The BBFC have banned a gay DVD submitted for an R18.

Few details are provided about the film but it is probably from the Lost in the Hood series by Edward James

The BBFC explained their ban:

Lost in the Hood is a US sex work focusing exclusively on the abduction and rape of a number of men. In each scenario, we see the predatory male characters choose a victim who appears to have become lost in the hood (ie a bad neighbourhood in the United States). They then abduct their chosen victim and force him to engage in sexual acts with them against his will. Each scene places a strong emphasis on the non consensual nature of the sex, with the victims pleading to be released, showing discomfort and making unsuccessful attempts to escape. Similarly, the perpetrators display a high level of physical and verbal aggression. By presenting the spectacle of sexual violence within the context of an explicit sex work, whose primary intention is to sexually arouse the viewer, Lost in the Hood has the effect of eroticising and endorsing sexual violence in a potentially harmful fashion.

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 2009. 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 reflect the serious concerns that exist about the portrayal of sexual violence.

The Guidelines for the R18 category requested for this video work state that the following content is not acceptable: material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example [...] rape),the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated),any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game. Strong physical or verbal abuse, even if consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable. Under the heading of Compulsory Cuts, the Board's Guidelines identify as of particular concern sexual violence or sexualised violence which endorses or eroticises the behaviour. Additionally, under the heading of Violence, the Board's Guidelines state that 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 [...] Any association of sex with non-consensual restraint, pain or humiliation may be cut.

Of course, the Board will always seek to deal with such concerns by means of cuts or other modifications when this is a feasible option. However, under the heading of Rejects our Guidelines state that If the central concept of a work is unacceptable (for example, a sex work with a rape theme), or if the changes required would be extensive or complex, the work may be rejected, ie refused a classification at any category.

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 considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, given that the central concept of the work is unacceptable and 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.

My Daughter's a Cocksucker is a 2006 US adult DVD by Bobbi Rinaldi

With Daisy Marie, Sierra Sinn, Vixen, Kylee King, Chloe Morgan, Carly Kaleb, Megan Joy, Morgan Simpson and Mischa Mckinnon.

It was banned by the BBFC in September 2009.

The BBFC have now added an explanation for their ban:

My Daughter's A Cocksucker is an explicit sex work featuring a number of very similar scenes in which young women perform acts of fellatio on men (shot so their faces are not seen) while frequently looking into the camera and asking questions of the viewer such as are you proud of me now Daddy, Am I a good little cocksucker daddy?, My older sister isn't as good as this, is she daddy? Mommy taught me well, Am I good enough to teach the little sister? and are you jacking off to your little princess?. The female performers also make comments to the viewer such as Daddy always likes it when I choke , Daddy told me to do it just like this and Daddy always said a wet blow job's the best blow job.

The context makes it clear that Daddy is being used to refer to a familial relationship and not as mere term of endearment for an older lover. The Board's judgement is that in this work the dialogue encourages the male viewer to be aroused by, among other things, the idea of instructing and watching his daughter in the act of fellatio. This effect is potentially heightened by the implication that the daughter also finds this paternal interest arousing. The Board has concluded that such sequences constitute material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example, paedophilia, incest or rape)…

The work also features a number of sequences (including in the bonus scene, which does not feature dialogue of the nature described above) in which women gag and choke during deep throat fellatio while their heads are firmly held by the male performer, preventing them from easily ending the activity. The evident discomfort of the female performer is presented as, at best, an irrelevance or, at worst, as a feature designed to heighten the arousal of some viewers. In the view of the Board these sequences also constitute material […] likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity.

It is therefore the Board's carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults and supplied to them only in licensed sex shops, would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm and would be unacceptable to the public. The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, it concluded that a central concept of the work was unacceptable and that the cuts required to remove all the unacceptable content would be extensive.

Grotesque (Gurotesuku) is a 2009 Japan horror film by Kôji Shiraishi

The BBFC have banned the 2009 4Digital Media DVD. The Japanese Unrated Version was submitted.

See review from IMDb: Pointless torture movies

The new wave snuff films (or rebirth of 70's uber violent films) are just not my taste... this movie is a prime example of these 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 up-pence 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.

If you a fan of Devils rejects, Vacancy and the like check it out but if you are like me a little and like at least a little mental stimulation with your gore fix skip this one.

Update: Film censors explain their case

20th August 2009. From bbfc.co.uk

Bbfc Rejects Sexually Violent Japanese Horror Dvd

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.”

Note:

The Video Recordings Act makes clear that harm is not to be interpreted narrowly as behavioural harm, but may also include more insidious risks, and the Board follows this approach in having regard to, for instance, moral harm and possible desensitisation. The correct legal definition of the harm test was clarified by Mr Justice Mitting in his ruling of 24 January 2008 at the High Court. In that ruling he stated that ‘The task of the Board [...] is to have special regard to any harm that may in future be caused to potential viewers’. The Act also makes clear that harm is not the only issue to be weighed in the balance.

Update: Grotesque Censorship

21st August 2009. Based on article from businesswire.com

A spokesperson for the distributor, 4Digital Asia, expressed surprise at the outright rejection of the Grotesque, stating, We knew that the BBFC was debating the content of the film quite intensely but we had expected to receive from the BBFC a list of recommended cuts enabling the film to be passed with an 18 certificate. We are now considering whether or not to appeal against the Board’s decision.

