BBFC Banned Videos

Angel Of Vengeance

• War Cat
• Warcat

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.

Available in Australia (THG)

Arrowhead

• Private Film 24

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:

• UK 1996 Sheptonhurst VHS

Back in Action

• Coup de force

Uncut at:

The BBFC rejected the Guild Home Video uncut version submitted in 1984: 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.

UK: Passed 18 uncut with previous BBFC cuts waived for:

• UK 2004 Hollywood R2 DVD via UK Amazon

Banned from Television

• Banned from Television Uncensored!

Uncut at:

UK: A short version was banned by the BBFC for:

• UK 1999 Medusa VHS

The BBFC commented :

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.

Summary Review : Gruesome Reality

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.

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US 2002 GGW R1 DVD via UK Amazon and via US Amazon

Bare Behind Bars

• A Prisão

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.

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

Banned by the BBFC for:

• UK 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.

Banned by the BBFC for:

• UK 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

• Boardinghouse

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.

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

Uncut version is available at:

The BBFC passed the 1995 cinema release uncut

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.

The BBFC passed the 2001 Imaginary Films DVD 18 uncut

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.

UK: Passed 18 uncut for:

• UK 2001 Imaginary Films R2 DVD at UK Amazon
• UK 1995 cinema release

US: uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US 2008 Unearthed R1 DVD at US Amazon

Boys Just Wanna Have Fun

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

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

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

Uncut at:

UK: Banned by the BBFC for UK 2003 Fabulous Films DVD

The BBFC commented:

UK: Uncut for:

• Unidentified R2 DVD via UK Amazon

US: Uncut for:

• Unidentified R1 DVD via UK Amazon

The Bunny Game

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.

Netherlands: Uncut for:

• NL EIC R2 DVD via UK Amazon

Sweden: Uncut for:

• Sw 2012 Njuta Films R2 DVD

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• 2012 Autonomy R0 Blu-ray/R0 DVD Combo at US Amazon
• 2012 Autonomy R0 DVD at US Amazon

Caged Women

Rejected for video in 1992

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

The same cut version was released by MIA on DVD in 2001

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.

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• 2013 Wizard Entertainment R1 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon

Caligula: The Untold Story

• Caligula 2: The Untold Story
• Caligola: La Storia mai Raccontata
• Emperor Caligula
• Emperor Caligula: The Garden of Taboo
• L'Imperatore Caligula
• The Emperor Caligula: The Untold Story

A softcore Version was passed 18 after a further 8:42s of BBFC cuts for the UK 1984 cinema release

The Softcore Version was banned by the BBFC for the UK 1987 VTC VHS

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.

Germany: The Extended Version is uncut for:

• De X-NK R2 DVD via UK Amazon

Italy : Uncut for:

• It Stormovie R0 DVD via UK Amazon

A Caning for Miss Granger

Banned by the BBFC for :

• UK 2000 Gatisle/British Spanking DVD

The BBFC justified their decision as follows:

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.

Cat in the Brain

• Un Gatto nel cervello
• Nightmare Concert

Banned by the BBFC for 1999 VHS. Passed 18 uncut for the 2001 DVD.

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!

UK: Passed 18 uncut for:

• UK 2007 Shriek Collection R0 DVD at UK Amazon
• UK 2003 International Trading R0 DVD

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US Warner Online to Own [US only] at US Amazon
• US 2009 Grindhouse/Ryko R0 DVD at US Amazon

Chained

Changing Room Exposed

• 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:
 

Class of 1984

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.

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

US: Cut and MPAA R rated for:

• 2015 Shout! Factory (RA) Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2006 Starz/Anchor Bay R1 DVD at US Amazon

The Classic Films of Irving Klaw: Vol 1

• Betty Page: Bondage Queen

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.

Review from US Amazon : Queen of Curves

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.

Vol 1 & 2 passed uncut on 2009 Digital Classics DVD as Betty Page: Bondage Queen

Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut

A Coming of Angels

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.

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US Cabellero Online Rent/Own [worldwide] at HotMovies.com

Curfew

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.

UK: Passed 18 uncut for:

• 2007 Boulevard Entertaiment R2 DVD at UK Amazon
• 2002 Hollywood R0 DVD

Date with a Mistress

Deadbeat at Dawn

The leader of one of two rival gangs leaves but gets his girlfriend murdered for his troubles. He ends up taking revenge on both of the gangs invoking a fair bit of violence and some cheap gore effects in the process.

