The prosecutor filed a lawsuit demanding that the distribution of The Green Elephant (1999), The Ninja Assassin (2009) and The Glass Experiment (2020) be deemed prohibited in Russia. The prosecutor argued that the films contain scenes of violence and dismemberment and depict other methods of murder in a particularly brutal manner. He also noted that these tapes can be watched freely on the Internet and provided four links to sites where the films were released without any clear age restrictions or audience circles as evidence.
In response, the St. Petersburg Oktyabrsky District Court, which had previously banned the Happy Tree Friends animated series and several anime titles in Russia, considered the situation carefully and brought in experts to help evaluate the case.
The controversial tapes were studied by staff at the St. Petersburg Academy of Postgraduate Pedagogical Education. Their assessment concluded that if minors view the films, the content may harm mental health and could introduce risk factors for suicidal behavior. Special attention was given to how the film Green Elephant had been described in court communications by the press service.
One expert noted that the movie contains material harmful to the psychological health of young people. It depicts violent murders in a graphic, naturalistic way and may provoke fear, horror, or panic among children. It also presents scenes of mental coercion where individuals are forced to act in a degrading manner.
The Academy’s evaluation suggested that the shocking plot and sequence of events could trigger memories and distressing experiences. It warned that a prolonged emotional state after exposure might disrupt behavior patterns. The court ultimately aligned with the prosecutor in deciding to ban the distribution of these films in Russia.
The Absurdity of Green Elephant Meets the Absurdity of Reality
The director and principal actors of the film, which gained notoriety in Russia through this controversy, spoke out after the ban surfaced. One actor, who played a lead role, argued that bans reflect a weakness in society and tend to make younger audiences curious and drawn toward what is restricted. He even suggested that the ban could unintentionally raise interest in the film and elevate the quality of the work itself.
The director Svetlana Baskova expressed confusion about the court’s decision to restrict distribution. She explained that the work was an art house expression rather than a commercial project and noted that the film was produced nearly a quarter of a century ago. She questioned what it means to forbid something and emphasized that it was not readily available on major streaming platforms. Baskova described the decision as narrow-minded and suggested it was likely intended to draw attention to the work rather than curb its influence.
She also asserted that she does not hold rights to the film and that the director would not have actively promoted its distribution. Another actor stated that Green Elephant holds significance because it presents a stark view of what the future might hold for society, including children and future generations. He framed the film as a reflection of cultural decay and the crisis of existence that many perceive in the current landscape.
In contrast, a fellow actor described the film as a provocative exploration that aims to irritate and provoke, while acknowledging that the approach may be uncomfortable for older viewers who do not easily recognize its intent. He noted that modern students may feel frustration with conventional schooling and find resonance in Green Elephant more than any standard curriculum. The film’s reception among younger audiences is described as deeply personal and emotionally charged.
Another performer highlighted how the project forced the cast to improvise amid tense and raw circumstances. He recalled that the ensemble included individuals who felt marginalized, and that anger and hunger often fueled their performances. He acknowledged that the experience could be unsettling and that some viewers may find the work confusing or excessive. Yet, he stressed that therapy-like effects for viewers can emerge from challenging cinema when viewed with the right frame of mind.
What the Green Elephant Is About
The movie Green Elephant was shot in 1999 using an amateur video camera. The plot follows two soldiers serving time in a guard house in 1986, focusing on a central character described as a roaming officer who shares a sequence of sexual adventures and graphic bodily details. The narrative unfolds in the thrash film style and is punctuated by explicit language as the characters navigate a disturbing chain of events that include necrophilia, various forms of violence, and crude dialogue.
Pieces of dialogue and footage from the film circulated online in Russia and became memes. Phrases like I brought you food, yes be human, and others circulated widely as part of the cultural footprint surrounding the work.
Critics Andrey Plakhov and Alexander Pavlov have described the work as a brutal anti-militarist parable. Baskova herself said the film was created out of a deep sense of distress about the country at that time. One actor described the piece as a stark meditation on the decay of the military and society, noting that profanity served as a tool to convey truths that were not openly discussed in the era of its creation. He argued that the film’s raw honesty exposed a reality that was otherwise hidden.
According to Baskova, the significance of the film depends on how audiences react. She stated that the artist captures reality as she sees it, and the impact of the work is no longer solely in the artist’s control. The cast described a highly improvised environment where the cast’s fierce energy and shared sense of marginalization propelled the project forward. They explained that anger, hunger, and discontent were catalysts for creative force rather than simple theatrics.
The actors noted that the film provoked a mix of embarrassment and fascination, with some viewers viewing it as a form of cinematic therapy. They acknowledged that the work remains controversial and divisive, yet there is a belief that it speaks to a generation seeking meaning beyond conventional schooling and traditional cultural signals.