| 2nd February |
|
|
| Radio Times asks the BBFC what's changed in 25 years to enable banned films to be unbanned Permalink
|
See article
from radiotimes.com
|
Following
Salo, Ai No Corrida and Cannibal Holocaust, the BBFC
has recently granted another notorious banned film, Visions of Ecstasy,
an 18 certificate.
The film was outlawed for 23 years in this country for
fear of its release breaking UK blasphemy laws, but following the repeal of
those laws and the film's subsequent resubmission to the Board, it will
finally be issued legally and fully uncut in the UK later this year.
One of the most puzzling things about censorship from
the public's point of view is the apparently arbitrary way in which films
are cut, banned and un-banned in Britain. For instance, the video nasties
of the early 1980s were once the subject of media hysteria and bans, but
today almost all of them can be bought entirely legally in your local DVD
emporium. What's changed? Why are they no longer a threat to society?
[...er because 25 years is an awfully long time...]
...Read the full article
|
| 1st February |
|
|
| Visions of Ecstasy unbanned by the BBFC as a result of repealed blasphemy laws Permalink full story: Visions of Ecstasy...Resurrected after years of being banned for blasphemy
|
|
|
Visions
of Ecstasy is a 1989 UK erotic short by Nigel Wingrove.
With Louise Downie, Elisha Scott and Dan Fox. See
IMDb It was originally banned by the BBFC for a 1989 Axel VHS.
It was the only film banned in the UK solely on grounds of
blasphemy.
The BBFC decision was subsequently appealed to the Video Appeals
Committee, who upheld the ban. Then director
Nigel Wingrove
then took his
case to the European Court of Human Rights, but again lost his case. In 2008, section 79 of the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and
blasphemous libel. And now the film has been passed 18 uncut for a 2012 4Digital
home video release.
But don't expect too much. Director Nigel Wingrove was a bit defensive
when
talking to the BBFC:
If I made the film now I would make it very
differently, I was exploring areas of dark eroticism, but I had worked
chiefly in prints, not films.
People say I should put it out, but on a personal
level I have reservations. If I did release it, I would need to put it
into context and perhaps release a documentary to accompany it.
The
film has now been passed 18 uncut for nudity and sex involving religious
images for:
- UK 2012 4DigitalRedemption R2 DVD
at
UK Amazon for release 26th March 2012
The BBFC have explained their decision to unban the film 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.
|
| 30th January |
|
|
| Andrea Leadsom meets the BBFC to discuss ratings for sex education material Permalink full story: Andrea Leadsom...With a bee in her bonnet about a BBFC censored sex education
|
See article
from thehunsburyherald.com
|
MP
Andrea Leadsom has long been campaigning that kids are shown sex education
material that is too mature for them. She is suggesting that BBFC should rate
such material prior to its use in schools etc. She is probably onto a loser
though, as the BBFC would surely give a well considered rating, with no room
whatsoever for any moral/religious/decency angle that Leadsom may be
hoping for. It is hard to imagine that the BBFC would be far out of line with
the education experts that are currently approving the material for school use
anyway.
Nevertheless Leadsom has had a meeting with the BBFC to discuss the
possibility of the body rating school sex education material.
The BBFC were reported to have expressed surprise that the BBC do not
have their sex education material rated when they voluntarily have
programmes such as The Blue Planet rated, despite there being no
sensitive or controversial content and no requirement to have it rated as it
is a documentary.
Leadsom said:
It seems bizarre that when some parents are so
deeply concerned at what they consider to be sensitive material being
shown to their children, the BBC and Channel 4 have chosen not to have
their SRE material rated by an independent agency.
|
| 28th January |
|
|
| The latest BBFC podcast discusses sex at each age category Permalink
|
See
article from
bbfc.co.uk
|
The
latest episode 3 of the BBFC podcast series features the latest film and BBFC
news.
The topic for discussion is classifying sex and sex references, across the age
categories.
|
| 25th January |
|
|
| The CPS still stands by its ludicrous opinion that the sight of an actress licking urine tends to deprave and corrupt R18 viewers Permalink full story: Obscenity in the UK...Gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM found not obscene by jury
|
Thanks to Sergio
|
The
BBFC published it's decision to make cuts to the R18 adult DVD titled
The Best of Lucy Law. It cut 2:35s with the comment:
Cuts were required to remove the clear indication
that one woman is licking urine from another, penetration with an object
with potential to cause physical harm, and dialogue encouraging an
interest in breath restriction. Cuts made in line with current
interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, BBFC Guidelines
and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.
This decision was published after the R v Peacock case where a jury
unanimously cleared films depicting full on urolagnia of obscenity.
