Editor’s Note: Since the time of writing, Blue Story has been returned to Vue cinemas and continues to screen.

Content Warning: This article contains mentions of violence that some readers may find upsetting.

Blue Story is a cinematic tale of two friends pitted against each other and a gang culture that corrupts the innocent. It was banned from Star City cinema in Birmingham due to a violent dispute. This incident injured seven police officers and six teenagers were arrested on a Saturday afternoon in November. Between 70 and 100 more people partook in the fight. It’s hard to judge the event as different news outlets range from fearmongering with details of machetes to descriptions of only minor injuries. Many although agreed on the term ‘brawl’ for a more accurate depiction of the actual event. Civilian reports said that the police were definitely armed to ‘protect,’ however,  they brought more than sufficient equipment including batons, dogs and tasers. In a video online viral to the event, it showed two little girls crying in Frozen dresses caught up in the horde of 100 policemen and 50 vehicles. As overdone as the police response was, the corporate decision of Vue to pull this film from their cinemas all over the country was worse.

Despite the fight being more indicative of a ‘brawl’ than a gang war, the company drew an ethnically conscious link between the people that incited violence and those within the film. This is reactionary stupidity to say the least. For the movie to return it was said there that there would be additional security measures to be implemented. Tim Richards, the Vue chief executive, tries to justify these decisions on the basis of protecting the customers. Or was this just to protect the brand? This goes to another step when the company even tries to victimise itself against the backlashes of racist callouts. What heroic retorts. The idea that a company’s best decision is to either double down with intense apologising or intense self-victimisation is appalling. Not in a way to defend the people that could have simply just have not been racist, although the mainstream culture we have where forgiveness is devoid of meaning does not help either.

Even apart from that, if the film did represent this horrible event, why would banning it be a good solution? It is simply a work of art performing one of the functions that art does, which is to communicate contemporary problems. If people revolted due to this, it just means the issues needed addressing earlier, not because of copy-cat acts. Films with powerful messages that could potentially herald change in the public’s perceptions are not the ones to be banned but rather the ones to be held higher than the rest. Thankfully, the low-budget indie film earned over £1.3 million anyway despite its disadvantage. In opposition to what most journalists nowadays would have us believe, the film’s success probably will not inspire people to join gangs. The idea that people are just empty-minded homunculi that will obey the orders from a big, fancy screen is completely asinine. Claims of this film promoting gang violence is the same as blaming video games for mass school shootings. Or Joker for cinema shootings that didn’t even happen, when all that resulted was teenagers dancing on staircases recording themselves. And this is not a recent phenomenon.

In 2012, during the release of The Dark Knight Rises there was a shooting in a cinema in Colorado. I assume the perpetrator that wants to take down American civilisation wouldn’t be inspired by a mainstream American film? My point is, the film was targeted simply because it was forecast to be a commercial hit. The media, however, spun this and outright lied with details of a red haired, white-painted skinned menace calling himself the Joker. It is incredibly sad that bad journalism is not punished properly, nor is good journalism rewarded properly. In response to Joker there were claims of encouraging ‘white, incel, male rage’ when it was just a comic book film about mental illness and class. Is there a way of mitigating these clickbait articles we are all so tired of? Tax advertisements, perhaps, to encourage genuine journalism or fund news outlets more and adjust the laws that let smaller ones die?

It is already tiresome to see journalism be contaminated with lies, and even more when seeing its effects in polarised disputes for the upcoming General Election. But seeing this disease’s symptoms spread even further into the arts is so upsetting, especially considering the freedom of expression needed to create art. The political grasp over content, whether it chooses to omit or promote, is none other than a means to control, not a way to protect the public from dangerous ideas. Discussing ideas is more helpful than problematic, and we all know that. So I’m really not sure why something like Blue Story gets warnings whilst Moonlight wins Academy Awards. Where did this discrepancy in treatment come from? Reluctantly, we should question how America’s free speech laws differs to ours and how the benefits and drawbacks weigh up. The debut filmmaker Rapman, a Deptford-born writer who created a viral web-series his very movie is based on, had his personal project become a success with primarily 4-star reviews. Best wishes to the rest of his career, and hopefully he continues to make meaningful content in his own terms. The fact that movies like this, The Dark Knight Rises and Joker continue to succeed in spite of unfair labels and actions means there is hope. While art can be suppressed, it cannot die out; in fact, sometimes it can even fight back.

Blue Story is in cinemas now.