My contribution (#181025-225142-436004) has been declined.
My question is: is this because of any use of profanity or strong words (which I could change so it gets approved), or is it because of the wording in general, which I admit it's aggressive (although I judge it to be an appropriate response to the way the subject is dealt with on the film - after all, it is a propaganda film)?
I hope it's not because the editors disagree with my personal political and philosophical views, as exposed on my review.
If we can't get political when reviewing a movie made precisely to push a particular political point-of-view, then I suppose the whole idea of reviewing movies loses its merit.
Thank you in advance for providing me an explanation.
My question is: is this because of any use of profanity or strong words (which I could change so it gets approved), or is it because of the wording in general, which I admit it's aggressive (although I judge it to be an appropriate response to the way the subject is dealt with on the film - after all, it is a propaganda film)?
I hope it's not because the editors disagree with my personal political and philosophical views, as exposed on my review.
If we can't get political when reviewing a movie made precisely to push a particular political point-of-view, then I suppose the whole idea of reviewing movies loses its merit.
Thank you in advance for providing me an explanation.
Posted 2 years ago
Michelle, Official Rep
Wilbert Jade Lorenzo
Seriously!
There is zero review content in this.
None.
Zip.
Nada!
He clearly had no INTENT on writing a review either,
Read his quote that is underlined below.
Well, an IMDb review is not a place for you to have a platform to "make a statement" to spew out your brand or anyones brand of ideology! IMDb's definition on your "opinion", is valid only on how well or how bad a movie is quality wise. Not on how well socially and politically how bad a movie is quality wise. Leave that up to the viewer to determine. No one person is an arbiter for society. You can have this opinion. You may spew out anything you like on Twitter or Facebook with abandon. But not at IMDb. You review a title. You do not make political comments about your brand of idealisms.
The "Non Review" in question...............
Seriously!
There is zero review content in this.
None.
Zip.
Nada!
He clearly had no INTENT on writing a review either,
Read his quote that is underlined below.
Well, an IMDb review is not a place for you to have a platform to "make a statement" to spew out your brand or anyones brand of ideology! IMDb's definition on your "opinion", is valid only on how well or how bad a movie is quality wise. Not on how well socially and politically how bad a movie is quality wise. Leave that up to the viewer to determine. No one person is an arbiter for society. You can have this opinion. You may spew out anything you like on Twitter or Facebook with abandon. But not at IMDb. You review a title. You do not make political comments about your brand of idealisms.
The "Non Review" in question...............
Honestly, I take my reviews very seriously. I almost never use them as a soapbox, specially not to vent my frustrations with the most terrible plot lines or other annoying aspects of a production. If a movie is bad, a low rating from me would be enough, most of the times, to share with the world my frustration with an elegant amount of discretion.
But this is not the case here, and as the title states, this is not funny. You can guess from my location and the date that this review has been submitted why I'm distraught about what I've just seen. A statement needs to be made.
The whole concept of this movie is based on a lie - one that could well have been true for a couple of weeks in the 60s, but nothing more. The dangerous thing about this lie is that it has been repeated over and over throughout the last five decades, and even more so in the last five years. This stupid nonsense lie is what's behind the recent revival of the global right-wing, and we're all now in a worse world than we were some 10 years ago.
Russians and racists are now hand-to-hand prancing around the world creating havoc on our democratic institutions and our cosmopolitan ways-of-life. God-given nationalism (and I'm only capitalizing god here because it's on the start of the sentence) is back on full throttle, and minorities worldwide once again are the ones carrying the burden of bigotry.
Well, it's been two years, and I still disagree. Opinions are given and statements are made all the time. There's hundreds of examples of that, and they're much more controversial than anything I said on this review.
It seems even IMDb moderators don't have a clear idea of what's allowed and what's not. Now I believe I was just unlucky that this review happened to be moderated by the one right-wing guy in the IMDb's office. Since then, I've successfully published reviews here that are even more controversial and political in nature than this one (for BlackKklansman, to mention one).
I've just come across this review (https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1822229/?ref_=rw_urv) for Trader Horn (1931). No moderator back in 2008 seemed to mind the reviewer referring to African native tribes as "savages". Given today's sensibilities, do you think this would fly?
I agree with you when you say no person is an arbiter for society. It's true. And it's true for IMDb moderators, too. But I understand their limitations. Few of us are paying for this service we clearly like so much. Errors and injustices are bound to happen - moderating is a thankless part of their product line. No wonder they got rid of the forums a few years ago. If you remember, things used to get uglier than YouTube comments.
