Angel of Vengeance is a 1987 US drama by Ted V Mikels With Jannina Poynter and David O'Hara.
Banned by the BBFC for:
UK 1987 VIP VHS
Note that the more famous Angel Of Vengeance by Abel Ferrara has been released with BBFC cuts
Summary Review: Fast and Furious
Female journalist ventures into the woods to study her fathers papers on survival techniques. She is abused and assaulted by another group of survivalists who unfortunately for them have not such good sources.
The action comes fast and furious and will leave you gasping for air. I would recommend this movie to any fan of the genre. Hats off once again to Ted V Mikels. His movies are either simply great, or else so bad that they're great.
This one is simply great.
1995 US/Canada adult video by François Clousot. With Alexandra, Andrea and Tammi Ann.
The Softcore version was banned by the BBFC for:
UK 1995 Missing in Action VHS
The BBFC explained their ban:
The rape video was American cut-down hardcore. It contained two porno rape scenes, one a gang rape. Both were staged as turn-on material. The dialogue was peppered with aggressive and
coercive references to women, while the emphasis on anal sex seemed designed to stress its capacity for inflicting pain. The video was rejected on straight policy grounds.
The Softcore Version was
further pre-cut to delete the material previously banned by the distributor and was further cut by the BBFC by 1:20s for:
Back in Actions is a 1994 US action film by Steve DiMarco & Paul Ziller. With Billy Blanks, Roddy Piper and Bobbie Phillips.
Originally banned by the BBFC for 1984 VHS but later rated 18 after
massive cuts. The BBFC waived its cuts for 2004 DVD. Uncut and MPAA R rated in the US,
The BBFC rejected the Guild Home Video uncut version submitted in 1994. The BBFC commented:
Two of the
rejected videos in 1994 (the other is Kickboxer 4: The Aggressor ) featured karate but each went beyond acceptable standards in the quantity and intensity of potentially lethal kicks to the head and bone-crunching blows and twists to the limbs,
back and neck. Since this form of macho heroics is likely to appeal to teenagers with a record of violent offending, cuts did not seem a practical proposition. The Board has always been concerned about films in which heroes meet viciousness with
viciousness, inflicting pain and injury on others as if it were the only remedy for villainy.
The pre-cut Guild Home Video version resubmitted in 1994 was passed 18 by the BBFC after 1:28s of further cuts. The BBFC commented:
The distributors resubmitted the video shorn of 7.5 minutes of the most brutal violence, after which a further 1.5 minutes was cut by the Board, removing most of the remaining kicks to the head and face, the smashing of
heads against walls, floors and pillars, the biting of ears and glamorising of weaponry.
Summary Review: A definite winner
The sister of a former US Green Beret, is involved in a love affair with a
mobster, endangering seriously her life. His brother will make his best efforts to save her from her boyfriend and his friends. But perhaps tough cop Rossi could help him... or stop him.
Good chemistry between the two leads, Lots
of action. A definite winner.
This is an excellent "B" movie. Blanks and Piper work really well together. The story is decent. But story doesn't count, action does. And there is more than enough action to keep people happy. Blanks and
Piper are good in the numerous fight scenes.
Overall a really good movie that any action fan should check out.
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut
UK: Passed 18 uncut with previous BBFC cuts waived for:
Scenes
range from an undercover police video at a strip club to a shark attack on a student, from a collapsing tower at a Deep Purple concert in Chile to several scenes of police brutality in South America. The most
gruesome scene involves a woman who, in a hurry to get wherever she needed to go, accidentally jogs into a speeding train.
The main consideration for the Board was the question of harm referred to above. In short, does the work have the
potential for anti- social influence?
In the Board's view it does. It is a compilation of scenes of extremely violent death, injury and mutilation, many of
which are repeated in slow-motion. The commentary draws attention to the grislier aspects and in effect invites enjoyment at human suffering. The inclusion also of sex scenes reinforces the impression that the purpose of the video is to provide
entertainment. There is no attempt to justify the images by placing the incidents in any other journalistic or educational context. Whatever current relevance the images might have had when they were originally photographed has been lost in the general
compilation of horrors. The Board is conscious that a particular genre that has always been identified as entirely unacceptable is that of so-called 'snuff movies'. Their main identifying feature is that at least one of the participants is actually
killed. Banned from Television is only different in that, instead of a death being created for the work, actual death and injury is collated from a wide range of pre-existing sources to create the work.
The Board has concluded that the video is potentially harmful because of the influence it may have on the attitudes and behaviour of a significant proportion of likely viewers.
The instinct of concern and compassion for the suffering of others is a basic social necessity. So is respect for the dignity of real human life. By presenting actual human death and mutilation as entertainment, the work, in the Board's view, has the
potential to erode these instincts. There is a danger of it falling into the hands of young and impressionable persons (whatever its classification) and of some significant brutalising effect on their attitude to human life and pain.
The Board has considered the possibility of cuts as a remedy for these difficulties. It has concluded, however, that they would be unlikely to modify the tone and effect of the
work acceptably.
Bare Behind Bars is a 1980 Brazil Women in Prison film by Oswaldo de Oliveira. With Maria Stella Splendore, Marta Anderson and Danielle Ferrite.
UK: A short version was banned by the BBFC for:
UK 1994 Redemption VHS
The BBFC commented:
A Women's prison video in which the female prisoners were coerced, degraded and brutalised. Bare Behind Bars was more insidious (than
Sadomania ) in its degradation, since inmates were portrayed as a herd, indistinguishable in their nakedness like animals in a cage. Imprisoned physically and psychologically, they were sexual
objects, not subjects, instinctual creatures for whom sex remained the only release. Its appeal rested primarily on the spectacle of naked women en masse, at the mercy of cruel authority, the meagre narrative moving through image after image of violation
- by sex, by medical examination, by crude sex toys, by razor blades, by rats. If the film lacks the peaks of evil or atrocity that characterise Sadomania
, it substitutes a relentless reduction of all that is human or valuable in these woman as individuals. It distorts the way women are thought of by the male viewer in his search for sexual gratification, reinforcing myths about female sexuality which
must be damaging to the viewers, to their future sexual partners, and, by extension therefore to society. The Board will continue to apply the harm test to material of this sort.
An unsuccessful appeal against this
decision was heard by Video Appeals Committee in 1995. UK: Passed 18 after 1:35s of BBFC cuts for:
UK 2010 Arrow R0 DVD
The BBFC commented:
Company chose to make cuts to remove explicit sight of unsimulated sexual activity (in this case, sight of fellatio and vaginal penetration by penis and dildo) in order to achieve an 18 classification. An uncut R18
classification was available.
The BBFC further commented in the 2010 Annual Report:
Bare Behind Bars is a Brazilian sexploitation film set in a women's prison run by a sadistic female warden. Under current Guidelines the scenes of sexual violence are no
longer considered a harm risk. The film does not endorse sexual violence. Bare Behind Bars is a film which is showing its age, and the representations lack credibility by contemporary standards.
Scenes of real sex,
however, were not contextually justified and cuts were required to those scenes before the film could be passed at the 18 classification.
Summary Review: Tongue-in-cheek
It is more laugh-out-loud funny
than erotic. It is very tongue-in-cheek and doesn't take itself seriously for an instant. The acting is deliberately bad, over-the-top and cartoonish. And that is actually its saving grace, because it makes you laugh at the silliness of it all.
Just sample the scene of the horny inmates using a makeshift pulley to slowly winch a dildo in between their cells at night. Then there's the infamous pineapple dildo.
Thankfully the women in this
prison are almost all deliciously hot and spend most of the time happily naked. And that includes the guards.
To top it off, this version comes with hardcore elements fully integrated into the whole. The X-rating is
justified. We are treated to blowjobs, dildo insertions, strap-on action, and full penetrative sex.
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 after 1:35s of cuts
US: Uncut and MPAA
Unrated for:
US 2013 Blue Underground Bad Girls Behind Bars Collection R0 DVD at US Amazon
US
2008 Alternative Cinema/Blue Underground R1 DVD via US Amazon
Bare Fist: The Sport that Wouldn't Die is a 1997 UK documentary by
David Monaghan. With Jamie McLean, Lenny McLean.
Banned twice by the BBFC for 1996 and 1999 VHS.
UK: Banned by the BBFC for:
1999 Media Systems Data VHS
The BBFC commented :
A documentary about the illegal sport of bare-fist fighting was felt to devote far too much of its time to selling and demonstrating the pleasures of gross violence.
UK: Banned by the BBFC for:
1996 NTV Entertainment VHS
The BBFC commented :
The main consideration for the Board was the question of harm. In short, does the work have the potential for anti- social influence?
The video is concerned with the illegal sport of bare-knuckle fighting. To the extent that it sets out to make a reasoned case for legalising the sport, the Board has in principle no basis for concern. However, the video
also includes a number of lengthy sequences of illegal fighting as well as instruction in achieving lethal effects (notably how to lace bandaged fists with glass fragments and other sharp material). These have the effect of promoting gross violence and
selling its pleasures. The extent of the use of the illegal fighting sequences also far outstrips any reasonable justification based on the need to make a case for legalisation.
Over a period of time, the Board
has made a number of recommendations to the video's producer. These have been designed to allow the work to make a legitimate argument on behalf of bare-knuckle fighting, while reducing (and in extreme cases, removing) those elements which are directly
promotional of illegal or harmful activity. The producer has been unable to accept the Board's proposals. The video, in its present form, is therefore not suitable for classification.
Boarding House is a 1982 USA comedy horror by John Wintergate (as Johnn Wintergate). Starring John Wintergate, Kalassu and Lindsay Freeman.
Noted as the first horror film shot on video. The director's original cut was massively shortened for theatrical release. Both version are now available in the US.
Banned by the BBFC for 1983 video release in the UK.
Summary Notes
Resembling a cross between "The Amityville Horror" and a Playboy Playmates video, this film tells the terrifying tale of a cheesy video special effect that stalks bikini-clad women. In between scenes
of them playfully splashing each other and wrestling with each other's bathing suit tops, they're murdered and/or terrorized by horrific hallucinations. These hallucinations include seeing blood in the shower stalls (while they're trying to lather up),
having giant monsters jump out of the hall closet, and seeing their faces temporarily turn into rubber halloween masks.
Availability
Current UK Status: Not released since ban
S:
The Director's Cut is MPAA Unrated for:
2015 Olive Films DVD [Director's Cut + Theatrical Cut] R1 DVD at US Amazon
Boy Meets Girl is a 1994 UK drama by Ray Brady. With Tim Poole, Danielle Sanderson and Margot Steinberg.
Passed 18 for 1995 cinema release but was banned by the BBFC for the follow up VHS. Passed 18 uncut for 2001 DVD. Uncut and MPAA Unrated in the US.
The BBFC banned the 1995 Kino-Eye video because of its
constant focus on the details of torture. See article from
independent.co.uk . BBFC Director James Ferman explained in a letter to Brady:
This video focuses unrelentingly on the process of torture, mental
as well as physical, including mutilation, sexual violation and evisceration, all in full view of the camera.
Ferman's letter continues tha the film-maker has refused to provide a coherent moral justification or context , therefore there is
the risk of confirming sadistic tastes or reinforcing sadistic impulses , and this, says Ferman in a reference to the Criminal Justice Act, is crucial to any consideration of harm to potential viewers or, through their behaviour to society.
From Dark Star magazine: Banned
Boy Meets Girl is a bold and important film. It is full of subtle and controversial arguments. To dismiss it because of its
bondage/sadistic trappings (as some have already done) is to miss the point entirely. How else could the director have approached the subject matter? Possibly as a documentary, but then that would loose the frisson of making the viewer an active
participant in the debate. It is a film of violent ideas but it is not a barrage of graphic images.
The BBFC has passed countless numbers of films more violent than Boy Meets Girl, yet refuses to give it a
certificate. As the director of the BBFC, James Ferman must take the responsibility for denying you, the public, the chance to see a film which, for once, has a totally violent subject matter but does not glamorise it. Which is more than can be said of
so many Hollywood studio pictures Mr Ferman has gladly issued certificates. Explicit violence has always been a contentious issue in cinema, but never, in a so-called democracy, should honesty about violence be treated like the glorification of violence.
Shame on you Mr Ferman. For all its minor faults (most often due to the low budget) a film like Boy Meets Girl does not deserve to be treated in the manner it has been in Britain.
Boys Just Wanna Have fun is an unknown gay video by G Guhert
Banned by
the BBFC for a 1999 Load Video
Passed R18 uncut for 2000 Load Video
The video was caught up the battle between the porn makers and the censors to legalise hardcore on video . It was submitted in
1999 as a hardcore film with the intention of appealing the inevitable ban, so adding to the challenge of the UK hardcore ban at the time. The battle was won and the film was passed R18 uncut the following year.
Brave, Bashed, Battered and Bruised is an extreme
fighting video.
A collection of unpleasant moments when professional fighters mis-time moves and end up doing horrible injuries to themselves or their opponents. Amongst the injuries and casualties are enough
broken bones, blood and bruising to keep and A+E department busy for a month. There is also a bonus feature which shows a man taking on 40 men in a row in a bare-knuckle contest.
Banned by the BBFC in December 1997 with
the following justification:
A film in the guise of a sporting documentary about karate, was actually selling the pleasures of gross violence through its unrelenting focus on the infliction of injury and
pain.
A Brief Encounter is a 1982 short spanking video by Harold Weller.
The video was rejected in February 1993 with the following
justification:
Refused on grounds of sexual violence since it consisted almost exclusively of the spanking of a female victim in an erotic context. The House of Lords ruled that the consent of the victim was
no defence to a charge of actual bodily harm. Thus videos that consist primarily of the spanking or beating of female victims, even where the script purports to demonstrate the willing consent of the victim are unacceptable where these are intended for
the sole purpose of inducing a state of arousal in the male viewer. BBFC policy holds that a work which sells the idea that the infliction of pain or injury on women is likely to be pleasurable is depraving and corrupting in itself.
Bumfights: Cause for Concern Volume 1 is a 2002 reality Video by Mickey, Ryan & Jamon McOckner. With Donald Brennan, Donny and Rufus Hannah.
UK: Banned by the BBFC for UK 2003 Fabulous Films DVD
The BBFC commented:
Bumfights - Cause for Concern consists substantially of camcorder footage of homeless people ('bums') being abused, assaulted, and humiliated. These scenes are intercut with footage
of street brawls and soft pornography.
Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 the Board must have special regard to any harm to those likely to view a video and to any harm to society through the behaviour of those viewers afterwards. The Act
singles out particular elements as being potentially harmful including criminal behaviour and violent behaviour or incidents. The BBFC guidelines for '18' rated works state that the Board may "cut or reject... any detailed portrayal of violent or
dangerous acts which is likely to promote the activity" (page 16). The Board's guidelines for violence also state as particular concerns "callousness towards victims, encouraging aggressive attitudes [and] taking pleasure in pain and
humiliation" (page 9). In the Board's view, the video breaches these guidelines by exploiting the physical and other vulnerabilities of homeless people.
The Board considered the possibility of cuts. However, given the extent of the
unacceptable material, cuts were not considered a viable option on this occasion.
The Bunny Game is a 2010 US crime horror by Adam Rehmeier. With Rodleen Getsic, Norwood Fisher and Gregg Gilmore.
Banned by the BBFC for UK 2011 Trinity DVD
The BBFC explained in a press
release:
The BBFC has rejected the sexually violent DVD The Bunny Game . The film follows a female prostitute who hitches a lift with a truck driver. The truck driver kidnaps the woman, restrains and forcibly strips
her, and proceeds to physically and sexually abuse and humiliate her. The abuse of the kidnapped woman takes up the greater part of the film.
The Board's Guidelines state A strict policy on sexual violence and rape is applied.
Content which might eroticise or endorse sexual violence may require cuts at any classification level. This is more likely with video works than film because of the potential for replaying scenes out of context. Any association of sex with non-consensual
restraint, pain or humiliation may be cut . The principal focus of The Bunny Game is the unremitting sexual and physical abuse of a helpless woman, as well as the sadistic and sexual pleasure the man derives from this. The emphasis on the woman's
nudity tends to eroticise what is shown, while aspects of the work such as the lack of explanation of the events depicted, and the stylistic treatment, may encourage some viewers to enjoy and share in the man's callousness and the pleasure he takes in
the woman's pain and humiliation.
