• War Cat

1987 US video by Ted V Mikels, rejected in 1987

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.

Note that the more famous Angel Of Vengeance by Abel Ferrara has been released with BBFC cuts

Available in Australia (THG)

• Private Film 24

1995 hardcore video by Francois Clouset, rejected in October 1995 on grounds of sexual violence with the following justification:

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. It was sold to another distributor who removed both rapes and all the aggressive/abusive dialogue and references to anal sex. The result was passed R18.

Readily available in US/Europe (Private Media)

Reality video rejected in February 1999 with the following justification:

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.

Review from Amazon US see full article

This fifty-four minute DVD contains twenty-five chapters with situations ranging 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. You can see from the video clip of the accident why she failed to stop in time, but it is still brutal to watch and highlights the reason your parents always told you to look both ways before crossing the street. When I read about this scene before purchasing the DVD, I knew exactly the footage I would see because one of those cable channels that always show various documentaries covered this train accident in a program some time ago. Of course, on cable the scene cut away right before impact. Here you see it from start to finish, and it is a powerful statement on how carelessness has the potential for tragic consequences.

The uncut region 1 DVD is available at US Amazon

Rejected in September 1994 with the following justification:

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.

By David Monaghan (Media Systems Data). Rejected in December 1996 with the following justification

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.

Rejected again in June 1999 with the following justification:

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.

Extreme fighting video. Rejected 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.

1982 short video 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.

2002 reality Video by Mickey, Ryan & Jamon McOckner (Delectable)

Almost legendary video where supposedly drunken bums are paid to fight and perform stunts.

Rejected by the BBFC in 2003 with the following statement:

Bumfights - Cause for Concern consists substantially of camcorder footage of homeless people ('bums') being abused, assaulted, and humiliated. These scenes are intercut with footage of street brawls and soft pornography.

Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 the Board must have special regard to any harm to those likely to view a video and to any harm to society through the behaviour of those viewers afterwards. The Act singles out particular elements as being potentially harmful including criminal behaviour and violent behaviour or incidents. The BBFC guidelines for '18' rated works state that the Board may "cut or reject... any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts which is likely to promote the activity" (page 16). The Board's guidelines for violence also state as particular concerns "callousness towards victims, encouraging aggressive attitudes [and] taking pleasure in pain and humiliation" (page 9). In the Board's view, the video breaches these guidelines by exploiting the physical and other vulnerabilities of homeless people.

The Board considered the possibility of cuts. However, given the extent of the unacceptable material, cuts were not considered a viable option on this occasion.

Available from the US at www.bumfights.com

The European PAL DVD versions of Bumfights 1 and 2 have been now released and are also available at www.bumfightsdvd.com

The first is the same footage that the BBFC banned, but is has been reedited and looks far better. Bumfights 2 is the same as the US version, but PAL.

both are available for approx £14.99 inc postage anywhere

1991 Italian video by Lucchetti Leandro, rejected in August 1992 with the following justification

Rejected because of its exploitative treatment of the sexual abuse of women. An Italian women's prison film in which the prisoners were raped and abused by their gaolers, was redolent of the video nasty era in that the abuse was offered not for condemnation but as an erotic spectacle.

• Caligula 2: The Untold Story
• Caligula: La Storia mai Raccontata

1981 Italian video by Joe D'Amato rejected in 1987

Rip-off of Caligula whose distributors had already cut 14 minutes prior to submission. These cuts include hardcore footage involving a horse.

Video by F St John North (Gatisle)

Refused a video certificate in November 2000

Not too sure about the details of this video but clearly the BBFC has a problem with S&M material. This will surely become an on-going problem at the BBFC. Activities which at first glance seem dangerous often prove to be inherently safe. All participants are aware of the risk and therefore play safe, Protocols have developed to ensure consensual enjoyment and these are probably more rigidly adhered to thean in 'straight' sex. Those into S&M therefore get rightfully angry when they are somehow linked with non-consensual material.

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.

Short video rejected in 1986

• Video Voyeur

Distributed by Pride Video, rejected in 1998 with the following justification

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:
 

Despite the relatively recent rejection of the work, and the withdrawal of an appeal against the Board's decision, Changing Room Exposed was resubmitted under a different title (Video Voyeur) towards the end of 2001. At the time of resubmission no mention was made of the fact that Video Voyeur was in fact a retitled version of Changing Room Exposed. The distributor claimed that "all the footage contained within the programme was staged, and that the scenes were shot using actors". No documentary evidence was offered to support this claim.