The declination annoyed me because I'd written a damn fine review, and things that needed to be said were said.
It could probably be accepted today, considering the different climate and the fact that I wasn't wrong about what I said.
Who knows?
It seems even IMDb moderators don't have a clear idea of what's allowed and what's not. Now I believe I was just unlucky that this review happened to be moderated by the one right-wing guy in the IMDb's office. Since then, I've successfully published reviews here that are even more controversial and political in nature than this one (for BlackKklansman, to mention one).
I've just come across this review (https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1822229/?ref_=rw_urv) for Trader Horn (1931). No moderator back in 2008 seemed to mind the reviewer referring to African native tribes as "savages". Given today's sensibilities, do you think this would fly?
I agree with you when you say no person is an arbiter for society. It's true. And it's true for IMDb moderators, too. But I understand their limitations. Few of us are paying for this service we clearly like so much. Errors and injustices are bound to happen - moderating is a thankless part of their product line. No wonder they got rid of the forums a few years ago. If you remember, things used to get uglier than YouTube comments.
The declination annoyed me because I'd written a damn fine review, and things that needed to be said were said.
It could probably be accepted today, considering the different climate and the fact that I wasn't wrong about what I said.
Who knows?
brenobacci
However, I find this all too confusing. How come I cannot express my "personal opinion on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based"? I have done that on my past reviews, and they were all approved right away. Besides, aren't reviews exactly that - my personal opinion about movies?
I understand there's a difference between expressing my opinion about a movie and expressing my opinion about its subject matter or real life events on which it was based. But like I said, my own approved reviews and hundreds of those of other members do exactly that, oftentimes more blatantly so and with a lot less care about inflammatory remarks (or textual coherence, proper grammar and orthography, but that's besides the point).
Looking back at some of IMDb's oldest reviews, one can often distinguish the date when it was posted based only on the political climate animating one reviewer's opinions about the movie being reviewed and its subject matter. Why would it not be OK now? What changed? Furthermore, the movie, "Red Nightmare", is a propaganda piece made by the military to prop up the "red scare" - and this is historical fact, not my opinion. How can I possibly review it without any mention to my personal political feelings about the subject matter?
I suppose it would be more helpful if the editors who declined my contribution could be more specific, regarding exactly what part of my review was "too much" for them to handle. Like I said, I admit some parts could have been omitted or written on a less forceful way - I just want to know which ones.
I don't feel like playing a guessing game with editors just to get a review approved. It's much easier to just post it to Facebook, with an accompanying note to reflect IMDb's unusual censorship.
Cheers,
brenobacci
brenobacci
https://www.imdb.com/review/rw1749830/?ref_=rw_urv
Jeorj Euler
IMDbmember
matterjones
brenobacci
Can you please show yours? It might help knowing exactly what pisses off IMDb moderators. I was about to write a review for Fat Man and Little Boy (1989), but then I remembered my last attempt at reviewing was a big waste of time. Reviewing a movie with a subject which I'm very passionate about, such as the bombings in Japan, would probably result in more waste of my time.
IMDB staff - like many things in this world, sadly -, has likely become very Trumpy as of late. Let's see if they'll censor that.
EDIT: Oh, btw, I believe the title of my review was "This is not funny".
Wilbert Jade Lorenzo
As for me, I hope you could reply us with an email, which part of our review violates your guidelines that way we don't just sit around on the screen all day cogitating when will our review be posted, which by the way, is not an easy writing.
Ed Jones(XLIX)
Thanks.
And this............
Quoting you.
So......
Mary Poppins is based on what real event?
Spiderman is based on what real event?
Fail Safe is based on what real event?
Star Wars is based on what real event?
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum is based on what real event?
It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad World is based on what real event?
The Russians Are Coming The Russians Are Coming is based on what real event?
1941 is based on what real event?
ET is based on what real event?
Back to the Future is based on what real event?
Spaceballs is based on what real event?
Blazing Saddles is based on what real event?
The Birds is based on what real event?
Friday the 13th is based on what real event?
Now this.......
We have all been wanting this so that the forum is not cluttered with individuals that cannot read and comprehend the clearly written guidelines and ask the same thing over and over again.............
The answer is obvious. Lack of comprehension skills.
Wilbert Jade Lorenzo
I could not expound my point of this topic more.
Jeorj Euler
brenobacci