David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said:
It is the Board's carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults,
would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and would accordingly be unacceptable to the public.
The Board considered whether its
concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, the pervasiveness of the abuse makes it very difficult to deal with The Bunny Game by means of cuts. If the company would like to attempt to cut this work in order to submit it in a reduced form, they
are entitled to do so, but the Board can offer no assurances that such re-editing would be successful.
The decision to reject The Bunny Game was taken by the Director, David Cooke and the Presidential Team of Sir Quentin Thomas,
Alison Hastings and Gerard Lemos.
The decision means that the film cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK.
Caged Women is a 1991 Italy action crime adventure by Leandro Lucchetti. With Pilar Orive, Isabel Libossart and Elena Wiedermann.
Banned by the BBFC for 1992 video. Unbanned after massive cuts for 18 rated VHS. Uncut and MPAA Unrated in the US.
Summary Notes
Beautiful young American tourist Janet Cooper goes on vacation to a remote South American country. After being arrested by a corrupt cop and subsequently found guilty of a trumped-up charge involving
possession of narcotics, Janet finds herself incarcerated at an isolated castle located deep in the jungle that serves as a hellish women's penitentiary. The brutal staff at said prison not only treat the inmates as their own sexual playthings, but also
force the ladies into prostitution and even let decadent rich folks hunt them down like animals in the wild.
UK: A pre-cut version was passed 18 after 3:43s of further BBFC cuts for:
2001 MIA R2 DVD
1992 New Age VHS
A heavily pre-cut was resubmitted by New Age in 1992 and the BBFC cut a further 3:43s. The total cuts add up to something around the 17:33s mark
banned
run:
89:52s
pal:
86:16s
UK: Banned by the BBFC for:
1992 New Age VHS
The BBFC commented:
Rejected because of its exploitative treatment of the sexual abuse of women. An Italian women's prison film in which the prisoners were
raped and abused by their gaolers, was redolent of the video nasty era in that the abuse was offered not for condemnation but as an erotic spectacle.
Caligula: The Untold Story is a 1981 Italy adult drama by Joe D'Amato With David Brandon, Laura Gemser and Luciano Bartoli.
Massively cut by the BBFC for 1984 cinema release. Banned by the BBFC for 1987 VHS. The US release is a softcore version. Uncut in Germany and Italy
Summary Review: The Other Caligula
The mad Roman emperor Caligula romances a young Moor woman ploting to kill him while he continues his debauched lifestyle of sex and murder.
A fair Italian rip off of Bob Guccione's Caligula. David
Brandon is good as the demented Emperor of Rome. Ornate costumes and sets, as well as a lush film score help as well,
As per the original there is a long hardcore orgy. The lead actors don't get to feature in the naughty stuff.
The cuts for hardcore footage include a scene involving a horse.
Fans of cult cinema, and of the 1979 version should appreciate this one.
The submitted film that had been pre-cut by the distributors to remove 14 minutes of
hardcore footage and a bestiality scene featuring a horse, and then cut by a further 8:42s by the BBFC. These included:
A Caning for Miss Granger was unacceptable because the use of a model dressed as a young schoolgirl in a
sexual punishment scenario was in conflict with the R18 Guidelines constraint on depictions involving adults role playing as non-adults. Also unacceptable under the Guidelines is the portrayal of any sexual activity, whether real or simulated, which
involves lack of consent. In this case 'Miss Granger' was forced to submit to a series of "degrading or dehumanising" acts in order to save her job.
The Board's Guidelines prohibit the infliction
of pain or physical harm, real (or in a sexual context) simulated... The Board concluded that the work both promotes the idea that pleasure may be taken from inflicting pain upon another person and clearly shows, with some relish, actual pain and
physical harm. In doing so it goes some way beyond what might be regarded as "mild consensual activity".
The Board does not feel that the problems can be usefully addressed by cutting since the
difficulty with this work lies not only in the great number of specific visual images, but with the overall theme of sexual pleasure being derived from imposing pain on a coerced victim. The work is therefore not suitable for classification.
A Cat in the Brain is a 1990 Italy horror by Lucio Fulci. With Lucio Fulci, David L Thompson and Malisa Longo.
Banned by the BBFC for 1999 VHS. Passed 18 uncut for the 2001 DVD. Uncut
and MPAA Unrated in the US.
The Tartan Video was banned by the BBFC in February 1999 with the following justification:
The Board carefully considered this
low-budget Italian horror video in the light of the usual tests. It has over the years, in this context, expressed concern about images which bring sex and violence together. The BBFC Draft Guidelines for Classifying Films and Videos (published in July
1998 in the BBFC's last Annual Report) identify sexually violent material as potentially harmful. The Guidelines explain that the Board is stricter with scenes of sexual violence on video than film, because of their potential to be played over and over
at home. Sexual violence may only be shown providing the scenes do not offer sexual thrills.
A Cat in the Brain contains many sequences involving gross violence committed against
women, often in a context with clear sexual overtones. It invites the viewer to relish the detail of the violence and killings. Women are even presented as enjoying the violence visited on them. The work switches between the three levels of
"actual" film-making, the "Director's" own nightmares and the murderous attacks of the villain. However, the Board found that the main effect of this device was to enable the frequent portrayal of brutal and detailed violence,
particularly towards women.
The Board concluded that the video was potentially harmful because of the influence it may have on the attitudes and behaviour of a significant proportion of its likely
viewers, whatever classification it was given. The Board considered the possibility of cuts as an acceptable remedy. It concluded, however, that the sheer quantity of the violence rendered such an approach ultimately fruitless since it would be unlikely
to change the general tone or approach of the work.
Summary Review: Nasty gore-fest
A horror film director is stalked by a mad psychiatrist/serial killer bent on killing people to model the
killings after the director's gory death scenes from his movies.
Cat in the Brain is one of the goriest horror movies ever made. There is a lot of blood and gore, including chainsaw butchery, bloody stabbings and numerous
decapitations.
The film is also interesting as "self parody" of Fulci, but the gore and violence is the key element in it. Some of the gore FX were taken from own Fulci's movies.
Highly
recommended, especially if you like extreme cinema!
Chained is a 1979 US adult film Starring: Stephanie Boyd, Serena and Jamie Gillis.
A cut down softcore version was banned by the BBFC for 1986 VHS. Uncut and MPAA UNrated in the US.
Promotional Material
Bra buster Stephanie Bonds in bondage and whipping
scenarios mixed with lesbian hot-tub action! Also starring power couple Jamie Gillis and Serena in juicy master slave explorations!
Versions
uncut
run:
70m
pal:
67m
US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:
2019 Alpha Blue Archives VoD
banned
cut:
run:
pal:
sub:
49:15s
UK: A cut down softcore version was rejected by the BBFC for:
1986 Gold Star Publications VHS
cut
UK: A cut down softcore version was released on pre-cert video:
Changing Room Exposed is a 1998 release gay adult video by Video Voyeur
UK: Rejected by the BBFC for 1998 Pride VHS
The BBFC commented:
In recent years, the video industry
has traded increasingly in the use of hidden cameras to capture the private behaviour of ordinary people in situations in which they had the right to assume that their privacy would be respected. The pleasures offered by such videos are those of
voyeurism since they purport to be, and frequently are, filmed without the knowledge or consent of those whose intimate behaviour is being captured on film. An instance of such videos is an American series filmed in a men's changing/shower room in which
men are recorded going through the commonplace but private rituals of washing, drying and changing. They are, in effect, 'Peeping Tom' videos. One of this series was classified '18' a year ago at a time when the Board had been advised that there was no
law of privacy in Britain. Since that decision, it has become increasingly clear that the exploitation of such material in this country could in fact constitute a breach of confidence if the privacy of a British subject were being invaded without his
consent, since no defence based on the public interest would be relevant. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Britain is a signatory, guarantees a right to privacy, and the Convention is now being incorporated into British law.
Given these developments, the BBFC has decided to take a stand on the issue of voyeurism and human rights, in consequence of which the Board has refused a certificate to another in the same American series, CHANGING ROOM EXPOSED, in which a hidden camera
is used to film unsuspecting men as they change, shower, walk around without their clothes on and dress. BBFC policy will no longer accept the classification of works which breach people's privacy without there being a public interest in so doing. It is
one thing for individuals to choose to participate in the making of such videos, but it is entirely another when their private life has been unknowingly and covertly filmed solely for purposes of voyeuristic curiosity.
The decision was referred to the Video Appeals Committee but the distributors withdrew this before it was heard.
The video was resubmitted as Video Voyeur by Meridien Entertainment and was again
rejected in 2003 with the following statement:
Despite the relatively recent rejection of the work, and the withdrawal of an appeal against the Board's decision, Changing Room Exposed was resubmitted under a different title (Video Voyeur) towards the end of
2001. At the time of resubmission no mention was made of the fact that Video Voyeur was in fact a retitled version of Changing Room Exposed. The distributor claimed that "all the footage contained within the programme was staged, and that the scenes
were shot using actors". No documentary evidence was offered to support this claim.
Given that this assurance contradicted the clear statements made during 1998, the Board asked for written evidence that the persons involved in the video
knew that they were being filmed and had given their consent to their appearance in the video. However, the distributors have been unable to provide this. They have also been unable to demonstrate where the work was filmed or under what circumstances. No
evidence, therefore, has been offered that would allow us to over-ride the information provided at the time of the work's original submission. In the absence of any such evidence the Board has no alternative but to confirm its original rejection of the
work.
Class of 1984 is a 1982 Canada crime thriller by Mark L. Lester. With Perry King, Merrie Lynn Ross, Timothy Van Patten.
The cut MPAA R rated version has the director's seal of approval. This was
further cut by the BBFC for UK cinema release and banned for 1987 VHS. The BBFC cuts were waived when the R rated version was resubmitted for 2005 DVD. The uncut version is available in Germany. See further details at
Melon Farmers Film Cuts: Class of 1984
Summary Review: Thought-provoking
Andy is a new teacher and an inner city high school that is
like nothing he has ever seen before. The students have to go through a metal detector when they go through the front door and everything is basically run by a tough kid named Peter Stegman. Soon, Andy and Stegman become enemies and Stegman will stop at
nothing to protect his turf and drug dealing business.
Class of 1984 is an entertaining and thought-provoking combination of the Vigilante and High School Drama flick. The film describes the punks as the next generation of
important people. It was done as a reworking of Blackboard Jungle (it is much better than Cruel Intentions and more gutsy). Class of 1984 is an eerie movie because the depiction of unsafe Urban high schools, metal detectors at schools, and
security guards would be a reality eight years later in many high school cities. It is a courageous movie that isn't afraid to deal with important issues.
Availability
Current UK Status: The cut
but director approved R rated version was passed 18 without cuts
UK: The cut US R Rated Version/Director Approved Cut was passed 18 with previous BBFC cuts waived for:
2005 Home Entertainment Corporation/Mosaic/Warner R2 DVD via UK
Amazon
This video features films and pictures from the collection of Irving Klaw dating back to before the first world war. In the late 50's and
early 60's, Klaw was subjected to government prosecution. His conviction, later overturned, led to Klaw destroying most of his pictures and negatives. This rare film is one of two that features the remarkable Betty Page.
The BBFC
stated that this video was rejected on the grounds that the Board's guidelines state that mild fetishism may be represented, but in Irving Klaw we have scenes of women trussed, bound, gagged, spanked, shackled, handcuffed, slapped, tethered and
suspended. Such sequences of bondage, restraint and gagging (proffered as masturbation material) are very extensive and unacceptable. The distributor of this material has decided to re-edit two versions of Betty page's work by photographer Irving Klaw
that will not breach our guidelines. We are awaiting their resubmission.
The new DVD : Betty Page
Bondage Queen will be a desirable addition to any Bettie Page fan but I suppose that I was expecting the whole disk to be unpublished shots of the Queen of Curves as the title suggests. The several short movies presented are black and white films
taken of some of Irving Klaw's models in their undies, being bound and gagged by Klaw's sister.
Betty appears in a few and in many stills. The exclusive commentary by Bettie Page is a short written page or two, not
the audio file I hoped for. I enjoyed the movies of the models in their bras and panties, dark nylons and ultra high heels as they tried to walk in them but a more truthful title for the DVD would have been Irving Klaw's Bondage and Fetish models,
Featuring Bettie Page.
Availability
Vol 1 banned in 1992
Vol 1 & 2 passed uncut on 2009 Digital Classics DVD as Betty Page: Bondage Queen
1979 US adult video by Joel Scott. With Lesllie Bovee, Abigail Clayton and Annette Haven.
The softcore version was banned by the BBFC for:
UK 1988 Sheptonhurst VHS
The promotional material reads:
It's the erotic classic! You're in for a hot and juicy joyride of steamy, sizzling sex when you witness the amorous adventures of three gorgeous angels . [think Charlie's Angels]. When one of
their own is kidnapped by an insidious white-slaver, Heavenly Annette Haven leads the passionate pack on a randy rampage of undercover activity. These naughty nymphs have a shocking arsenal of torrid tricks to get what they want...and if they don't,
watch out! From girl-girl encounters to the tenderest torture ever, you'll find these angels use their bodies just as well as their minds.
Presumably it was the white-slaver and 'tenderest torture' BDSM elements that got the film banned by the
BBFC.
Curfew is a 1989 USA action horror by Gary Winick. With Kyle Richards, Wendell Wellman and John Putch.
Banned by the BBFC for 1988 VHS. Passed uncut in 2002.
Summary Notes
Two escaped brothers track down the people who sentenced them to death row, including a doctor and the judge.
But when they get to the D.A. and his family they have an especially lengthy revenge plot in mind for them.
A pretty tasteless film packed with assorted moments of gratuitous nastiness (and a little bit of nudity for good
measure), Curfew might not be to everyone's taste, but if you like exploitation, then you could certainly do a lot worse. Admittedly, the story is occasionally too clichéd (Stephanie working her womanly charms on younger brother Bob was
very predictable) and some moments are rather questionable (the victims are locked in a cellar full of tools, yet fail to arm themselves), but as low-budget trash goes, this one's really not that bad.
No clues on this, rejected in December 1997 rejected with the
following justification: A sado-masochistic video was rejected for its pornographic treatment of sex in the context of force, restraint and the infliction of pain.
Deadbeat at Dawn is a 1988 USA action crime film by Jim Van Bebber. Starring Paul Harper, Jim Van Bebber and Megan Murphy.
Banned by the BBFC for 1998 VHS. Set for an uncut UK Blu-ray release in 2018. Uncut and MPAA Unrated in the US.
The video was submitted by Dave Gregory from the Exploited VHS label in 1998 and he made it
absolutely clear that Whittam Smith was personally responsible for the ban. The story goes like this:
I submitted Deadbeat at Dawn back in July hoping to release it alongside Vigilante .
The BBFC sent me a not entirely unexpected cuts list for Deadbeat totalling two minutes of footage. I made around fifty cuts to remove all sight of chain sticks and throwing stars exactly as they requested. Most of the gore in the film passed
unnoticed.
I resubmitted the film and started sending out preview copies, printed the sleeves, and ran a couple of ads, under the foolish assumption that because I had cut what they asked the film would be
approved. Not so. Ferman watched it and through his secretary informed me that there was a problem with the violence in the film. A discussion was to be staged on the matter two days after the original release date: Oct. 26th. According to Ferman,
opinions were split among the examiners.
Then Whittam Smith entered the room, overruled all discussion and declared that the film was to be rejected. Democratic discussion! Anyway, Ferman said they didn't want to
issue another cuts list and that I could submit a toned down version if I wanted to. He had this impression of the film reaching a massive audience of impressionable. I told him that he ought to consider, in future, the actual market for a film of this
type. 1500 units max! Not a huge blockbuster by any account, but a healthy specialist market.
