Singapore as a location for blockbuster movies

Posted on May 1, 2013 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Lights, camera, action – in S’pore’, 25 April 2013, ST Forum

(Matthew Varughese): THE Singapore Tourism Board (STB) is constantly striving to come up with creative ways to promote Singapore as a tourist destination…A lot of resources have been spent on advertising and organising events such as the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix. Perhaps it is time for the STB to consider another form of marketing that targets an international audience and creates a lasting legacy – that is, entice big-name international film studios to use Singapore as a location for blockbuster movies.

In this way, the STB can achieve its target of showcasing Singapore to the world and marketing it as a vibrant place to visit. Already, Indian film studios have shot movies in Singapore, and some Korean and Japanese bands have used our landmarks for location shoots in their music videos.

The next step would be to get leading Hollywood studios to shoot on location in Singapore. Our country has already been referenced in a number of films and, as a global city with multiple attractions and an iconic skyline, there should be little difficulty in incorporating a Singapore sequence into a modern blockbuster.

Regional cities such as Bangkok, Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong have already made their mark in Hollywood, and it could be time for Singapore to take to the silver screen. Movies in the James Bond and Godfather series have become staples that will be watched and re-watched for generations to come. Should Singapore be featured in such a film in future, the effects of marketing and publicity would endure for far longer than any print, radio or television advertising campaign.

Singapore’s skyline will never match the scale and pomp of China or Dubai, where you have impressive monoliths like the Burj Khalifa as a phallic set-piece for Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible:Ghost Protocol. Hong Kong gets to be featured in Batman and was among the first Asian countries to headline the globetrotting James Bond franchise (You Only Live Twice, 1967). Even Petronas Towers in KL has been immortalised in the spy-caper Entrapment starring ex-James Bond himself Sean Connery. The last time someone attempted to pull off an action flick in our high-rise metropolitian setting was in the Hong Kong film 2000AD, which starred heartthrob Aaron Kwok and local actors like the now obscure James Lye and Phyllis Quek, though the HK superstar served more as product placement for RSAF in the trailer than a skyscraper-crawling daredevil.

Meanwhile, we await Hollywood magnates to take notice of the only candidate to star a blockbuster so far, the Marina Bay Sands. Fast and Furious star and rapper Ludacris gave us a boost by soaking in the Infinity Pool during the F1 season and tweeting about it in 2011, though since then we haven’t heard from Tom Cruise, James Bond or even the guys from the Hangover (with its sequel shot in hot and sultry Bangkok). We have, however, been featured in a Japanese porn film. MBS, chicken rice and all.

Even Julia Roberts’ character in Eat Pray Love would rather head to Bali for some spiritual me-time. So, if our buildings aren’t glitzy or gigantic enough and we’ve lost out on that Oriental lustre and LUST to fellow ASEAN nations, where does that leave us? Bollywood and its song-and-dance with national icon backdrops I suppose. Interestingly, the first ever Indian move to be shot here was titled ‘Singapore’ (1960), and featured Haw Par Villa in its prime. The ‘strange garden’ exists till this day, though more of a curiosity than a tourist attraction that it once was.

Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 10.07.39 AM

There was hope in the late 60s/early 70′s. Homegrown action starlet Marrie Lee (real name Doris Young) was featured in several foreign films including the iconic, Quentin Tarantino-endorsed, CLEOPATRA WONG, which had our campy heroine kicking butt in Chinese Garden (Trivia: Cleopatra also starred a dashing BRIAN RICHMOND, now veteran DJ with Gold 90 FM). Then America took notice with the softcore thriller Wit’s End, aka The GI EXECUTIONER (1971), which featured ‘sultry Singapore’ and sleazy sex in the Raffles Hotel. One version of the trailer started with an old local smoking an OPIUM PIPE. Singapore would have been perfect for the Hangover movies then. I’m surprised even master of the C-grade action movie Steven Seagal gave us a miss.

Screen Shot 2013-05-01 at 10.18.10 AM

Then the Government happened. Local martial arts film The Ring of Fury(1973), featuring real-life kungfu master Peter Chong, was BANNED for its ‘portrayal of crime’ and depictions of gangsterism. Still, that didn’t stop Saint Jack (1978) from being filmed here, another American flick banking on what was left of our sleazy exoticism in Bugis Street. That means two American films in a decade, both with one thing in common. Barenaked BOOBIES. And nothing from Hollywood thereafter except for totally misleading references like the Singapore of Pirates of the Caribbean, a low-life haven that crosses evil Chinese temple with Old World kampong chic. Even our attempts to market the country through local film without foreign money have been stifled for being too seditious or racist for our own good. Jet Li, martial arts superstar and erstwhile Singaporean, has done absolutely NOTHING for our flagging entertainment industry. US chart-topping Singaporean diva-pastor Sun Ho would also rather sing about China than Singapore Wine.

‘Singapore’ has since been featured a 80′s MASK cartoon episode, the occasional foodie documentary with Anthony Bourdian and an Australian mini-series about the Japanese Occupation called Tanamera: The Lion of Singapore. Which ALSO FEATURES BOOBIES. Need I mention Sex: The Annabel Chong Story? Forget Batman, James Bond or Amitabh Bachchan. STB, you should know what to do to make Singapore more ‘Shiok’ now. How about an erotic courtroom drama about an underage prostitute and a high-flying politician, eh?

About these ads

Filed under: 2013, Advertisements, Casino/gambling, Film, Local actors, Sex, Tourists | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ah Boys to Men is sexist and promotes premarital sex

Posted on November 30, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Ah Boys to Men is Bad for SAF’ and ‘Why promote pre-marital sex’, 30 Nov 2012, Voices, Today

(Vanessa Tai): I recently watched Ah Boys to Men with my parents and younger brother, who is undergoing National Service. Like other Jack Neo films, the humour was slapstick and littered with Hokkien expletives.  Those jokes were tolerable, but the misogynistic script was unbearable. For example, the recruits referred to women as “clothing that can be easily discarded” in a bid to cheer up one of the recruits who had been dumped.

