Discussion on the DVXFest submission acceptance policy

[Zak Forsman]

During MonsterFest, a user submitted a film with a highly offensive title and little to no redeeming content, other than the fact that it sparked an interesting and worthwhile debate on whether the mods should or shouldn't reject films from screening in the fest based on their content.

The original thread fell victim to my attempt to move it out of the Monster's Lair (where the user films are located) and I accidentally deleted it instead. It's contents are unretrievable and I apologize sincerely for being such a bonehead.

Hopefully, we can continue that great discussion here, civilly and respectfully, knowing that we all want what's best for this community and this festival.

[Nitsuj]

Hehe... you know you just killed the beast right?

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Heh heh.
:grin:
Zak is one of the best mods we've ever had. Great temperment, active, out there on the bleeding edge of indie filmmaking, generates tons of helpful content for memmbers, comes up and impliments so many great ideas behind the scenes ... I wish I could say this little (and hilarious tension breaking boo boo) made me feel slightly less inadequate, but nah, he still kicks ass.

Now where were we :)

[Jason Ramsey]

zak feels bad... so, try not to give him too hard of a time :) Truth be told, we were both moderating the thread at the same time (trying to move it)... I was just moving the entire thread in my typical lazy way, and zak was parsing it up to separate the discussion from the actual film thread in his typical very thorough and thoughtful way, and our paths got crossed and it accidentally got axed in an unrecoverable way...

Tis a pity, but ah well... was good for a laugh :)

[William_Robinette]

Having never seen the original thread I'll throw in the first thing that comes to my mind.

I believe that if an individual makes a film it should most definitely be allowed into the festival if it meets all the criteria. Zak, your film "I F*cking Hate You" also has an extremely offensive title (not to me, but I can understand how others might feel) but of course that short was excellently done. That film wasn't rejected because it had "redeeming value."

From the description you gave I don't know if the entire film this user posted was offensive, or if it was just the title that was offensive but the film itself was just poorly done. Either way, I feel like the success of the film will and should be determined by the community. If it is a badly done piece, the voting and feedback (civil!) will support that, but I do believe it should be given a chance to be judged by the viewers/voters.

Now if the entire film was offensive to watch that is a different beast entirely.

Edit to add: Also I think the decision needs to be reached as to whether these fests are on the path to evolve into more traditional "film festivals" with a screening period for entry or not. If not, then rejecting a film based on content no matter how bad I would view as unfair.

[Jason Ramsey]

the film is not currently publicly available, but if anyone would like to view it for the purposes of open and honest discussion on this general topic of to censor or not to censor films based on content moving forward, please feel free to pm me, and I will provide you with a link to it.

It's interesting some folks response to the thought of censorship before and after viewing.

From the mods general perspective, while we do have forum etiquette guidelines that we strongly enforce, we distinguish that from the fests and what we feel as a privilege of freedom of artistic expression within the fests.

DVXFest has always been unique from other fests in that it is a: if you put in the time, and meet our basic guidelines, you will be viewed and have the opportunity to be rated and responded to. So, if we start censoring films based on content, it will completely go against the grain of the uniqueness of what the fests are at their very core. and, a whole lot of subjectivity comes in to play at that point. For example, Barry has stated strongly defended NOT censoring the films. And, he has also said that if we were censoring films based on content (beyond our hard r rating) that there are a good many films that would never have seen the light of day b/c of his own personal objections to their content. Some of those films have done very well in the fest, and have created other opportunities for the filmmakers. It's a big nasty can of worms if you go down that road... I don't know that there really is a happy middle ground. It seems (as of now) that you either don't censor films based on content, or you do, and it's completely subjective at that point, so there is no hard line once you start doing it.

This film has raised quite an interesting debate that was bound to happen sooner or later under this format and as the fests continue to grow. So, the side effect of this film is that we are now having this debate.

I just hope that folks very seriously consider the potential ramifications of a decision either way, as I do not feel it is a clear cut thing. An, obvious right thing to do.

Personally, the mods are all unified in the idea that we do NOT want to censor films based on content. That being said, we also fully acknowledge the increased likelihood that someone will now come along and use that "freedom" against the fest to make some kind of point, or just to see how far they can push it. So.... anyways... We're very interested in everyone's thoughts on this issue.

My own personal thoughts at the moment are... if you fuck with us and take advantage of the artistic freedom that we provide in these fests, while your film may (or may not) screen, we most certainly will banish you from this community and all things Landmine for ever and eternity as someone who is hostile to the site and to the integrity and good intentions of what the fests are meant to be. Likewise, I hope that the members would appreciate that artistic freedom that they are afforded in DVXFest, champion it, and defend it with fervor, and brand anyone who seeks to destroy it as such, and approach veryyy cautiously the idea to want to begin censoring *any* film based on content b/c of something like this happening.

Those are kinda my personal thoughts anyways.

later,
jason

[ChipG]

Take a poll. Not saying to go buy the results but you'll know where the majority stands.

[Jason Ramsey]

Also I think the decision needs to be reached as to whether these fests are on the path to evolve into more traditional "film festivals" with a screening period or not. If not, then rejecting a film based on content no matter how bad I would view as unfair.

I would like to think of these fests as exactly what I stated that they are in teh above post. If there ever is a branching of what we have going on here to something more "traditional" in nature, I would like to think of it as in addition to the standard dvxfest model, as opposed to insead of. Maybe it's a whole new fest with an entry fee... or it's taking the placing films from all the fests in a calendar year and having a more traditional style fest with those films, and/or filmmakers...

anyways, it is semi-related to this discussion, b/c if we do go down the road of censorship of content, then dvxfest could very likely begin to head in the direction of a more "traditional" style film festival. Personally, I'd like to see us have both at the very least, and not a one or the other.

later,
jason

[Nitsuj]

But what if the next Lloyd Kaufman or Trey Parker was to enter into the fest? Hmmm. Of course you could argue that it depends on the venue you are choosing to show your work. You wouldn't show a gore flick at a Christmas fest and expect to get good results. So maybe it is a question of just what is dvxfest? Hehe.

[Rodney V. Smith]

My own personal thoughts at the moment are... if you poo poo with us and take advantage of the artistic freedom that we provide in these fests, while your film may (or may not) screen, we most certainly will banish you from this community and all things Landmine for ever and eternity as someone who is hostile to the site and to the integrity and good intentions of what the fests are meant to be.

I think that's a great summary right there... the perfect warning about the level of smackdown that should occur in the case of someone deliberately trying to game the system. The system in the case being any censorship.

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

You wouldn't show a gore flick at a Christmas fest and expect to get good results. So maybe it is a question of just what is dvxfest? Hehe.I watch Black Christmas every Christmas eve. :evil:

[Nitsuj]

I watch Black Christmas every Christmas eve. :evil:

Was hoping somebody would say that. :2vrolijk_08:

I'm more of an anything goes type of guy. Well I mean me personally wouldn't do "anything" because I have my own standards and beliefs. But I am too laid back to be offended from somebody else. Somebody can call me a hillbilly saltine all day long but I'd just drink my shot and laugh or kick their ass. It would depend on what part of me was drinking that night, Irish, or Native American.

[William_Robinette]

My own personal thoughts at the moment are... if you poo poo with us and take advantage of the artistic freedom that we provide in these fests, while your film may (or may not) screen, we most certainly will banish you from this community and all things Landmine for ever and eternity as someone who is hostile to the site and to the integrity and good intentions of what the fests are meant to be. Likewise, I hope that the members would appreciate that artistic freedom that they are afforded in DVXFest, champion it, and defend it with fervor, and brand anyone who seeks to destroy it as such, and approach veryyy cautiously the idea to want to begin censoring *any* film based on content b/c of something like this happening.



I agree with this as well Jason.

[EditPhish]

While important discussion may have resulted, I think what's frustrating is the unwarranted attention this film ended up getting. At what expense is it to the fest itself when the focus becomes controversy rather than the films? I have to say, my first reaction upon learning the thread was deleted was "GOOD! - back to films!" :)

I'm not for censorship. I can only make a comparison to comedians... there are some I find offensive and some I do not. The ones that bother me don't get any of my attention. I simply change the channel. However, I don't think they have no right to tell the jokes they do, however much I disagree.

In a perfect world, a film like the one in question would simply have garnered zero votes and either no feedback or negative feedback in appropriate proportion. Of course, this isn't a perfect world, so I'm not sure what the answer is other than to take each film on a case-by-case basis.

I will say this... something intentionally hateful in a racist/bigoted way probably needs to be handled the same way it would be in the "mainstream", whatever that may be. It makes me wonder what the rating would be on such a film and if there are "rules" on such things that push something to NC-17 because of racist/bigoted content (kinda like drug references automatically make a movie PG-13). I can't, right now, think of an example of a relatively current movie with a racist message - so I don't know.

Good luck to the mods and admins of DVXUser and the Fests... It takes a lot of time, resources and energy to run sites like this, and it's certainly a thorn in the side when situations like this arise.

[John LaBonney]

It's interesting that the fests have become popular enough that someone would make an effort and take the time to try to undermine the intended purpose. It's a shame that those types are out there, but I would qualify the phenomenon as a sign of the fests' success. There's a group out there on that each season tries to solicit votes for who they think is the worst singer/weakest contestant on American Idol. They do it just to humor themselves.

The fests here do allow quite a bit of creative freedom, and the members here have relished in pushing the limits, always looking for a way to think even further outside the box. I mean this in a good way; it's in the nature of artists to explore and find new ways to express ideas. The requirements for the fests have always been pretty loose on purpose.

So how does dvxuser respond in a situation where a member tries to undermine the system in this way? In practical terms, it's pretty easy to simply disqualify the film, but I appreciate the moderators' concerns about starting down a road of censorship, however well intended. After all, who's to say what has redeeming content or not?

On the other hand, dvxuser is a moderated board, there are standards and rules to which the members must comply. I've seen enough here to believe that the moderators have the interests of the community and its members in mind when they make decisions, and I have trust in them to decide when a film is inappropriate for the fest based on its content and intentions (not that I always agree with every decision they've ever made, I certainly don't). However I'm sure that they would be more than willing to entertain a discussion from the filmmaker if he wanted to make a good-faith case about his intentions or why the film should be included in the fest.

The fests have a positive purpose; when someone intentionally decides to undermine the system for his own amusement, I don't have a problem with that film being disqualified.

[Jason Ramsey]

The film should be put back in the fest, and it should be judged on its technical merits as expressed by the filmmaker.

Just to clear up this little bit, the film was never eligible for competition in the first place b/c of a violation of the credit requirement (the credits were too long)


Anything less is censorship, and opens the door for every film in the future to be judged on its offensive-factor.

Would tend to agree with this (well, part of it), and that is why we are having this discussion b/c quite a few people initially called for us to censor it, and couldn't believe that we would allow it to air. So, our question is if people really want us to begin going down that road. We really don't want to. At the same time, we also recognize that there is near 100% chance that someone out there will purposefully try to use that against us next fest and make something utterly pointless and with the sole purpose of attacking the integrity of the fests, the site, or the freedom of artistic expression that (in the past) they have always allowed. So, the question is, do people want to let one idiot take that away from the fests.. The one thing that makes them unique from most any other fest out there... Or, do people want to forget about that if they come across something that they find absolutely offensive... Or, do people want to champion the privilege of artistic expression and the open-ness of (we dont' screen for content or quality beyond our Hard R rating, and our other simple guidelines) and bury anyone who would try to use that against their fests.

[ChipG]

I laughed my ass off!

These kids were just trying to have fun (in my opinion) and I think they feel like gutter sluts for it.

I have always said do the opposite and you'll get noticed.

I do hope they come back. It was funny as hell and you guys know it.

[ramsaur]

EDIT: User deleted post

[Jason Ramsey]

....

[Jason Ramsey]

sorry ramasaur... I know it looks like that was directed at you now... it wasn't was to another member who now deleted their posts....

I've edited it out, so it doesn't look like I was yelling at you :)

later,
jason

[Tim Joy]

I think anyone who gets offended should be banned. :nads:
What ever happened to, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me' ???

Lighten up people! The internet is NOTORIOUS for messages being misinterpreted. It happens everyday on this forum. I think this goes for films too, especially when they're online, it makes it easier to lose the message or intent. These are people from all over the world, and have very different viewpoints and different definitions about what is 'right' or 'wrong', then YOU go and judge their work based on your own moral code and get your panties in a bunch. It's just NOT WORTH IT.

Imagine how much longer the review process would take if the mods had to look for 'offensive content', debate it...etc. x 50+ entries! I don't want to wait the few days it takes now, let alone the week+ that process would take.

[ramsaur]

sorry ramasaur... I know it looks like that was directed at you now... it wasn't was to another member who now deleted their posts....

I've edited it out, so it doesn't look like I was yelling at you :)

later,
jason

oh haha, well my post wasn't much anyways. Thanks for letting me know.

[Darkline]

Without knowing what the film was, it's hard to comment. Are we saying the film in question had a racist/sexist/anythingist offensive title? Or was it just politically incorrect somehow?

I'd like to see it if possible.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Without knowing what the film was, it's hard to comment. Are we saying the film in question had a racist/sexist/anythingist offensive title?
Yes to number 1.


Or was it just politically incorrect somehow?

Yes again in content.

I'd like to see it if possible.
Best publicity ever right? I think Jason was showing it to people by request. Not sure though. PM him.

[Darkline]

lol. I'm really curious now. Of course I know the final thing will be trash, but consider me suckered.

I'm dead against censorship but this is your forum guys, and I've seen people banned for less. If it's a personal attack on a forum member I'd remove it, but if its a general social brushoff I'd say let the public decide.

its a real grey area, most festivals don't have to deal with this simply because they all have a selection process. But of course that goes against what this fest is about. Perhaps if you stick with that policy then you should be allowing 'anything' through as long as it fits the rules, otherwise the 'we will screen every film submitted' part of the fest could become blurry as time goes on.

[Darkline]

I just got the link and realised I had already seen it, I had no idea it was the offending film, so that says a lot about me....

still if they can get away with :

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289414/

then this was pure in comparison.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

No one on this side of the pond knows what "flid" means. I had to Google. So it's hard for us to make a comparison.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Re titles and cultural significance: (as in flid just being a nonsense word to most here) The title "Spicula" is offensive as "Spic" is the Mexican equavalient in the U.S. for the "N-word" so it's not the same as Blackula. It's Equivalent woul be "Nigula". We did include though despite the title and even though it just showed a guy jumping over the border and biting people on the neck and running off going aye yi yi yi yi - the equivalent of a a black guy running around going ugabooga. Despite the title and content, we included it for all the reasons you mentioned. We would let the voice of the members make itself known as to whether or not they were offended and to what degree.

The answer varied. From the one member, a Mexican American (legal) Immigrant, who was highly and very personally offended, to a number of others that were less personally, but socially offended and thought the film should absolutely not have ever been allowed, to those that didn't get what the big fuss was over.

The decision was only made to pull the film AFTER its makers abandoned its thread and showed no interest in participating in a discussion of their film. If they don't care about it enough to hang around, why continue to screen such a contentious downer. The principle of no censorship served no purpose at that point, so might as well stop offending people.

It's not like the film has a life of its own and gets some benefit from being screened. Only the filmmakers benefit from having it screened, and if they don't care enough to hang out and get feedback, then why keep it.

[dsto]

I never saw the thread or the film. I really have no desire to. This is not my site. I am a guest here. I do not have a problem letting the mods make a call on something like this. If it ever came down to something other than socially acceptable material being culled from the herd, I think that this community would make its displeasure known. Who would stick around if it was something other than enforcing acceptable social behavior.

[Darkline]

I think that's fair if they abandoned the thread.

However, there are films on IMDB with the n-word in the title, but that doesn't mean it's ok here.

Flid, certainly in the UK is a very offensive word and I would say more malicious than the entry here because the film's title (kung fu) is making a cheap joke of the disability as well as using the offensive term for the disability (your equivalent may be 'kung fu retard'). But that isn't to say 'spicula' is free from criticism.

I don't envy the decision you're going to have to make. Obviously the film would never make it past any pre-selection in an outside festival simply on quality grounds, but as you don't judge on that basis this decision is more about setting the guidelines for the future, than singling out one short.

The problem with going down the route of censoring is that it's always going to be a subjective decision on what is considered offensive - as your feedback has already shown. If race jokes are offensive, is religion or sexuality? it becomes very grey. What if the title is offensive but the content could somehow reverse it and make some kind of social statement? Then content and title are linked but you arn't allowed to judge on content...so

Not easy. :-/

[dsto]

yup. Don't envy the mods. But i do trust them. If I did not or do not, I will take my "buisness" elsewhere. There will always be someone that will not be happy. It's a tough one for sure. But is really censorship? Is it censorship if someone puts hardcore sex in an entry and it is disqualified?

[Jason Ramsey]

Is it censorship if someone puts hardcore sex in an entry and it is disqualified?

That would be a clear violation of our fest rules (Hard R. if you are unsure ask...).

Regardless... at the end of the day, it's not really censorship, b/c we wouldn't be preventing anyone from making whatever film they want. Just from letting it air on OUR site.

We have no intentions to begin screening films for content or quality in the future. But, if someone now decides to "test" us in the future, they better have a real explanation of their film ready when wee ask them before allowing it to screen. If it's just someone trying to take advantage of the artistic expression that we try to allow in the fests or be hostile towards the site, damage the fests intentionally, etc... then we'll deal with them accordingly. Beyond that, we have no intentions of letting some folks being silly, or the reaction of some folks to it, or some moron in the future who wants to try to take advantage of the fests.... we have no intention of letting any of that effectively destroy the one thing that makes dvxfest unique from pretty much every other fest out there.

later,
Jason

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

in that case, no, because are rules say rated R and lower.
so as a pre existing condition for an optional contest on a privately run site, I'd say no that's not really censorship

Difference is here we didn't have a clear cut rule "don't be a racist asshat" to preclude a movie like this from being seen. I think we've added some kind of, "if you'd get punched in the face for it in public then we reserve the right to not screen it. 99.999% of submitted movies will be screened." That's not a real quote but I THINK that's the basic intent.

In the future, if something like this comes up I THINK (mods correct me if I'm wrong) that we're leaning towards what I quoted above, then instead of immediately throwing the movie in the do not screen bin, would begin a dialogue between the filmmakers and the mods.
Q: "What's the point of your movie?"
A: "I hate Mexicans and I'm just trying to get the word out on how much they suck."
Would probably not screen.

Q: "What's the point of your movie?"
A: "I don't know. It's cool though isn't it?"
Would be a tough call.

Q: "What's the point of your movie?"
*A: "I'm trying to use offensive stereotypes to promote dialogue and point out that, rationally, people have about as much reason to fear immigrants as they do vampires (based on the assumption that vampires are imaginary)."
Would be more likely to screen.

*This political statement is provided for illustrative purposes only within the context of a filmmaker making a statement with his/her film, neither to endorse said point of view, nor to oppose it.

[Barry_Green]

But is really censorship?
We are not capable of performing censorship. Only a government can actually censor.

Look, frankly, we are free to pick and choose and show whatever we want. We're a private site. We can make whatever rules we want, and we're free to change them whenever we want. If we don't show your work, then - big deal, we didn't show it. Post it on youtube or vimeo or exposureroom or host it on your own site, you can get your work seen.

So before anyone accuses us, anytime, now or in the future, of "censorship" -- just be aware that we can't possibly engage in censorship. We cannot prevent your message from being heard.

All we can do is keep our own house in order.

So, acknowledging that we are free to pick and choose -- our policy in the past has always been "we don't screen for content; if our members make it, we'll show it." We have never screened for content before. But it looks like we may have to make some judgement calls in the future.

You know, implicit in that "if our members make it, we'll show it" attitude is an implied promise of mutual respect. If you're a member of the community, then you're a community member -- you participate, you share, and you are making films for the DVXFest because you want to collaborate, participate, share the fun, and for your skills to grow. That's the purpose of the DVXfests! And under that scenario, it seems obvious that you would be making a well-intentioned film, and we (as the community leaders) would want to exhibit your work so that you can receive feedback and grow and the whole thing just goes around.

But the idea someone would enter a purposely skill-less, purposely inflammatory piece of ... work ... (hey, it also has four letters, right?) just for the reason of cheesing off the membership -- that never occurred to us. That's about as anti-community as you can get. And so we got blindsided, and frankly I feel we were taken advantage of. And the filmmaker in question disappeared, never bothered to participate, didn't comment on any other films, and didn't explain or defend his ... work. So by that standard, I think the implicit agreement is violated.

So -- all members should know that there is no empirical authoritarian organization here -- we discuss things, and we get lots of input before making a decision. But my attitude now is -- if someone wants to make something purposely incendiary, purposely to take advantage of our good will, or purposely to put us in a bad spot or a bad light, then that person is breaking the implied promise of respect that we share both ways, and therefore my vote would be that we are under no obligation to screen such a work.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

BTW dsto ... Jason and Barry and I all posted about the same time probably not knowing the others posted and all said about the same thing.

Didn't want you to think we were ganging up on you / accusing you of accusing us of censorship. If that makes any sense.
:beer:

[dsto]

Oh no. I do not think you guys are "censoring" anyways. I am in total agreement. There has to be some kind guide. And yeah, It seems there has come a time to have a guideline not to be a racist doof. It's a shame.
I saw a sign on a set of stairs(Inside) going down to the lower level of a "5 and dime" type store in Alabama (No offense Dixie boys and girls) that read "Please Do Not Spit On The Stairs"....well some idiots were apparently spitting inside the store on the stairs or they would never have had to make a sign.

[dsto]

"So before anyone accuses us, anytime, now or in the future, of "censorship" -- just be aware that we can't possibly engage in censorship. We cannot prevent your message from being heard."
That was my point really. :)

[dsto]

In addition. And I really hate to sound like I am just sucking up here. But I really really appreciate that you guys are taking this seriously. For my sake, if that makes any sense.

[Peter Reynolds]

If I really wanted to be offensive, I submit a film shot on the DVX in 60i :)

Joking aside. I'm proud to be part of a community that takes issues like
this so seriously. There are so few festivals out there where enthusiasm
is as important as talent. Here at DVXuser, everyone gets a fair chance
whether you name is Spielberg or Smith.

Regarding the film in question, I haven't seen it, but if I had,
I'm sure I would agree with the moderators. To paraphrase
Justice Stewart's famous line, "I can't define films that
have no place on DVXuser, but I know it when I see it".

[John LaBonney]

As I mentioned before, I generally trust the mods to do their best to make the right call in situations like these. If they were to go overboard and start banning entries willy-nilly, then users would eventually go elsewhere. That's clearly not what they're about.

[Richard J. Johnson]

keep up the good work. Nobody wants to see that Bullsh!t.