Policy at the BBFC

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.

The outrage which cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad have provoked among Muslims has prompted much self-righteous blather about the sanctity of free speech. Yet Muslims are not the only ones who seem to find blasphemy beyond the pale, and who believe that religion should take precedence over liberty. Here in the UK, Christians retain the protection of the law of 'blasphemous libel', a common law offence which forbids the publication of 'contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God'. Although archaic, this law provides a striking counterpoint to the claim that freedom of expression is an integral part of the British way of life.

Take the case of Visions of Ecstasy, an innocuous (if rather silly) short film depicting 'the ecstatic and erotic visions of St Teresa of Avila' which was banned in the UK in 1989. In the film, St Teresa is first seduced by her own sexual psyche (played, conveniently, by a photegenic 'babe'), 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 (who has since helmed the cult nuns-on-heat romp Sacred Flesh) 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...

Visions of Ecstasy remains the only film to be banned in the UK solely on grounds of blasphemy. Yet the issues which the law raises remain a very real concern. Having successfully transformed itself from an autocratic censorship body into one of the most accountable regulators in the world, the BBFC now rightly prides itself on maintaining a fine balance between the liberal principles of its own classification guidelines and the rigid inflexibilities of certain aspects of the law. In the case of Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), for example, pre-release protests from Christians alleging blasphemy resulted in the board screening the film to 28 representatives of the UK's major churches, who concluded that it 'was not blasphemous in the legal sense, although it may have the capacity to offend some Christian viewers'. An 18 certificate was duly awarded.

Despite the clean bill of health, some local councils went ahead and banned The Last Temptation of Christ anyway. The furore followed the movie onto TV, where its transmission provoked a record number of complaints. Similar protests attended the classification of Dogma (1999), a religious satire staring Matt Damon and Ben Affleck as fallen angels, which provoked a deluge of pre-printed mail shots from sections of the Catholic church demanding that the BBFC ban the movie. The board refused, a decision in which it was supported by the office of the Archbishop of Westminster which went on the record to say that Dogma was not blasphemous. Still the protests continued.

Less well-rehearsed are the rare cases of cult and 'special interest' movies which have been cut in order to comply with our blasphemy laws. Trash maestro John Waters may have entered the mainstream with multiplex-friendly fare such as Hairspray, Cry Baby and Serial Mom, but his early underground film Multiple Maniacs (1970) is still considered legally unpassable in its complete form thanks to a scene in which Divine makes nefarious use of a rosary intercut with the Stations of the Cross. More bizarre still is the case of a hardcore sex video which was submitted to the board last year, featuring sacrilegious dildos being placed where the sun doesn't shine by 'women role playing as nuns'. The video, which was duly cut 'in accordance with the Blasphemy Act 1698', rejoices under the charming title Belladonna: My Ass is Haunted. And no, that's not 'Ass' in the biblical sense of the word.

While there's no doubt that such material is potentially extremely offensive (to me, at least), should we really retain a law which privileges the sensitivities of Christians over those of others? The Last Temptation of Christ may have been reclassified in 2000 to a more lenient 15 certificate, but Visions of Ecstasy remains banned in the UK to this day, a situation which the BBFC cannot rectify as long as the offence of blasphemy remains on the statute books. In the wake of the recent rebellion regarding proposed legislation on religious hatred, which, it was claimed, threatened artistic and democratic freedoms, has the time not arrived to repeal Britain's outdated blasphemy law? Only then will we have an even playing field in which freedom of speech is genuinely sacrosanct, and all religions (and their critics) are granted the same level of protection in the UK.

Slasherama: Zombie Flesh Eaters finally makes its debut on uncut UK DVD on September 19, when it is released as part of Anchor Bay UK's Box Of The Banned. Did you expect Lucio Fulci's grisly, eye-popping gem to be passed uncut, this time around?

Craig Lapper: Yes. Last time we looked at the uncut version (in 1999) we made a couple of small cuts - to the eye gouging and to some flesh munching. These cuts were made largely because, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, the uncut version had been successfully prosecuted as obscene as recently as 1994.