Another example was a sergeant showing his recruits how to tear a certain leaf in order to form the shape of female genitals. Perhaps Mr Neo is accurately representing army life, but there is no value in such distasteful jokes. From what I understand, such banter is commonplace in the army, and while most guys do not hold sexist views, they play along so as not to be ostracised, which is a shame. Such behaviour should not be accepted as the norm.

A first-class military is not one that is just well armed or well trained in combat. A first-class military – in fact, a first-class society – is an egalitarian one that treats each member with respect, regardless of sex or socio-economic background. The Singapore Armed Forces is moving into a Third Generation, with greater emphasis on nurturing and engaging each soldier, which is a step in the right direction. However, more can be done to improve the image of our soldiers. Ah Boys to Men is a caricature, yes, but with many impressionable young men watching it, my worry is that Mr Neo’s careless stereotypes may undo a lot of the SAF’s good work.

(Goh Lee Hwa):As a mother, I am perturbed that Mr Jack Neo (picture) is endorsing pre-marital sex, in the scene where a guy told his girlfriend that he must have it before enlistment, or else the angels in “heaven” would laugh at him should he die during National Service. We parents are trying to discourage such practices, yet Mr Neo is endorsing it. That scene was uncalled for.

Careless, MDA. You’ve banned another local film for insulting Indians but clearly forgot about a film from a celebrated director that puts our entire ARMY to shame. Thanks to Jack Neo, now we know our boys are NOT writing letters to their loved ones, singing camp songs or playing carom in their bunk in their spare time, but trading sexist jokes, boasting about stealing their girlfriends’ virginity away or playing with ‘CB’ leaves. They also shouldn’t get drunk, steal rifles, cry like woosies in field camp, smoke cigarettes or have their maids carry backpacks for them. All that sort of loutish behaviour would surely do our military in. Leaves as sex paraphernalia instead of camouflaging against the enemy. The cheek!

Yes, our SAF has done a remarkable job of keeping Singapore SO safe we’ve never suffered a single war since its inception. Thanks to our army grooming responsible, ‘egalitarian’ citizens out of rough jewels, we’ll never have to worry about the same men beating women about, having sex with underage prostitutes, cheating on their wives, surfing porn or exchanging sex for favours even if they’re head honchos of key public institutions. How could you, Jack Neo. Why can’t you stick to making I NOT STUPID sequels, and portray students as suicidal depressives instead? That would be accurate, at least.

But seriously, why pick on Jack Neo when there are so many other movies out there which insult both sexes and plug stereotypes about young horny men? Does the writer think Jack Neo is a ‘role model’ for Singaporean boys? This guy cross-dresses like a grandmother for God’s sake. Boys are not going to watch Ah Boys to Men to PREPARE for army, or even for the humour. They would rather accompany their teenage girlfriends to watch the Breaking Dawn finale, and then hope that she returns some hot lovin’ for their painful sacrifice. No, Ah Boys to Men is likely to be a fave of Jack Neo’s staple audience, heartland uncles and aunties, and perhaps the entire singing crew of A Nation’s March. There are, of course, more important things to be worried about than SAF turning your boy into a Hokkien-spewing wife-beater. You’d better hope that he comes out of it ALIVE with his sanity and limbs intact, and lungs not permanently scarred from inhaling grenade smoke.

Any army boy booking out to spend their weekends seeing a whitewashed version of army reality is simply wasting his time. He’d rather polish boots than swallow cheap comic-relief stereotypes about potty mouthed drill sergeants, the mummy’s boy who can’t do a single pull-up and gets bullied by everybody until his geekiness saves the day, and of course the effeminate sissy afraid to damage his nails but dons the best camouflage skills in the platoon. The original NS movie Army Daze had all that, and those horrible ‘misogynistic’ stuff too. In one scene, the word ‘sexbomb’ was used to describe a soldier’s girlfriend. Even the Indian recruit had an exaggerated accent.

[Youtube clip disabled]

Resorting to bawdy humour is inevitable if you want to produce any sort of local army film given the constraints. Which is a waste as Jack could have pulled off something more ambitious without recycling the same old stock characters. You don’t need Jack Neo to EDUCATE young Singaporeans on what to expect in the army, just like you can’t prepare a woman for giving birth by watching ‘What to Expect When You’re Expecting’. He’s a businessman first and entertainer second, and the trailer alone has formulaic product placement and government approval written all over it. I haven’t watched the film myself, but for all its alleged heartfelt pandering to Total Defence, I think it could have redeemed itself with some badass aliens or mutant zombies. Or maybe an angry horde of striking PRC bus workers. Otherwise I can’t think of any homemade action movie which involved anything beyond a car flipping over and exploding on cue. But there’s hope because Ah Boys to Men Part 2 is coming soon FYI.

Our boys, being moulded into THINKING SOLDIERS as part of the 3G philosophy, should know better. Not thinking about sex, that is. I’m not sure what’s a more dangerous misconception though; that our army is actually READY for bloody battle, or that it’s a MONASTERY that preaches equality to all humankind.

Postscript: Hoping to be proven wrong, I rented the Ah Boys to Men DVD. The slo-mo panning of SAF slogans as the boys walked through the ferry terminal to Tekong could give one nausea before even boarding the boat. The much hyped war scene was packed with special effects that could match high-octane monster films like MEGASHARK vs CROCOSAURUS. The cast, however, saved the movie and kept it entertaining. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the sequel would have less propaganda and more character development, though a climax involving the Ah Boys learning to appreciate NS and becoming Best Buddies Forever seems to be a foregone conclusion.

Filed under: 2012, Advertisements, Army, Film, Local actors, Sex, Singaporean men | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sex Violence and Family Values NOT allowed for All Rating

Posted on October 9, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘S’pore film yanked from release over offensive racial remarks’, 9 Oct 2012, article by John Lui, ST

A LOCAL comedy that had originally been given an M18 film classification has had its release pulled by the Media Development Authority (MDA) over offensive racial remarks, just days before it is due to open in cinemas. Sex.Violence.FamilyValues, a compendium of three short films by first-time director Ken Kwek, was handed a Not Allowed For All Rating last evening, a rarely used classification. A film given such a rating is not allowed to be screened.

