BBFC Banned Videos

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

See pictorial cuts details from movie-censorship.com :

To this day, there is no totally uncut version of the film available. The Taiwanese version mainly lacks the sex scenes themselves, while scenes displaying sexual violence were spared, which are missing in the Hong Kong version. Furthermore, the Taiwanese version contains a scene in which a disabled person is forced to rape Kit. This was removed from the HK version, together with all the references to it. If one was to edit both versions together, the run time would be about 102:00s = 98:00s

4:42s

pre-cut
6:02s

• 1998 MIA VHS

Thanks to Bleach on the Melon Farmers Forum :

These account for what the BBFC removed, not what was pre-cut:

• At 7 mins - During dirty phone call received at women's party, after woman asks "Why not now, I'm hot right now?", the rapist's lines (and subtitles) expressing plans to tie woman up and rape her were removed, resuming on man saying "One day we'll do this for real, Yau Yak Nam."
• At 15 mins - Bed scene in which rapist turns woman over and then invites second man into bed to share her was reduced, cutting away as second man touches her back and she looks round. All sight of second man entering bed and raping her whilst first man records this on video was also removed, resuming on blue sky through window.
• At 28 mins - As ex-girlfriend makes stand against gangster and older woman says "How dare you make a scene here!", her further comment (and subtitles) "Get me a knife and I'll cut off her tits", together with man's instruction "Bring a knife" were removed, a reaction shot of woman on floor was inserted to avoid jump cut, and resuming on older woman continuing "I can't stand this stupid bitch".
• At 38 mins -In woman's flat, sexual assault was reduced to establishment only, as follows:

(i) after victim is thrown into bath and man looks down at her, remove shot of him smiling and saying "Good idea, let's have a bath", resuming on frightened woman in bath;
(ii) then, after woman starts to lift herself out of bath, cut away to remove prolonged scene in which she struggles and protests as she is terrorised, pursued, assaulted and finally raped in kitchen, resuming on new scene on boat panning up from man's bare feet.

• At 43 mins - After happy couple disappear under duvet, sadistic focus on raped woman's terror was reduced by removing all sight of her bound and gagged in chair, resuming on rapist raising video camera to photograph bound victim.
• At 69 mins - Scene of rapist peeping on his female neighbour was considerably reduced by removing the following -

(i) prolonged sexy dancing, sight of woman undressing and repeated shots of man peeping through hole;
(ii) CU of woman stroking her leg up towards crotch, resuming on woman in sexy underwear dancing in hallway.

• At 70 mins - At end of 'peeping tom' sequence, after boyfriend says "I'd wank myself to death", entire scene depicting rapist hanging upside down, masturbating and saying aloud "I will fuck you" was removed, resuming on scene in bar.
• At 78 mins - During final, prolonged fight between woman and rapist
  dressed in clown suit, the sadistic power of the violence was reduced by removing the following -

(i) sight of woman kicked in throat and falling back onto glass coffee table, breaking it;
(ii) woman having her hair pulled viciously, then kicked between her legs from rear as she crawls away;
(iii) woman being dragged by hair up outdoor steps in rain, then splayed out and pinned down against kitchen counter;
(iv) CU of man groping woman's bare breasts as lightning flashes in background.

banned

• 1997 MIA VHS

• 1997 MIA VHS

• 2009 Mista Solutions video

The BBFC commented:

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.

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.

• worldwide VoD at Hot Movies

• 2000 Sheptonhurst VHS

The BBFC commented:

Cuts required to explicit sexual detail, regardless of category.

• 1999 Sheptonhurst VHS

The BBFC had been oscilating about whether to ban or allow mediumcore R18s. This seems to have been 1 of about 7 titles submitted to try and sort what the BBFC actually were. Although the level of explicitness had been passed R18 before, this time it was banned, so the distributors took this decision to appeal.

