that made Tienanmen Square happen. There's a point where you have to realistically view just how weak and powerless you are to prevent your government from doing whatever it damn well pleases.

Basically it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems ourselves".

No, basically, it's "fsck off, we'll fix the problems if you don't because tomorrow it might be us becoming subjects." If the Chinese people won't or can't step up to the plate to prevent the spread of a very dangerous totalitarian government, well, sorry guys but someone will do something about it.

To reiterate, nobody's with good intentions and a solid head on their shoulders is advocating a violent overthrow, we want peaceful change, we want to take the steam out of this current regime so that the Chinese government would be that much more willing to sink or swim. Sadly, this will have the side-effect of being at least partially harmful to the population, but it's definitely the path of least bloodshed. Chinese citizens are proud of their history and culture, as they very well should be, but to refuse the assistance of those with genuine concern is just stupid and foolhardy. We aren't trying to dictate the future of your country so much as we're assuring the continuance of civilized society that doesn't suppress its citizens mercilessly. And you can bet your bottom dollar the Chinese government would love nothing more than expansion, which we're not going to allow.

This will be interesting

[WindBourne]

Is china able to get ALL of china to clear their households of this, but not able to stop illegal copying, stealing of secrets, theft of business, etc? Hmmmmmm.

Geography 101

[interactive_civilian]

I just thought you might like to know that, while they are all in Asia and are very close to each other, Japan, Korea, and China are actually different countries with different kinds of culture, laws, and government.

Based on this, I can't help but wonder what a Korean horror movie (The Host) and a Japanese horror movie (Godzilla) have to do with the Chinese government banning horror movies...

What makes this a coincidence?

It just seems like saying, "Oh? You are from the United States? Coincidentally, there's a special about Costa Rican rain forests on TV right now."

Re:Geography 101

[pipingguy]

I'm aware of this. I'm Canadian and I'm used to people from different geographic regions confusing me for being an American. Just to prove that I'm REALLY a Canadian, I'm going to apologize for your misunderstanding, OK?

Re:Geography 101

[jez9999]

Seeing how Canada is located in America, this is an easy mistake to make :).

It's not, really. The common understanding is:
America = USA
US = USA
USA = USA
Canada = Canada
North America = continent

Re:Geography 101

[Loke the Dog]

There is a difference here though. The swiss have always been europeans, the Mexicans have never been americans. Before anyone declared independence in america, the europeans over there were called spaniards, brits, french, etc. Then the US became independent, and they were thus refered to americans, since they could not be called brits anymore. At that point they were actually the only americans, the Mexicans were still spaniards, the canadians were still brits. When the mexicans got their independence, they became Mexicans. Thus, they were never refered to as americans.

And besides, the be honest, "European" is more and more starting to become "Citizen of the EU". Not so much in Europe, but in the rest of the world. Too bad for the swiss, norwegians and some others, but they are in fact an insignificant minority, thats the price you pay for staying independent.

Re:What is the problem here?

[unlametheweak]

We are two entirely different cultures and what are you doing passing judgment on the Chinese? I am not passing judgment on the Chinese. I am passing judgment on human beings. More specifically I am passing judgment on human beings who are dictators.

You can dilute and diverge the argument over more trivial cultural differences (nice try), but the topic is about censorship and more generally human rights, and not more specifically (as you imply) about a cultures spitting habits.

Can't be true...

[MickDownUnder]

Their movie industry will be totally lost for plot lines...

http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=chinese+ghost+stories

On So Many Levels

[Anonymous Coward]

This is obviously a terrible thing, but of course this is China after all; not exactly a shining beacon of freedom and democracy. Not something we would want to model ourselves after. Banning an entire genre of movies is an incredible and bold act by a government, but in my opinion the thunder is stolen by the more egregious human rights violations in that country that are also government policy.