Summary Review
After one too many encounters with The Spiders (a rival gang), The Ravens' leader's
girlfriend tells him to quit the gang or it's Splitsville. He does so, but the leader of The Spiders is hellbent on revenge and arranges the murder of the girlfriend. That ticks off the boyfriend, who wreaks havoc with the two gangs, who have joined
forces in order to pull off a security truck heist.
The last twenty or so minutes of Deadbeat at Dawn consists of one slam-bang scene after another, scenes guaranteed to warm the heart of the most fervent action film
aficionados.
few of the performances go over the top, especially Bone Crusher's misanthropic soliloquy on murder, but most of these amateur actors do a competent job. Yep, Deadbeat at Dawn is a worthwhile experience for the lover of
low budget cinema.
The 1981 pre-cert video was the same uncut version as the cinema release. The video was submitted to the BBFC in 1987. James Ferman wanted cuts but could not see how they could be made without destroying the
important scene. The impasse ended up with the video being withdrawn from the BBFC rather than receiving a formal ban. But it ended up being unavailable for 13 years.
The BBFC passed the 2000 CIC video after 29s of cuts
Cuts
were waived when DVD re-submitted to the BBFC in 2006 by Paramount.
Summary Review: The thrill of revenge
A New York City architect becomes a one-man vigilante squad after his wife is murdered by street
punks in which he randomly goes out and kills would-be muggers on the mean streets after dark.
We know that vigilanteism is wrong, but the 'thrill' of revenge and harsh punishment dealt out to criminals sure carries a hell of a
punch. You may be surprised just how relevant and fresh the issues are to modern Britain now. Time to remind yourself just how important a film this is
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18
uncut
UK: Passed 18 uncut for strong sexual violence and very strong language with previous cuts waived for:
Demoniac/Exorcism is a 1981 Spanish/French horror by Jess Franco. With Lina Romay, Catherine Lafferière and Jesus Franco.
Banned by the BBFC from 1985 until 2003 when it was passed 18 after 2:25s of cuts. The BBFC cuts were waived for 2017 DVD. There are multiple versions with different mixes of sex and violence including a hardcore version.
This was another shocker from the 70s, from a film-maker most of whose cinematic work appeared to revel in the tying up and abusing of naked women. Here their bodies were liberally splashed with blood, stage blood, in
rituals acted out as a turn-on for audiences in search of sexual arousal. Later each evening, we see the rituals re-enacted sadistically and homicidally by a criminal psychopath (played by the film-maker himself), whose deeds perform the same function as
the video viewer. The Board considered whether cuts could make such a work acceptable, but given its multifarious images of women stripped, inverted, bound, gagged, manacled at ankles and wrists, with blood smeared on bodies, especially breasts, and with
blades driven into flesh, we concluded that cuts would have been so extensive as to leave little of the misogynistic framework intact. This might have been no loss on artistic or social grounds, but it would have left an unviable video commercially.
Twenty years ago Redemption Films released Succubus and I received a written warning from the
British Board of Film Classification, that Jess Franco was a director whose films the BBFC regarded as bordering on criminal. I was told that were I to attempt to release other films by him or to bring them into the country there would be consequences...
A year later I submitted Demoniacs and Sadomania and both were categorically banned with the implicit threat that by pushing the work of Jess Franco I was, indirectly, championing criminal sexual material and that if I continued I too would face not
civil, but criminal proceedings.
The BBFC said of DEMONIAC:
... The Board has never granted a BBFC certificate to any film or video which seeks to encourage sexual sadism, and this film is clearly
sadistic in that it seems 'to have no purpose or justification other than to reinforce or sell the idea that it can be highly pleasurable to inflict injury, pain or humiliation (often in a sexual context) on others' (Home Office Report on Obscenity and
Film Censorship, Williams, HMSO, 1979)....|
...The work of this particular film maker has often fallen well outside the parameters of BBFC standards because of the manner in which it presents scenes of vicious sexual
violence or of violence to women in a sexually arousing context, offering little pleasure to the viewer other than a conscious vicarious gratification of misogyny. Where such emotions focus on the harming of others, the Board must always consider drawing
a line, as we have in refusing a video certificate to DEMONIAC .
Redemption Films challenged the banning of these films, along with Bare Behind Bars legally, and lost. Redemption sought and won leave for a Judicial Review of the ban, but ran
out of money and didn't pursue the review.
The ban was lifted in 2003 when the Arrow DVD was passed 18 after 2:25s cuts.
Thanks to Mark. The budget DVD label Boulevard Entertainment accidentally released the full uncut version. The release was a
port of the Synapse R1 DVD including alternate footage and a commentary. The UK DVD is actually supposed to be a release of another film under the same title on a double bill with 976-Evil 2
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut
UK: Passed 18 uncut for strong sexualised violence, sex, nudity, with all previous BBFC cuts waived for:
2017 Screenbound/Black House Films R2 DVD at UK Amazon
Nightamer maker is a 1982 USA horror by William Asher. With Jimmy McNichol, Susan Tyrrell and Bo Svenson.
Banned as Video Nasty in 1983. Banned again by the BBFC for video in 1987. Unuct and MPAa R rated in the US.
Summery Review: Gripping
An orphaned teenager finds himself being
dominated by his aunt who's hell-bent on keeping him with her...at all costs.
It seems rather strange that the the director of the I Love Lucy TV series could ever make something on the DPP's list of banned movies, but that's
exactly what happened to William Asher's 1981 feature. Despite several undoubtedly shocking scenes this seems particularly unfair, as it is actually a gripping and well made horror thriller, which was even nominated for a Saturn Award as Best Low Budget
Film of the Year.
Availability
Released on the Atlantis label in April 1983. The film made the list of banned video nasties by November of the same year. It was dropped from the list in December 1985
It was submitted to the BBFC in 1987 with cuts as The Evil Protege but was rejected
The Exorcist is a 1973 US horror by William Friedkin. With Ellen Burstyn, Max von Sydow and Linda Blair.
The BBFC website in Dec 98 noted the absence of video releases:
The film itself still shows quite regularly in cinemas but we have not yet classified the video, nor has it ever
been shown on television, including subscription television. The problem is not the frightening nature of the story but the combination of the themes with which it deals and the very powerful treatment it is given in this version.
Showings of this film have resulted in severe emotional problems among a small but worrying number of adults who do believe in the reality of demonic possession and satanic practices. A video or television showing would
inevitably attract many young teenagers, some of whom would be, more even than adults, susceptible to this sort of material, since they might well identify with the central character, a 12-year-old girl. Newspaper reports and letters in our files
indicate the very real and serious disturbance that can result and we feel uneasy about being a party to this sort of psychological damage. It is partly because the film is so convincing and effective that it can be so disturbing for some.
It is hard for those of us who do not give credence to the possibility of possession to appreciate how powerful an influence this can evidently exert on those who do. At a time when charges of satanic abuse appear fairly
regularly in the press and alleged instances have been reported and when an Act was passed in Parliament, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994), which specifically requires the Board "to have special regard to any harm that may be caused
to potential viewers, or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with, for example, horrific incidents", there are added reasons to be cautious. Eventually, perhaps the time will come to release THE EXORCIST on
video, but we are not convinced that this is that moment, particularly at a time when many parents allow their children to see videos unsupervised, according to the latest research.
No BBFC cuts to the Theatrical Version submitted for
cinema in 1974
The BBFC refused consider a video release from the implementation of the VRA though 1998. No BBFC cuts to the Theatrical Version submitted for cinema in 1990,
After Ferman had been replaced as BBFC
Director by Duval, the video was passed uncut for the 1999 Warner video, and the 1999 Harbottle & Lewis video.
No BBFC cuts for The Version You've Never Seen: The Director's Cut for cinema in 2000 and for DVD in 2002.
Availability
Current UK Status Passed 18 uncut
UK: The Altered Director's Cut was passed 18 uncut for:
2010 Warner [Theatrical + Altered Director's Cut] R0 Blu-ray
at UK Amazon
US: The Altered Director's Cut is MPAA R Rated for:
1995 US video by Todd Verow, rejected in 1998 with the following justification:
The Board has also refused a
certificate to FRISK, a first person narrative of the exploits of a gay serial killer. The work is set in an erotic world of sado-masochism and portrays the sexual appetites of a young man for whom killing and engorging the victim become the ultimate
thrill. The treatment is cold, lacking remorse, deliberately without moral standpoint. It plays with the idea that these killings are a part of the fantasy world of the protagonist, but the viewer is invited to share that world by experiencing the
killings as both realistic and the peak of sado-masochistic pleasure. The harmful effect of the video derives from its repeated juxtaposition of sex and gross physical assault, which could have a disturbing and dangerous impact on vulnerable viewers.
Availability
Banned in UK
Recently shown without a certificate at London's ICA cinema.
Slaughter in the South Bronx Tenement: Game of Survival
1985 US crime film by Roberta Findlay With Joe Lynn, Mina Bern and Walter Bryant.
The BBFC rejected the 1987 Lazer video titled Game of Survival
The BBFC
passed the 2005 Blackhorse DVD 18 uncut titled Tenement
Summary Review: Too Violent to be Rated!
A drug selling and violent street-gang terrorize the renters of a big trashy apartment-house.
Tenement's TOO VIOLENT TO BE RATED! tagline lives up to its name as well: people are dropped off windows, electrocuted, impaled, castrated, raped with broomstick handles, sliced on the jugular, etc. It's definitely one
of the most violent 70s/80s grindhouse/exploitation flicks I've seen, but it was definitely entertaining if also brutal. Recommended.
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut
UK: Passed 18 uncut for:
UK 2005 Blackhorse R0 DVD at UK Amazon
titled Tenement: Game of Survival
The BBFC has rejected the DVD Grotesque. This means that it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK. The decision was taken by the Director, David Cooke and the Presidential Team of
Sir Quentin Thomas, Alison Hastings and Gerard Lemos.
Grotesque is a feature that focuses for the majority of its running time on the sexual assault, humiliation and extreme torture of a male and female victim. The central character abducts,
restrains, strips and masturbates both the man and the woman. After this he inflicts grave injuries on the restrained couple, including amputation, eye gouging, castration and evisceration. The torture becomes even more extreme, leading to the gory and
violent death of both hostages. The film ends with the killer choosing his next victims.
David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said: "Unlike other recent 'torture' themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal
narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism. The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism)
for its own sake.
"It is the Board's carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to Grotesque, even if statutorily confined to adults, would involve risk of harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, would be inconsistent with
the Board's Guidelines, and would be unacceptable to the public. The BBFC has a strict policy on sexual violence. With portrayals of sexual violence which might eroticise or endorse sexual assault the Board may require cuts at any classification level.
"Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the
work is therefore refused a classification."
"Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout cutting the work
is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification."
Summary Review: Pointless torture movie
An unnamed doctor
has always had everything he's ever wanted, but that has only made him develop more extreme and depraved needs. He kidnaps a young couple in the prime of their life together and forces them into a game of torment that slowly extinguishes their hopes for
survival.
Very tame! Yes the film has pointless torture, but it has very little nudity and any sexual humiliation is implied and is never in the view of the camera. Very hard to see why this was banned.
This movie is a prime example of pointless torture movies, While in context the aspect of torture in a horror film i.e. Saw, Hellraiser, Texas chainsaw (the original) etc... works great because it's bad people getting
their come uppance or just a cautionary of the cruelty of man but this film is just a fictionalized snuff film with no story what so ever. Watching people getting brutally killed (particularly those who were just there) for the bulk of the movie then....
"the end" after some silly f/x does nothing for me except feeling a little dirty for watching this piece of trash.
Availability
banned by the BBFC for the UK 2009 4Digital Media DVD
Current UK Status: Banned in the UK
US: MPAA Unrated for:
2010 Media Blasters RA Blu-ray/R1 DVD Combo at US Amazon
Banned when submitted by Devlin Films in 2005. The BBFC published the following statement:
The Hash Man is a one-hour video work offering the viewer clear and detailed guidance on the cultivation of cannabis plants. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the cultivation of cannabis plants is illegal in the
UK (without a license or other authority from the Secretary of State for research purposes), as is the ownership, use and supply of cannabis. Indeed, although apparently produced in the US, it is made clear during the video that the growing of cannabis
is illegal in many parts of the word and advice and tips are offered on how to avoid detection. The intention of the work is clearly to assist people in breaking the law by giving detailed advice on how to cultivate an illegal drug. The work both
constitutes an incitement to commit a criminal offence and, in contravention of the BBFC's Guidelines, promotes and encourages the use of illegal drugs.
The BBFC's Guidelines clearly set out the Board's serious concerns about the portrayal of
illegal drugs, particularly when the work in question promotes or encourages their use. The Board's Guidelines clearly state that "No work taken as a whole may promote or encourage the use of illegal drugs". Furthermore, under the terms of the Video
Recordings Act 1984, the BBFC is required, when making a determination as to whether a video work is suitable for classification, to "have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or,
through their behaviour to society, by the manner in which the work deals with [...] illegal drugs" [Video Recordings Act 1984 section 4A(1)].
The Board considered whether cutting the work would be a viable alternative to refusing a
classification certificate but found that, because the entire purpose of the video is to assist and encourage in breaking the law, this was not a viable option.
It is our conclusion therefore that this video work is in conflict with the Board's
published Guidelines and the requirements of the Video Recordings Act. In line with its specific duties under the Video Recordings Act, the Board is required to treat material of this kind very carefully indeed and the Board therefore finds this to be
unacceptable for a classification certificate to be issued to it.
Hate Crime is a 2013 USA action horror thriller by James Cullen Bressack. Starring Jody Barton, Nicholas Clark and Greg Depetro.
Banned by the BBFC for 2015 VoD. Uncut and MPAA Unrated in the US.
Summery Notes
A Jewish family, that just arrived in a new neighborhood, are recording their youngest son's birthday celebrations on video when their home is suddenly invaded by a bunch of
crystal-meth-crazed Neo-Nazi lunatics.
HATE CRIME focuses on the terrorisation, mutilation, physical and sexual abuse and murder of the members of a Jewish family by the Neo Nazi thugs who invade their home. The physical and sexual abuse
and violence are accompanied by constant strong verbal racist abuse. Little context is provided for the violence beyond an on-screen statement at the end of the film that the two attackers who escaped were subsequently apprehended and that the one
surviving family member was released from captivity. It is the Board's carefully considered conclusion that the unremitting manner in which HATE CRIME focuses on physical and sexual abuse, aggravated by racist invective, means that to issue a
classification to this work, even if confined to adults, would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm, and would be unacceptable to broad public opinion. The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with
through cuts. However, given that the fact that unacceptable content runs throughout the work, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.
I am honoured to know that my mind is officially too twisted for the UK. So it goes...I find it unbelievable that a film that shows little to no on screen violence and no nudity was actually
banned. it just shows the power of what is implied and peoples imagination; and is a testament to the fact that the same crimes that happen in the world are truly horrifying.
As a Jewish man, and a victim of anti -Semitic hate, I made a horror film that depicts the very thing that haunts my dreams. As an artist I wanted to tell a story to remind us that we live in a
dangerous world; a world where racial violence is on the rise. It saddens me to learn that censorship is still alive and well.
Despite the lurid language used by the BBFC, reviewers have concurred that the violence and sexual violence
is not explicitly portrayed. For example, see review from
realmofhorror-blog.blogspot.co.uk
Clocking in at just over an hour, its not an exceptionally long feature film and with it being a low
budget production, not all the acting is up to the standards of the Royal Shakespeare Company (so to speak). Also, some of the more brutal scenes are perhaps more implied than shown (the wife and daughter get to keep their underwear on for the most part
whilst being sexually assaulted). But then, many might argue that's a good thing and in any case, does not detract from the extremely uncomfortable nature of it all.
The film as described in 'outrageous' language by the BBFC doesn't
quite tally with even mainstream film reviews. Well known US film critic Roger Ebert was quoted in an article from
en.wikipedia.org saying that he gave the film 2.5 stars, saying of the film:
Actually more of a thriller than a social commentary. the film holds our
attention and contains surprises right until the end and raises complex moral issues that makes the movie more thought-provoking than we could possibly have expected.
