There are always a tons of fans for Wuxia in China for probably hundreds years. Supply follows demand. And Internet-literature is a big thing in China. There are also a lot of Wuxia or quasi-wuxia published online. I wonder which country don't censor movies? China actually has quite a few political-metaphor movies up. Not to mention recently one filmed by Feng XiaoGang. I am not saying China bureau of movies production are doing a good job. In fact they have been complained quite a a lot. China still hasn't implement a good classification system. Quite a few films got cut because it has to suit majority(including children) which really annoys people. As your last film example, many Chinese viewers don't think that film is good.
The MPAA does rate movies, and most theater chains choose not to run movies rated to contain extreme violence or sexuality, but anyone can privately film and distribute a political (for example) film that might embarrass the US government.
Many such movies also run in theaters- see Fahrenheit 9/11, Citizenfour, All the President’s Men, etc.
Interesting enough, media that has to work around censorship is often more interesting. Restrictions breed creativity: East German (political) jokes were far more spicy than West German (political) jokes.
There was a French group, Oulipo, that imposed weird restrictions on themselves in order to reproduce this effect. See eg 'A Void', a novel without the letter 'e'.
What about The Forecaster, a film about Martin Armstrong? It's critical of banks, government corruption and was effectively denied viewing in the US short of downloading pirated copies for years despite being successful globally. Initially, Netflix was set to stream the documentary but suddenly reversed that decision, yet other movies you list were not blocked.
Censorship in the US may be more subtle than elsewhere, but it is present. Banks and governments have their methods which have become disturbingly effective. Also consider SJWs who effectively drown out or ostracize anyone with a differing viewpoint - you are free to think whatever you want, as long as you agree with us!
I find it hard to believe that the reason it was dropped was due to criticism of banks and allegations of government corruption, given there is copious amounts of other films with the same subjects available, including on Netflix.
Armstrong advised Reagan, Thatcher and numerous other administrations over the past few decades. He has been behind the curtain.
His computer system has been accurately forecasting long-term socio-economic trends and their apices since the eighties. This is what the banks wanted.
When Armstrong turned the banks down, they sought to forcibly acquire the software and utilized government to squeeze him. The story continued on with illegitimate confiscation of billions and civil rights transgressions as Armstrong was jailed for years over contempt of court because there were no legitimate charges that could be brought against him.
So yes, there's definitely a history that makes Armstrong a target. The deeper you dig, the more it makes sense why The Forecaster was effectively blocked in the US and others have no problem.
Not censorship per se, depending on how you understand censorship, but three letter agencies in the US often have an "advisorial" function in the production of many movies, particularly war movies. Most of the time you will even find them credited.
Their influence usually shows itself in how america/troops/wars are portrayed, such as negative language being replaced by neutral statements - but sometimes there are bigger changes.
In the U.S., participation with these agencies is entirely optional. My understanding is that they offer access to government locales, equipment, and consultants in exchange for a positive portrayal. This would seem to me a fair trade, and one which the audience is able to perceive and assess.
In China and similar countries, good luck portraying the army in a negative light, whether you ask for their cooperation or not.
> In the U.S., participation with these agencies is entirely optional.
If you want your film to include footage on a warship, or with tanks, or etc you'll need the armed forces to cooperate, and they only cooperate on films that make them look good.
Better CGI and good set design is making this less of a problems.
This isn't really a problem of censorship, but it is propaganda.
Even though our government doesn't censor us, our society does censor a lot of unpopular opinions. For example, the neo-Nazis who were publicly shamed and then subsequently lost their jobs. And the Google employee who was fired after writing that email about sexual harassment. I've seen other cases, too, but can't think of them off hand. And I should point out that I'm not defending those views (I think they're shameful), I'm pointing out that they were publicly humiliated and punished for sharing them.
Practically speaking, is there much difference between government backed censorship and online mob justice censorship? Each one will ruin your life, just in a different way.
> Practically speaking, is there much difference between government backed censorship and online mob justice censorship?
1. You can't sue a mob for justice
2. You can't convict or fire a mob.
3. You can move to somewhere where the mob isn't.
More neutrally:
4. Mobs are crowd-sourced. Government censors are appointed experts of some sort.
5. One rouses and incites a mob. One lobbies and corrupts a government.
6. Mobs aren't constrained by things like double jeopardy. The U.S. government is.
7. Mobs tend to be more situational than government rules. Mobs don't care about boring things, niche things, technical things, or sympathetic perpetrators.
Online mobs can make you lose your job if you're working for a company with sufficient media exposure and insufficient backbone, but governments can make you disappear whenever they please. Practically speaking, that's a huge difference.
> Online mobs can make you lose your job if you're working for a company with sufficient media exposure and insufficient backbone, but governments can make you disappear whenever they please. Practically speaking, that's a huge difference.
That's the traditional explanation, but does it apply any more now that we have the internet?
With the internet, any screw up or faux pas can cause worldwide publicity for any business. They can theoretically stand up for their employee's free speech, but in reality it's so rare that it's almost not worth considering.
At the same time, it's more difficult for the government to silence people due to the Streisand effect.
The online mob doesn't really have the resources to get publicity to more than a few things at a time, so although some people will always be hit, most will be safe. I'm not saying that mob censorship is harmless, just that it doesn't reach the scale of governments, who have actual boots on the ground.
The Streisand effect happens when you try to make people shut up about something but don't actually have the power to make them shut up. So of course they'll just talk about that unsuccessful attempt, after all there's no downside. House arrest/public humiliation/bullet through the head? Try talking about that in any way critical of the censors and you could be next. That won't actually inhibit "dangerous" ideas, of course, but it's pretty effective at making everyone stop talking about them.
One big difference is that the unpopular opinion can still be allowed to exist.
In other words, it is still possible to find neo-Nazi social media in the US. (Yes, there's been some issues on this front with some of the more visible sites due to certain Internet corporate CEOs getting "caught up in the mob", but organizations like the EFF are allowed to push back with counter-opinion -- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/fighting-neo-nazis-fut...). It is still possible to find the Google employee manifesto online, as well as social media both sympathetic to these opinions and completely disagreeing with them and anything in between.
In many cases of government censorship, unpopular causes and opinions simply disappear. They for all practical purposes don't exist. You are not allowed to talk about them at all, at least in public.
Almost all democracies. I'm sure someone can point to a little "censorship" (e.g., children can't watch porn), but that's not the same thing at all - just like a cough isn't the same as lung cancer. When Disney released a film that was complementary of the Dalai Lama, the Chinese government banned all Disney movies - that's censorship.
The claim that 'everybody does it' is an old ploy for dictatorships.
> I'm sure someone can point to a little "censorship" (e.g., children can't watch porn),
The US censorship model is sneaky; instead of official state censorship, we have “voluntary” “private” censorship by industry groups, but when government isn't satisfied with the results, it threatens official regulation (either directly of content or at least marketing of certain content, or punitive regulation of other aspects of the relevant industry’s business), drags industry execs in for public shaming, and engages in similar pressure tactics until the industry aligns censorship practices with government preferences. In this manner, it imposes censorship, satisfies the segment of the electorate seeking government action on unwelcome content, but mostly maintains a façade of refraining from government censorship.
Okay, Sorry for my `Gish Gallop`. I am not trying to deny the censorship, in fact it's to blame. And there are better examples to follow. many people dislike that and I pointed out problems in censorship and regulations of movies production in China. But I have seen quite a few directors in China who can't produce great films then just blame the system while others successfully put political metaphors in films which is more artful than name-calling.
