Seriously, censorship.......... what's this the new Trumpistan?

  • 1
  • Question
  • Updated 6 months ago
  • Answered
IMDb is practicing some sort of censorship lately, so long story, short : I submit a review and got rejected ( first time ever) with the fallowing explanation:
" Reason Does not meet contribution guidelines.

Your contribution has been declined.Your submission conflicted with one or more of our policies as stated in our User Review Submission guide Please review these policies before submitting again. "

So I review those policies and nothing to ME seems conflicting. Maybe, IMDb should be more precise, if they tuck the time to send a reply. 

The review was for "The Dead Nation (2017)" " title/tt6855898" AND this is the review :

 "No one in the right mind will question, the fate and suffering of Romanian Jews, deportations and the killing in Transnistria and the fact that very few of responsible, paid for their action.

What is bothering me, for start, is the translation; Tara Moarta is one thing and The Dead Nation is a total different thing (Natiunea Moarta), of course we can hide behind a concept like "artistic license" that can be interpreted a bit differently (malicious even); specially when is first of many mistranslations. For example: at min. 24 " D-le Jidan, mai Jidane, and hi, sictir Jidane" ; now in english subtitles we get: " Mr. dirty Jew, you dirty Jew, and F**k off, dirty Jew" and as far as I can tell we have the same issue in Spanish and Norwegian subtitles; in Romanian narration we don't hear and is NOT imply the word"dirty", Romanian for (murdar , jegos). It is like the documentary has a dual purpose........... hence interpretations.

Another issue I find it with the pictures and the poster choice; The poster, 4 poorly equip romanian privates ( clearly second rate solders) and two Luftwaffe support on a bike (for romanian privates is probably their firth encounter with a bike). This type of souvenir photos are very common for that period, in there thousands. Where is the connection or some sort of allegory...
The choise of pictures is also questionable,at least, why they chose Slobosia ? Is like choosing 1930 Fort Worth or Queens slum, to represent USA on that period.

Picture and Photoshop: Mr. Mario-Cezar Popescu used the same Macro for pictures border, the one with the edge cracks, personally I don't see the necessity or the usefulness in this case.

The narrative .............. is more like swiss cheese, picking some events, meanwhile ignoring others, that should be in the story and defenilly they are in Dr. Emil Dorian journal i.e. Aug.30, 1940 or May, June 1944 (Jew deportation to Auschwitz from northern Transilvania, by Adm. Horty).


The narrative is also, locking an intro  like antisemitism in Romania fall of the sky, it just happens, no short factual history mention, just establish a flow for the movie. 

Antisemitism in post WWI Romania was no different that of any other country in the region. And the above statement can be extended well into 1980s. A distinctive characteristic of Romanian antisemitism can be summarized as following: "Yes, Jew are bad, BUT MY JEW IS ONE OF THE GOOD ONES!!! "  and anyone from ION the farmer, to Marshal Antonescu (The Leader), to King Michel, to Queen Helena and to head of Orthodox Church, had ONE. And when the communists come in, the story repeats until they sold what was left of the Romanian Jews (450, 000) to Israel.

The narrative is also, lacking an end, like how successful Romanian Jews were (were and are) in Israel and not only. 

Convenient omissions and some fibs"


The "dirty" half of me, like the other half is very against censorship, I confronted   for over 25 years then and I know how much damage can do, like its relative  "The fibs".
I m just hopping that IMDb will reconsider and improve their position.

Photo of Benmo Ben

Benmo Ben

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

Posted 6 months ago

  • 1
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 13206 Posts
  • 14809 Reply Likes
Hi Benmo,

I must say I like your writing. It is very descriptive. Taught. Focused. And a very interesting read.

Unfortunately a review it's not. It is a very good statement on Subtitles, race relations, history lessons, and complaints about lack of history, Photo-shopping, Movie Poster Selections, and your not liking the location shooting locales.

You don't really review it. You just complain about it.

This is not to be taken as an attack.
It is just pointing out the obvious.
Sorry,
Cheers
Photo of PeterD

PeterD

  • 145 Posts
  • 111 Reply Likes
Well, looking over the User Review Guidelines, I would guess that the violations might relate to either or both of these:
  • Refrain from including profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks in either the body or header of your review. 
  • Do not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based.
(Edited)
Photo of Benmo Ben

Benmo Ben

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
Hi Ed,

 I appreciate your POV, but in my times  that used to be call a review; I do NOT complain, I do criticize, I point out what I don't like  and/or it could be done better.( I may be wrong, but thats not the point). 
 To pointing out the obvious:there is NO rules that mention reviews had to be positive ONLY . 
 