I found one review to give  an insight into what we are missing courtesy of our moral betters: Before seeing this film I heard a lot about its director and star Jim Van Beeber who has been said to have a style all his own. Deadbeat At Dawn shows clearly why Beeber is praised. His work has an intense feeling to it, pure raw power, and some different ideas. The creative camera work in DAD and style, along with the great lava lamp like intro's between scenes, are quite unique. What it fails to do in good acting and budget it makes up for in energy. The film is a little rough around the edges but it's just fun to watch. The conclusion is the high point of the whole movie, it has some great action sequences which are extremely brutal and violent.

When Whittam Smith arbitrarily banned this video I soon got an email from the US distributors.   They were well appreciative of the ban on the grounds that they could now write something along the lines of 'banned in the UK' on the cover. The US DVD has now been released.

Current UK Status: Banned

The uncut region 1 DVD is available at US Amazon
The uncut region 1 DVD is available via UK Amazon

Death Wish

The BBFC passed the 1974 cinema release uncut with an X rating.

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

UK: Passed 18 uncut for strong sexual violence and very strong language with previous cuts waived for:

• 2006 Paramount R2 DVD at UK Amazon

US: Uncut and MPAA R rated for:

• 2013 Paramount 40th Anniversary RA Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2006 Paramount R0 DVD at US Amazon

Demoniac

• L'Éventreur de Notre-Dame
• The Ripper of Notre Dame
• Exorcism & Black Masses (hardcore)
• Exorcisme et Messes Noires (hardcore)
• El Sadico de Notre-Dame
• Exorcism
• Exorcisme
• Exorcisms
• Chains and Black Leather
• Expériences sexuelles au château des jouisseuses
• Sexorcismes (hardcore)

The film was rejected for Redemption video in August 1994 on the grounds of sexual sadism with the following BBFC justification:

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.

See  article from  strangethingsarehappening.com . Distributor Nigel Wingrove wrote of the BBFC ban:

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

UK: Uncut without a BBFC certificate for:

• UK  Boulevard Entertainment R0 DVD at UK Amazon

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US 2012 Redemption [Exorcism + Demoniac Versions] R0 Blu-ray at US Amazon
• US 2012 Redemption [Exorcism + Demoniac Versions] R1 DVD at US Amazon
• US 2002 Synapse R1 DVD titled Exorcism via UK Amazon and via US Amazon

Note Black Masses identifies an alternative hardcore version

The Evil Protege

• Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker
• Night Warning
• Nightmare Maker
• Momma's Boy
• Thrilled to Death

Review from Shock Horror! Gripping

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

It was submitted to the BBFC in 1987 with cuts as The Evil Protege but was rejected

Current UK Status: Still nominally b anned

The Exorcist

• William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist

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.

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.

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:

• 2014 Warner Home Video Exorcist Anthology RA Blu-ray via UK Amazon and at US Amazon
• 2013 Warner [Theatrical + Altered Director's Cut] 40th Anniversary Edition RA Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2010 Warner [Theatrical + Altered Director's Cut] R0 Blu-ray at US Amazon

Frisk

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.

Recently shown without a certificate at London's ICA cinema.

Game of Survival

• Tenement
• Slaughter in the South Bronx Tenement: Game of Survival

See trailer from youtube.com
 

Uncut at:

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.

UK: Passed 18 uncut for:

• UK 2005 Blackhorse R0 DVD at UK Amazon titled Tenement: Game of Survival

US: Uncut and MPAA X Rated for:

• UK 2005 Shriek Show R1 DVD at US Amazon

Grotesque

• Gurotesuku

The Unrated Version was banned by the BBFC for

• UK 2009 4Digital Media DVD

The BBFC explained the ban:

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.

Current UK Status: Banned in the UK

US: MPAA Unrated for:

• 2010 Media Blasters RA Blu-ray/R1 DVD Combo at US Amazon
• 2010 Tokyo Shock R1 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon

Malaysia : Uncut for:

• My Keris R0 DVD via UK Amazon

The Hash Man

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

Banned by the BBFC for 2015 Horror Show VoD.

The BBFC commented:

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. We have considered the attempt at the end to position the film as against hate-crime, but find it so unconvincing that it only makes matters worse.

The BBFC's Guidelines on violence state that 'Any depiction of sadistic or sexual violence which is likely to pose a harm risk will be subject to intervention through classification, cuts or even, as a last resort, refusal to classify. We may refuse to classify content which makes sexual or sadistic violence look appealing or acceptable [...] or invites viewer complicity in sexual violence or other harmful violent activities. We are also unlikely to classify content which is so demeaning or degrading to human dignity (for example, it consists of strong abuse, torture or death without any significant mitigating factors) that it may pose a harm risk.'