…Of the three shorts in Sex.Violence.FamilyValues, Porn Masala is the most controversial, revolving around the making of Singapore’s first “arthouse porno”. In a trailer released on the film’s website a few weeks ago, a boorish film director played by Adrian Pang and an Indian porn actor played by Vadi PVSS are seen trading racial insults, based on gross stereotypes.

…The MDA statement said: “An overwhelming majority of the panel members have expressed that the film should not be allowed for public exhibition in view of its overt racial references, which are demeaning and offensive to Indians.”

In the ‘dirty’ version of the movie trailer, Adrian Pang’s porn director makes reference to sex and alcohol in relation to  Vasantham actor Vadi PVSS’s race. This ‘unkindest cut of all’ comes fresh after Amy Cheong got sacked for posting remarks about Malay weddings on Facebook, except this time it’s another minority race bearing the insult. Lionel De Souza is probably drafting a police report against the cast and crew as we speak.

At this rate of heavy censures being handed out for any form of stereotyping, where you could fire an NTUC assistant director or pull someone’s movie off local cinemas, you wouldn’t expect anything less than sacking radio DJs for mocking Indian accents, dismissing ST writers referring to ‘often- drunk Sikh priests’, or closing down Breadtalk for selling bread named ‘Naan the Nay’. You might as well clamp down on Kumar’s comedy routine, or ban all Bollywood DnD theme parties. Now, even being ‘politically incorrect’ is hazardous to your mental health not to mention career. But as if losing your bread and butter isn’t enough, your former employers use blame-shifting phrases like ‘I DID what WE had to do’(Lim Swee Say), and then ask people to ‘spare a thought’ for you after what they did to you. That’s like pushing you off a cliff and then throwing a pillow down in the hope that it would somehow cushion your fall.

The ‘Not Allowed for All Rating’, or NAR, is slapped on films which MDA describes as follows according to their Film Classification Guidelines:

  • Themes that promote issues that denigrate any race or religion, or undermine national interest will not be allowed.
  • Themes that glorify undesirable fetishes or behaviour (e.g. paedophilia and bestiality) are not allowed.
  • Promotion or glamorisation of homosexual lifestyle.

Which puts Sex Violence in the same league as donkey porno. How did Sacha Baron Cohen’s films like Borat, Bruno and The Dictator get past the censors then? Did anyone miss the screaming Chinaman stereotype in films like the Hangover and Ted? Why wasn’t Mike Myers’ THE GURU banned? How about the discriminatory banter between Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker in the Rush Hour trilogy? Did MDA ignore all these elements because these were blockbusters and Ken Kwek’s film is a small indie movie, or did they all assume that some races are better at taking potshots than the others?

But it’s not just Hollywood movies that have the potential to fall into NAR territory. Even our local productions are full of disguised ‘racism’, with Chinese being overrepresented in dramatic roles. In National Day videos, you’ll invariably have singing Indian prata men, and nobody said anything about Alaric Tay’s portrayal of a ‘Mat Rocker’ in the Noose. The only reason why nobody considers making the latter into a full-length feature is because MDA may NAR it too, on the grounds of ‘overt racial references’. Hence the I Not Stupid sequels. I suppose it’s better to have horrible English than being, you know, RACIST.

Moving along. Under ‘Language’, you have:

  • Language that denigrates religion or is religiously profane (e.g. Jesus F**king Christ).

Fair enough. Except that in Ted, I believe there was a scene where the exact same wording as above was used, but the middle profanity was muted out. In the 25th hour, a good few minutes were sliced off Edward Norton’s ‘fuck the world’ rampage against the various ethnicities in New York City (for a R21 rating). Isn’t the NAR rating in this case like decapitating a patient who has a stye in the eye, firing a bazooka into a mouse hole, or using a samurai sword to peel a banana? Did someone lose the censors’ chopper and decided it was easier to ban it altogether? How about delaying Sex Violence’s slated release to talk to the producers about possible re-shoots? You know, a CONVERSATION perhaps? Maybe there could be two versions of the movie, an internationally acclaimed one called Sex Violence Family Values, and an edited PG 13 one for the domestic market that is ‘community-friendly’ called, well, FAMILY VALUES. Instead of Porn Masala, you could replace it with an episode of Jacintha’s ‘Mum’s not Cooking’.

Whether Sex Violence is considered satirical art is irrelevant. As with all banned videos, thousands of curious Singaporeans will be googling Porn Masala as we speak (Don’t do it at work, you’ll get ACTUAL PORN as the top search hit instead), but it’s unlikely that we’ll see the original version on Youtube, what used to be a trusted treasure trove of stuff that MDA’s censor panel can’t deal with after a century of co-mingling with other races (Well THANKS A LOT Innocence of Muslims!). At the expense of being annoyingly cordial to each other where any suggestion of discrimination has to be repressed, we’ve sadly lost the ability to laugh at ourselves, which is the way most developed countries deal with the idiosyncrasies of their racial melting pots. Forget the National Conversation. I want our national Humour back.

Yet, ironically, some good may come out of this. If Ken Kwek continues the run on the international circuit and ride on the publicity of the ban, Sex Violence will garner more attention than Sex:The Annabel Chong Story. And nothing will put the MDA to shame more than this movie picking up festival awards, or better still a selection for the Oscars Foreign Film nominations. By then, the best thing that could happen to local film is not that MDA passes it UNCUT, but that it BANS it altogether, like a Chinese film about the Nanjing massacre or tainted milk powder, covering up for ‘fault lines’ that exist no matter how you preach otherwise.