• 1999 Sheptonhurst VHS

From comparison with the mediumcore R18 Version, this version was cut by at least 16:16s

• 2009 LORIMAR R1 DVD at US Amazon #ad

• 1990 Warner VHS (unreleased)

Thanks to Scott. The BBFC cuts list was as follows:

• At 46 1/2 mins In black and white comedy scene in which one man writes at desk, after voice-over line: I'm just calling you Fats...I don't want to get you stiffed too, remove all subsequent sight of metal stars and all sight of man carrying and practising with chainsticks. Resume on back view of man at desk.
• At 49 mins Back in colour, after woman hits man in balaclava, who slumps to floor, remove all sight of him producing star after he sits up.

Note that the distributor abandoned the submission and the proposed cuts were never added to the viewer facing BBFC database.

Canada

• Cinema Group VHS

Canada: Uncut for:

• Marathon VHS

• 1987 VHS

• 1986 Tansy Films VHS

• 1982 Astra Films VHS
• 1982 JP Films VHS

• 2013 cinema release
• 2012 Lions Gate Tarentino XX (RB) Blu-ray at UK Amazon
• 2010 Optimum R2 DVD at UK Amazon
• 2009 Lions Gate RB Blu-ray at UK Amazon
• 1996 Polygram VHS
• 1995 Pioneer LaserDisc
• 1995 Polygram VHS
• 1992 cinema release

US: Uncut and MPAA R Rated for:

• 2012 Lions Gate Tarentino XX (RA) Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2007 Lions Gate 15th Anniversary Edition RA Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2006 Lions Gate 15th Anniversary Edition R1 DVD at US Amazon

• 2004 Momentum Special Edition R2 DVD

See article from dvdcompare.net . The Special Edition has minor differences to dialogue

• Missing dialogue Mr White: I think he just passed out.
• Mumbled dialogue Mr Blonde: "Joe"

See article from bbfc.co.uk

The work was submitted in 1993 for its home video classification, but the video release would be delayed until 1995 because of the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in 1993 and its lengthy passage through Parliament.

In response to concerns about the effects of media violence, largely in the wake of the James Bulger murder in 1993, part of the Bill's remit was to make amendments to the Video Recordings Act 1984, under which the BBFC had been appointed as the statutory regulatory body for video. It also established within the VRA a specific harm test. This harm test required the BBFC to pay 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 [such issues as] criminal behaviour [and] violent behaviour and incidents .

Reservoir Dogs was finally granted an uncut 18 video certificate in May 1995, a considerable time after its video release in all the other major international markets, which did not prove too disconcerting for Tarantino who was reported to be delighted that the delay had given the film an extended theatrical life in the UK.

• 1996 VHS

The BBFC commented:

An erotic and in places pornographic video dealing with human sexual activity in a context of force, restraint or infliction of pain. Although submitted as 'sex-education', it seemed to the Board to be selling the techniques of sado-masachism in a glossy and highly erotic manner, so that the educational content was overwhelmed by the S&M content. The message that pain is th real source of pleasure seemed likely to encourage men to inflict pain without due consideration of the rights and vulnerabilities of their partners.

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

• 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)

• 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.

Distributor Nigel Wingrove wrote in an article from strangethingsarehappening.com:

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.

• 1982 cinema release titled Prisoners of the Flesh

• 1997 Castle Communications VHS

The BBFC commented:

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.

• 2011 Arrow R2 DVD at UK Amazon

US: Uncut and MPAA R Rated for:

• 2021 Code Red R0 Blu-ray at US Amazon #ad
• 2021 Code Red Amazon Prime VoD [US only] at US Amazon #ad
• 2020 Dark Force (RA) Blu-ray
• 2008 Navarre R1 DVD via US Amazon

Pre-cut
~6:49s

• 1991 Channel 5 VHS
• 1987 Lazer VHS

The BBFC cuts were:

• Extensive cuts to a rape scene
• The climatic crossbow fight. The BBFC were not keen on crossbows at the time

• 1986 Lazer VHS

• 1984 cinema release

• 1995 Tamara Productions VHS

The BBFC commented:

A camcorder sex video in which two young women are dressed convincingly as schoolgirls in order to act out the fantasies of men. There was no doubt in the minds of anyone who saw the video that it would encourage men to fantasise about seducing unwilling, and probably under-age, schoolgirls. Board policy on sex films has rested on the importance of mutual consent, yet this video was concerned almost wholly with the systematic erosion of consent in naive young women dressed as schoolgirls. For viewers, the link between innocent schoolgirls and sexual excitation would almost certainly be reinforced. On the test of harm to society through the behaviour of potential viewers, the video was rejected.

• 2005 Phoenix Sales DVD

The BBFC commented:

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.

• 2000 Load VHS

• 1999 Load VHS

The film was banned during the period just prior to porn legalisation when the inconsistent BBFC were being pulled each way by politicians and legal concerns,

• 2020 101 Films Limited Edition [Part 1 + Part 2] (RB) Blu-ray at UK Amazon #ad
• 2020 VoD at UK Amazon Prime

US: Cut and MPAA R rated for:

• 2018 Shout! Factory Limited Edition RA Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2012 Starz/Anchor Bay [Silent Night 1+2] R1 DVD at US Amazon
• 2003 Starz/Anchor Bay [Silent Night 1+2] R1 DVD at US Amazon

See article from dvdcompare.net : A few frames of gore (including a bit of liver popping out during the umbrella scene) were cut from the film to obtain an R rating, and have never been reinstated.

• 1987 cinema release

• 1987 Janus VHS

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

• 2017 Shout! Factory Double Feature [Slumber Party Massacre II + III, both Theatrical + Extended] (RA) Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2010 Shout Factory Slumber Party Massacre Collection [1-3] R1 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon

See pictorial version details from movie-censorship.com

• 2017 Shout! Factory Double Feature [Slumber Party Massacre II + III, both Theatrical + Extended] (RA) Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2010 Shout Factory Slumber Party Massacre Collection [1-3] R1 DVD via UK Amazon and at US Amazon
• 2002 New Concorde R1 DVD at US Amazon

• 1988 Lazer VHS

From IMDB. The BBFC offered an extensive cuts list which was not acceptable to the distributor, and so the video was banned.

Shown on the Horror Channel in 2006

• 2003 ILC Prime video

The BBFC commented:

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.

• video release
• cinema release

Much softer and more light hearted than the original but was still rejected.

• 2011 Freemantlemedia 40th Anniversary RB Blu-ray at UK Amazon
• 2011 Freemantlemedia 40th Anniversary R0 DVD at UK Amazon
• 2004 Prism R2 DVD
• 2002 Pearson Television/Freemantlemedia R2 DVD
• 2002 Pearson Television/Freemantlemedia VHS

• 1985 VCI VHS
• 1983 Guild VHS
• 1980 Guild VHS

There are reports that some dialogue may be missing through print damage

• 1972 cinema release

BBFC secretary Stephen Murphy saw the film unofficially at rough cut stage and recommended cuts. The cuts were to:

• reduce the 2nd party of the rape scene when Norman rapes Amy particularly where Norman takes Amy from behind
• reduce the death of Charlie in a bear trap.

Even before US censors further compounded the problem, commentators suggested that Murphy's cuts transformed rear entry vaginal sex into forced sodomy.

The cut version became the final version and was not cut further by the BBFC. It is suspected that longer footage of the second rape scene exists only on the cutting-room floor.

US: The pre-cut cinema version is MPAA Unrated for:

• 2017 Sony/Criterion R0 Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2017 Sony/Criterion R1 DVD at US Amazon
• 2011 MGM R0 Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2004 Anchor Bay R1 DVD at US Amazon

This version has now become the definitive version of the film

The BBFC issued the following statement when the video was unbanned in 2002:

When Straw Dogs was previously considered by the BBFC for video release in 1999, it was refused a classification certificate. This was because its distributor at the time declined to make the cuts requested by the Board to the film's rape scene. The version on which the Board then based its judgement was a pre-cut American print of the film.