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.

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 'Refusal to classify' our Guidelines 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 or sadistic violence. Before refusing classification we will consider whether the problems could be adequately addressed through intervention such as cuts.' 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.

See article from haddonfieldhorror.com . The Director James Cullen Bressack responded:

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.

And an article from huffingtonpost.co.uk the director continues:

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.

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• 2013 UNEARTHED FILMS R0 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon

Head Girl at St Winifred's

Hidden Rag

• Perfect Victims

The BBFC banned the 1988 Braveworld VHS

Rapist with AIDS on a mission to infect as many women as possible.

Current UK Status: Still Banned

High Yield Hydroponic Systems

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.

Hooligan

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.

Hot Line

House of Hookers

The Howling: Fake Porn Movie

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.

Also cut from the German DVD

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)

• Human Centipede 2

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.

US: The Director's Cut is MPAA Unrated for:

• US 2012 IFC RA Blu-ray via UK Amazon and at US Amazon
• US 2012 IFC R1 DVD at US Amazon

Introduction to Indoor Growing

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

• Ta Pedhia tou dhiavolou
• A Craving for Lust
• Cruel Destination
• Devils in Mykonos
• Island of Perversion
• Psychic Killer 2

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!

UK: Passed 18 uncut after previous BBFC cuts waived for:

• 2015 Arrow R0 Blu-ray/R0 DVD Combo at UK Amazon
• 2010 Arrow R2 DVD at UK Amazon

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• 2015 Video Music/Arrow (RA) Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2003 Image R1 DVD at US Amazon

Kickboxer 4: The Aggressor

A video version was banned when submitted in 1994. The distributor cut it and tried again but the BBFC said the cuts failed to make an acceptable difference to a work in which fights to the death were staged in the kick-boxing equivalent of a Roman Circus. Purporting to condemn the practice, it was plainly exploiting it, since the work was itself a celebration of extreme violence as entertainment.

Review from US Amazon : Entertaining

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.

Sasha Mitchell is the only returning star from any of the 1st 3 Kickboxers . Still playing the lead role of David Sloan, this time out the character is a lot darker and far-less laid back than in the previous 2 films (probably because his wife has been kidnapped and he has been framed for murder in the beginning of the movie).

Kickboxer 4 has a lot of fighitng, both in and out of the tournament. There is a bar fight near the beginning of the movie where Sloan kicks everyone butt and doesn't get hit once. The tournament has plenty of fights, though most are short and unimpressive. There is one fighter that does some Caporeia, which I think is always great to watch. Tong Po fights very little, only near the end of the movie against David Sloan. The fight is good, with Po and Sloan fighting it out outside on table tops covered with dishes and glasses for about 2 minutes, but it could have been so much cooler if Tong Po connected with maybe one hit. Unfortunately, its Sloan all the way from the beginning of the fight.

Kickboxer 4 has its flaws, but is still entertaining from start to finish.

The 2004 Film 2000 DVD was passed 18 uncut.

Current UK status: Passed 18 uncut.

The uncut region 0 DVD is available at UK Amazon

The Last House on the Left

• Krug & Company
• The Men's Room
• Night of vengeance
• Sex Crime of the Century

Uncut version is available at:

Two girls are kidnapped by escaped prisoners and are subjected to sexual humiliation, razor torture, rape, disembowelments and shooting. The parents of one girl avenge their death by chainsaw, throat cutting and castration.

Rejected for a cinema release in 1974

The video was released by Replay in June 1982. It was an early casualty of the video nasty panic and got banned in July 1983. It stayed on the list throughout and so became one of the collectible DPP39s

A cinema release was banned again in 2000. However it achieved an cinema club circuit release in 2000.

A subsequent video release was rejected in 2001

The video was again submitted in 2002 but this time the BBFC offered cuts. An appeal against the cuts proved unsuccessful and in fact resulted in additional cuts to those originally requested by the BBFC. The resulting Blue Underground video/DVD release of 2002 suffered 31s of censor cuts .

Further 2003 video/DVD releases (including one titled Krug & Company) from Anchor Bay have been edited differently but maintained the previous BBFC 2002 cuts

Finally passed 18 uncut by the BBFC in 2008

No cuts are noted to the 2008 Metrodome DVD identified as The Krug Edit

Summary Review: Brutal Realist Tragedy

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.

UK: The Krug Edit was passed 18 uncut for:

• 2009  Metrodome/In2film R2 DVD at UK Amazon

• 2008 Second Sight R2 DVD at UK Amazon

US: The Original Version is uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• 2011 MGM Collector's Edition R0 Blu-ray via UK Amazon and at US Amazon
• 2009 MGM R1 DVD at US Amazon

La Blue Girl

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.