Postscript: While the producers are appealing the ban, MDA responded that they left the decision to a Films Consultative Panel, which consists of ‘volunteers of various professions, age groups, religions and races’. Of 24 members, 20 gave a thumbs down to the release, while 4 opted for the strictest rating possible R21. There have also been complaints of the depiction of a schoolgirl in a CHIJ uniform in Porn Masala, which could have been a cynical reference to convent girls being branded as sluts in need of a ‘one night stand’.

So, who’s in the FCP? My first impression was that this is a secret Oracle of know-it-alls who wear white hoods brandishing sceptres or a council of hologram Elders like those you see in the Superman movies, but they’re actually mortal human beings, according to details in the MDA website.

The Council of Elders says no to Porn Masala

Let’s look the kind of people you need to speak about morals and ethics on behalf of 5.3 million people. For starters, the CHAIRPERSON Vijay Chandran is INDIAN, and ironically belongs to a company called ELASTICITY Pte Ltd. Another striking feature is how a majority of these members hold high positions in society, directors, doctors, CEOs, lawyers and a couple of obligatory housemakers, entrepreneurs, artists and students. Would a panel vote objectively if the chair belongs to a race that is picked on in the movie? How representative is such a panel anyway, and why is it there’s not a single moral philosopher or sociologist in the team? Why on earth do you need a POLICEMAN on the panel (Steven Moorthi)? How ELSE would you expect a cop to vote on race issues?

It’s obvious by glancing at the composition of the panel that the FCP is not a one size fits all arbiter of moral values, whether it’s gratuitous sex and violence, religious, race or gay issues. The very presence of an Indian leading the team already suggests bias in decision-making. Sex Violence deserves a second opinion, and whatever the final outcome, I for one, will be begging to watch it.

Postscript 2: The film eventually got passed with cuts under a R(21) rating. Don’t rush to book your tics yet, though, you’d never know if the MDA may decide to pull the film again days before screening.

Filed under: 2012, Censors, Film, Foul language, Local actors, Racism, Religion, Sex | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Shame’ banned over a threesome scene

Posted on April 23, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘What a Shame about no-show’, 21 April 2012, article by Annabeth Leow, Life!

…The critically acclaimed British film Shame, directed by Steve McQueen and starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, will not play in Singapore cinemas – all because of a sex scene involving one man and two women. Cathay-Keris Films had tried to bring in the movie for local distribution.

The Media Development Authority’s (MDA) Board of Film Censors gave it an R21 rating and, additionally, asked for a group sex scene to be trimmed. Despite an appeal from Cathay, MDA remained firm on the snip needed. Since McQueen did not allow any changes to be made to his film, Cathay had no choice but to abort its distribution plans.

…In a statement, an MDA spokesman said: ‘After consulting the Films Consultative Panel on the film Shame, we are of the view that the prolonged and explicit threesome sex sequence has exceeded our classification guidelines.’

How everyone feels about the Shame ban

Despite relenting on films depicting gay marriage such as last year’s The Kids are Alright, the Board of Censors are still queasy when it comes to group sex and orgies. According to the guidelines, orgies are considered ‘deviant’ activities, along the lines of BDSM and bestiality. In 1999, Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut required a cut for an orgy scene which featured Hindu scripture chanting in the background. The opening scene in the 2008 Jason Statham vehicle The Bank Job was snipped as it featured a princess in a sweaty threesome. In ‘Watchmen’, a nude Dr Manhattan cloned himself to pleasure Silk Spectre, yet that scene was passed with an M18 rating. Apparently it’s not considered group sex if one partner is multiplied many times over.

Are orgies, which are probably as ancient as gay sex, deemed such ‘unnatural’ acts that they deserve to be banned from our cinemas? Is having sex with more than one person simultaneously more depraved than say,  violent anal sex (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo)? Isn’t a playful orgy less discomfiting to the viewer than a brutal gang rape (The Accused, Boys Don’t Cry)?  In ‘Shoot Em Up’, Monica Belluci’s character is a LACTATING prostitute and the movie was passed with an NC16/M18 rating. In Splice (NC16/M18), Adrian Brody’s scientist has sex with a mutant female species he created from animal/human DNA, which later  transforms into an aggressive male form that ends up  raping and inseminating his female partner. In the classic horror flick the Fly, a man-fly hybrid makes a normal female pregnant with his offspring. The list of ‘deviant’  abominations that defile the sacred union between one man and one woman is endless, whether it’s man-insect, man-alien, or man-pie intercourse.

Would screening images of a writhing mass of naked bodies in an erotic scrum trigger a wave of promiscuity and STDs among Singaporeans? Perhaps ‘group sex’, in the eyes of the censors, differentiates an ‘erotic’ movie from a ‘pornographic’ one, or has lurid suggestions of satanic cult behaviour based on the ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ experience. It’s been more than a dozen years of the censors slapping bans on such scenes, while we allow ultraviolence to fester to more extreme depths of depravity. If Singaporeans no longer shudder at the thought of pre-pubescent girls plying the flesh trade or even incest,  I doubt they would bat an eyelid at a menage a trois. In fact, seeing a bunch of kids slaughter each other in the Hunger Games is more chilling to me than them huddling naked in a bathtub and scrubbing each other suggestively with sponges.

In fact, groupies already exist, with or without MDA’s interventions. A China Daily report in 2006 exposed local swinger clubs which engage in partner swapping and group sex. The timing of this decision to ban Shame is worth scoffing at too, considering how we’ve been hit lately by a spate of sex scandals involving underaged prostitutes and women who sleep with high ranking officials, and here we are getting all worked up over a flesh sandwich when escorts here are paid according to specific, often demeaning, acts defined only by acronyms. I doubt the scene in Shame would be classified, in porn parlance, as a ‘gangbang’, and as expected this ban has intensified my interest in watching it, or at least trying to download the film online, something that everyone else who knows about the ban WILL do, and the same people who decimate great films like these talk about combating movie piracy…

But here’s the next best thing for the rest of us who refuse to download Shame because we value the film-maker’s work, even if our censors entice us to do so by blasting a cold shower on this steamy film: A banned poster of the movie itself.