So it would seem that the ban is more about the racist
invective, than the portrayal of the violence. And of course there's also the ever important political correctness aspect, that the the film would be unacceptable to broad public opinion .
Perhaps it is also relevant to note here that the
BBFC has been lobbied by a political group on the subject of the censorship of racism. From an article from
sputniknews.com :
Danny Stone the director of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism told the Jewish Chronicle:
We welcome this decision [to ban Hate Crime]. We have worked closely with the BBFC over a number of years and are confident they not only have the right systems in place for certification, but a robust position on
anti-Semitism and racism .
Could it be that the job of film censor is becoming a little 'political'. The BBFC now has to determine if it is acceptable to depict crimes that are PC sensitive, regardless of the
director wanting to highlight the abhorrence of the racist crime portrayed.
S&M and spanking is not
popular with the BBFC. See A Brief Encounter for details about policy. Films in the same series also failed to get a cinema release, see Lesson at
St. Winifred's
Hidden Rage is a 1988 USA horror thriller by Shuki Levy. Starring Deborah Shelton, Lyman Ward and Tom Dugan.
Banned by the BBFC for 1988 VHS release. Uncut and MPAA R rated in the US.
Also banned by the Australian film censor.
The BBFC commented:
HIDDEN RAGE was submitted on video in August 1988 and rejected after numerous viewings of it including one involving the president and vice
presidents of the BBFC. This video, with its portrait of an AIDS victim as a twisted and sadistic monster, seemed to the board to be contrived so as to provide titillatory rape sequences for male audiences and cutting was therefore not an option.
Summary Notes
A psycho who has contracted AIDS blames women for his disease, and begins to stalk and kill beautiful girls.
Banned when
submitted by Devlin Films in 2005. The BBFC published the following statement:
High-Yield Hydroponic Systems is a one-hour video work offering the viewer clear and detailed
guidance on the cultivation of cannabis plants. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the cultivation of cannabis plants is illegal in the UK (without a license or other authority from the Secretary of State for research purposes), as is the ownership, use
and supply of cannabis. Indeed, although apparently produced in the US, it is made clear during the video that the growing of cannabis is illegal in many parts of the word and advice and tips are offered on how to avoid detection. The intention of the
work is clearly to assist people in breaking the law by giving detailed advice on how to cultivate an illegal drug. The work both constitutes an incitement to commit a criminal offence and, in contravention of the BBFC's Guidelines, promotes and
encourages the use of illegal drugs.
The BBFC's Guidelines clearly set out the Board's serious concerns about the portrayal of illegal drugs, particularly when the work in question promotes or encourages their use. The Board's Guidelines clearly
state that "No work taken as a whole may promote or encourage the use of illegal drugs". Furthermore, under the terms of the Video Recordings Act 1984, the BBFC is required, when making a determination as to whether a video work is suitable for
classification, to "have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour to society, by the manner in which the work deals with [...] illegal drugs" [Video
Recordings Act 1984 section 4A(1)].
The Board considered whether cutting the work would be a viable alternative to refusing a classification certificate but found that, because the entire purpose of the video is to assist and encourage in
breaking the law, this was not a viable option.
It is our conclusion therefore that this video work is in conflict with the Board's published Guidelines and the requirements of the Video Recordings Act. In line with its specific duties under the
Video Recordings Act, the Board is required to treat material of this kind very carefully indeed and the Board therefore finds this to be unacceptable for a classification certificate to be issued to it.
Documentary video about football hooligans rejected in 2002 with the following justification
Hooligans is a video
compilation of actual football hooliganism, which it endorses and celebrates. The Board has concluded that the work has potential to cause harm within the meaning of the Video Recordings Act and is therefore not suitable for classification.
While
the Board accepts that some of the material contained in Hooligans has previously appeared in the public domain, its concern lies in the manner in which the material is presented. Hooliganism is an entirely valid subject for critical documentary
treatment, and in that context illustrative news footage has a legitimate function. That, however, is not what is on offer here. Hooligans presents a series of violent and antisocial acts in an exciting and exhilarating manner. Such material may appeal
to and validate the behaviour of real life hooligans, confirming them further in their violence. It may also assist in encouraging others who are attracted to such antisocial activities.
The impact of the repetitive and brutal acts of violence is
further compounded by the driving musical soundtrack, with its potential to raise the level of viewer excitement. No alternative option to the violence is offered and police efforts to control hooliganism are even criticised by the commentary.
The lack of any real contextualisation or analysis of the behaviour shown leaves the clear impression that the video merely seeks to exploit the phenomenon of hooliganism for the purposes of entertainment. The commentary is supportive of what it refers to as the 'so-called' hooligans and the vox pops provide no alternative critical dimension. Indeed they are proud of their violence. The Board was also concerned by an apparent racist and xenophobic dimension in the video.
It is the Board's conclusion that the video is likely to be widely viewed by the people whose behaviour it celebrates. It may well have the effect of reinforcing and validating their behaviour or of encouraging those on the fringes to join in
next time.
The Board did not feel that the problems could be usefully addressed by the provision of a cuts list. The issue is not only the great number of specific visual images, but the overall tone and construction of the tape.
DVD Extra for The Howling a 1981 US film by Joe Dante
Rejected by the BBFC in 2004 with the following explanation:
A bonus feature intended for use on the DVD release of THE HOWLING. It consists of two silent sequences showing women being sexually
assaulted. Brief extracts from these sequences, avoiding the most explicit and graphic elements, were employed in the film THE HOWLING during a scene set in a sex shop. In the context of the film the clips served to illustrate the degenerate nature of
one of the characters. The sequences (which were specially created for the film) are presented here in their entirety and divorced from their original context. In the first sequence, a woman is assaulted by three men on top of a car bonnet. In the second
sequence a woman is tied to a bed, stripped and raped by one of the men and sexually assaulted with a wooden handle. Both sequences exploit sexual violence in a titillatory and pornographic fashion.
The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) is a 2011 Netherlands/UK horror by Tom Six. With Laurence R Harvey and Ashlynn Yennie.
Famously banned in the UK for 2011 DVD but later passed 18 after heavy cuts. Also temporarily banned in Australia before later being passed R18+ with cuts. A cut version was released in the US Unrated by the MPAA. Later it was released
uncut as the Director's Cut, still MPAA Unrated. Banned in New Zealand.
UK: Temporarily banned in the UK for:
UK 2011 Bounty R2 DVD Banned by the BBFC in June 2011.
Unbanned by the BBFC in October 2011 after 2:37s of BBFC cuts
The BBFC explained:
The BBFC has rejected the sexually violent, and potentially obscene DVD, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) This means that it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK. The decision was
taken by the Director, David Cooke and the Presidential Team of Sir Quentin Thomas, Alison Hastings and Gerard Lemos.
The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) is a sequel to the film The Human Centipede (First Sequence),
which was classified 18 uncut for cinema and DVD release by the BBFC in 2010. The first film dealt with a mad doctor who sews together three kidnapped people in order to produce the human centipede'of the title. Although the concept of the film
was undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting it was a relatively traditional and conventional horror film and the Board concluded that it was not in breach of our Guidelines at '18 . This new work, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), tells the story
of a man who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the first film and who imagines putting the centipede idea into practice. Unlike the first film, the sequel presents graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation, and
mutilation, and the viewer is invited to witness events from the perspective of the protagonist. Whereas in the first film the centipede idea is presented as a revolting medical experiment, with the focus on whether the victims will be able to
escape, this sequel presents the centipede idea as the object of the protagonist's depraved sexual fantasy.
The principal focus of The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) is the sexual arousal of the central
character at both the idea and the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, and murder of his naked victims. Examples of this include a scene early in the film in which he masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original
Human Centipede film, with sandpaper wrapped around his penis, and a sequence later in the film in which he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the centipede being forced to defecate into one another's mouths, culminating in sight of
the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the centipede . There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the
amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience. There is a strong focus throughout on the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between pain, perversity and sexual pleasure.
It is the Board's conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character's obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to
potential viewers.
David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said:
It is the Board's carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults, would be
inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm within the terms of the VRA, and would be unacceptable to the public.
The Board also seeks to avoid classifying material that may be in breach of
the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 (OPA) or any other relevant legislation. The OPA prohibits the publication of works that have a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to see them. In order to avoid classifying
potentially obscene material, the Board engages in regular discussions with the relevant enforcement agencies, including the CPS, the police, and the Ministry of Justice. It is the Board's view that there is a genuine risk that this video work, The Human
Centipede II (Full Sequence), may be considered obscene within the terms of the OPA, for the reasons given above.
The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, given that the
unacceptable content runs throughout the work, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.
Summary Review: Sick Fantasy
Inspired by the
fictional Dr. Heiter, disturbed loner Martin dreams of creating a 12-person centipede and sets out to realize his sick fantasy.
This is the type of movie you will either like or hate, I doubt there will be much in between. The
film is quite shocking, but not the most outrageous of the genre.
Actor Laurence R Harvey is masterful as Martin yet doesn't utter a single word of dialogue.
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 after 2:37s of BBFC cuts
Banned when
submitted by Devlin Films in 2005. The BBFC published the following statement:
Introduction to Indoor Growing is a one-hour video work offering the viewer clear and detailed
guidance on the cultivation of cannabis plants. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the cultivation of cannabis plants is illegal in the UK (without a license or other authority from the Secretary of State for research purposes), as is the ownership, use
and supply of cannabis. Indeed, although apparently produced in the US, it is made clear during the video that the growing of cannabis is illegal in many parts of the word and advice and tips are offered on how to avoid detection. The intention of the
work is clearly to assist people in breaking the law by giving detailed advice on how to cultivate an illegal drug. The work both constitutes an incitement to commit a criminal offence and, in contravention of the BBFC's Guidelines, promotes and
encourages the use of illegal drugs.
The BBFC's Guidelines clearly set out the Board's serious concerns about the portrayal of illegal drugs, particularly when the work in question promotes or encourages their use. The Board's Guidelines clearly
state that "No work taken as a whole may promote or encourage the use of illegal drugs". Furthermore, under the terms of the Video Recordings Act 1984, the BBFC is required, when making a determination as to whether a video work is suitable for
classification, to "have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour to society, by the manner in which the work deals with [...] illegal drugs" [Video
Recordings Act 1984 section 4A(1)].
The Board considered whether cutting the work would be a viable alternative to refusing a classification certificate but found that, because the entire purpose of the video is to assist and encourage in
breaking the law, this was not a viable option.
It is our conclusion therefore that this video work is in conflict with the Board's published Guidelines and the requirements of the Video Recordings Act. In line with its specific duties under the
Video Recordings Act, the Board is required to treat material of this kind very carefully indeed and the Board therefore finds this to be unacceptable for a classification certificate to be issued to it.
Island of Death is a 1972 US/Greek horror by Nico Mastorakis. With Robert Behling, Jane Lyle and Jessica Dublin.
Heavily cut for 1976 X rated cinema release. Banned as a very famous video nasty in 1983. Even a heavily cut version was banned for official BBFC approved release in 1987. Less cut for 2003 DVD and finally uncut for 2010 DVD.
Summary Review: Rough Diamond
Island of Perversion is a rough diamond from the deep seas of sickness, another gem from 1970s - the golden age of Grindhouse and exploitation! A film where you
can still smell the dirt from the backyard and railway station cinemas it was shown in! But it´' a great one, I enjoyed every second of it!
The story is about two totally weird siblings who travel to Mykonos to free the
peaceful Greek island from all those who are perverted scum in their eyes: gays, lesbians, nymphomaniacs, hippies... Unfortunately, the version that I watched was cut, so I didn't have the chance to see the notorious goat-rape!
Even though the violence is not that graphic in this film, the director seemed to be possessed by the ambition to make one of the most depraved movies ever! Loved the bad surprise ending!
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut
UK: Passed 18 uncut after previous BBFC cuts waived for:
Kickboxer 4: The Aggressor is a 1994 USA action film by Albert Pyun. Starring Sasha Mitchell, Kamel Krifa and Brad Thornton.
The film was cut in the US for an MPAA R rating. Both the uncut version and the R rated version were submitted to the BBFC for 1994 VHS but BBFC banned both of the. The BBFC relented by 2004 when the uncut version was passed 18 for
DVD.
Summary Review: Entertaining
Sasha Mitchell ("Kickboxer 2&3") triumphantly returns to the ring as David Sloan, fighting not just for his survival, but for his beautiful wife,
who has become the sexual captive of the despicable world champion, Tong Po. Framed, forgotten and furious, Sloan has been wasting away in prison, but the Feds agree to release him if he will get inside Tong Po's impenetrable Mexican fortress, protected
by its deadly guards and adorned by its sexual slaves. Sloan has no choice but to enter into Po's tournament of champions, a savage battle where winner takes all - and to Sloan - that means everything! Reluctantly, alliances form with a few others to
help him out.
Kickboxer 4 is better than a lot of American martial art movies. No, its not a classic like the first 2 Kickboxers or Bloodsport . But overall, Kickboxer 4 delivers
(as a good B-rated movie in the genre of American martial arts). The action is a plenty, there is a tournament, good-looking locales, and acting that isn't terrible along with a story that has a decent plot. Kickboxer 4 has its flaws, but is still
entertaining from start to finish.
The Last House on the Left is a 1972 USA horror by Wes Craven. Starring Sandra Peabody, Lucy Grantham and David Hess.
In the US the Original Theatrical Version was uncut and X rated but was soon heavily cut for local censorship requirements and then for a series of attempts made in attaining an R rating. Much of the material cut for an R rating has
now been declared lost. In 1986 director Wes Craven assembled his best remaining material previously cut from the film and declared that this version was his Director's Cut. It was released in the US Unrated by the MPAA.
The R rated version was banned
from 1974 UK cinema release by the BBFC and the Greater London Council. The film, presumably still in the R rated version was released in the UK when BBFC certificates were not required but it was soon banned as a 'video nasty'. The BBFC continued its
ban with the Unrated version being banned from cinema release in 2000.
In 2001 the DVD was resubmitted and was again banned, but this time cuts were being discussed. A resubmission in 2002 resulted in a BBFC offer of an 18 rating after cuts. The
distributors appealed against the cuts but lost their case, and ended up with even more cuts than requested by the BBFC. The film was released in the following year with the same BBFC cuts but in two versions, including an alternative cut called Krug
& Co.
By 2008 the BBFC had relented and the film was released without BBFC cuts in both the Unrated Version and the alternative Krug & Company.
While I think that people tend to
get a bit hyperbolic when they talk about The Last House on the Left , I do think it's a fairly good film, especially given what the filmmakers were trying to do and considering their lack of experience, the era and the budget. Also, despite a
filmic precursor, it just may be the earliest example of the horror subgenre of brutal, realist tragedy . However, it has flaws that would be difficult to overlook in a distanced assessment of the film.
But
again, focusing on that amounts to hype now, and shouldn't be taken too seriously, lest it lead to inflated expectations. Just as surprising on a first viewing is that The Last House on the Left has an intermittent goofy sense of humor and a groovy
attitude that is firmly mired in the early 1970s. The two policemen are really comic relief characters (and very funny at that), but there is also a lot of humor surrounding the criminal quartet--this almost becomes a black comedy at times.
These sensibilities even extend to the music, which has a frequent hillbilly edge and lyrics that supply ex-positional material. Surprisingly, Hess, who plays Krug, wrote the music.
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut
UK: The Krug & Co Version was passed 18 uncut for:
2018 Arrow Limited Edition [Unrated Version + Krugg & Co + R rated Version] RB Blu-ray at
UK Amazon
2010 Metrodome/In2film Ultimate Edition [Unrated Version + Krug & Co Version] R2 DVD
at UK Amazon
UK: The Unrated Version was passed 18 uncut with previous BBFC cuts waived for:
Anime video released by Manga Entertainment Ltd, rejected in December 1996
with the following justification
Rejected on grounds of its pornographic treatment of sexual violence. Warrior tribes demonstrate the art of gang rape as a martial technique. Monsters with penile tentacles subject
female captives to multiple penetration, while a victim responds lasciviously under the influence of an aphrodisiac. Verbal abuse compounds images of sexual victimisation and male power, and the message that rape is the ultimate source of sexual pleasure
is overwhelming.