Sergio enquired of the BBFC whether anything has changed regarding the R
V Peacock case and received an email from the BBFC:
The role of the BBFC is not to decide the law but to
enforce it, and in this we will be guided by the law enforcement
agencies. In relation to this case, the CPS have stated that the fact
that a jury has acquitted someone does not mean that the guidance is
incorrect.
There are no current plans to revise our Guidelines.
Yours sincerely,
J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)
|
| 19th January |
|
|
| BBFC still believe that the sight of an actress licking urine can deprave and corrupt R18 viewers Permalink
|
See article
from bbfc.co.uk
|
The
BBFC have just published it's decision to make cuts to the R18 adult DVD titled
The Best of Lucy Law.
It cut 2:35s with the comment:
Cuts were required to remove the clear indication
that one woman is licking urine from another, penetration with an object
with potential to cause physical harm, and dialogue encouraging an
interest in breath restriction. Cuts made in line with current
interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, BBFC Guidelines
and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.
So even after such a resounding decision to find urolagnia to be not
obscene in the only jury case in recent memory, then the BBFC is still
citing bollox that licking urine could somehow deprave and corrupt R18
viewers.
Methinks the censors have watched a few too many golden showers movies
themselves.
Update: And Another
20th January 2012. See article
from bbfc.co.uk
Slam It! in a Slut.
The BBFC cuts 20s commenting:
A cut was required to remove sight of a female
performer expelling urine directly onto a man underneath her. Cut made
in accordance with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications
Act 1959.
|
| 18th January |
|
|
| New movie Eldorado said to be delayed over BBFC cuts for an 18 certificate Permalink
|
See article
from facebook.com
|
Eldordo
is a new UK comedy horror by Richard Driscoll with Steven Craine, Darren Morgan,
Peter O'Toole, Steve Guttenberg, Daryl Hannah
The publicity material reads:
The evening was going to be a normal Blues Brothers
tribute show for Oliver and Stanley Rosenblum, The Jews Brothers till
their agent JJ decides to send them to a mythical western town called
Eldorado. With Cannibals, music and dancing this is not what Oliver and
Stanley expected, especially when they find out that they are the main
course of the day.
Intriguingly Richard Driscoll notes on the movie's Facebook page:
Due to an ongoing battle with the BBFC for an 18
certification, Eldorado's initial release on Jan 30th will be in 2D
only. We have also decided to postpone the premiere until the 25th June,
the date of the exclusive Blu-ray 3D release, as we feel that the
premiere should be enjoyed in 3D.
Update: Hype
25th January 2012.
The latest Facebook entry by Richard Driscoll reads:
Great news...after much deliberation the BBFC have
given Eldorado a 15 certificate with no cuts! However the time taken to
reach a decision has meant that the scheduled release will be delayed by
a week.
|
| 11th January |
|
|
| J. Edgar rated 15 for infrequent strong language Permalink
|
Thanks to goatboy
See
article from
bbfc.co.uk
|
The
BBFC have rated Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar as 17 for infrequent strong
language.
The decision is explained in the Extended Classification Information:
J. EDGAR is a biopic of J.Edgar Hoover, the founder
and head of the FBI. It was classified 15 for infrequent strong
language.
The BBFC's Guidelines at 12A/12 state The use of
strong language (for example, 'fuck') must be infrequent. The film
contains only one use of 'f***ing', which would have been permissible at
12A. However, it also contains two uses of cruder language (in this case
'c***sucker') that were more appropriately classified at 15 where the
Guidelines state There may be frequent use of strong language. None of
the language is personally directed or accompanied by violence, but is
spoken in a derogatory manner about political opponents who are not
present at the time.
The film also contains some moderate violence during
shootouts between police and mobsters. However, the violence is almost
always bloodless and lacking in injury detail.
...
The film also contains some mild bad language, such
as damn and Jesus Christ. There are a couple of uses of
the term negro, although the term is not used in a pejorative
sense, simply reflecting the common terminology of the period in which
the film is set. The historical nature of the term and the lack of
intent to offend is reinforced by sight of Martin Luther King using it
himself in a televised speech.
Seems a bit harsh, but the US film censors seemed to agree that J. Edgar went
beyond PG-13 and rated the film as R.
Interesting to note the inconsistent use of asterisks in the BBFC piece. It let
one 'fuck' through but censored the next. Is this the BBFC keeping the page
itself down to a 12 rating?
|
| 7th January |
|
|
| Jury clears gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM DVDs of obscenity Permalink full story: Obscenity in the UK...Gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM found not obscene by jury
|
See article
from solicitorsjournal.com
|
R
v Peacock
Michael Peacock has been acquitted of all charges after a unanimous jury
decision to find Peacock not guilty on 6 counts of obscenity.
Michael Peacock (referred to in the gay porn world as Sleazy Michael) had been
charged for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs including representation of gay
fisting, urolagnia and BDSM.