NF713 is a BDSM video by China Hamilton (Mista Solutions)

Rejected in 2009 with the BBFC justification:

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.

See article from nikiflynn.com: I am Not a Number

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.

...Read the full article

Update: Is Obscenity Law undermined by extreme porn?

10th April 2009. Thanks to Alan who commented:

Slight oddity - they don't seem to realise that it has always been legal (except kiddy porn and now "extreme" porn) to own films that aren't classified and thus can't be legally distributed.

See article from theregister.co.uk by John Ozimek

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) have issued a rare rejection notice for a disturbing and realistic DVD called NF713.

A spokeswoman for the BBFC denied that the decision was in any way influenced by the new extreme porn law, adding that they did not feel it breached that legislation in any way. Opponents of that law immediately questioned whether the government had not now created an impossible legal position, according to which certain material that was not illegal to possess was nonetheless illegal to publish.

...Read full article

2008 US sex/horror hardcore video by Rob Rotten
With Roxi Devill, Seth Dickens, Jamie Elle, Ruby Knox, Rob Rotten, Eric Swiss, Daisy Tanks, Jack Vegas

Banned by the BBFC in 2008 with the following statement:

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.

The cut M rated version has been passed uncut after a successful appeal to the reconvened Video Appeals Committee:

The BBFC issued the following press release:

The Video Appeals Committee announced that the result of their reconsideration of the Manhunt 2 appeal remains that the appeal against the rejection of the work by the BBFC is upheld.

The Board’s decision to refuse a certificate to Manhunt 2 was successfully challenged on appeal to the Video Appeals Committee. The Board challenged the VAC’s decision by way of Judicial Review before the High Court, which quashed the decision on grounds of errors of law. The VAC has now reconsidered the appeal in the light of the High Court’s directions on the law but has decided, again by a majority of four to three, to allow the appeal on the basis that Manhunt 2 should be given an ‘18’ certificate.

In the light of legal advice the Board does not believe the VAC’s judgement provides a realistic basis for a further challenge to its decision and has accordingly issued an ‘18’ certificate.

David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said: As I have said previously, we never take rejection decisions lightly, and they always involve a complex balance of considerations. We twice rejected Manhunt 2, and then pursued a judicial review challenge, because we considered, after exceptionally thorough examination, that it posed a real potential harm risk. However, the Video Appeals Committee has again exercised its independent scrutiny. It is now clear, in the light of this decision, and our legal advice, that we have no alternative but to issue an ‘18’ certificate to the game.

The BBFC also provided a statement about the 18 certificate:

MANHUNT 2 is a violent action game based on a psychological-horror theme. The player takes on the role of Daniel Lamb, a seemingly disturbed patient in a mental facility, who escapes from the institution in an effort to discover who he really is. As he progresses through various environments collecting clues and information about his identity, he is confronted by numerous thugs employed by "The Project"; a secretive experimental organisation, whom he must either evade or kill in order to ensure his own survival.

MANHUNT 2 has been classified '18' for very strong bloody and sadistic violence, which takes the form of stealth executions. In order to successfully despatch a target, the player-character must creep up behind the victim quietly and kill before he is discovered. The killings are achieved through a number of common items such as syringes, glass shards, pens, crowbars, spades, power-saws, clubs, baseball bats, axes, pliers and, later on in the game, firearms. Each killing is graphically portrayed as a brief video scene where weapons are seen to impact on various parts of the victim's body coupled to realistic sound effects and blood spurts. The cumulative effect of these killings creates a very strong impression of almost continuous violence and horror which is too strong to be contained at any category below '18'. The game is entirely unsuitable for anyone below this age.

Rockstar Pleased

See full article from GamesIndustry.biz

Rockstar is now working towards a new release date for the title in the UK.

We are pleased that the VAC has reaffirmed its decision recognizing that Manhunt 2 is well within the bounds established by other 18-plus rated entertainment, a company statement read.

The version of the game to be released in the UK has been confirmed as the cut version currently available in the US under a Mature rating - the version which was rejected by the BBFC the second time around.

A Rockstar spokesperson told GamesIndustry.biz that due to the news of the VAC's decision only breaking earlier today, no official decision had yet been made on a release date, but discussions were expected to take place shortly.

Government Staying Out of It

See full article from GamesIndustry.biz

The UK government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport has told GamesIndustry.biz that it has no plans at the moment to intervene in the planned release of Manhunt 2 in the UK.

"The classification of Manhunt 2 is a matter for the BBFC and the Video Appeals Committee," said a spokesperson, after today's news that the VAC had reaffirmed its decision to back Rockstar in an appeal over the BBFC's refusal to certify the game.

"It is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence of any link between playing computer games and violent behaviour in real life," the spokesperson continued. "Our concern is to make sure that inappropriate material is kept away from children.

Murder Set Pieces is a 2004 US horror film by Nick Palumbo (TLA Releasing)

The Director's Cut was banned by the BBFC when submitted in 2008 with the following statement:

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.

From IMDb

The Lion's Gate Films "R" rated version of "Murder-Set-Pieces" was released on January 9th, 2007, and it is cut and edited by 23 minutes. No other film in the history of cinema has had to have that many minutes cut to avoid the "NC-17" rating.

Review from IMDb:

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.

None of the performances are believable -- not even Sven Garrett's.

The special effects are reasonably realistic, but they're too overlit and obvious to be truly disturbing.

Some context and character development would have helped immeasurably.