I wonder who shot this

Filed under: 2000s, 2011, 2012, Censors, Film, Nudity, Sex, Violence | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Cosplay Chapel party scandalous to the Church

Posted on April 7, 2012 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Chapel party at Chijmes called off’, 3 April 2012, article in asiaone.com

A controversial party to be held at Chijmes this Saturday has been called off.

…The party, which was to be held on Black Saturday, had raised eyebrows due to the provocative images used to promote it. In one image, two young women were dressed in skimpy nun-like habits. While habits normally cover the whole leg, the outfits the women wore were shorter than mid-thigh length.

It was posted on the Facebook page, with the caption “A sneak peek at what some of our girls will be wearing on the 7th of April.” The page also featured an event poster, with a woman also dressed in a habit-like outfit.

In an earlier my paper report, Archbishop Nicholas Chia of the Catholic Church in Singapore said that the event “is scandalous to the Church” and that “such events should not be held in a chapel”.

Chijmes, which was established in 1854, was previously the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus before a $100-million restoration project transformed it into a lifestyle destination in 1996.

According to the my paper report, Creative Insurgence’s director, Mr Aaghir Yadav, said they had taken down the images and apologised to the Catholic church.

He also said the women in the photos are friends of his in cosplay costumes. He denied that there was any religious symbolism in the photos. Mr Yadav also claimed that the party was named because of its location, Chijmes.

Chijmes’ management, however, has said that it strongly disapproves events held there that are ‘illegal and immoral in nature and/or disrespectful of religions, faiths and races’.

Cover art for Lady Gaga's next album

Blasphemy aside, cosplaying as a nun is almost as fun as dressing up as your school principal. Didn’t these theme party organisers learn from the related CHIJ school crest outrage some months back? Giving the excuse that there was no intended ‘religious symbolism’ in wearing a habit with thighs exposed is like putting on a Manchester United jersey and saying you’re ‘not really a fan of EPL’. Portraying a convent or nunnery as a sleazy boudoir where habits are fetishised to schoolgirl panty proportions is the stuff of porn, not a ‘costume party’. I’m no expert in cosplay, but I thought this meme was the realm of mythical, video game and manga characters, not mimicking St Teresa of Avila in various states of ecstasy. Today, you could go to any cosplay party dressed as an Indian chief and not be laughed at because fans are too young to remember the Village People. Well, I do.

The original Cosplayers

Yet, despite CHIJMES’ firm stance against such kinky sacrilege, the management has no qualms about sexy maid costumes at the COSAFE cafe currently residing in the ex-convent’s premises as we speak. Perhaps if the ‘Chapel party’ opted for lacy aprons and phallic, tickly pink feather-dusters instead of abusing religious attire they wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. And it looks far sexier than an undersized habit too.

Maid to order

Profane parties aside, depictions of nuns in pop culture have gotten diehard Catholics’ robes in a twist. In her music video for Alejandro, Lady Gaga wore a habit and little else, including what appears to be a red inverted cross near her crotch. They still play the song on radio, by the way.

Nun this way

Gaga was clearly inspired by Madonna, who started the ball rolling with ‘church erotica’ in her Like A Prayer video, where divine rapture was confused with a very earthly, dirty emotion that most of us who don’t wear habits or crucifixes are more familiar with: Desire. Mixing such elements have stirred controversy in films since the fifties, where nuns were depicted doing anything other than praying or staying celibate. A common theme was girls being submitted to the convent against their will, or joining for other awful reasons that have nothing to do with God; In ‘The Nun’s Story‘, Audrey Hepburn dons the habit after a failed love affair but changes her mind later, which prompted church leaders to condemn the film for depicting religious life as being ‘too gloomy’ (Whoopi Goldberg’s Sister Act and of course, the Sound of Music, would suggest the exact opposite).

In  La Religeuse (1966), a film based on a Denis Diderot novel, a nun was seduced by her Mother Superior and raped by a monk. 2003′s the Magdalene Sisters featured women forced into sisterhood by their parents for  ‘immoral’ behaviour.  God-fearing parents criticised the release of the 1985 film Agnes of God, which was accused of promoting violence, lesbianism and incest when it was mainly about a nun mysteriously giving birth. In 2006, 3 Needles was screened here on World Aids Day, a film about a desperate nun exchanging sex for favours to protect South Africans. In Spy Hard, comic legend Leslie Nielsen cross-dresses as a nun and peeks under habits to find lacy pantyhose. He also knocks out gun-totting Sisters in the clip below.

One can cite countless references, both tongue-in-cheek and sinister, of convent culture. But thanks to a self-righteous horde of Facebook-bred vigilantes, we have  somehow gotten the POLICE involved, when they  really should be out there catching thieves, murderers and gangsters instead of clamping down on mini-skirt habits and heretical orgies.  Our cops are supposed to handcuff violent criminals and solve crimes, not go round thumping sinners with biblical verse like the Inquisition. At this rate, I wonder if a police report would be made if men go to a ‘Temple Party’ dressed as topless hunk-monks, or women to a ‘Mosque party’ dressed as belly-dancing Princess Jasmines.

Filed under: 1950s, 1960s, 1980s, 2000s, 2012, Advertisements, Censors, Film, Nightspots, Nudity, Police officers, Racism, Religion, Sex | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

F-word allowed in PG13 films

Posted on July 16, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘New PG13 rating introduced’, 15 July 2011, article in asiaone.com

The Media Development Authority (MDA) today introduced a new classification rating, PG13, for shows on TV, movies, or on DVD.

Ms Grace Fu, Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, announced this at an event at the National Library on Friday morning.

PG13 is an advisory rating that falls between the PG or Parental Guidance rating, and NC16, which is a restricted rating for those aged 16 and above.

She explained: “For instance, for a movie like The Dark Knight, which I am told contained themes of fear and menace, is now classified as PG when it may not be suitable for the very young ones. NC 16 on the other hand, may be too restrictive. With this new PG13 rating, parents of young children can be better guided in their media choices.”