Though Dawn Mauer was used as a body double for all nude scemes featuring Lolita (Dominique Swain), director Adrian Lyne bowed to public pressure and cut all of them from the film for its
U.S. release.
Two scenes involving nudity from the body double were originally intended to be included as supplemental footage in the UK DVD release but were banned by the BBFC in 2000.
The BBFC explained their ban:
After careful consideration the Board has determined that these two scenes, which are more explicit versions of scenes present in the feature version of Lolita, are not suitable for classification at any category. They are
NOT present on the Region 1 DVD.
The Comic Book and The Lake Point Cottages both contain strong depictions of sexual conduct between the adult Humbert Humbert and the 14 year old Lolita. In the case of the feature
version of Lolita, the lack of specific sexual detail within the overall context of the film allowed the Board to classify Lolita in the adult category. In the case of these two works, however, we are presented with out-of-context sexualised images of an
underaged girl. These scenes both contain images of sexual nudity and behaviour which were not present in the feature version and which are made even more problematic when presented in isolation or out of context as here.
In The Comic Book, we see a brief shot of Lolita's bare breasts (not present in the feature version) as well as lingering close up shots of Lolita's legs, caressed by Humbert. The atmosphere of the scene is highly sexually
charged. In The Lake Point Cottages, we once again have an extended version of a scene passed in the feature version of the film. As with The Comic Book, we are presented with shots of Lolita's breasts and torso and a brief shot of pubis as her knickers
are pulled down. These shots were not present in the version of the film presented to the Board for classification and would not have been passed had they been included.
Our main concern with these highly
eroticised scenes is that they mightinvite feelings of arousal towards a child. We have a particular concern in the context of DVD extras where the scenes in question can be readily accessed and replayed at any speed. The obvious sexualisation of a 14
year old girl with the use of such provocative detail must raise concerns about the potential misuse of this material by those predisposed to seek illegal sexual encounters. There is, in the Board's view, a serious possibility of 'harm' being caused to
some individuals, and potentially through their actions, to society more widely.
The Board has therefore refused cetificates to these two works.
Love Camp 7 is a 1969 USA war horror thriller by Lee Frost. With Bob Cresse, Maria Lease and Kathy Williams.
Banned as a video nasty in 1985, then banned by the BBFC in 2002. The film was banned again by the BBFC for 2020 VoD. Uncut elsewhere but there have only been a few obscure releases until the 2017 US DVD/Blu-ray Combo.
Summary Review: Don't Take Seriously
Set in a Nazi "Love Camp" that services the needs of front line officers. The video packaging claims that this film is based on fact, but
the plot is so far fetched you would have a hard time believing that. Two young WAC officers go undercover as POW's in the prison camp hoping to get some information from a scientist that's being held there. Unfortunately things go wrong and they end up
overstaying their welcome and being subjected to the same indignities as the other inmates.
The violence and sexploitation are best taken as tongue-in-cheek. By enjoying the exploits of the two WAC officers, Maria Lease and
Kathy Williams, the movie is quite entertaining.
Both Lease and Williams could pass as Playboy Playmates. Both girls have no less than four scenes each were their wares are sampled - talk about copping a feel, these horny
Nazis devour these two toothsome actresses!
Love Camp 7 is a US film, from 1969, in which female agents are sent undercover into a Nazi prison camp where female prisoners are sexually abused, raped and tortured by soldiers. It
was previously refused a classification for DVD release in 2002. The present submission is for distribution on VOD.
The BBFC's Classification Guidelines state that We may refuse to classify content which makes rape or other
non-consensual sexually violent behaviour look appealing or acceptable, reinforces the suggestion that victims enjoy such behaviour, or invites viewer complicity in such behaviour. They also state that As a last resort, the BBFC may refuse to classify a
work, in line with the objective of preventing non-trivial harm risks to potential viewers and, through their behaviour, to society. We may do so, for example, where a central concept of the work is unacceptable, such as a sustained focus on sexual rape,
other non-consensual sexually violent behaviour or sadistic violence.
Because LOVE CAMP 7 is largely comprised of scenes of non consensual sexual activity, including rape, presented in a manner that is intended to arouse viewers,
its central concept is unacceptable and the sexually abusive material it contains too pervasive for cuts to be an effective solution.
Accordingly, the BBFC has refused classification to this work.
The film was recently submitted for
classification for VOD release. Given its status as a previously rejected work it was viewed by the entire Compliance team and certain members of the Policy team before referral to the Board.
The Board noted that there are a
number of prolonged scenes of non-consensual sexual activity, including rape, in Love Camp 7 , in many cases featuring a focus on female nudity. Such scenes are frequently gratuitous, both in terms of length and detail, going some way beyond what is
required by the narrative, and in some cases perpetuating harmful rape myths. These issues were considered in relation to the BBFC's 2019 Guidelines consultation, which found depictions of sexual violence to be of particular concern to the public.
The Board discussed the extent to which the film's datedness and risibility limits its impact, and considered the film's likely appeal and audience. It was observed that, while aspects of the film are dated, the sequences of sexual
violence and abuse are not. It was also noted that while the film is different in many respects to modern pornography, its close and repeated focus on nudity means the sequences of sexual violence and abuse still have the potential to arouse.
The Board concluded that because that as Love Camp 7 is largely comprised non-consensual sexual activity, including rape, presented in a manner that is intended to arouse viewers, its central concept is unacceptable and the sexually
abusive material too pervasive for cuts to be an effective solution. Accordingly, the Board agreed that the BBFC should refuse to classify Love Camp 7 .
UK: Banned by the BBFC for:
2002 Film 2000 DVD
The BBFC commented:
Love Camp 7 is an exploitation film set in a Nazi 'love camp' during the second World War. The film contains numerous scenes of women prisoners being abused, tortured and
humiliated by their Nazi captors. Indeed the whole purpose of the work is to invite male viewers to relish the spectacle of naked women being humiliated for their titillation. Love Camp 7 contains both eroticised depictions of sexual violence and
repeated association of sex with restraint, pain, and humiliation. These sequences were in clear contravention of the Board's strict policy on depictions of sexual violence, which prohibits scenes that eroticise or endorse sexual assault. The possibility
of cuts was considered. However, because the sexual violence runs throughout the work cutting was not considered to be a viable option.
banned
run:
95:41s
pal:
91:51s
UK: Released on pre-cert video for:
1983 Market VHS
The video was listed as a video nasty in April 1985 and stayed on the list throughout the panic so became one of the collectible DPP39s
Maniac is a 1980 US serial killer horror by William Lustig. With Joe Spinell, Caroline Munro and Abigail Clayton.
The Uncut Unrated Theatrical Version is preferred over the shortened
Director's Cut. Once Banned by the BBFC, then released later with cuts. The film was also cut in the US for an R Rating.
Summary review: Shocking
This is definitely a film that will leave you
thinking. The main reason being the main character Frank Zito aka Joe Spinell plays the most realistic psycho/deranged person I've ever seen on film. The whole time I was thinking is this guy really insane? Either this guy is a genius actor or he's
really nuts. That's how real he is in this role. His presence will creep you out. He's the biggest weirdo I've ever seen on film.
The story focuses on frank the serial killer and his killings and insanity. Some of the
scenes are gruesome, but they will keep you on the edge of your seat. You will be able to put yourself in both franks shoes and feel the victims terror as she is stalked and hides from Frank... Especially the subway bathroom scene. That's an intense
scene. Frank keeps on killing till the end when his own demons finally come back to haunt him.
Any horror fan should have this in their collection.
Versions
uncut Theatrical
run:
87:58s
pal:
84:27s
US: The uncut Theatrical Version is MPAA Unrated for:
US: There is also a shortened Director's Cut that is missing plot scenes the director wasn't happy with. But this version hasn't made much impact. From IMDB:
a scene depicting Joe Spinell in a hotel room with a prostitute has been shortened.
Another scene showing Joe and the photographer in a restaurant has been completely removed,
cut
US: There is also a cut US R rated version to avoid.
cut
cut:
58s
run:
86:40s
pal:
83:12s
UK: The Theatrical Version was passed 18 after 58s of BBFC cuts for:
2006 Anchor Bay R0 DVD
2002 Anchor Bay R0 DVD
The BBFC commented:
Cuts required to reduce length of sexualised strangulation sequence by half
and to remove shots of a knife played over and stabbing into female flesh with sexual connotations.
UK: The Theatrical Version was banned by the BBFC for:
1998 Exploited VHS
1981 cinema release
The BBFC explained their 1998 ban:
Two (of the videos rejected so far in 1998) were serial killer films in which sex is linked with the pleasure of
killing. In one of those films, Maniac, a series of defenceless women are stalked, terrorised, attacked and murdered, while being photographed in a deliberately sexualised way. The film is one of a genre known as 'stalk and slash', and here each stalking
and killing is protracted, sometimes ending with the scalping of the victim. When the police eventually catch up with the killer, he survives, leaving us to anticipate that the stalking and mutilation will begin again. The pleasures on offer here seem to
the Board to be unhealthy and dangerous because of the way that the killing of women is linked with the sexual arousal of men.
Gossip has it that Maniac was initially viewed by four censors; three men and one woman. The three men said the
film should be rejected because of its anti-women depictions. The woman thought the film was cut-able.
Mikey is a 1992 USA horror thriller by Dennis Dimster (as Dennis Dimster-Denk). Starring Brian Bonsall, Josie Bissett and Ashley Laurence.
Banned by the BBFC from 1996 VHS release. Uncut and MPAA R rated in the US.
UK Censorship Hstory
Banned by the BBFC in 1996 (in the fallout from the James Bulger killing) for:
UK 1996 VPD VHS
The BBFC explained their ban:
A 9 year old boy kills his foster family one by one, including the realistic drowning of his 3 year old sister. It was argued that this was a fantasy horror film and not to be taken literally, but three distinguished
child psychiatrists advised us that the video was sufficiently realistic to have a dangerous impact on a significant proportion of vulnerable children.
Summary Review: Strong thriller
A strong thriller directed by Dennis Dimster-Denk. Brain Bonsall is extraordinary good as the young smart psycho.
The film received
some controversy, because of Mikey's age in the film, when it's came out in the Spring of 1992.
Murder Set Pieces is a 2004 US horror film by Nick Palumbo with Sven Garrett and Cerina Vincent. With Sven Garrett, Cerina Vincent and Tony Todd.
The Original Theatrical Version was banned by the BBFC for UK 2008 TLA DVD. The BBFC commented:
Murder Set Pieces is a US made feature focussing on the activities of a psychopathic sexual serial killer,
who, throughout the film, is seen raping, torturing and murdering his victims. There is a clear focus on sex or sexual behaviour accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury and humiliation. Young children are among those terrorised and killed.
In
making a decision as to whether a video work is suitable for classification, the Board applies the criteria set out in its current Classification Guidelines, published in 2005. These are the result of an extensive process of public consultation and
research and reflect the balance of media effects research, the requirements of UK law and the attitudes of the UK public. The Board's Guidelines clearly set out the Board's serious concerns about the portrayal of violence, most especially when the
violence is sexual or sexualised, but also when depictions portray or encourage: callousness towards victims, aggressive attitudes, or taking pleasure in pain or humiliation.
The Guidelines for the '18' category requested for this video work
state that such concerns 'will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment' but make clear that exceptions to this general rule may be made in certain areas, including 'where material or treatment appears
to the Board to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society – eg any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts… [and that the Board] may intervene with portrayals of sexual violence which might, eg eroticise or endorse sexual
assault'. Under the heading of 'Rejects', the Guidelines identify as of particular concern 'graphic rape or torture', 'portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context' and 'sex accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury or humiliation'.
The Board's position that scenes of violence with the potential to trigger sexual arousal may encourage a harmful association between violence and sexual gratification is reflected in research and consistent with public opinion. It is the Board's
carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to MURDER-SET-PIECES, even if statutorily confined to adults, would involve risk of harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act 1984, would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, and would
be unacceptable to the public.
The Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content features throughout, and that what remains is essentially preparatory and set-up material for the
unacceptable scenes, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.
Summary Review: Overrated
Very, very overrated serial killer flick that has been compared to Maniac , Last House on Dead End Street and New York Ripper . Some reviewers have claimed that it is better than these three films.
It is
not. It is gory in a juvenile, over-the-top kind of way and the coverage of some of the murders is adequate, but it is incredibly fragmented, totally devoid of characterization and plot development and, overall, amateurish in its execution.
Availability
Current UK Status: Banned in UK
Denmark: The Director's Cut is locally rated 15 for:
Banned when
submitted by Devlin Films in 2005. The BBFC published the following statement:
Mushroom Growing Made Easy is a one-hour video work offering the viewer clear and detailed guidance
on the cultivation of 'magic mushrooms'. At present, the cultivation and possession of fresh and untreated psilocybe mushrooms is not apparently an offence under UK law. Nonetheless, the Board is conscious that the Drugs Bill currently passing through
Parliament will have the effect of making the cultivation and possession of such mushrooms, even in their fresh state, illegal. It would be premature for the Board to classify this video work when it is likely that, within a short period of time, it will
become a clear incitement to a criminal offence involving a Class A drug. Regardless of the current legal situation, the video in any case shows how to cultivate an organism that contains what is undoubtedly a Class A drug (psilocin) and which, if
altered or treated in any way (for example by drying), would even now result in the commission of a serious criminal offence.
The BBFC's Guidelines clearly set out the Board's serious concerns about the portrayal of illegal drugs, particularly
when the work in question promotes or encourages their use. The Board's Guidelines clearly state that "No work taken as a whole may promote or encourage the use of illegal drugs". Furthermore, under the terms of the Video Recordings Act 1984, the BBFC is
required, when making a determination as to whether a video work is suitable for classification, to "have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour to society,
by the manner in which the work deals with [...] illegal drugs" [Video Recordings Act 1984 section 4A(1)].
The Board considered whether cutting the work would be a viable alternative to refusing a classification certificate but found that,
because the entire purpose of the video is to assist and encourage in cultivating an organism which contains a Class A drug, this was not a viable option.
It is our conclusion therefore that this video work is in conflict with the Board's
published Guidelines and the requirements of the Video Recordings Act. In line with its specific duties under the Video Recordings Act, the Board is required to treat material of this kind very carefully indeed and the Board therefore finds this to be
unacceptable for a classification certificate to be issued to it.
Naked Killer 2 is a 1993 Hong Kong video by Lau Chang-Wei . With Simon Yam, Chingmy Yau and Mark Cheng.
Video rejected in August 1997 with a submitted running time of 91:23s.
Video rejected again in November 1997 with a running time of 87:48s
Passed 18 after pre-cuts of 6:20s and BBFC cuts of 4:42s in November 1998.
The BBFC gave the
following justification for the rejection:
Two different versions of the same Hong Kong thriller were rejected for their exploitative treatment of rape, murder and dismemberment
Summary Review: Rape, murder and dismemberment
Not really a sequel of Naked Killer 1.
The only redeeming quality of this DVD is that the women n it are fabulous although we don't get to see much of them ... I mean you see more
flesh on some of the late night networks ...
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 after cuts of 11:01s
US: The Hong Kong release is MPAA Unrated for:
HK 2001 Tai Seng R0 DVD at US Amazon titled Raped by an Angel
NF713 takes the form of an extended sequence in which a man tortures a woman psychologically, physically and sexually. The
woman is bound and restrained throughout and the man in question is in a position of absolute power and control over her. The man tortures the woman in order to make her confess her crimes against an unnamed 'State' but his ultimate aim is to break her
down and make her fully compliant, eradicating her individuality and making her a mere number, 'NF713'. The man employs a variety of techniques ranging from invasive questioning about her body and her sexual life to genital torture with forceps and
electricity, makeshift waterboarding, beatings and forced urination. The torture is unremitting and takes up the majority of the work's 73 minute running time. Throughout large sections the woman is naked or semi-naked and her nudity is focussed upon,
particularly in the later portions of the work. The work concludes with a series of black and white stills of the woman, bound and restrained.