Classifying something uncut that had been found obscene by a court as recently as five years ago raised problems for the BBFC, especially given that one of our terms of designation under the Video Recordings Act is to seek to avoid classifying obscene material. Our lawyers advised that, although we could pass it uncut if we felt standards had changed over the last 5 years, it might be safer to make some small trims. That way we could avoid classifying what the court had found obscene. However, if it hadn't been for that recent conviction we probably would have passed it uncut back in 1999.

Since 1999, BBFC policy has moved on somewhat. During the 2002 appeal against our decision to cut The Last House On The Left, we had cause to look in more detail at some of those recent obscenity convictions. We found that in many cases, including the 1994 case involving Zombie Flesh Eaters, the convictions had actually been obtained against huge batches of material (sold, for example, at film fairs) and that the defendant had simply pleaded Guilty, presumably because some of the other material he was selling was very clearly obscene. However, there was no evidence that a Jury had actually sat and watched Zombie Flesh Eaters or Last House On The Left and considered all the relevant issues. So, relying upon such convictions as proof of obscenity was unsatisfactory. After we changed our policy to be more sceptical about such convictions, it was clear that Zombie Flesh Eaters would probably be passed uncut if it were resubmitted.

10 Year Rule

For a while the BBFC would always make at least a token cut in videos submitted less than 10 years after a successful obscenity prosecution. This policy has now been abandoned.

Craig Lapper: There was never a 10 year rule enshrined in BBFC rules, our lawyers simply told us that we were obliged not to classify obscene material. Not unreasonably, they stated that the more recent a conviction was the more of a problem it was likely to be. We set 10 years as a reasonable period, after which public attitudes might have shifted.

Following the certification of several videos with cuts for animal cruelty a debate ensued about why some films are cut and others are not. In particular, Time of the Wolf shows a horse being slaughtered (by having its neck cut) yet it is not cut. Time then for a clarification of BBFC policy.

The scene in question in Time of the Wolf is not cut because the killing is quick and humane and therefore not illegal. Nonetheless, some people can get squeamish about such things and so it was  mentioned it in the consumer advice.

Contrary to popular belief, the Animals Act is only there to prevent the screening of scenes of deliberate cruelty inflicted animals for the purposes of making a film. It does not prohibit scenes showing animals being killed (even if they are killed solely for the film), provided the killing is swift and humane. Furthermore, it does not seek to prevent documentary footage (even of cruelty) - it is only there to prohibit scenes where a film-maker has deliberately mistreated an animal for filmmaking purposes. So, documentary footage of animals being killed (or even mistreated) is not prohibited. Furthermore, scenes showing animals being killed (even if it's specifically for the purposes of the film) are not prohibited, provided it is swift and humane.

The ONLY thing the Act prohibits is deliberate cruelty to an animal (including causing it fear and distress) simply for the purposes of creating a work of entertainment. This is why Hollywood horse trips, staged cockfights [note that the BBFC HAVE passed documentary footage of cockfights], and Ruggero Deodato cutting animals' faces off with machetes in his cannibal movies are cut. By contrast, APOCALYPSE NOW Apocalypse Now with its quick buffalo kill was passed uncut and documentaries about foxhunting eg Chaos in the Countryside  have been passed uncut.

Soon after James Ferman left the BBFC they initiated a policy review re drug use. The following email was received from the BBFC outlining the latest policy

The BBFC drug policy was revised fairly soon after James Ferman left. Ferman always used to cut close up sight of needles in veins because he believed they had a fetishistic appeal to both existing users and ex-users. Shots of needles in veins - he believed - would turn on the cravings of addicts and former addicts and make them want to use heroin again. However, expert evidence taken since he left shows that needle in vein shots in fact have no more hypnotic potential than sight of any other part of the shooting up process. So, although the BBFC may still intervene at 18 where it is felt that drug taking is deliberately being glamorised - or where there is so much detail that it could genuinely be instructional - the BBFC no longer remove explicit sight of needles in veins. Accordingly, Christiane F was passed 18 uncut for video/DVD release in 2000 after waiving about 5 minutes of previous drug cuts (all made to comparable images to those in Trainspotting. Similarly all the previous needle in vein cuts originally made to the video of The Panic in Needle Park were waived earlier this year. Explicit detail of injecting no longer worries the BBFC unless it is so detailed and explicit that a potential user might glean information from it (eg what quantities to mix, what solution to use, how to mix and cook the heroin etc.) The fact that you inject heroin is not in itself something most people do not know, so provided it's shown aversively (rather than sexily) it's OK at 18.