Based on Grace Fu’s reasoning, all 7 Harry Potter movies should have been rated PG-13, for having ‘dark’ themes like black magic, implied murder and ‘fear’ of Lord Valdemort. And yet no such ratings exist for the books,  which any child below 13 can buy off the shelves and immerse in the gritty details themselves, only because no parent has the time to screen JK Rowling’s material before dispensing ‘guidance’ to their kids about how evil the dark arts are. Why are we shielding children from ‘fear and menace’ when this is already happening in schools in a more debilitating form? (Fear of failure, menacing bullies, parents and psychotic teachers). Why are parents reading ‘Three Little Pigs’ to their kids then? (Fear of house blowing down, menace of Big Bad Wolf).

The ‘G’ rating is practically unheard of, and usually spells box office disaster for films, almost entirely cartoons, bearing this sterile rating. Does the G-rated ‘Sammy’s Adventures’ ring a bell? (Plot: A sea turtle travels the world while it is being changed by global warming. Sounds like an epic adventure already. Doesn’t he at least get chased by a shark?) Even seemingly innocuous animation films like ‘Legend of the Guardians:The Owls of Ga Hoole’, ‘Madagascar’ and even the Spongebob Squarepants movie were slapped with a PG rating. So does it really matter if Transformers:Dark Side of the Moon were rated PG-13 (if the first shot of the female lead’s curvy posterior is anything to go by) or PG? ‘Parental guidance’ is an obsolete concept because parents don’t ‘guide’ anymore; they either prevent their kids from viewing films altogether or just wait for them to ask Daddy questions such as what’s a woman doing lying semi naked in a man’s bed.

It’s ironic that the Classification Guidelines published by MDA should itself be given a R21 rating. Just look at the filth it contains below. The expletive ‘pundai’ (Tamil equivalent of cunt) is totally new to me, not to mention to any kid smart enough to look up this document himself to answer the question ‘Why PG13?’

 It’s also strange how they muffled the F word in this table, but allowed it in all its uncensored glory earlier in the document.

Coarse language and gestures with sexual connotations are not allowed in G films as they are easily imitated by young children. In PG13 films, expletives such as ‘fuck’ may be permitted if infrequent. Stronger language is acceptable in NC16 films. When classifying M18 and R21 films, consideration would be given to the degree of offensiveness (i.e. vulgarity and religious association) and frequency of such language.

Here’s the guidelines again on the differences in the extent of nudity allowable in a PG and a PG13 film.

PG: Discreet portrayal of back nudity is allowed if it is brief and in a nonsexual context. Full frontal and side nudity is not allowed.

PG13 Discreet and fleeting side profile nudity may be allowed in a non-sexual context. Full frontal nudity is not allowed. However, infrequent portrayal of female frontal nudity of the upper body may be allowed only under exceptional circumstances and in a non-sexual context. For example, films which feature historical or dramatised events such as the World War II Holocaust, tribal ways of life, or health programmes.

I’ve no idea what ‘side nudity’ means, does it mean an adult woman with a side view of her breasts exposed? What about a woman with her ‘side-view’ buttocks and thighs exposed but not her breasts? What about those positions in between a back and side nudity, where you can see a bit of both back and front? Is a topless man allowed in a PG film?What about full frontal naked 7 year olds? Or breastfeeding? What about an attractive woman doing a mammogram, compared to say, a granny?

This sub-classification is simply creating further ambiguity within itself and words like ‘discreet’, ‘infrequent’ and ‘fleeting’ are all annoyingly subjective.  It trivialises adolescence as a period not only hopelessly vulnerable to filmic elements, but one that can be segregated neatly in terms of how ready you are to handle words like ‘fuck’ or ‘side nudity’. Today’s 12 twelve year olds are no longer what they used to be 20 years ago, at the rate they’re already being exposed to ‘Strong and realistic depictions of violence and gore’ (R21 Violence) from video games and the Internet. PG 13 also serves as an excuse for the censors to snip offending parts of NC-16 films just to make the cut (pun intended) for the lower, more accessible rating. So although it appears that the MDA is making more options available, this is an unnecessary step backward in our bid to be a more open, mature society.  They forgot the ‘single print’ rating though, which you’re likely to see more often than a G rated movie these days.

Filed under: 2011, Bureaucrats, Cartoons, Censors, Film, Foul language, Kids, Nudity, Politicians, Sex, Violence | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Girl with the Nipple Piercing

Posted on June 15, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Movie poster too raunchy’, 15 June 2011, article by Boon Chan in ST Life!

The teaser poster for the dark Hollywood trailer The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, which shows a topless actress with nipple piercing, has turned out to be too much of a tease…The Media Development Authority has asked that the poster be taken down as it has breached MDA’s film advertisement guidelines.

…The film ‘s release date is strategically emblazoned across her (Rooney Mara’s) chest but you can still make out her breasts. She is embraced from behind by actor Daniel Craig.

…(Ms Jinny Tan, lawyer): I think it’s a bit explicit for the general public because there’s a bit of nudity, although the important places are covered. I think it’s a bit too much flesh.

The Authority Who Kicked A Fuss

Obviously this Jinny Tan, mother of 2, hasn’t been out much. Too much flesh? Has she seen topless lingerie ads at bus stops? Or full bodied bloody nudity suggestive of menage a trios on magazine covers? Thanks to MDA bringing this controversy to light, the downloads of the unedited poster will hit all time data transfer highs from Singapore IP addresses.  This wouldn’t have been an issue if you weren’t able to tell if the actress had her nipple pierced, so it’s not so much the suggestion of a nipple behind the ‘strategically emblazoned’ date, since our ads play peek-a-boo all the time, but that it’s a mutilated one, a concept which still strikes a raw nerve in some Singaporeans.  Or perhaps the accessory does to horny adolescents what ‘X’ does for pirates hunting for buried treasure, saying ‘Nipple HERE!’. A little self-censoring innovation by cinema operators could have saved this from the sleaze can, like sticking a rating to be advised label over the offending region, or putting soon- to-be-obsolete liquid paper to good use, though that would be breaching artistic licence since the font design is supposed to be, you know, smudgy and gritty and stuff.

