It’s rains wins the Tar appeal, Paolo Strippoli’s film is no longer prohibited for minors under 18

Rainsthe new horror film by Paolo Strippolidirector of The Nest – The Nest And A Classic Horror Storywon the appeal to the Lazio Regional Administrative Court against the classification of the film as Prohibited to minors under 18 years of age.

The film, distributed by Fandango on November 10, it was classified as VM 18 after two ministerial commissions for the classification of audiovisual works rejected the self-classification – cited by the new Franceschini Law rules – of the film as VM 14 neither Propaganda Film, film producer. The restriction imposed on Piove severely penalized the distribution and promotion of Strippoli’s film, in fact with a VM 18 classification, in addition to reducing the audience that could enjoy the work, it was not possible to promote the film with trailers to be sent to theaters, television and radio.

As reported by Cinecittà News, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court annulled the decision of two ministerial commissions, which returned the film’s classification to VM 14 and was prohibited to unaccompanied minors under 12 years of age. Furthermore, the Tar ordered the MiC to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

In the sentence, reported by the site that read it in preview, we read “Ordered the annulment of the ordered measures, where an opinion was expressed and expressed contrary to the proposal of the applicant to classify the film as a ‘prohibited work for minors under 14 with related icons of violence – Gender – Use of weapons – Use of drugs or alcohol – Discrimination and hate speech – Language and profanity”. The decision goes on to say: “although the film Piove undoubtedly shows scenes of violence (which, moreover, is a typical or ‘structural’ content of the ‘horror’ film genre to which the film is associated), it does not assuming such intensity and force to make it unsuitable for viewing, in general, by all minors under 18, does not agree, on this point, with the assessment expressed by the Commission. This is because the scenes of violence do not ‘punctuate’ the plot in a significant way (as feared by the opinion given in the first instance), or ‘continuously’ (as we read in the opinion given during analysis), but a matter of certain actions and actions (in some cases, it is not denied, even brutal) which, however, are explicitly represented only in a relatively advanced stage of history, while they are only said ‘(via television, radio or press reports telling of an incomprehensible increase in murderous violence recorded in recent times).

The judges of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court concluded: “The purpose of the film (which is typical of the cinematography of the reference) is to create in the viewer a momentary feeling of fear and terror, playing in the supernatural, and therefore in situations that are not really real or believable, but completely. illogical, imaginative, impossible to happen in everyday reality. And the viewer is well aware of this: in particular, it is believed that, to reach this understanding, a level of psychophysical maturation is sufficient which does not necessarily mean a full, full and complete development of the individual’s intellectual and cognitive abilities. (which the system assumes to have been reached when the age of majority is reached. This is because a younger boy (certainly from 14 years old) will fully understand the meaning of the projected scenes”.