The trial was heard before the Southwark Crown Court. The
films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the
fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating
in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in
this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and
electrical torture). Also there was an example of a staged non
consensual scene.
The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous
deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is
obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener.
The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:
An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its
effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the
effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend
to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all
relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or
embodied in it.
Peacock was represented by Nigel Richardson and Sandra Paul of Hodge
Jones and Allen
Myles Jackman, a solicitor specialising in obscenity law, said this
outcome was a significant victory for common sense suggesting that the
OPA has been rendered irrelevant in the digital age.
In a tweet, Jackman said that SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit dealing
with human exploitation and organised crime, will meet with the Crown
Prosecution Service and the British Board of Film Classification to review
guidelines on obscenity.
And of course the authorities will be considering whether the law itself
now needs changing. No doubt nutter campaigners will now be pushing for
something new to replace the OPA now that it no longer supports their
censorial views.
Speculation: So what may be the outcome at least
in terms of BBFC censorship of R18s?
The
BBFC have been cutting all such material citing the current interpretation
of the Obscene Publications Act. But now of course this will change. The
BBFC will still be at liberty to cut scenes off their own bat. And indeed
the board has been regularly cutting scenes involving penetration by objects
that could possibly result in harm justified via its own guidelines.
I think there will be a few changes welcomed by all sides. The current
prohibition of female squirting leaves everyone totally baffled as to why.
This prohibition can now be rapidly dropped. Perhaps urolagnia can now be
generally allowed albeit with restrictions when it is considered by the
censors to be degrading.
Perhaps something similar with fisting which could be generally allowed
with a proviso that it must not be seen to be causing any discomfort to
those participating.
The BDSM issue is not going to be easy. The current ban is at least easy
to explain. To allow any level of hurt beyond trifling may prove very
difficult to define. Maybe it is still banned by legislation examined during
the notable Spanner Case, the judgement of which basically disallows people
from giving consent to be hurt. So perhaps the BBFC will just switch
justifications but continue to ban BDSM.
And I don't suppose that the non-consensual scene will impact BBFC
guidelines at all. This will no doubt continue to be banned from R18s.
|
|
BBFC
British Board of Film Classification
The BBFC is an independent company tasked with UK film,
video and games censorship. It is funded through
classification fees.
The BBFC role is different for cinema, home media and online. For cinema the BBFC
historically represented the interests of the film industry to ensure
that film makers avoided legal issues
from obscenity law etc. BBFC cinema ratings are advisory and the
ultimate censorship responsibility lies with local authorities. In the
vast majority of cases BBFC advice is accepted by councils. But advice
has often been overruled to ban BBFC certificated films or to allow BBFC
banned films.
For home video, DVD, Blu-ray and some video games, the
BBFC acts as a government designated censor. BBFC decisions are enforced
by law via the Video Recordings Act of 2010.
For online films the BBFC offers a voluntary scheme of reusing BBFC
vide certificates for online works. The BBFC will also rate online
exclusive material if requested. Note that the Video Recordings Act does
not apply online and content is only governed by the law of the land,
particularly the Obscene Publications Act and Dangerous Pictures Act. The BBFC is due to relinquish responsibility for video
games in late 2011. The Video Standards Council will take over the role
and ratings will be provided using Europe wide PEGI ratings and symbols.
BBFC Directors:
- John Trevelyan 1958-1971
- Stephen Murphy 1971-1975
- James Ferman 1975-1999
- Robin Duval 1999-2004
- David Cooke 2004-present
BBFC Ratings:
- U: Universal: Suitable for all
- PG: Parental Guidance: General viewing, but some scenes may be
unsuitable for young children
- 12A: Suitable for 12 years and over.
No-one younger than 12 may see a ‘12A’ film in a cinema unless
accompanied by an adult. [cinema only]
- 12: Suitable for 12
years and over. No-one younger than 12 may rent or buy a ‘12’ rated
video or DVD. Responsibility for allowing under-12s to view lies with
the accompanying or supervising adult.. [home media only]
- 15: No-one younger than
15 may see a ‘15’ film in a cinema. No-one younger than 15 may rent or
buy a ‘15’ rated video or DVD.
- 18: No-one younger than
18 may see an ‘18’ film in a cinema. No-one younger than 18 may rent or
buy an ‘18’ rated video.
- R18: To be
supplied only in licensed sex shops to persons of not less than 18 years.
Hardcore pornography is allowed in this category
- Rejected. The BBFC has the power to ban the sale of home media. A
rejected cinema film may be shown with permission of the local
authority.
Not that rejected home media is banned from sale. It
is not generally illegal to possess. However criminal law
makes it illegal to possess child & extreme porn.
Websites:
BBFC
Parent's BBFC
Student's BBFC
Children's BBFC
Melon Farmers Pages:
|
|