Given that this assurance contradicted the clear statements made during 1998, the Board asked for written evidence that the persons involved in the video knew that they were being filmed and had given their consent to their appearance in the video. However, the distributors have been unable to provide this. They have also been unable to demonstrate where the work was filmed or under what circumstances. No evidence, therefore, has been offered that would allow us to over-ride the information provided at the time of the work's original submission. In the absence of any such evidence the Board has no alternative but to confirm its original rejection of the work.

By Thomas Blackstone, rejected in 1999

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.

1979 US hardcore movie by Joel Scott, rejected in 1988

No clues on this, rejected in December 1997 rejected with the following justification:

A sado-masochistic video was rejected for its pornographic treatment of sex in the context of force, restraint and the infliction of pain.

1990 US film by Jim Van Bebber.

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.

Available on video in the Netherlands

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.

The uncut region 1 DVD is available at US Amazon

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

1981 US video by William Asher rejected in 1987

Not particularly gory splatter movie originally appearing on the DPP list of video nasties as Nightmare Maker. Named Best Horror Film of the year by the Academy of Science Fiction Fantasy and Horror.

1995 US video by Todd Verow, rejected in 1998 with the following justification:

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.

US informational video

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.

Short video rejected in 1987

S&M and spanking is not popular with the BBFC. See A Brief Encounter for details about policy. Films in the same series also failed to get a cinema release, see Lesson at St. Winifred's

• Perfect Victims

1988 video by Shuki Levy, rejected in 1988

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

US informational video

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.

Documentary video about football hooligans rejected in 2002 with the following justification

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.

1980 US hardcore video by Anthony Spinelli rejected in 1986

Jessie St James goes on pill popping binge as part of a mid life crisis

1972 UK film by Arnold Louis Miller rejected in 1986

DVD Extra for The Howling a 1981 US film by Joe Dante

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

US informational video

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.

Anime video released by Manga Entertainment Ltd, rejected in December 1996 with the following justification

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.

• The Comic Book
• The Lake Point Cottages

US film by Adrian Lynn

Rejected in 2000 with the following justification:

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.

Rejected by the BBFC in 2002 with the following justification:

This was originally banned as a video nasty back in the early 80's. No doubt it is readily available for import for all those that appreciate this recommendation from the BBFC.

1992 US video by Dennis Dimster, rejected in December 1996 with the following justification

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.

The ghost of the after-effects of the Bolger killings lives on.

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

Murder Set Pieces is a US made feature focussing on the activities of a psychopathic sexual serial killer, who, throughout the film, is seen raping, torturing and murdering his victims. There is a clear focus on sex or sexual behaviour accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury and humiliation. Young children are among those terrorised and killed.

In making a decision as to whether a video work is suitable for classification, the Board applies the criteria set out in its current Classification Guidelines, published in 2005. These are the result of an extensive process of public consultation and research and reflect the balance of media effects research, the requirements of UK law and the attitudes of the UK public. The Board’s Guidelines clearly set out the Board’s serious concerns about the portrayal of violence, most especially when the violence is sexual or sexualised, but also when depictions portray or encourage: callousness towards victims, aggressive attitudes, or taking pleasure in pain or humiliation.

The Guidelines for the ‘18’ category requested for this video work state that such concerns 'will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment' but make clear that exceptions to this general rule may be made in certain areas, including 'where material or treatment appears to the Board to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society – eg any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts… [and that the Board] may intervene with portrayals of sexual violence which might, eg eroticise or endorse sexual assault'. Under the heading of 'Rejects', the Guidelines identify as of particular concern 'graphic rape or torture', 'portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context' and 'sex accompanied by non-consensual pain, injury or humiliation'.

The Board’s position that scenes of violence with the potential to trigger sexual arousal may encourage a harmful association between violence and sexual gratification is reflected in research and consistent with public opinion. It is the Board’s carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to MURDER-SET-PIECES, even if statutorily confined to adults, would involve risk of harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act 1984, would be inconsistent with the Board’s Guidelines, and would be unacceptable to the public.

The Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content features throughout, and that what remains is essentially preparatory and set-up material for the unacceptable scenes, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.

From IMDb

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

Review from IMDb:

Very, very overrated serial killer flick that has been compared to Maniac, Last House on Dead End Street and New York Ripper. Some reviewers have claimed that it is better than these three films.

It is not. It is gory in a juvenile, over-the-top kind of way and the coverage of some of the murders is adequate, but it is incredibly fragmented, totally devoid of characterization and plot development and, overall, amateurish in its execution.

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

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

Some context and character development would have helped immeasurably.

The region 0 Director's Cut DVD is available via US Amazon

US informational video

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.