Daniel Craig isn’t even molesting the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, unlike the very different scenario depicted in Janet Jackson’s banned album cover art below. What’s interesting to me is how topless women with a male hand draped around their chest ALWAYS never smile, I mean even for erotic wedding shots; The naked bride never ever looks like she enjoys the warm cradle of her groom’s arm (See Melody Chen and Randall Tan’s wedding shot below, in total bliss obviously). If the flesh police want to be consistent in their enforcement of decency why aren’t they storming wedding banquets to pull such copious filth off the pedestals? Children attend weddings too, you know.

The Girl with the Finger Bikini

Say Squeeze..I mean Cheese

Filed under: 2011, Advertisements, Art, Bureaucrats, Censors, Film, Local actors, Marriage, Nudity, Sex, Weddings | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Carnal Prayer Mat in 3D

Posted on March 31, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘In 3-D Harmony’, 30 March 2011, article by Boon Chan, Life! ST

Desire, debauchery and dirty sex are not the three Ds in Korean erotic drama Natali that will catch the attention of movie goers. It is its 3-D effects that will likely get tongues wagging…Tentatively scheduled for an April 28 release is 3D Sex and Zen, an update of the 1991 hit Hong Kong film based on the 17th century Chinese erotic novel, The Carnal Prayer Mat.

…Of the penchant of horror flicks to send sharp objects flying your way, film-maker Chai Yee Wei says: ‘Having things pop at you on screen is actually bad because it tires the eyes.’

(Vincent Lee, art director): The selling point of romances and dramas are the acting and script. In these cases, 3-D is a waste of money. I won’t watch a rom com in 3D.

After a slurry of sub standard offerings failing to meet the bar raised by Avatar, it’s inevitable that softporn’s next in line to jump head on into the 3D orgy. For what is already a one-dimensional narrative, stretching a cheap skin flick to a 3D experience which features nothing more than in-your-face bumping and grinding just means extended, plodding sex scenes and a script with as much dialogue as the opening credits have words.  Or scene after scene of unimaginative items being flung at the audience in excruciating slow motion. I suppose 3D is fun for kids encountering it for the first time, but unless adult Singaporeans still get a thrill out of reaching out to grasp things or ducking when spears are chucked at them, I just don’t see the long term appeal of what is essentially a juvenile capitalization of an accidental, though rather nifty, optical illusion.

Softporn, or slowporn, is like nibbling on bad junk food, and is best downloaded online for the juicy bits just so you can play the ‘pause and guess if they’re really doing it’ game, or appreciate the subtle masking effects of strategic lighting.  If films with titles like Sex and Zen weren’t given the stereoscopic treatment, they wouldn’t have made it to the major theatres at all, due to exploitative themes usually reserved for the less discerning Yangtze crowd. Now they’re suddenly elevated to mainstream status after being injected with the technological equivalent of girlie mag airbrushing, suggesting that this is all a money spinning gimmick banking on a insatiable appetite  for larger than life POV heaving and jiggling at the expense of decent film-making, not to mention a throbbing headache and splurging off a extra dollars which could otherwise be spent on a larger popcorn combo. I guess 3D movies have traditionally been the poor man’s virtual reality theme park, and they’re really more ‘romp-com’ than ‘rom-com’, to address Vincent Lee’s aversion towards seeing any part of Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan popping out of the big screen.

Incidentally, the first 3D film to hit Singapore was the 1953 horror flick The House of Wax (see the EXCITING, SENSATIONAL trailer below), and though poorly received initially as we were busy complaining about the prices of 3D glasses, Warner Brothers’ chief at the time Wolfe Cohen was prophetic with his prediction that 3D is here to stay (3D Film chief says Singapore audiences are lucky, 3 May 1953, ST). And so are overblown trashy films along with it, whose artistic merit one may overlook in exchange for the precious  experience of ‘sensing the chilling menace of kisses’.

Filed under: 1950s, 2011, Film, Nudity, Sex | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Kids are Not Alright

Posted on February 23, 2011 by gdy2shoez

From ‘Same theme, different takes’, article by Boon Chan, 23 Feb 2011, ST Life!

…The Oscar nominated American drama The Kids are All Right…(about a lesbian couple raising two children) was given a R21 rating and a one-print release restriction by the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) Board of Film Censors (BFC).

The Hong Kong Film, All About Love, (two bisexual lovers deciding whether not to start a family together) was rated R21 with no further conditions.

…According to the (film classification) guidelines…’Films should not promote or normalise a homosexual lifestyle. However, non-exploitative and non explicit depictions of sexual activity between two persons of the same gender may be considered R21′. The Kids Are All Right has overstepped the boundaries because it portrayed the two lesbians and their children as a normal family.

…The consumer advisory for Kids was ‘homosexual theme’ and that for Love was ‘homosexual content’. According to MDA, ‘homosexual content’ means only certain portions of the film contain homosexual elements, while ‘homosexual theme’ means a large portion, or the entire film, contains homosexual elements.

…The BFC’s decision to allow Kids to screen  in Singapore on one print has been viewed as a step backward by some and a step forward by others.

(Dr Soh Poh Choong): Allowing the film to be shown is already being very open. Even if it’s restricted to one theatre, it does not make a difference as people will find ways to go and watch it.

…(Joanna Koh-Hoe): We believe children are a gift and heritage, and thrive best in a home where both mother and father are committed to raising them with love, attention and care.