In the BBFC's view, the primary purpose of NF713 is to sexually arouse the viewer at the sight of a
woman being sexually humiliated, tortured and abused. As such it constitutes a 'sex work', which is defined by the BBFC's Guidelines as a work whose 'primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation'. The focus on the woman's naked, humiliated body
together with the conventional BDSM aspects of the later part of the work lend credence to the view that sexual arousal is its primary intent, as do the closing series of black and white stills which strongly resemble conventional erotic fetish
photography. The BBFC operates a strict policy on sex works and does not issue classification to such works if they depict non consensual sexual activity (whether real or simulated), the infliction of pain or physical harm (whether real or simulated) or
sexual threats, humiliation or abuse that do not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game. NF713focuses exclusively on these elements of non-consensual activity, pain, humiliation and abuse and takes the form of a dramatic scenario in which
the viewer is invited to believe that what is being shown is 'real'. Unlike many BDSM works it is not apparent that what is occurring is part of a consensual role play where the roles are clearly set out and, in any case, the Guidelines preclude the kind
of strong abuse on offer here, even if consent is established.
Even if one were to take the view that the primary purpose of NF713 is to explore the nature of torture in dramatic form, the work would still be in clear breach of the BBFC's
Guidelines and policies on sexual violence. The unbroken sequence of sexual torture and humiliation means that the work runs the risk (whether intentionally or unintentionally) of eroticising sexual violence and thereby causing harm to viewers. The work
invites the audience to relish sight of – and be sexually aroused by - a restrained and helpless woman being sexually molested, humiliated and tortured. Such a complete focus on sexual violence, together with the elements of eroticism provided by the
nudity and semi-nudity of the female victim, runs a real risk of eroticising sexual violence in a potentially harmful and dangerous manner.
The BBFC considered the possibility of cuts. However, given the extent of unacceptable material and the
pervasive theme of sexual violence and sexual threat, cuts were not considered a viable option on this occasion.
I've just spent the last few days being tortured and interrogated for Control & Reform Productions. The film is
called Enemy of the State [Since renamed to NF713] and it's the dark brainchild of China Hamilton and me.
It's somewhere between Closet Land and 1984 - but with no faking of the torture scenes. It's set in a non-specific
police state and I've been arrested for distributing anti-State pamphlets. As such, I no longer warrant a name; I'm simply NF-713. My soft-spoken interrogator gradually convinces me to cooperate through various kind and caring methods, as
he only wants to help me. Help comes in various forms, as does corrective treatment:
Bastinado, back whipping, breast whipping, electric shocks, hydrotherapy , medical torture, brainwashing, force-feeding… Except for the use
of a small whip in one scene, my bottom was actually spared. (How's that for a first?) I was wrecked by the end of the shoot, still crying after the cameras stopped rolling.
Niki Flynn also speaks at length about the BBFC rejection notice: R
is for "rejected"
The British Board of Film Censors has just examined my naked, humiliated body in exhaustive detail and declared it potentially harmful and dangerous.
While I'm not too surprised the
film didn't get an 18 certificate, I'm actually fairly disturbed by some of the alarmist language in the rejection note.
The note describes the unremitting torture inflicted throughout the film, making it sound far
worse and more graphic than it actually is. Frankly, in the cut submitted to the BBFC there is very little actual abuse shown and the focus is mostly on the psychological aspects of interrogation and the resulting Stockholm Syndrome. But they felt its
primary intent was to sexually arouse the viewer and as such it's a sex work and the non-consensuality makes it unsuitable for the British public, who are apparently likely to become rapists and torturers after viewing such a dangerous film.
Rejected in December 1996 with the following justification
An erotic and in places pornographic video dealing
with human sexual activity in a context of force, restraint or infliction of pain. Although submitted as 'sex-education', it seemed to the Board to be selling the techniques of sado-masachism in a glossy and highly erotic manner, so that the educational
content was overwhelmed by the S&M content. The message that pain is th real source of pleasure seemed likely to encourage men to inflict pain without due consideration of the rights and vulnerabilities of their partners.
Sadomania is a 1981 Spanish/W German women in prison film by Jess Franco. With Ajita Wilson, Andrea Guzon and Ursula Buchfellner.
UK: Passed X (18) after about 17:00s of BBFC cuts for:
UK 1982 cinema release titled Prisoners of the Flesh
UK: The Export Version was banned by the BBFC for:
UK 1994 Redemption VHS titled Sadomania
The BBFC commented:
A Women's prison video in which the female prisoners were coerced, degraded and brutalised. The treatment in Sadomania was often vicious in the extreme, with gladiatorial combat to the death between naked
prisoners, the torture of a prisoner by sticking needles into and around her nipples, the hunting down of a naked woman with guns and dogs, and the rape of a bound and screaming naked prisoner by an Alsation dog, viewed by the governor and his wife as a
sexy turn-on.
Twenty years ago Redemption Films released Succubus and I received a written warning from the British
Board of Film Classification, that Jess Franco was a director whose films the BBFC regarded as bordering on criminal. I was told that were I to attempt to release other films by him or to bring them into the country there would be consequences... A year
later I submitted Demoniacs and Sadomania and both were categorically banned with the implicit threat that by pushing the work of Jess Franco I was, indirectly, championing criminal sexual material and that if I continued I too would face not civil, but
criminal proceedings.
The BBFC said of SADOMANIA:
... it is grossly unsuitable for viewing in the home. Few, if any, of the sex scenes are consenting,... women that persistently refuse to succumb to the
sadistic prison regime are systematically tortured, humiliated or degraded, often for the purpose of arousing the impotent male governor and through him the male viewer of the video work. ... There is no doubt in our minds that the erotic presentation of
such scenes would be found depraving and corrupting by a British jury .
Redemption Films challenged the banning of these films, along with Bare Behind Bars legally, and lost. We then sought and won leave to judicially review
the BBFC's entire operation, a massive undertaking and one which would, had we pursued it, opened up all the machinations of the BBFC's internal workings to public scrutiny, however, we ran out of money and had to wait until our battle over pornography
several years later to finally oust the BBFC chairman James Ferman which in turn heralded in a period of more liberal censorship.
UK: The Spanish Version was passed 18 after 17s of BBFC cuts for:
UK 2005 Anchor Bay R2 DVD
The BBFC commented:
Cut required to a scene of sexual and sexualised violence (in this case, a pin being inserted into a woman's nipple)
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 after 17s of BBFC cuts
US: The Spanish Version is uncut and MPAA Unrated for:
US 2013 Blue Underground Bad Girls Behind Bars Collection R0 DVD at US Amazon
No clues, rejected in December 1997 with the following
justification:
The video which purported to be a documentary about the SAS, was selling the glamour and excitement of handguns as well as detailed instructions in their use.
Savage Streets is a 1984 US crime action film by Danny Steinmann. With Linda Blair, John Vernon and Robert Dryer.
Linda Blair armed with a crossbow (a forbidden weapon at the BBFC) avenges a deaf friend who was gang-raped. The leader of the rapists gets shot with the crossbow and then set ablaze.
This sleazy tale of high school revenge with Linda Blair is a must for bad film fans everywhere.
This sympathetic tale tells the story of Brenda
(Blair), a tough high school gal who spends her nights drinking peach brandy on the streets of LA with her equally tough friends. One night, they make the mistake of puttering with a gang called the Scars, and before you know it, the Scars have raped and
beaten Brenda's deaf, mute sister. Once Brenda learns the truth of what transpired, she vows revenge on those responsible.
This is the pre-eminent 80's high school movie - terrible music, awful acting, questionable violence and gratuitous nudity.
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut
UK: Passed 18 after previous BBFC cuts waived for:
A Tamara Productions video rejected in October 1995 with the following
justification:
A camcorder sex video in which two young women are dressed convincingly as schoolgirls in order to act out the fantasies of men. There was no doubt in the minds of anyone who saw the video that it would encourage men to fantasise
about seducing unwilling, and probably under-age, schoolgirls. Board policy on sex films has rested on the importance of mutual consent, yet this video was concerned almost wholly with the systematic erosion of consent in naive young women dressed as
schoolgirls. For viewers, the link between innocent schoolgirls and sexual excitation would almost certainly be reinforced. On the test of harm to society through the behaviour of potential viewers, the video was rejected.
The BBFC banned the video in March 2005 with the following statement
Severe Punishment comprises a 37 minute sadomasochistic video work depicting two restrained women being beaten and whipped by a third. The whippings and beatings, which are directed against the women's buttocks, breasts and genitals as
well as their sides and backs, are intense and prolonged, involving the use of a belt, a cat o' nine tails, a metal wire, a wooden paddle, a cane and a riding crop The beatings lead to the reddening of skin and the raising of weals on the women's bodies.
Other activities in the work, including the use of a pump on a woman's breasts and the application of clips and pegs to the women's labia, also appear to inflict pain and, in the case of the breast pump, lead to damage and reddening.
At the 'R18'
category, the BBFC permits mild fetish material, including some spanking, provided that the material in question is mild, clearly consensual and does not result in injury. However, the 'R18' Guidelines clearly prohibit "the portrayal of any sexual
activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated) [...] the infliction of pain or physical harm, real or (in a sexual context) simulated. Some allowance may be made for mild consensual activity [...] Strong abuse, even if consensual is
unlikely to be acceptable." (BBFC Guidelines page 22). More generally, the Guidelines clearly set out the Board's serious concerns about sexual violence in films and videos, particularly in an eroticised context. On page 11 it is stated that "With
portrayals of sexual violence which might eg eroticise or endorse sexual assault the Board may require cuts at any classification level [...] Any association of sex with non-consensual restraint, pain or humiliation may be cut". On page 20, under
'Rejects', the Board also identifies as of particular concern "sex accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury or humiliation".
The acts shown in Severe Punishment depict the infliction of real pain and injury and therefore go some way beyond
the 'mild' activity that may be acceptable at 'R18'. The sole purpose of the work seems to be to invite sexual arousal at the sight of women being beaten, abused and caused real pain and injuries.
The position of UK law on sadomasochistic
activities was established clearly in the case of R v Brown (aka the 'Spanner Case'). In this case, the court determined that, regardless of the consent of participants, the infliction of injuries that are more than 'trifling and transient' constitutes
actual assault and is therefore illegal. The activities shown in this video, leading as they do to weals being raised on the skin, are considerably more than 'trifling and transient' and would therefore be likely to fall foul of UK law if carried out in
the UK. Our understanding from the CPS and other enforcement agencies is that visual depictions of strong sadomsachistic behaviour are also liable to be found obscene under current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
The Board's
strict policy on sexual violence is based in part upon the issue of public acceptability and in part upon the issue of harm. With regard to public acceptability, it is clear that the British public are very concerned by the depiction of sexual violence,
and feel that any such depictions should be handled sensitively and with great care. The exploitation of sexual violence for titillation is clearly regarded as unacceptable - and potentially dangerous - by the majority. This was illustrated both by the
findings of our 1999-2000 and 2004 public consultation exercises and by a separate research exercise into public attitudes to sexual violence undertaken in 2001-2.
With regard to the issue of harm there is a large and persuasive body of evidence
over the years from respected and responsible researchers that shows that, where violence and sex are intermingled, the effects upon some people are likely to be harmful. In line with its specific duties under the VRA the Board is required to treat
material of this kind very carefully indeed.
The Board considered whether cutting would be a viable alternative to rejection. However, given that the infliction of pain and injury on women, in a sexual context, makes up a significant proportion
of the work and is its main selling point, the Board did not consider that cutting would leave a viable product.
Availability
Banned in UK
From promotional material
Although the participants of the performance
you're about to witness are highly educated in the art of submission, this degree of play is not recommended at home. Watch as two beautiful girls are severely punished. See their white flesh turn red, welted and bruised. The pain delivered to these
girls will leave a lasting impression that may disturb you. This video is not recommended for the faint at heart.
This film about a psycho in a Santa suit going on a killing spree was awaiting classification when Michael Ryan ran amok in Hungerford. Bad timing led to a ban.
Slumber Party Massacre II is a 1987 US comedy horror by Deborah Brock. With Crystal Bernard, Jennifer Rhodes and Kimberly McArthur.
Banned by the BBFC in 1988 after an extensive cuts list was refused. Not
released in the UK since. In the US it exists in a Theatrical R rated version, and an Extended Version which is MPAA Unrated
Summary Review: Amusing Enough
More of a comic vein than its predecessor
and now in a musical setting.
The weapon of choice is an electric guitar cum electric drill. The death scenes are very twisted with the killer playing guitar and singing as he kills his victims.
A favourite scene of mine involves death by acne. One of the central characters is actually engulfed by a rapid growing zit, until it pops all over the protagonist and she is presumed dead - that is until she walks through the front door
about 10 minutes later.
The over-the-topness seems to be amusing enough. For bad movie fans, that is.
Availability
Current UK Status: No release since being banned
US: An extended version is uncut and MPAA unrated for:
2017 Shout! Factory Double Feature [Slumber Party Massacre II + III, both Theatrical + Extended] (RA) Blu-ray
at US Amazon
Spy of Darkness is in many respects a typical tentacle hentai show. Scientists have been working on creating a new type of
cyborg, and have ended up creating what they call a BioBorg, codenamed Dragon. This tall dark and studly creature is all green, very powerful and has one flaw; he's insatiable when it comes to sex due to a fault in the gene coding.
Vanessa Hammer
who has decided to free Dragon and use him for her own purposes. While she considers him nothing more than merchandise, she's got no problem with taking advantage of his special skills. And his skills are rather good, going by her expressions. When he
gets overly excited, tentacles begin to sprout from all over his body, and the more he evolves, the more tentacles grow from him.
The show plays out in the end in some distinctly non-standard ways with the characters, leaving me surprised at how
it was done and enjoying it more for doing it that way. Spy of Darkness is a simple straightforward little action hentai with tentacles and plenty of non-consensual sequences, but it's quite well done.
Rejected
in 2003 with the following statement:
The Board's classification Guidelines, the result of an extensive process of public consultation, clearly set out our serious concerns about the portrayal of sexual violence in
films and videos. On page 9 it is stated that "Where the portrayal eroticises or endorses sexual assault, the Board is likely to require cuts at any classification level... any association of sex with non-consensual restraint, pain or humiliation
may be cut." On page 20, under 'Rejects', the Board also identifies as of the "greatest concern: graphic rape or torture, sadistic violence or terrorisation, ...sex accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury or humiliation...".
The
Board's strict policy on sexual violence is based in part upon the issue of public acceptability and in part upon the issue of harm. With regard to public acceptability, it is clear that the British public are very concerned by the depiction of sexual
violence, and feel that any such depictions should be handled sensitively and with great care. The exploitation of sexual violence for titillation is clearly regarded as unacceptable - and potentially dangerous - by the majority. This was illustrated
both by the findings of our 1999-2000 public consultation process and by a separate research exercise into public attitudes to sexual violence undertaken in 2001-2.
With regard to the issue of harm there is a substantial body of media effects
research suggesting the harm that may be caused by exposure to such material. There is a large and persuasive body of evidence over the years from respected and responsible researchers that shows that, where violence and sex are intermingled, the effects
upon some people are likely to be harmful. In line with its specific duties under the VRA the Board is required to treat material of this kind very carefully indeed.
Straw Dogs is a 1971 USA / UK thriller by Sam Peckinpah. Starring Dustin Hoffman, Susan George and Peter Vaughan.
Censorship History
The BBFC advised cuts on seeing early rough cuts of the film. The advise was adopted for the 1972 cinema release which became the definitive version of the film.
The film was cut in the US for an R rated
theatrical release. The cuts were to the 2 rape scenes, and famously seemed to convert Susan George being taken from behind into a scene of anal rape.
The definitive version was released several times on pre-cert VHS between 1980 and 1985.
The BBFC
procrastinated for several years over a post VRA video release, effectively banning the video. The BBFC particularly objected to the first rape scene where the Susan George character ended up enjoying the sex. The cut US R rated version was
eventually formally banned twice in 1995.
The cut US R rated version was passed 18 uncut by the BBFC for a 1995 cinema release.
The film was unbanned on video in 2002 when the definitive version was passed 18 uncut for DVD.
Summary Notes
Upon moving to Britain to get away from American violence, astrophysicist David Sumner and his wife Amy are bullied and taken advantage of by the locals hired to do construction. When David finally takes a stand it
escalates quickly into a bloody battle as the locals assault his house.
Essentially, what we have is a movie that uproots some of the values, morality and themes governing the mythic cinematic western and transplants them
into an English backwater community. The locals are restless, being envious of and despising the American strangers (Dustin Hoffman and wife Susan George) who intrude on their redneck world. The fact that Hoffman's wife used to be one of their own serves
to make matters worse, increasing both tension and conflict.
Hoffman wants to avoid trouble and remain peaceable, but ultimately is pushed too far when his cat is killed, wife is raped and his homestead is laid siege to by his tormentors. He
stubbornly offers shelter to Niles, the village idiot, who has just inadvertently killed a young girl. His refusal to surrender the man to the (lynch) mob initiates the violent finale. The stage is set for a man doing what a man's gotta do, and this
translates as holding the fort whilst killing and maiming as many of the attacking natives as possible.
UK: The pre-cut cinema version was passed 18 without further BBFC cuts for:
2011 Freemantlemedia 40th Anniversary RB Blu-ray at UK Amazon
2011
Freemantlemedia 40th Anniversary R0 DVD at UK Amazon
2004 Prism R2 DVD
2002 Pearson Television/Freemantlemedia R2 DVD
2002 Pearson Television/Freemantlemedia VHS
UK: The pre-cut cinema version was released on pre-cert video for:
1985 VCI VHS
1983 Guild VHS
1980 Guild VHS
There are reports that some dialogue may be missing through print damage
UK: Passed X (18) after unofficial BBFC suggested cuts were implemented prior to submission for:
1972 cinema release
BBFC secretary Stephen Murphy saw the film unofficially at rough cut stage and recommended cuts. The cuts were to:
reduce the 2nd party of the rape scene when Norman rapes Amy particularly where Norman takes Amy from behind
reduce the death of Charlie in a bear trap.
Even before US censors further compounded the problem, commentators suggested that Murphy's cuts transformed rear entry vaginal sex into forced sodomy.
The cut version became the final version and was not cut further by the
BBFC. It is suspected that longer footage of the second rape scene exists only on the cutting-room floor.
US: The pre-cut cinema version is MPAA Unrated for:
This version has now become the definitive version of the film
The BBFC issued the following statement when the video was unbanned in 2002:
When Straw Dogs was previously
considered by the BBFC for video release in 1999, it was refused a classification certificate. This was because its distributor at the time declined to make the cuts requested by the Board to the film's rape scene. The version on which the Board then
based its judgement was a pre-cut American print of the film.
In the central scene, Amy, played by Susan George, is raped by her former boyfriend and then by another man. The pre-cut American
version deleted most of the second rape in which Amy is clearly demonstrated not to enjoy the act of violation. The cuts made for American distribution, which were made to reduce the duration of the sequence, therefore tended paradoxically to compound
the difficulty with the first rape, leaving the audience with the impression that Amy enjoyed the experience. The Board took the view in 1999 that the pre-cut version eroticised the rape and therefore conflicted with the concerns expressed in the Video
Recordings Act about promoting harmful activity.
The version considered in 2002 is substantially the original uncut version of the film, restoring much of the unambiguously unpleasant second
rape. The ambiguity of the first rape is given context by the second rape, which now makes it quite clear that sexual assault is not something that Amy ultimately welcomes.
For the current
submission, the Board showed the video to leading clinical psychologists specialising in work with sex offenders and to a panel of members of the public. The response of the clinical psychologists was that the present version of Straw Dogs was not
harmful and was not likely to encourage an interest in rape or abusive behaviour towards women. The psychologists agreed that the ambiguous first rape was in fact a fairly realistic depiction of a quite complex situation. They also agreed that, by the
end of the second rape, any general messages reinforcing 'rape myths' were undermined by the lack of ambivalence shown in Amy's reaction to the second attack. It was also noted that Amy's flashbacks later in the film further undermined any impression
that she might welcome rape or that it has no serious effect on its victims. The psychologists commented that the scene was filmed in a relatively discreet manner, with limited potential today for titillation.
The issue of context was also important to the members of the public to whom the video was shown as part of a research exercise into the acceptability of images of sexual violence. A focus group of 26 people viewed Straw Dogs , with 20 people accepting '18' uncut as the most appropriate category, 5 suggesting only minor cuts, and only one favouring rejection. No respondent asked for major cuts of the kind required by the Board in 1999.
Significantly, respondents saw the manner in which Amy copes with her experience as essentially positive and concluded that the present version of the scene - as well as the flashbacks shown
afterwards - reinforced the idea that rape is not to be taken lightly because of the serious effect it can have on individuals. No concerns about possible harmful effects were identified.
The
Board recognises that the rape scene in Straw Dogs has lost only part of its power over the years, despite the age of the film. Nonetheless, in this restored version, and in the light of the evidence of expert opinion, our own conclusion now is
that the film has no significant potential to cause harm to viewers or, through their actions, to society as a whole. We have also taken account of the evidence of the public acceptability of the work.
The Board maintains a strict position on depictions of sexual violence that endorse or eroticise harmful behaviour, and will continue to do so. The Board does not believe that the present version of Straw Dogs is in breach of that
policy.
The film had previously been passed 'X' uncut for cinema release in 1971 and '18' in the pre-cut version for cinema reissue in 1995.
cut
cut
run:
116:02s
pal:
111:24s
UK: The cut US R-rated version was
passed 18 without further BBFC cuts for:
1995 cinema release
US: The cut UK cinema version was further cut in the US for an MPAA R rating. The additional cuts were:
24s cut from first part of rape scene: Cut to shot of Amy reacting to implied initial penetration by Charlie. Cut to 2 shots of Amy seemingly enjoying the sex.
30s cut from second part of rape scene: Shot of Amy screaming in anticipation of
further rape as as Norman unbuttons his pants. Shot of Norman raping Amy whilst Venner holds her down. Further cuts mean that the pumping of Amy from behind is reduced to an establishment shot which gives a perspective suggesting anal rape.
This R rated cut has become notorious as it ended up making the first 'rape' scene look worse than it originally did. The uncut version makes it as clear as you can get without going hardcore that rear entry vaginal sex is
involved, while the R rated version looks more like forcible sodomy!
banned
run:
115:42s
pal:
111:04s
UK: The uncut Version was banned by the BBFC for:
1999 VCI VHS
VCI tried again with a submission in 1998, but the BBFC took so long to produce its 200s list of cuts that the rights had expired before a cut version could be created.
UK:
The cut US R Rated Version was banned by the BBFC for:
1999 Total Home Entertainment VHS
After an inordinate delay for procrastination, The film had been submitted in 1996) the BBFC commented:
The BBFC offered a list of cuts to the video's distributor but because their period of rights
had elapsed, they were unable to consider making the requested cuts.
UK: Later in 1995, the BBFC told Polygram that there was no chance of a video release noting also a new law allowing the BBFC to be stricter
when censoring films for home video.
UK: The BBFC told the BFI in 1995 that although it had passed the cut R rated version for cinema, there was no chance of the same version being released on video.
UK: The uncut version was
unofficially banned by the BBFC for:
1990 VCI VHS
UK: The uncut version was unofficially banned by the BBFC through delaying tactics for:
1987 VCI VHS
This submission was made doubly impossible due to the bad timing of coinciding with The Hungerford Massacre and the press clamour to ban violent videos, particularly those featuring Rambo.
UK: The uncut version was
unofficially banned by the BBFC through delaying tactics for:
1986 Futurevision VHS
After the BBFC were appointed as state censors through the 1984 Video Recordings Act, the film censors assumed a policy of being particularly strict on sexual violence. Straw Dogs was perhaps the most high profile example and simply could not be
allowed to pass. Ferman and co spent 14 years stretching out their ludicrous unofficial ban implemented by refusing to get on with the job of examining the film.
BBFC examiners continually recommended a relaxation of the ban throughout
the period yet Ferman would never sway from his ban .
Presumable this is a compilation from the extensive series on the Gotham label.
It was rejected with the following BBFC justification:
Full Frame, Struggle in Bondage consists of a series of sequences depicting women bound and gagged, writhing and struggling against their restraints. Each sequence begins with the women already bound and at no point is the
audience given any indication that the women involved have consented to being bound as part of a clearly defined role play. Indeed, the struggling and whimpering of the women seems calculated to suggest to the viewer that the women have been bound
against their will and are experiencing a sense of threat or humiliation. It is clear from the manner of presentation (including the exposure of underwear, breasts and genitals) that the purpose of the work is to stimulate sexual arousal in the viewer at
the spectacle of women who have been tied up and gagged, apparently unwillingly. As such, the work is in violation of the BBFC's Guidelines and policy.
The BBFC's classification Guidelines for 'R18' works state that the following is unacceptable:
"…the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated). Any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent…any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not
form part of a clearly consenting role playing game". In addition, the Guidelines note the following under the main issues section: "Any association of sex with non-consensual restraint, pain or humiliation may be cut."
It is clear from the
BBFC's own research that the public remains concerned about works that eroticise non-consensual activities by suggesting that sexual pleasure may be derived from participating in or witnessing the suffering of others who are unable to resist.
Furthermore, there is a substantial body of media effects research which suggests that material that correlates sexual arousal with lack of consent may be harmful to some viewers. In line with its specific duties under the VRA the BBFC is required to
treat material of this kind very carefully indeed.
The Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given that the unacceptable material runs throughout, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is
therefore refused a classification certificate.
A psychotic sniper kills couples who are engaged in sex. He watches them having
sex through his viewfinder! The BBFC found this an unacceptable combination of sex and violence.
Terrorists, Killers and Other Wackos is a 2005 US documentary.
Banned by the BBFC for:
UK 2005 Film 2000 DVD
The BBFC explained:
Terrorists, Killers and Other Wackos comprises a compilation of uncontextualised clips showing real killings, executions, suicides, accidents,
mutilation and torture (of both humans and animals) and other distressing images. The work presents no journalistic, educational or other justifying context for the images shown. Rather, the work presents a barrage of sensationalist clips, for what
appears to be the underlying purpose of providing prurient entertainment. This is reinforced by the addition of a loud music soundtrack, which further trivialises the images shown. The trivialisation of human and animal suffering is further exemplified
by the tasteless inclusion of occasional 'comic' captions. The work also contains a disturbing and distasteful undercurrent of racism and xenophobia. A significant amount of the material is taken from certain recurring geographic locations and could
provide fuel for forms of racism which are hostile to non-white people.
The Board carefully considered the work in the light of our Guidelines and the tests set down by the Video Recordings Act. A key consideration is the question of any harm
that might be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society because of the manner in which the work deals with violence and "horrific behaviour or incidents". The Board has concluded that the video is potentially harmful because of
the influence it may have on the attitudes and behaviour of at least some intended or potential viewers. By presenting actual human death, mutilation and suffering as entertainment, the work has the potential to desensitise viewers, and perhaps even to
incite some to harm others. The work invites the viewer to take sadistic pleasure in death, injury, mutilation and pain and encourages callousness towards victims. Given the rapid-paced editing, the addition of inappropriate music and supposedly
'amusing' captions, the work appears calculated to appeal to young and impressionable persons (whatever its classification). The Board considers that the work may have a significant brutalising effect on their attitude to human life and pain.
Given the potential for the work to deaden the sensitivity of viewers to pain and suffering and to impair the moral development of younger viewers in particular, the Board also considers that the work raises serious concerns about possible breach of the Obscene Publications Act. This Act makes it an offence to distribute any work that, taken as a whole, has a tendency to deprave and corrupt (i.e. make morally bad) a significant proportion of those likely to see it.
A further consideration for the Board is that of public acceptability. (This is the ground on which, for instance, the Board has regard to issues of bad language.) In this case the combination of the shocking and distressing images in the work,
the lack of any justifying context, the editorial treatment, and the calculated appeal to the intended audience, all appear to the Board to raise serious concerns about the acceptability of the work to public opinion. Taken together with the harm issues,
and potential breach of the law, these concerns about acceptability strengthen the basis for refusal of classification.
The Board considered whether cutting the work would be a viable alternative to refusing a classification certificate. However,
the essential difficultly with Terrorists, Killers and Other Wackos lies not so much with any particular images (most of which would have been acceptable in a different, more serious, context) but with the manner in which the images are presented,
and with the underlying, exploitative purpose of the work. Cuts would therefore be unlikely to modify the tone and overall effect of the work acceptably.
Availability
Current UK Status: Banned from sale
A warning that Customs have jumped on BBFC concerns and have decided that this video is obscene and liable to seizure.
The 1975 cinema release was famously banned. It wasn't formally rejected on video, but it was put on hold by James Ferman who refused to consider the possibility of making an acceptable version.
Tobe Hooper's
seminal horror film was first seen informally by the BBFC's Secretary, Stephen Murphy, on 27 February 1975. Murphy regarded it as a good, well-made film but felt strongly that the level of terrorisation, particularly towards the end of the film, and the
film's focus on abnormal psychology was unsuitable for a BBFC X certificate to be issued. The distributor reacted to this advice by making some minor reductions in the final scenes of terrorisation, formally submitting a slightly truncated
version on 12 March 1975.
The ban persisted until 1999. An official BBFC comment from their website just before the granting of the cinema certificate in 1999 read:
Most questions about THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (and
sequels) assume that the problem is one of violence or horror. In fact the reason that the film was refused certification was the result of the perceived degree of terrorisation of women and threat to defenceless women. The Board has for many years
operated a very strict policy with regard to sexual violence, based on the incidence of this sort of behaviour in real life and the fact that a great deal of research does indicate that this is the one area where media representations do seem to have
quite direct effects on attitudes and behaviour. The film was rejected by the Board on film and is most unlikely to be classified on video, where the law demands a stricter test, under amendments to the Video Recording Act 1984 contained in the Criminal
Justice & Public Order Act 1994.
The BBFC finally relented on their ban in 1999 when they passed the cinema release and subsequent video/DVD versions 18 uncut with the following comment:
The notoriety of the film
may owe a lot to its original rejection by the BBFC in 1975. It was passed for viewing in Europe, the USA, Australia and other countries. It received a GLC licence in the 1970s and was most recently shown in central London in 1998 under a licence from
Camden Council. There is, so far as the Board is aware, no evidence that harm has ever arisen as a consequence of viewing the film. For modern young adults, accustomed to the macabre shocks of horror films through the 1980s and 1990s, THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW
MASSACRE is unlikely to be particularly challenging. Unlike more recent examples of the genre, violence in THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE is throughout implied rather than explicit. By today's standards, its visual effects may seem relatively
unconvincing.
Possibly the most notorious feature is the relentless pursuit of the 'Final Girl' throughout the last half hour or so of the film. The heroine in peril is a staple of the cinema since the earliest days. It is
nonetheless legitimate to question the unusual emphasis THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE places on the pursuit of a defenceless and screaming female over such an extended period. The Board's conclusion, after careful consideration, was that any
possible harm that might arise in terms of the effect upon a modern audience would be more than sufficiently countered by the unrealistic, even absurd, nature of the action itself. It is worth emphasising that there is no explicit sexual element in the
film, and relatively little visible violence.
Summary Review: Classic of its generation
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is undoubtedly one of the scariest films ever made and its raw power remains undiminished
to this very day. Tobe Hooper somehow created a genuine fright machine which changed the face of the horror genre completely.
The story revolves around a group of teenagers being chased, terrified and murdered when they
stumble upon a canabilistic family in the countryside. The main character, Leatherface, who's remorseless killings were loosely based on real life 1950's Texan murderer Ed Gein.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a
classic of its generation and deserves to be part of any respectable film collection. Just don't watch it alone.
Availability
The 1975 cinema release was famously banned.