Lolita: DVD Extras:

• The Comic Book
• The Lake Point Cottages

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.

Current UK Status: Banned

Lost in the Hood

See R18 Cuts

Love Camp 7

• Lager Femminile
• Camp Special No 7
• Nazi Love Camp 7

Uncut version is available at:

This was originally banned as a video nasty back in the early 80's.

Rejected by the BBFC in 2002 with the following justification:

The BBFC has refused a classification to the video of LOVE CAMP 7. 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.

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!

The UK bootleg release is uncut for:

• UK DVD Classics R0 DVD via UK Amazon

The US release is uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US Something Weird R0 DVD via US Amazon

Maniac

The BBFC banned the 1981 cinema release.

The BBFC banned the 1998 Exploited video explaining:

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.

The BBFC required 58s of cuts from the 2002 Anchor Bay DVD.

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.

US: The uncut Theatrical Version is MPAA Unrated for:

• US 2012 Blue Underground R0 Blu-ray at US Amazon
• US 2010 Blue Underground 30th Anniversary Edition R0 Blu-ray via UK Amazon and at US Amazon
• US 2010 Blue Underground 30th Anniversary Edition R0 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon

Mikey

See trailer from youtube.com

Uncut version is available at:

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.

Current UK Status: Not released since ban

The US release is uncut MPAA R Rated for:

• US 2000 Sterling R0 DVD via US Amazon

The Spanish release is uncut for:

• Es Smile Price R0 DVD via UK Amazon

Available on Irish video with the boast that it is banned in the UK

Murder Set Pieces

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.

Denmark: The Director's Cut is locally rated 15 for:

• Another World R2 DVD via UK Amazon

Mushroom Growing Made Easy

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.

My Daughter's a Cocksucker

See R18 Cuts

Naked Killer 2

• Xiang Gang qi an Zhi Qiang Jian
• Legal Rape
• Raped by an Angel
• Super Rape

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 ...

US: The Hong Kong release is MPAA Unrated for:

• HK 2001 Tai Seng R0 DVD at US Amazon titled Raped by an Angel

NF713

• Enemy of the State

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

Nightmare Maker

See Evil Protege

Nympho Nurse Nancy

The 1999 Sheptonhurst video was banned as part of the dispute between the BBFC and adult film distributors that led to the legalisation of hardcore.

See The R18 Story, the legalisation of hardcore: Chapter 5

Mediumcore version initially banned but passed R18 on appeal after 1:13s of cuts in 2000.

Possession (Until Death do you Part)

Precious Jewels

Psychic Killer 2

See Island of Death

S&M - Why?

Sadomania

• Hell Hole Women
• Prisoners of the Flesh
• Sadomania: Holle der Lust
• Sadomania: El Infierno de la Pasion

UK: Passed X (18) after about 17:00s of BBFC cuts for:

• UK 1982 cinema release titled Prisoners of the Flesh

• 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.

See  article from  strangethingsarehappening.com . Distributor Nigel Wingrove wrote:

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)

US: The Spanish Version is uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US 2013 Blue Underground Bad Girls Behind Bars Collection R0 DVD at US Amazon
• US 2004 Blue Underground R1 DVD via UK Amazon and at Amazon

SAS Weapons and Training

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

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.

Rejected for a cinema release in 1984

Rejected for a video release in 1986

An abridged version was passed 18 after further BBFC cuts for:

• UK 1991 Channel 5 VHS
• UK 1987 Lazer VHS

Passed 18 after previous BBFC cuts waived for

• UK 2011 Arrow R2 DVD

Summary Review: Gratuitous Nudity

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.

UK: Passed 18 after previous BBFC cuts waived for:

• 2011 Arrow R2 DVD at UK Amazon

US: Uncut and MPAA R Rated for:

• 2008 Navarre R1 DVD via US Amazon

Schoolgirl Fantasy

Severe Punishment

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.

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.

Sex Frenzy

Rejected for an R18 from Load in 1999 when the BBFC were being inconsistent with their treatment of hardcore

Passed R18 uncut in 2000 for Load after the BBFC had revised their guidelines to allow hardcore

Passed R18 uncut in 2000.

Current Status: Passed R18 uncut

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2

Sixteen Special

Sixth Form at St Winifred's

Slumber Party Massacre II

• Don't Let Go

Banned by the BBFC in 1988 for Lazer VHS after an extensive cuts list was refused. Not released in the UK since.

Shown on the Horror Channel in 2006.

