Hardcore DVD  Online Sex Shops  Magazines	Sex Shops List Satellite X Channels Internet Video

September 2003

  The Piano Teacher on Channel 4

Channel 4 will not be showing The Piano Teacher uncut next week. The hardcore porn shown during the sex shop scene has been removed (not sure whether by cuts, optical reframing or blurring). There is actually a brief mention of this in the Radio Times listing ("edited for sexual content"). This is exactly the same situation as with The Idiots and (more recently) Whatever (L'Extension du Domaine de la Lutte) . Like The Piano Teacher , both of those films were transmitted uncut on Film Four but received cuts for hardcore footage and erections when transmitted on terrestrial television.

Although the ITC are prepared to accept hardcore scenes (provided they have been approved at '18' by the BBFC) on subscription TV, they are still not prepared to allow such material on terrestrial television.  It was  quite easy to edit the hardcore out of these three films without significantly damaging the plot but this is not true of other films. Romance  and Ai No Corrida have never appeared on Channel 4 (despite the fact that they would desperately like to show them). It would simply require too many cuts and would completely ruin the films.

Perhaps this will change in the future but don't hold your breath! In the ITC's view there is a fundamental difference between films shown on a minority channel which you have to actively subscribe to and free to air channels beamed into everybody's house.

As for Baise -Moi  on Sky, I can confirm that they are planning to transmit the BBFC video edit without further cuts (i.e. two cuts, totalling 12 seconds).

Nov 2000

  Making Sense of Censorship

FilmFour and the ICA organised an industry wide discussion day on the subject of censorship.

The day was to start with a speech from Robin Duval from the BBFC but he was too ill, following a car accident, so we saw a film instead, featuring him and other people talking about censorship (Mat Fraser being well anti, and Ken Russell arguing for TV censorship!). Then we were given the outcome of some recent research by Terry Watkins Research which used a sample of British households with multi-channel TVs. The participants generally wanted less censorship and said, when a film has been censored, they want to know how and why.

FilmFour submitted a discussion proposal based upon surveys showing that the public now believe that censorship for adults is largely unnecessary. The only thing we need of the regulators is for them to confirm legality and to provide age classification information that may be used by parents.

The conference was the split into groups who all discussed this 10 point plan each with a different emphasis. Most groups talked under 'Chatham House Rules' which ensure no attributable comments to participants. This enables representatives of some of the more formal organisations to speak openly without fear of come back. I was assigned to a group debating in public via a webcast.

The groups discussed the following:-

• Protection of the Innocent
• The Right to Taste and Decency
• Censorship in a Multicultural Society
• The Social Responsibility of the Broadcaster
• Technology and the Future: Consumer Choice and Viewing Mechanisms

We all agreed that children are being used as a scapegoat, similar to when they used to censor "to protect women". One parent said he was there representing children's rights. We generally agreed that the age to see and participate in porn should be 16 not 18. If you can marry at 16, you should be able to see films about sex! We wanted to include outlawing films which invade people's privacy.

In fact the conference proved to be pretty liberal on several issues. For example a sensible debate occurred about 16 being a better age than 18 for the viewing of porn. It was also widely accepted that S&M material is inherently consensual and should be removed from the current list of prohibitions.

The conference wrapped up with a panel discussion. The thoughtful BBFC examiner, Rana Johal gave the impression that the censors are well at ease with their recent decision to allow hardcore porn. This seemed to be appreciated by a large proportion of the audience. The focus of public concern seems to be shifting more towards the perceived demonic powers of the Internet, An AOL representative was certainly picking up more than a fair share of censorial questions.

The only negatives of the day were provided by Sheena McDonald chairing with a very flippant and negative approach to the subject matter and Guy Phelps from the ITC who got agitated by an extended discussion on porn and tried to dismiss the subject with a sweeping call to stop talking about porn and to talk about 'real' censorship. This transpired to be the commercial censorship that keeps world cinema off British TV.

FilmFour Press Release

A survey called Making Sense of Censorship commissioned by the FilmFour channel into attitudes towards censorship of films screened on television, reveals a highly media literate society who want less intervention and more information. The survey complements the Making Sense of Censorship event at the ICA on Friday 10^th November.  This is the first large-scale meeting of both pro and anti censorship groups and was convened by FilmFour to discuss current legislation in relation to a fast changing society.

The survey shows that while viewers have concerns over extremes of violence within feature films they are able to make a clear distinction between “real” and “cartoon” or “escapist” violence.