A pre-cut version was passed X by the GLC for a
London 1975 cinema release
The film was shown in some others towns with a local authority certificate overruling the BBFC ban but the BBFC ban was enforced in others
The Pre-cert VHS was released uncut on the Wizard label in 1981
At around this
time, the BBFC was once again asked to consider cuts for a legitimate video release but failed to see how an acceptable version could be produced. The film therefore fell into limbo and was removed from the shelves following the introduction of the Video
Recordings Act.
Passed 18 uncut by Camden Council in London for a Camden 1998 cinema release.
It was given a late night screening at the 1998 London Film Festival and then ran successfully in Camden at the beginning of 1999.
The BBFC finally
relented on their ban in 1999 when they passed the cinema release and subsequent video/DVD versions 18 uncut.
Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut
Passed 18 uncut after the BBFC finally relented on their ban for:
The Texas Vibrator Massacre is a 2008 USA adult horror by Rob Rotten. Starring Roxy DeVille, Jamie Elle and Daisy Tanks.
Banned by the BBFC for 2008 DVD. Uncut ad MPAA Unrated in the US.
Summary Notes
A group of friends lost in the back roads of Texas become separated after picking up
a deranged hitchhiker, and find themselves at the mercy of the murderous Leatherface and his family of perverted cannibals.
The BBFC has rejected the DVD The Texas Vibrator Massacre which means that it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK.
The Texas Vibrator Massacre takes the form
of a sex work (that is to say a work whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation) based loosely upon the notorious 1974 horror film, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. In the majority of its scenes the work eroticises sexual and sexualised violence
to a highly significant degree and, although self-consciously excessive in nature, the conflation throughout of sexually arousing material with credible violence, forced sex and sadistic sexual threat gives rise to a serious and sustained breach of the
Board's sexual violence policy. In addition, the scenes of simulated incest between brother and sister are in clear breach of the Board's Guidelines for sex works, which prohibit 'material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in a
sexually abusive activity (eg paedophillia, incest, rape)'.
The BBFC's Guidelines identify as of particular concern 'graphic rape or torture', 'sadistic violence or terrorisation' and 'sex accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury or
humiliation'. Furthermore, the Board's 'R18' Guidelines, which apply equally to 'sex works' at '18', state that the following elements are unacceptable: 'the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated)',
'the infliction of pain or physical harm, real or (in a sexual context) simulated' and 'any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game'.
It is the Board's carefully considered view that
to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults, would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm within the terms of the VRA, and would be unacceptable to the public.
US Short videos rejected in August 1992 with the following
justification:
Both American 'tickler' films purported to be light hearted comedy dramas about the tickling of captive women by their kidnappers, but turned out to be a thinly veiled excuse for forcible stripping and sexual
abuse.
Traces of Death is a 1993 USA horror documentary by John Alan Schwartz. Starring Damon Fox, Maritza Martin Munoz and Emilio Nunez.
Banned by the BBFC for 2005 DVD. Uncut and MPAA Unrated in the US.
UK: Banned by the BBFC for:
UK 2005 Crypt Keeper DVD
The BBFC explained their ban:
Traces of Death comprises a compilation of uncontextualised clips showing real killings, suicides, medical operations, fatal accidents, autopsies and other distressing images
. The work presents no journalistic, educational or other justifying context for the images shown. Rather, the work presents a barrage of sensationalist clips, for what appears to be the underlying purpose of providing prurient entertainment. That this
is the essential purpose of the work is reinforced by the addition of a sparse but sensationalist voice-over, which deliberately makes light of human death, pain and suffering. Some of the most graphic clips are needlessly repeated in slow motion,
further underlining the prurient and exploitative nature of the work.
The Board carefully considered the work in the light of our Guidelines and the tests set down by the Video Recordings Act. A key consideration is the question of any harm that
might be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society because of the manner in which the work deals with violence and "horrific behaviour or incidents". The Board has concluded that the video is potentially harmful because of the
influence it may have on the attitudes and behaviour of at least some intended or potential viewers. By presenting actual human death, mutilation and suffering as entertainment, the work has the potential to desensitise viewers, and perhaps even to
incite some to harm others. The work invites the viewer to take sadistic pleasure in death, injury, mutilation and pain and encourages callousness towards victims. Given the flippant and sensationalist nature of the occasional voice over, the work is
perhaps especially likely to appeal to the juvenile humour of young and impressionable persons (whatever its classification). The Board considers that the work may have a significant brutalising effect on their attitude to human life and pain.
Given the potential for the work to deaden the sensitivity of viewers to pain and suffering and to impair the moral development of younger viewers in particular, the Board also considers that the work raises serious concerns about possible breach of the Obscene Publications Act. This Act makes it an offence to distribute any work that, taken as a whole, has a tendency to deprave and corrupt (i.e. make morally bad) a significant proportion of those likely to see it.
A further consideration for the Board is that of public acceptability. (This is the ground on which, for instance, the Board has regard to issues of bad language.) In this case the combination of the shocking and distressing images in the work,
the lack of any justifying context, the editorial treatment, and the and the possible appeal to a young audience, all appear to the Board to raise serious concerns about the acceptability of the work to public opinion. Taken together with the harm
issues, and potential breach of the law, these concerns about acceptability strengthen the basis for refusal of classification.
The Board considered whether cutting the work would be a viable alternative to refusing a classification certificate.
However, the essential difficultly with Traces of Death lies not so much with any particular images (most of which would have been acceptable in a different, more serious, context) but with the manner in which the images are presented, and with the
underlying, exploitative purpose of the work. Cuts would therefore be unlikely to modify the tone and overall effect of the work acceptably.
Summary Notes
Traces of Death is a collection of
archive film and borrowed stock footage. In its opening you see the death of a woman named Maritza Martin, who was gunned down by her ex-husband on Spanish language television. We then witness British SAS troopers storming the Iranian Embassy in 1980,
this is followed by a police chase of a criminal in a pick up truck and the deadly finale. It then goes to footage of animal experiments with a grizzly scene of a live pig being burned alive with a torch. Autopsy footage is then shown of an Asian
individual. We are then shown a very graphic presentation on a male to female sex change operation. One interesting scene has a man who had his nasal cavity removed and replaced with a prosthetic, the footage is most interesting and worth the price of
admission. The producers then suddenly return to the death theme with the well known footage of R Budd Dwyer and his on air suicide with a .357 Magnum, followed by a look at one of the most notorious Nazi villains...
Availability
Current UK Status: Still banned
US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:
US 2003 Brain Damage 9th Anniversary Collector's Edition R1 DVD
The Trip is a 1967 USA drama by Roger Corman. With Peter Fonda, Susan Strasberg and Bruce Dern.
Banned by the BBFC for:
1988 Rank VHS
1980 cinema release
1971 cinema release
1967 cinema release
James Ferman was quoted as saying In the wrong hands , a tremendous advertisement for LSD .
Later passed 18 uncut for TV in 2002 and DVD in 2004
Summary Review: Far out man!
Paul Groves (Peter Fonda), a television commercial director, is in the midst of a personality crisis. His wife Sally (Susan Strasberg) has left him and he seeks the help of his friend John (Bruce Dern), a self-styled guru who's an advocate of LSD. Paul asks John to be the guide on his first "trip". John takes Paul to a "freak-out" at his friend Max's (Dennis Hopper) pad.
The superb title music by Electric Flag sets the scene for one of the most adventurous of cinematic offerings.
Just why it was banned is unknown and seemingly absurd, of course it portrays drug
taking with little emphasis on the dangers surrounding such indulgence, but to argue depiction of such behaviour promotes others to follow suit would suggest that all films with any violence or portrayal of war should also be banned.
Besides the beauty of the film renders all objections irrelevant. It offers stunning visuals and great actors. A real slice of psychedelic culture and despite seeming slightly dated, has it's heart in the right place. Far out man!
1997 US sex video by Michael Zen (Sheptonhurst), rejected in April 1999
Intended for an R18 certificate and at one time offered a cuts list of 2:57s. However a change of heart at the BBFC/Home Office has halted the
liberalisation process and the ban is being appealed.
Not too sure yet of the details but refused a video certificate in November 2000. Rejected previously in 1996
Rejected in December 1996 with the following justification:
Rejected on the grounds of its
pornographic treatment of sexual violence. This involved children in the abuse and physical mutilation of women. in one scene a boy of 10 or 11 years old is sexually assaulted by two naked women and saves himself by tearing them apart, stripping the
flesh off one and ripping the other's buttocks apart. Children become voyeurs of adult sex, instigating and viewing orgies and applauding the rape of pubescent children. As so often in Manga cartoons, these are tentacled multi-orifice rapes by lecherous
monsters, which the Board found depraving and corrupting.
The BBFC justified their decision in 2000 as follows:
This is the second time that this work has been refused video classification by the BBFC.
Throughout the work, there are realistic animated representations of children involved in sexual acts and perceived as sexual objects, or witnessing sexual acts. The Board's concern about the attractiveness of such material to
paedophiles, and the appeal of the cartoon style to young children who would thereby be more vulnerable to its use by paedophiles to entice them, was confirmed by advice from a Consultant Clinical Psychologist. It is therefore unsuitable for
classification under the Video Recordings Act 1984.
Before rejection, the Board carefully considered whether cuts would remove the dangers. However, they would have to be so extensive that no viable version of the work would
remain. Indeed, it is doubtful if any version of the work would be acceptable.
The BBFC rejected this one because of its callous exploitation of women, especially in the context of sexual violence and
humiliation. (from the original rejection letter).
Visions of Ecstasy is a 1989 UK erotic short by Nigel Wingrove. With Louise Downie, Elisha Scott and Dan Fox.
Banned by the BBFC for 1989 video release on grounds of blasphemy. the ban was challenged and upheld by the Video Appeals Committee and then the European Court of Human Rights. The blasphemy law was repealed in 2008 and the BBFC ban
was revoked for an uncut 18 rated DVD release in 2012.
1989. Visions of Ecstasy was originally banned by the BBFC
for 1989 Axel VHS. It was t he only film banned in the UK solely on grounds of blasphemy.
1989 . The BBFC decision was subsequently appealed to the Video Appeals
Committee who upheld the ban.
1996. Director Nigel Wingrove then took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, but again lost his case. Mark Kermode explained:
Visions of Ecstasy, an innocuous (if rather
silly) short film depicting 'the ecstatic and erotic visions of St Teresa of Avila was banned in the UK in 1989. In the film, St Teresa is first seduced by her own sexual psyche, and then mounts and caresses the crucified body of Christ. Technical
shortcomings notwithstanding (hands which seem to move freely despite apparently being nailed down) the film raised a problem for the BBFC, which is forbidden from classifying material which may infringe the laws of the land.
Despite support from
the likes of Derek Jarman, the BBFC concluded that, if prosecuted, a 'reasonable jury' was likely to convict Visions of Ecstasy as blasphemous. Not to be defeated, director Nigel Wingrove took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that
the very existence of a blasphemy law contravened the freedoms of expression enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.
In a mealy-mouthed ruling, the Court agreed that Freedom of expression constitutes one of the
essential foundations of a democratic society , but with the caveat that freedom carries with it duties and responsibilities including a duty to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to objects of veneration [i.e.
religion], gratuitously offensive to others and profanatory . Which effectively meant that Wingrove was allowed his freedom of expression unless such freedom offended his Christian peers. In which case, he wasn't...
2008. Section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act abolished
the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
2012. Visions of Ecstasy was resubmitted to the BBFC and passed 18 uncut for nudity and sex involving religious images for DVD. The BBFC explained in a press release:
Visions of Ecstasy is a 19 minute short film, featuring a sequence in which a figure representing St Teresa of Avila interacts sexually with a figure representing the crucified Christ. When the film was originally submitted to
the BBFC in 1989, for video classification only, the Board refused to issue a classification certificate. This decision was taken on the grounds that the publication of the film, which the issue of a BBFC certificate would permit, might constitute an
offence under the common law test of blasphemous libel.
The Board is required, as part of the terms of its designation under the Video Recordings Act 1984, to seek to avoid classifying any work that might infringe the criminal
law. Therefore, the Board had no alternative at the time but to refuse a classification. The Board's decision to refuse a classification to the film was subsequently upheld by the independent Video Appeals Committee.
In 2008,
section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. This means that the BBFC is no longer entitled to consider whether the publication of the film might comprise a blasphemous
libel.
The BBFC has carefully considered Visions of Ecstasy in terms of its current classification Guidelines. These reflect both the requirements of UK law and the wishes of the UK public, as expressed through regular
large scale consultation exercises. With the abolition of the offence of blasphemy, the Board does not consider that the film is in breach of any other UK law that is currently in force. Nor does the Board regard the film as likely to cause harm to
viewers in the terms envisioned by the Video Recordings Act.
The Board recognises that the content of the film may be deeply offensive to some viewers. However, the Board's Guidelines reflect the clear view of the public that
adults should have the right to choose their own viewing, provided that the material in question is neither illegal nor harmful. In the absence of any breach of UK law and the lack of any credible risk of harm, as opposed to mere offensiveness, the Board
has no sustainable grounds on which to refuse a classification to Visions of Ecstasy in 2012. Therefore the film has been classified for video release at 18 without cuts.
Availability
Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut
UK: Passed 18 uncut for nudity and sex involving religious images for:
UK 2012 4Digital/Redemption [Visions of Ecstasy + Sacred Flesh] R2 DVD
at UK Amazon
US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:
US 2012 Sacrament [Visions of Ecstasy + Sacred Flesh] R1 DVD at US Amazon
2005 US comedy TV series, DVD extra rejected in
2007
BBFC justification:
Cream of the Crop is a 5 minute DVD extra for the US TV show Weeds. It consists of a segment, filmed in the style of a cookery programme, in which a member of the cast introduces
the viewer to his top 5 varieties of marijuana. He extols the virtues of each variety in terms of its flavour and effects and encourages viewers to obtain and partake in marijuana.
Although the Board accepts that the work is
played with a certain degree of knowing humour, it is clear that the lack of any other content or context means that the likely effect of the work, taken as a whole, is to promote and encourage the use of illegal drugs. The Board's Guidelines state that
No work taken as a whole may promote or encourage the use of illegal drugs
Availability
Banned in UK
Possibly will be included in the US release available to order on
US Amazon
Two juvenile delinquents break into a luxury house where they rape two women. They settle in the
house, sell the valuables and kill a curious neighbour.
Women in Cellblock 9 is a 1978 Switzerland action crime horror by Jesús Franco. With Karine Gambier, Howard Vernon and Susan Hemingway.
UK: Banned by the BBFC and UK law for strong sexualised violence and an under
18 actress in sex scenes:
Anchor Bay Entertainment UK Video
The BBFC commented:
Women in Cellblock 9 contains many sequences depicting the abuse, torture and humiliation of naked women. These sequences were found to be in conflict with the Board's published classification
guidelines, which prohibit scenes that eroticise or endorse sexual assault. The Board's strict stance on titillatory sexual violence is supported both by public opinion and by a large body of media effects research.
In addition,
The Protection of Children Act, as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, makes the distribution and showing of indecent photographs of a child under the age of 18 a criminal offence. One of the lead actresses in Women in Cellblock 9 was just over 16
at the time the film was made. The Board was in no doubt that many of the sexualised scenes involving her would therefore be illegal. Although the amendment will not take effect until May 2004, the BBFC cannot classify material which would be in
circulation in breach of the Act.; The Board considered the option of cutting the work. However, the quantity of scenes involving eroticised sexual violence, combined with the indecent photographs of a person under 18, meant that cuts were not a viable
option.
Summary Review: For the sex & gore crowd
This sexploiter was quite clearly made for the sex & gore crowd. Thus we have here several beautiful
women (nude most of the time), who are imprisoned and raped and tortured and raped and killed and raped.
We normally criticise movie characters as two-dimensional when they are underwritten - here even
"one-dimensional" would give too much credit
Compared to other Franco flicks the cinematography is exceptionally good and at times even inspirational. The sets are fine too, although it has to be said that torturing instruments that are
meant to aid interrogation completely fail their purpose if they almost instantaneously kill.