Never, was in my to mind, a hint of idea to take your reply (and PeterD's) as an attack, by itself, obviously, it's pointing to very outdated PR tactics of turning the table, (It still call that?)

An advise from on half Jew (just half because came from male lineage), consult your lawyers. if they can find something slightly antisemitic, I thing not, plus IMDb it cannot hide from the first amendment.

All the best,

Cheerio

P.S.
 and yes I Do know about the new trend: private corporation, censorship and so call community standards.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 13206 Posts
  • 14809 Reply Likes
This is a very unrealistic telling of a story set in...................................

The direction is disjointed and is incomplete in its portrayal of factual data.

It in no way depicts post WWI Romania with any accuracy.

Subtitled versions are atrocious.

There is no real end or a satisfactory conclusion, although real history shows us that there was.



I just said pretty much the same thing.

It's a crappy Movie.


My Review above would pass.
No one said it had to say it had to be positive. It just needs less diatribe. Things that are not relevant to a review need to be left out.
Cheers.
Happy Reviewing.




Photo of Benmo Ben

Benmo Ben

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I wanted to send something similar, but I troth, is not fair. You are right, in short is the same thing, but not for people with not so much knowledge of period and place. It is also offensive for people who lived and survived those times. Has a propaganda sense.

"My Review above would pass. " well, Thank you, so much !!! You made my point.

OK then lets do a different  reviewing.... how about "Der Hauptmann"  aka "The Captain" (title/tt6763252) .....  similarities with  Pasolini s Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom...

or, we can debate on how much the use of black and white in today s filmaking, has an effect 4K TV manufacturing. or that all those black and white new movies, reflect on lack of creativity on today s directors (in 2018, 178 movies were made in B/W). Some are even nominated for Oscar.

Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 13206 Posts
  • 14809 Reply Likes
I'd love to "Debate" but this is not the place for it.
Cheers
Photo of Benmo Ben

Benmo Ben

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
I love the way you hide the conversation in your Db, someone need to really know how to search to find it.  I also admire that your coworkers, like your postings.

Can you please tell me why this review is ok :

"I forced myself to finish this movie in order to feel okay about writing a review; however, I really wanted to step away after the first major factual inaccuracies presented themselves in the first 5 minutes. As an environmental engineer, I feel more than qualified to comment on these inaccuracies. I'll outline several of them from throughout the movie for you here:
1) "... to harvest geothermal energy from other planets." (00:01:20) The prefix "geo" is defined as "relating to the Earth"; therefore, "geothermal energy" refers exclusively to thermal energy from the Earth. You cannot "harvest geothermal energy from other planets" anymore than you can harvest solar energy from a lightbulb.

2) "Sample 181B. Drawn from the sediment strata, should confirm or disconfirm the presence of bacterium able to use ammonium as a main oxygen source." (00:04:46) This quote contains two errors, so I will refer to them as "2a" and "2b". 2a) Ammonium consists of only Nitrogen and Hydrogen, so it could never be a "main oxygen source". In the unlikely case that by "ammonium" the writers were implying "ammonium oxide", it would be within the realms of a science fiction piece to make this claim. However, the fact that this is an isolated use of the term "ammonium" in the movie (the writers prefer "ammonia" in every other case, which actually is a different chemical compound), along with a later inaccuracy I will address, make the loose inference of "ammonium" to "ammonium oxide" very unlikely. What's more is that it is not a new concept that bacteria exist which can respire in such conditions. In fact, we have known that they exist for a long time and rely on them in many ways. I will mention this later on as well. 2b) In this quote, the singular "bacterium" is used in the plural sense. It's interesting that the writers were even familiar with the singular form when "bacteria" is colloquially used in the singular sense, and "bacterium" is almost exclusive to scientific literature and dialogue where it is always used in reference to a single bacterium or singular strain of bacteria. Later in the movie, another character makes the opposite but more forgivable mistake when he says, "Was it a bacteria?" (01:15:46)

3) "Anaerobic reproduction in a water-striding insect colony." (00:08:56) To my knowledge, there is no such phenomenon referred to as "anaerobic reproduction". That is not to say that this is impossible or does not exist. Let me explain. Anaerobic simply refers to processes which occur in the absence of a common electron accepter (e.g., nitrate, sulfate, or oxygen). Many organisms, such as anaerobic bacteria, do in fact reproduce in these conditions. However, this is not referred to as "anaerobic reproduction" because neither anaerobic nor aerobic conditions lend themselves to a specific type of reproduction. More than likely, the writers actually meant "anaerobic respiration". This makes sense in light of the "scientific" premise of the movie, which is the struggle of life on earth to adapt to an atmosphere contaminated with ammonia and implicitly low oxygen. The reference to anaerobic conditions also discredits the notion that the writers implied "ammonium oxide" when using the term "ammonium".

4) "We filter our drinking water through sand and charcoal. It's all it needs." (00:26:55) Assuming the water is contaminated with ammonia (like the air), sand and charcoal would do nothing to purify it. In wastewater treatment, where ammonia removal is a necessary process, nitrifying bacteria are used to nitrify ammonia. That is, they ultimately convert the ammonia to nitrate, hydrogen and water. This is a very complicated, multi-step process that involves balancing pH, dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand to achieve the desired effect. Had the writers suggested that Sam harvested nitrifying bacteria (likely quite common on an ammonia-rich Earth) and used them to treat her water, this would have been within the realms of a science fiction piece. But sand and charcoal would do nothing for ammonia.

5) "It's only cloudy like that because of the charcoal." (00:26:49) Charcoal filtration removes particles from contaminated water through adsorption. Most household filters use activated charcoal to improve the aesthetic qualities of their water (look, taste and smell). Implying that the charcoal would actually discolor the water is a major inaccuracy, since it would in fact do the opposite. Now, if the process actually added charcoal to the water instead of filtering the water through the charcoal, this would discolor it, but it would do nothing to filter the water. However, I doubt that is the implication when the "treated" water has a light brown hue. Charcoal would have turned the water gray or black, depending on the amount added.

6) "You'd think they could live up high like us." (00:30:27) This quote implies that the surviving humans were able to escape the contaminated air by living at a higher elevation. However, ammonia is lighter than air, meaning the ammonia concentration would likely be higher at an increased elevation, not lower.

7) Throughout the movie, Sam regularly monitors the air quality by sustaining a flame and observing its color. In the movie, a purple flame is supposed to represent contaminated air, whereas a yellow/orange flame represents clean air. When ammonia burns in the presence of oxygen, the flame is actually yellow, not purple. But let's look at this a little deeper. Ammonia has a flammable range of 15 - 28%. This means that ammonia will not ignite at a concentration of less than 15% volume of air or a concentration higher than 28% volume of air. According to the CDC, ammonia is "immediately dangerous to life or health" at just 300 ppm, which is just 0.03% volume of air. A concentration of 15% (150,000 ppm) or higher would not just be damaging to the eyes, nostrils and lungs, but also to the skin. The character would need to wear a fully-enclosed, airtight suit to protect herself against harm.

I understand that science fiction writers are not scientists, but the premise behind science fiction is to provide a somewhat plausible scenario that is at least loosely based on some scientific truth. Even fantasy pieces, which delve into realms far beyond the scope of even pseudoscience, do not attempt to rewrite or misrepresent well-known, established scientific fact without some sort of explanation (even if it's something as ludicrous as dolphins that suddenly bound from the ocean into deep space because of their sentience and connections to other-worldly beings).

It's quite disappointing to think that so much money and effort could be put into a movie on the part of writers, producers, actors, videographers, and visual effects specialists (to name a few) and yet they didn't think to have somebody with at least the qualifications of a middle school science teacher read over the screenplay." 
(Io 2019)

Is playing down all your arguments against mine review for "Tara Moarta".

I do hope that your answer, will meet a minimum satisfaction standard, in a common sense freedom of expression, check list, so that the above concept of censorship, is non existent as a fact or implied;  also I do have to say ( upon stronger advise) that have to rise this issue of arbitrary  censorship with your boss Jeffrey Bezos
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 13206 Posts
  • 14809 Reply Likes
Hey, Benmo Ben.
What movie is that review for?
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6956 Posts
  • 8854 Reply Likes
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 13206 Posts
  • 14809 Reply Likes
Jeorj not his review.
The review above.
(Edited)
Photo of Benmo Ben

Benmo Ben

  • 8 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
".....and yet they didn't think to have somebody with at least the qualifications of a middle school science teacher read over the screenplay."  
(Io 2019)........................"

Was in text, no?
 movie is Io (2019)
and IMDb link  tt3256226/

You are welcome.


Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 13206 Posts
  • 14809 Reply Likes
If it's any consolation, That was not a review either.
I submitted it for reevaluation.