There's been particular focus on this topic of late as Mission Impossible III (review) faces delay and possible cuts in China, more noticeably The Da Vinci Code (review) is banned in some Middle Eastern countries, and now the American army are pushing for cuts on the film Baghdad ER, and getting them.

Yet it's not just these movies, films have had enforced edits and faced bans through the entire history of cinema. Although these days, and mainly in the West, censorship is the most lenient it has ever been as the recent story on the BBFC showed.

So why is it such a problem, why should we be concerned, after all a film gets cut and edited all the time, what's the problem? Well there are various levels of censorship, and some of them are integral to making a movie, others are not.

A film is edited throughout its creation, it's a natural evolution of a story. The screenwriter removes material and rewrites, the Director continually alters and refines the film, then with the Editor often changes the story entirely. There are the investors to think about with the production company making their demands, and next we get test screenings and more edits before finally being released. Oh, but then it faces the individual countries classifications which might mean individual edits for each country and perhaps no release at all.

It's quite a minefield, but many of these steps are part of the film making process and aren't really an issue. What I, and many others, have an issue with is what happens after the creative process ends, after those who are responsible for creating the movie say it is complete and ready for an audience. After all these are the people who are creating the characters and the story to entertain, scare, make happy or sad, or even just freak out. It's their work.

Once they've finished the investors sometimes try to use their cash to push things around, they may try to do this during the film process, but at least then the Director can control it. One of the most recent and extreme examples of this was the Exorcist prequel. Paul Schrader made his film and the main investor didn't think there was enough horror and so he buried the film and looked to a new Director to create a more blatantly horrific version.

What was produced was Renny Harlin's unsubtle and unfulfilling film, and Schrader's was never seen until public pressure made the investor think that there could be a market for both films, and an opportunity to make even more money. Then it saw the light of day. That very same investor was responsible for forcing a recut of Exorcist III, with the original Directors version being lost forever.

This is perhaps to me one of the worst aspects of Hollywood, where the money decides whether someone's movie creation even sees an audience and gets a chance. We'll never see the version of The Exorcist III that the Director William Peter Blatty intended us to see, instead we see someone elses version of his film.

Somewhat of a grey area are the test screenings. Here the completed film, or often uncompleted as the recent tests of Rocky Balboa attest to, are shown to a small group of people to find out their opinion of the film. They are polled to find out how they enjoyed the film, how they connected with the story, the characters, etc.

This is really to make sure that the film hits its intended audience, and to ensure that they are affected in the correct way and at the correct time.

For me test screenings are a difficult choice. It would be great to find out how the film appears to the outside audience, but deliberately altering it in places to ensure maximum audience returns somewhat sits uneasily with me. Still these can be a natural part of the filmmaking process, it does depend if the Studio and Producers allow those who created the film to have the final say or not.

The biggest issue is the enforced cuts from people entirely outside the industry, and the acceptance of these so easily. It is quite telling that the BBFC haven't asked for cuts to 18 rated movies for some time now and they say that these should only be made if…

…they encourage illegality or if the content is likely to encourage someone to harm themselves.

I think the BBFC that have the right idea. They don't actually ask for cuts, they provide a rating for a movie and then sit back. It's then left in the hands of the filmmakers to decide if they want to recut their film. Films will only be enforced with cuts or even banned should they break the above rule.

What then happens is the Studio decides if their intended marketplace is outside that rating and if it needs to be toned down, they then approach the BBFC and find out where they found particular issue with the film. They don't specifically tell them scene by scene, but they will indicate general areas and tone, and from here the Studio then ask the Director to make cuts on the movie to resubmit to the BBFC to try and achieve their desired rating. This continues until they make their rating.

Here I don't hold issue with the BBFC, they are trying to give an indication to the audience about the content and suitability of the film by assigning its classification. What the Studio is doing is suddenly worrying that they might not hit their sales targets and profit margins by allowing the film to be released with this rating. So then the cuts come, the cuts for cash return, not for creative storytelling.

There's also the individual country banning of films, most recently seen with Da Vinci Code. Here there are other things being said than entertainment and creativity, this is about religion and politics. Middle eastern countries banning a movie that should be more offensive to Christians than anyone else.

Why ban it though? Time and time again we see the banning of films and music causing their massively inflated sales, and this is something we've seen with Da Vinci in both the book and the film. Here the very controversy intended to turn people away from the movie has had the opposite affect and people are actually going to see the film, so much so it is now in the top ten list for highest takings in the first three days of opening. These very people who are hoping to quash the tale have helped advertise it.

The latest, and perhaps most worrying story, is that of Baghdad ER. This is a harrowing documentary about a military hospital in Iraq, dealing with wounded soldier's day in day out. It uncompromisingly shows some of the horrors of war with soldiers breaking down, limbs being removed and death a routine. When it came to the US it was shown on some military bases and received a very strong and positive reception, however now some Army politician is now saying that there need to be cuts made. Not cuts to the graphic content either, but to other aspects of the movie.

This is the worst kind of censorship that I find. Enforced from an outside source with no involvement in the creative process of the film whatsoever. How do they have the right to rewrite and recut someone else's story?

So where does creativity end and censorship begin? I would say as soon as the Director completes the edits he and his team are happy with. Should Directors accept cuts on their movie in order to meet a certain classification, or should they just accept it and go with the work they intended? Should the investors have any say in a movie once it's completed? If they've handed over their money and agreed the creatives that are working on the project shouldn't they sit back and accept what they have made?

What of the enforced censorship that is still going on? Should filmmakers work to ensure that their film is accepted by all and stay clear of the fear of offending anyone, or should they make the film they really want to and allow people to make their own choices? Frankly I think that's a moot question.

What are your views on these types of editing, recutting and censorship?