As a a movie watcher, fan of the genre (My all time favorite movie is Alien), and fellow human being who enjoys being able to watch, read, and listen to whatever I damn well please, this is quite offensive. But banning movies? With that they're just piling it on now--and it was a big pile already. China sucked before this, it just sucks a little bit more after. This is a symptom of a larger disease, so I hope I don't see any groups spring up to fight for the rights of Chinese horror movie fans. How about you try and stop them from executing political dissidents first, and work from there. Not being able to legally buy scary movies seems a tad frivolous by comparison when there are people getting a bullet in the head for speaking out against the party. This is the same country that has a "Great Firewall" (that doesn't work) so does it surprise us that they'd have the audacity and arrogance to think this is a good idea and one that can actually be effective?

Re:On So Many Levels

[evanbd]

It's the frivolous stuff that actually hits a lot of people that gets a lot of people angry enough to do something. The big things that only hit a few people are easier to sell to the masses, since it's always someone else being affected. But when everyone is affected...

If horror movies is the only thing hit, I predict nothing will come of it. But if this is the start of a trend, then something very interesting might be about to happen.

Revolutions have been started over taxes on tea...

Godwin 101

[Hognoxious]

no single country dominates Europe to the point where being called European would mean you're a resident of that country

That's not through want of trying.

Re:Godwin 101

[Nuskrad]

You forgot one

So...

[comm2k]

Who scares?

Re:What is the problem here?

[Haeleth]

It would be interesting to hear your non recursive definition of a 'dictator', as I wonder how many other leaders may fall into this category.

My non-recursive definition of a "dictator" is a leader who uses oppressive means to hold onto power, where "oppressive means" are things like stifling free political speech, rigging (or simply not holding) elections, and intimidating or imprisoning peaceful political opponents.

The leaders of China stifle free speech, do not hold elections, and imprison political opponents: therefore they are dictators. The same goes for the leaders of countries like Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, arguably Pakistan, etc.

On the other hand, the leaders of countries like the USA, Canada, Britain, France, etc. encourage free political speech, hold elections that the majority even of their opponents believe are free and fair, and do not intimidate or imprison peaceful dissidents; therefore they are not dictators, by my definition.

Seems fairly clear and consistent to me, but I'm sure you'll find something to nitpick.

whats scary is:

[Allison Geode]

from the article:

China, where graphic ... is keen to step up its control of the cultural arena ahead of the Beijing Olympics in August, which are widely seen as a coming-out party for the rising political and economic power.

what's scary to me is, the last time that I can think of when the olympics were used as a "coming out party for a rising political power," was this.

Re:whats scary is:

[dbIII]

However the situation in China over the last two decades has been decreasing amounts of centralised control and more situations where ordinary citizens have been able to get corrupt government officials removed. It's no democracy but it is vastly different to a totalitarian state like North Korea and vastly different to the China of thirty years ago.

Doesn't change much

[rbarreira]

People in China don't go to the Cinema a lot, and they don't buy many legal DVDs either. So this won't change anything, since pirated movies of all genres will still be available.

Re:South of the border

[M-RES]

Actually (and this is drifting even FURTHER off topic, heh), America wasn't named after Amerigo Vespucci. For a long time it's thought it was that way, but unless someone is a royal or a leader then a place they discover is named after their LAST name (so it would have been named Vespuccia if it was named after he) - take a look at other examples... Cook Straits, Magellan Straits etc.

The man they think America was actually named after was Richard Amerike, a merchant from Bristol in the UK who traded and shipped supplies to people in Newfoundland.

More info here

Meta commentary by the /. site

[sukotto]

"The more crap you put up with, the more crap you are going to get."

Is the current fortune at the bottom of the page.

Can I moderate the fortune +1 ?

Streisand effect doesn't apply

[pikine]

Streisand effect applies when some private information is leaked about a public figure, and the person tries to protect his/her own privacy while inadvertently making that information more popular. It has to do with people's curiosity to peer into someone else's private life, but anti-censorship is most often used as an excuse.

In the case of horror movie ban, there is no person's private life involved, so Streisand effect doesn't apply. It is perhaps more similar to public ban of pornography in some countries, where people still try to stealthily distribute pornography by various means. However, pornography is fueled by people's curiosity about sex. I don't think horror movies incite people's curiosity about anything.