Sideways, female version

Original Sideways poster

If the BFC hadn’t made a fuss over a film seemingly having ‘large portions’, if not made up ‘entirely of homosexuality’ hence the frustratingly patronising choice of words, nobody would have guessed, looking at the poster above, that this small film would have the potential to wreck havoc on the very fundamentals of our family structure. In fact, in this age of 3D, robots in disguise and fighting pandas, chances are that few would have bothered to catch it at all, especially if it were sneaked out with a PG instead of a steamy R21 rating. Now that you’ve given it an official forbidden fruit status, it’ll be a daily sellout in that single restricted cinema, and those who can’t catch it will download it online anyway. Thanks for nothing, BFC, for depriving mature arthouse fans of tickets and tickling the fancy of dirty old uncles hoping to see some auntie on auntie lezbo action when they’re likely to walk out cold, disappointed and wish they’d had been to Yangtze instead.

So let me get this straight: Brokeback Mountain, with its erotic tent humping and wet manly snuggles, got off the  one-print hook because 1) Only bits and pieces of it were about gay sex, and 2) It didn’t have a happy ending. Which suggests that the only way Kids could get a wider screening is for the film producers to sell to Singaporeans an alternate ending, where the moral of the story aligns with our conventional value systems, i.e Mum breaks up with er..Mum to start life afresh with an actual man. Kids rejoice that they have a father! With the BFC’s painfully clumsy handling of moral boundaries, one just has to ask how much of ‘content’ would actually qualify a film meeting the criteria of  a ‘homosexual theme’ advisory. If you have say, 10 scenes of gays kissing and 11 scenes of violent knocking around or swearing, does that mean the film is not really about gay sex? Can the people at BFC even tell the difference between the vague ‘homosexual elements’ and, say, ‘love’? If two gay characters stare deeply and knowingly in each others’ eyes in a scene, does that make our censors grip the edges of their seats with bated breath,  palms sweaty and fingers itching to pull out the celluloid snipper like a teenager fiddling with his little manhood encountering porn for the very first time?

Nobody will ever agree on gay parenting, just like nobody can never be on the same page about adopted children, polygamous families, or single parent families, ‘themes’ which can easily pass off as PG in movies here.  How is a single-parent family any less deleterious than one having two fathers or mothers? How many families do you know where Daddy’s flying most of the time and Ah-Boy is usually in the care of Mom and Sis/BFF/Grandma, essentially making it a same-sex parenthood anyway? In fact, how harmful is seeing gay parents peck each other on the cheek compared to R21 Saw movies (not one-print editions mind you) where cheeks are imaginatively ripped apart? It seems that the BFC’s stand on allowable sexuality is this, it has to be between a man and a woman (preferably married), no matter how gratuitous or degrading it is, even if whips, handcuffs, slapping and bruising are involved. But not a loving same-sex couple treating each other with respect and honour, even if there’s no nudity and no physical intimacy beyond patting each other on the back or sharing the same wine glass.  Not cool, Singapore. Totally not cool at all.

Filed under: 2011, Censors, Film, Gay stuff, Parenting, Sex | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

R21 movies too hardcore for heartlands

Posted on September 16, 2010 by gdy2shoez

From ‘R21电影进入组屋　公众担心增加诱惑’, 16 Sept 2010, article in omy.sg (Lianhe Wanbao)

因有性爱、裸露及暴力镜头而被列入R21级的电影，可能进入组屋区，多数受访公众表示不安，担心这会增加对年轻人的诱惑。

…王国治（48岁）:“如今很多小孩主要交给女佣照顾，缺乏父母监督。若组屋区轻易就有R21级影片可看，一些学生可能会冒险闯关或用他人身份证混入戏院。”

刘淩慧（16岁，学生）:“组屋区戏院一旦放映R21级影片，多少会张贴海报。年轻太小的学生，若太容易接触到这类带情色、暴力画面的海报，即使不能买票看，也可能会上网搜寻剧情。”

Translation: Some ‘heartlanders’ are not pleased with the idea of R21 movies being introduced into neighbourhood mall theatres in fear of corrupting the minds of innocent children. One blames bad parenting and fears that children may use adult IDs to gain entry. Another, a minor, was afraid of R21 movie posters getting schoolchildren all hot and curious that they may resort to reading about the movies’ filthy, degrading plots from the internet.

First of all, R21 movies are not new, so why are these ‘heartlanders’ complaining like Amish clans folk discovering bestiality amongst their sheep? Some heartlands like Toa Payoh, for example, are barely 3 MRT stations away from town where R21 movies are currently screened. Tiong Bahru is one stop away from Outram Park, where the legendary Yangtze used to screen Category III gems. Why the hell are we treating our towns like little enclaves of Eden, wellsprings of unadulterated innocence, secluded from the sleaze and degradation of Orchard Road, when anyone from Tuas to Sungei Buloh, at a click of a mouse, can access video and images of a much more graphic and titillating nature?

In our sprawling, congested state where all nasty things associated with the city, whether it’s prostitution , budget hotels or overrated coffeehouses, have been slowly creeping into HDB towns, of what use really, is upkeeping this wholesome, sentimental image of the heartlands when sneaking into R21 movies is as passe as playing with marbles? Even if some kid had the means of impersonating an adult, and if he’s lived under rock for several years and never heard of BitTorrent, he would sneak in regardless of whether the movie is showing in Hougang or a few stops along the NEL at Plaza Singapura, Dhoby Ghaut,  where he’s more likely to watch dirty movies anyway, with or without heartland hardcore.

Next, why do people still associate R21 movies and their posters with softcore porn? A brief look at some of the posters of R21 movies shown recently shows totally otherwise. See, no suggestive cleavage, no titles the likes of ‘The Map of Sex & Love (real title!)’, nothing to stir the loins of adolescent males unless they have a thing for Ben Stiller or Colin Firth. With such acclaimed movies not given due exposure due to fussy heartlanders, I say bring it on, Board of Censors, even if the only slots available in my HEARTLAND are after midnight on early monday mornings. You heartlanders don’t live in a rustic village by the cliff of an ocean where the only activity at night is singing John Denver campfire songs, so grow up already, please. This wins the ‘ You think you still in Kansas ah’ award.

 

R21 for homosexual content

 

 

Filed under: 2010, Advertisements, Censors, Film, Nudity, Sex, Violence | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers