Geltzer: Censors still silence filmmakers around the world

Is film censorship dead? The World Wide Web once promised a digital utopia but it might not be as free as we think.

Rather than a cyberworld without borders, many nations have doubled down to outlaw content that is morally offensive and politically unwelcome. State powers have stepped in to preserve the status quo and silence filmmakers who challenge the current order.

In recent weeks, Iran passed judgment on Keyvan Karimi. Karimi’s short movies focus on everyday life in the Islamic Republic. The “Adventure of the Married Couple” follows a blue-collar family struggling to make ends meet. “Writing on the City” comments on daily life in the Persian capital through graffiti art. Sound innocent? Not according to the Revolutionary Guard; Karimi was sentenced to three years in prison and 223 lashes.

A documentary in India also found itself under fire. In 2012, an Indian student was beaten, tortured and raped on a bus in New Delhi. In 2015, director Leslee Udwin released “India’s Daughter,” a documentary on the horrific incident. Udwin interviewed with one of rapists who remained defiant, blaming the victim. “India’s Daughter” was scheduled for broadcast but the Indian censors silenced the film, unwilling to confront the issue of violence against women. This hot button human rights issue still simmers, waiting to be addressed in the world’s most populous democracy.

Bangkok may be a city where anything goes, but Kanittha Kwunyoo’s film “Arbat” went too far. His movie follows a Buddhist monk who meets and falls in love with a young girl. The romance turns dark when hungry ghosts are unleashed and threaten the couple. Religion and horror didn’t mix for Thai censors; “Arbat” was banned by the Ministry of Culture. A handful of Thai bhat might buy you anything you desire in the red light district of Patpong — but it won’t buy admission to “Arbat.”

It is not only politically charged content that triggers the censors. Gasper Noé premiered his 3-D pornographic art film “Love” at the Cannes Film Festival 2015. Audiences were blown away by the eye-popping effects. High art reached a new low and “Love” was banned in Russia, ignored by China, and rated “18+” in France. Had Noé gone too far with this sex film? Is there any farther to go?

In the UK, director James Cullen Bressack attempted to find the limits of decency. His low-budget thriller “Hate Crime” follows crystal-meth-crazed Neo-Nazis as they break into a family’s home. The British Board of Film Classification took action and banned the picture based on its images of the beating, rape and murder of a Jewish family. Bressack put his finger on the pressure point that could make Europeans squirm.

Meanwhile, China has emerged as the second-largest film market. The PRC has proved to be a difficult destination for Hollywood movies due to unpredictable censorship guidelines. The regime banned ghost stories in an effort to cleanse country of superstition. Guillermo del Toro’s “Crimson Peak” was refused a release date. “Deadpool” dominated U.S. screens but was turned away by Beijing for excessive violence. China isn’t alone in sending Hollywood films back; Russia banned “Child 44,” a thriller based on a Soviet-era serial killer. Egypt censored “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” and Mexico objected to the portrayal of gang violence along the border in “Sicario.” Hollywood blockbusters don’t generally aim for controversy but international regulators stand ready to close their doors on unwanted movies.

The struggle between freedom and control continues. Films may push the limits of acceptability while authorities seek to steady the boat. In the U.S., the First Amendment is a powerful protection. Internationally, filmmakers may be more vulnerable to the whims of the regime in power.