Making Sense of Censorship also reveals that the public does not share the commonly held belief that they need to be “protected” from the content of what is screened on television. Middle England expects less intervention from legislators but does want more facts and information so they, as viewers, can make informed decisions.  Demonstrating a clear understanding of the way society is changing, both socially and culturally, the survey shows that there is a clear understanding and trust of television brands which help them decide their viewing habits as well as provide the context for their expectations.

It also shows that the growth in access to the Internet and the lack of control in video stores are of greater concern than the issue of content of feature films screened on television:

• 64% of those surveyed believed that the Internet was a more significant issue than television.
• An overwhelming 77% of those polled stated that the cutting of films on television is the least favoured method of controlling the content.Those polled  preferred warnings and information prior to transmission over cuts to the content. 
• Only 11% favoured cuts as the preferred method of control
• 82% believed that it was their responsibility to decide on what is acceptable viewing for their families and households and that their choices on what to watch required clear information on content.  The figures rises to 98% in homes with children, as parents believe it is their responsibility to decide for their families.

  Audiences are taking greater responsibility for what they watch – they are “gatekeepers in their own household”.  64% of those polled believed current censorship legislation was unclear and believes it is as much about self-regulation as legislative regulation but that currently insufficient information is available to allow self-regulation.

  Nick Jones, Head of Film Programming, Channel 4 / FilmFour said: This survey puts the emphasis on facts rather than pre-conceived myths.  It shows that middle-England is more informed and wants to make its own choices about what they watch based on information and not the intervention of a “nanny state.  It is now time to take a hard look at confused legislation that assumes there is such as thing as the moral 'majority

May 2000

  FilmFour Claims to be Uncut

Early FilmFour advertising claimed that films were shown uncut. The reality of FilmFour's policy was that they did not make any further cuts to those imposed by the BBFC. The false advertising claims were then taken up with the Advertising Standards Association (ASA) with the following result in May 2000

Complaint

Objections to national press advertisements, direct mailings and an internet advertisement, for a broadcast film channel, that stated “Films uncut and uninterrupted. Just as the director intended. No compromises”. The complainants, who believed the advertisers were required by the Independent Television Commission (ITC) to censor films to the same degree as a British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)-cut video version, challenged the claim.
 

Adjudication

Complaints upheld

The advertisers said they operated a premium subscription film channel that had gained a reputation as the “film buff’s film channel”. They maintained that their reputation was built on high editorial standards and quality control. They said they restored titles to the “director’s cut” wherever possible; they claimed that they proactively restored films to their original versions if their age or changes in the BBFC regulations allowed it.

The advertisers asserted that they showed advertisements only between films: all films were shown “uninterrupted”. They believed their audience was aware of the ITC Programme Code, which limited the broadcast of certain material; they considered that viewers would interpret the claim in that context.

The advertisers nevertheless accepted that they were subject to ITC regulations. They explained that in 1999 they showed BBFC-censored video-certificated versions of 22 films: those comprised 1.6% of all films shown. They said that if possible they reframed shots or “pixillated” them instead of removing sections of footage. The advertisers supplied the titles of those films that they had restored for broadcast and those films for which the BBFC video-certificated version was a slightly censored version of that shown in cinemas.

The advertisers’ analysis showed that most films broadcast with BBFC-enforced cuts for video certification had had less than one minute of footage removed. The Authority acknowledged that the advertisers showed films uninterrupted by advertisements. It nevertheless noted that 22 films had been broadcast in a censored version. Although it understood that the advertisers were bound by the ITC Programme Code, the Authority considered that the claim “Films uncut … Just as the director intended” was not true of all films broadcast by the channel. The Authority asked the advertisers to consult the Committee of Advertising Practice Copy Advice team before advertising again.

Sept 1986

  Red Triangle Films

Channel 4 experimented with the idea of identifying adult films with an onscreen "Red Triangle" symbol (actually a bit of a misnomer - it was a white triangle with red edging). The official C4 term was Special Discretion Required.

The experiment was never continued possibly because of the ensuing notoriety.

The films shown were

19/09/86 Themroc (1972, "Invented Language")
03/10/86 Pastoral Hide-and-See (1974, Japanese)
10/10/86 Throw Away Your Books; Let's Go Into the Streets (1971, Japanese, TV Version)
17/10/86 Identification of a Woman (1982, Italian/French)
24/10/86 Pixote (1981, Brazilian)
31/10/86 The Clinic (1982, Australian)
14/11/86 Montenegro, or: Pigs and Pearls (1981, Swedish/British, with a Yugoslavian director!)
28/11/86 No Mercy, No Future (1981, West German)
10/01/87 Out of the Blue (1980, American)
17/01/87 The Wall (1983, Turkish)