Britain's most influential arbiter of public taste, the film censor, is predicting the end of legally enforced cinema ratings in the UK. In a speech on the future of censorship this week, Robin Duval will argue that greater freedom for film-makers and audiences is on its way.

We are pretty much the only country left to enforce a film rating system by law,   he said. In most of northern Europe and the Americas, film regulation is advisory and not mandatory. How long will Britain keep this up? As the internet and new media become more available, everyone wonders why one medium is regulated by law and another isn't.

Duval, director of the BBFC for just over two years, does not expect all forms of film classification to disappear. He envisages a grading scheme in which parents would be able to take children to seefilms they deem suitable. Existing legislation covering obscenity and child abuse would then become the only statutory public protection. In contrast, when the late Princess Diana controversially took an under-age Prince Harry to see the 15-certificate film The Devil's Own , the London cinema involved was threatened with prosecution under the 1985 Cinemas Act.

I suspect film producers will still want their product to be given some sort of bill of health, said Duval, but I think the legal nature of it will change fairly soon. Television will have to have its own ratings system too.

Duval will use his speech at the Royal Society of Arts on Wednesday to call on the Government to rethink its policy on monitoring broadcast standards. New Labour plans for one giant, over-arching watchdog to look after film, television and the internet are dangerous, he will argue, and are also based on false assumptions.

The Government's parliamentary consultation document on the communications industry, published at Christmas, outlined plans for a new body, dubbed OfCom, to take over the roles of the Independent Television Commission, the Broadcasting Standards Council, the Radio Authority, the Radio Communications Agency and Oftel.

Duval said: There would be too much power in one institution - a supreme cultural regulator. Video and film would be lost within the broadcast bias of this watchdog.

OfCom has been billed by the Government as a simplification of conflicting standards as the worlds of new media and broadcasting converge. But Duval and his colleagues at the BBFC, including the president, Andreas Whittam Smith, are not convinced by the argument that filmed entertainment will all soon be delivered via the internet. There are a lot of assumptions being made that people will gravitate towards their homes, said Duval. 'It is doubtful whether the expectation of this great convergence is justified. People want to have somewhere to go in the evening. There are actually now three times more people going to the cinema than in the middle of the 1980s. Duval believes it will take a long time for the internet to become a central part of the film business. Sport is still the driving force behind home satellite and digital ownership and no film channel yet receives more than 1 per cent of viewing figures.

Attitudes to sex on screen have been deliberately relaxed since Duval and Whittam Smith have been in charge at the BBFC. We carried out research into public attitudes last year and there was a clear message, said Duval. People believed the BBFC was being quite unnecessarily nannyish when it came to questions of sex, but attitudes to violence were less tolerant. The BBFC's rating categories would continue to be rigorous over violence. Duval said that although the link between people seeing violence on screen and committing it was poor, the BBFC had to respond to public feeling.

Public acceptability is one of the BBFC's main criteria for rating films. The only statutory restriction we have is on violence towards animals under the 1937 Animals Act. We also have some restrictions under the Obscene Publications Act, said Duval.

The BBFC ensures there is no mention of drugs in U-rated films. Even at PG level, however, there is more scope for referring to illicit substances, while at a 12-rating Duval says audiences are allowed to 'enter the real world', as long as there is no appearance of promoting drugs. Broadly, we have to steer away from "imitable techniques". And we will not allow any detail of a hanging in a 15-film, he said.

Duval believes he has seen the end of the recent tide of violent horror films. However, he is concerned that the industry is about to erupt into a spate of brutal adventure movies.

In contrast to current British concerns, American censorship has been tougher on sex than violence. In 1929 the Hays Office Code ruled that married couples had to be shown in twin beds and that one foot must stay on the floor in love scenes, lest the nation's collective morals were damaged.