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.

The US Uncut and MPAA unrated for:

• US 2010 Shout Factory Slumber Party Massacre Collection R1 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon

Spy of Darkness

Review from AnimeNation :

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.

Story of O Part 2

• Histoire d'O: Chapitre 2
• Histoire d'O: Numero 2
• Historia de O, II parte

Straw Dogs

See trailer from youtube.com
 

Uncut version is available at:

After the politically correct empowerment of the BBFC on the back of the Video Recordings Act, the video version became verbatim. The grass roots examiners of the BBFC continually recommended a relaxation of the ban yet the politicians of the Board  could never confirm their views.

The cause of the problems for the BBFC is that the first rape scene has Susan George's character initially being forcibly assaulted but then she seemingly starts to enjoy it.

The cut US R Rated Version was banned by the BBFC for UK 1999 Total Home Entertainment VHS

After an inordinate delay for procrastination, 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.

The distribution rights then fell to Video Collection International but the BBFC still could not bring themselves to issue a certificate and it was again rejected in 1999

Summary Review: Tension and conflict

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.

The US R-rated version clocked in at 116:02s and it was this further cut version that gained an 18 cinema certificate in 1995.

The R Rated version was submitted to the BBFC by Total Home Entertainment and, after an inordinate delay for procrastination, the BBFC said in 1999: 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.

The distribution rights then fell to Video Collection International but the BBFC still could not bring themselves to issue a certificate and it was again rejected in 1999 .

The Pearson Television video/DVD was eventually passed for the first time in 2002 (in the original definitive cinema version).

Current UK Status: Passed 18 uncut

Passed 18 uncut for:

• UK 2011 Freemantlemedia 40th Anniversary RB Blu-ray at UK Amazon
• UK 2004 Prism R2 DVD

• UK 2002 Pearson Television/Freemantlemedia R2 DVD at UK Amazon

• UK 2002 Pearson Television/Freemantlemedia VHS

The US release is uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US 2011 MGM R0 Blu-ray at US Amazon
• US 2004 Anchor Bay R1 DVD at US Amazon

Struggle in Bondage

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.

Target Massacre

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

• Terrorists, Killers and Middle East Wackos

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.

A warning that Customs have jumped on BBFC concerns and have decided that this video is obscene and liable to seizure.

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US R1 DVD at US Amazon

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

See trailer from youtube.com
 

Uncut version is available at:

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.

See article from sbbfc.co.uk :

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.

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:

• UK 2009 Second Sight RB Blu-ray at UK Amazon
• UK 2008 Second Sight R2 DVD at UK Amazon
• UK 2002 Universal R2 DVD
• UK 1999 Blue Dolphin video
• UK 1999 Warner video
• UK 1999 cinema release

The US release is uncut and MPAA R Rated for:

• US 2008 Dark Sky RA Blu-ray at US Amazon
• US 2006 Dark Sky R1 DVD at US Amazon

The Texas Vibrator Massacre

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.

Available uncut from Adult Video Universe

Tied and Ticked Vol 4 & 18

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

• 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.

Current UK Status: Still banned

The US release is uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• US 2003 Brain Damage 9th Anniversary Collector's Edition R1 DVD

The Trip

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!

• 2004 MGM R2 DVD at UK Amazon

TV Sex

• Expose me Again

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.

Ultimate Pursuits

Urotsukidoji IV Episode 1: The Secret Garden

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.

Video Voyeur

• Changing Room Exposed

See Melon Farmers Censorship Watch for details

The Violators

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

Uncut at:

UK: Banned by the BBFC for:

• UK 1989 Axel VHS

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.

Director Nigel Wingrove then took his case to the European Court of Human Rights , but again lost his case. By Mark Kermode:

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...

In 2008, section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

Passed 18 uncut for:

• UK 2012 4Digital video

See BBFC press release from bbfc.co.uk :

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.

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

War Victims

Warden's End

Weeds Season 2: DVD Extra: Cream of the Crop

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

Possibly will be included in the US release available to order on US Amazon

Wild Riders

• Angels for Kicks

Uncut version is available at:

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.

See trailer from youtube.com

The AVR Entertainment video was banned by the BBFC in 1987

The DVD was passed in 2003 with 32s of cuts but was never actually released.

Current UK Status: passed 18 after 32s but unreleased

The US release is uncut and MPAA R Rated for:

• US 2006/BCI/Eclipse R1 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon

Women in Cellblock 9

• Frauen für Zellenblock 9
• Flucht von der Todesinsel
• Tropical Inferno
• Visa pour mourir

UK: Banned by the BBFC 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.