It's a very murky story. There's a myth of an "official ban" being in place, but movies aren't "officially banned" in North America, they rather get ratings that make them commercially barely viable, or are passed over by distributors. Same for censorship, done by distrubutors themselves to avoid the dreaded rating.

Then there's the story that no distribution deal was ever reached despite interest from some US distributors. US distributors usually get their way when they want to buy something .

The story circulating that makes most sense in the end is that US distributors made offers then were retracting them citing the risk to their image post Columbine or the fact they couldn't possibly get a viable rating post-Columbine (but that would't explain why they never sought a DVD-only deal later, when the movie had gained cult status), and after a while the Japanese production company sought advice from many American lawyers about the risks of lawsuits from individuals and groups, and they were told the risks were real they could get embroiled in law suits, and Toei decided to refuse all further offers to distribute the movie in N-A to avoid possible entanglements and the risks its name might be muddied by campaigns against the movie.

The movie has been shown several times in Canada (in Montréal anyway. It still is from time to time), but only at film festivals and art-house venues.

The novel is far more clearly dystopian. The movie carries a "show don't tell" vision in almost every aspect, so the dystopian background gets no clear exposition and can escape those who don't pay enough attention (it's worse for those not familiar enough with Japan. The distanciation/spec fic nature of tthe work is very clear to Japanese. They have no firearm culture, for one thing - even policemen don't have them).

In Japan the controversy was around the rating, if the movie should be allowed for its primary target audience or restricted to those above 15 y.o. IRRC, as the controversy built and reached even parliament, Toei retracted its request for a lower rating.



Not really, but you have a point the movie story could be perceived that way. You may well be right it's why HG doesn't appear (so far) to spark much controversy (if anything, I'm more curious to understand why it doesn't raise controversy in Canada/Québec - we've had our school carnages, and I would have expected our usual suspects to go completely beserk at the first sniff of something like teenagers being forced to kill one another in a game in a movie meant for teenagers, no matter what moral stance the movie presents. I guess I'll only know by seing it eventually.)

I don't agree with such views personally, but I'm pretty sure you're right it's how many see it.




The way it's being described make it sound this way. One reviewer remarked it was also done very "responsibly" and "intelligently" by the author, but that her vision was fairly critical of certain aspects of American society and might offend/irritate some, but not necessarily by the violence so much as the fact the dystopia criticize the ideas of a certain right.

Another said it borrowed concepts from BR and other similar works, but that it had more resonance for its intended public.

There's a lot of "don't think this is another Twilight" (that got attacked here mostly for its "retrograd/moral right values", but it remained on the level of contempt and didn't hurt its commercial success that I could see) bandied around by reviewers, which certainly sounds like a good thing!