My own feeling is that there will still be a small percentage of people who are fatally attracted to spirituality, psychic, voodoo, and witchcraft. They will continue to smuggle these horror movies and perform cult worship. However, most people will live happily without being bothered with annoying horror movie advertisements.

Speaking of which, I was eating at a food court that has some television, and it showed a trailer of a horror movie with green slime, deteriorated tissue, fermented blood, and all this crap. Though I didn't react outrageously about it, it really disturbed my appetite. Such a dining experience!

The real reason behind the ban

[usul294]

Chinese communications officials saw Army of Darkness and decided that if a single American could travel back in time, make himself a prosthetic arm, defeat an army of his little clones, defeat his evil self, unite 2 warring factions in medieval England, then defeat an army of skeletons, the Chinese are in major trouble from our super-store employees. There's no way the general populace could see that. Also included in the ban are any movies containing an ex-Vietnam special forces agent who makes prolific use of exploding arrows.

Re:What is the problem here?

[unlametheweak]

In that case, could you define human rights? The right to have sex with random adults before marriage and even after marriage? The right to kill your neighbor when they stumbled upon your house "as self defense"? The right to show pornography to minors? The right to abuse substances?

I don't know, but human rights seem like a very bad thing if that's the case. For me at least, it means the right of an individual person to have the freedom to do as he/she feels like it as long is there is no direct physical and unwanted harm done to that person or his or her property.

I will defend this right with as much force as I can. I will attempt to be as fanatical as my opponents are to do me harm if I exercise these freedoms.

To answer your direct questions:

The right to have sex with random adults before marriage and even after marriage? Yes, this would be one example of a human right.

The right to kill your neighbor when they stumbled upon your house "as self defense"? No. Killing to protect your life is self-preservation and is understandable and very human. Killing merely to protect your property is wrong (though some people in the West would disagree). Killing to protect your property in a military sense (protecting one's land from invaders) is a more complex subject, but there are reasons where it can be justified. This is a tangent and I won't elaborate.

The right to show pornography to minors? If there is no force or coercion involved (that is, no harm done to the minor), then yes this is a right. Granted a lot of people will say that a minor does not have the intellectual capacity to consent. But to me the consent issue here is irrelevant, since the viewing of pornography is not harmful. You will have to give me the benefit of the doubt here because arguing about this issue would be a tangent and off-topic.

The right to abuse substances? It depends what you mean by "abuse substances". If you mean drink alcohol or use other mind / mood altering substances then yes. Sex and drugs are moral issues. They do not cause harm to an individual. Of course they MAY cause harm depending on how they are used. Again I'm not going to argue here.

But more important to having these freedoms, however trivial they may appear to you; is the right (not so much) to be free to do something, but to have the right to be free from oppression and punishment. If what a person "hurts" is nothing more than some religious, political, ethnic or traditional dogma or moral; then these rights should be paramount and superceding. I don't mean to insult a persons traditions, but these traditions cannot harm me, or anybody else. If a person imposes their own morals or traditions on me then this would be offensive. In the same vein, I will not impose my morals on you or anybody else. And no, giving somebody freedom is not imposing.

I don't know, but human rights seem like a very bad thing if that's the case. To me puting people in jail, breaking up families, and destroying a person's career just because you do not like that person's morality is wrong. Some cultures even kill people because of their morals. Even in the West we have vigilantes who kill people because of their morals: this is wrong and violates human rights. If you disagree with this then you are wrong and I will do everything possible to stop you. When you say "I don't know", I certainly hope that you do indeed have some doubt's about your beliefs. Keeping an open mind and having the ability to feel empathy and have tolerance can be very helpful in having a peaceful and happy world.

I will say that the issues you bring up do not reflect on my personal moral outlook (for example, adultery is something that I personally feel uncomfortable with) or lifestyle, but I wish for people to have freedom of choice and more importantly freedom from repression.

Best regards,

UTW

Re:and what of our image abroad?

[smellotron]

Have you ever wondered what non Western societies make of flicks like "Saw" and "Hostel?"

I imagine they're just as disgusted by them as I am. I don't understand how those movies succeed.