In the central scene, Amy, played by Susan George, is raped by her former boyfriend and then by another man. The pre-cut American version deleted most of the second rape in which Amy is clearly demonstrated not to enjoy the act of violation. The cuts made for American distribution, which were made to reduce the duration of the sequence, therefore tended paradoxically to compound the difficulty with the first rape, leaving the audience with the impression that Amy enjoyed the experience. The Board took the view in 1999 that the pre-cut version eroticised the rape and therefore conflicted with the concerns expressed in the Video Recordings Act about promoting harmful activity.

The version considered in 2002 is substantially the original uncut version of the film, restoring much of the unambiguously unpleasant second rape. The ambiguity of the first rape is given context by the second rape, which now makes it quite clear that sexual assault is not something that Amy ultimately welcomes.

For the current submission, the Board showed the video to leading clinical psychologists specialising in work with sex offenders and to a panel of members of the public. The response of the clinical psychologists was that the present version of Straw Dogs was not harmful and was not likely to encourage an interest in rape or abusive behaviour towards women. The psychologists agreed that the ambiguous first rape was in fact a fairly realistic depiction of a quite complex situation. They also agreed that, by the end of the second rape, any general messages reinforcing 'rape myths' were undermined by the lack of ambivalence shown in Amy's reaction to the second attack. It was also noted that Amy's flashbacks later in the film further undermined any impression that she might welcome rape or that it has no serious effect on its victims. The psychologists commented that the scene was filmed in a relatively discreet manner, with limited potential today for titillation.

The issue of context was also important to the members of the public to whom the video was shown as part of a research exercise into the acceptability of images of sexual violence. A focus group of 26 people viewed Straw Dogs , with 20 people accepting '18' uncut as the most appropriate category, 5 suggesting only minor cuts, and only one favouring rejection. No respondent asked for major cuts of the kind required by the Board in 1999.

Significantly, respondents saw the manner in which Amy copes with her experience as essentially positive and concluded that the present version of the scene - as well as the flashbacks shown afterwards - reinforced the idea that rape is not to be taken lightly because of the serious effect it can have on individuals. No concerns about possible harmful effects were identified.

The Board recognises that the rape scene in Straw Dogs has lost only part of its power over the years, despite the age of the film. Nonetheless, in this restored version, and in the light of the evidence of expert opinion, our own conclusion now is that the film has no significant potential to cause harm to viewers or, through their actions, to society as a whole. We have also taken account of the evidence of the public acceptability of the work.

The Board maintains a strict position on depictions of sexual violence that endorse or eroticise harmful behaviour, and will continue to do so. The Board does not believe that the present version of Straw Dogs is in breach of that policy.

The film had previously been passed 'X' uncut for cinema release in 1971 and '18' in the pre-cut version for cinema reissue in 1995.

cut

• 1995 cinema release

US: The cut UK cinema version was further cut in the US for an MPAA R rating. The additional cuts were:

• 24s cut from first part of rape scene: Cut to shot of Amy reacting to implied initial penetration by Charlie. Cut to 2 shots of Amy seemingly enjoying the sex.
• 30s cut from second part of rape scene: Shot of Amy screaming in anticipation of further rape as as Norman unbuttons his pants. Shot of Norman raping Amy whilst Venner holds her down. Further cuts mean that the pumping of Amy from behind is reduced to an establishment shot which gives a perspective suggesting anal rape.

This R rated cut has become notorious as it ended up making the first 'rape' scene look worse than it originally did. The uncut version makes it as clear as you can get without going hardcore that rear entry vaginal sex is involved, while the R rated version looks more like forcible sodomy!

• 1999 VCI VHS

VCI tried again with a submission in 1998, but the BBFC took so long to produce its 200s list of cuts that the rights had expired before a cut version could be created.

UK: The cut US R Rated Version was banned by the BBFC for:

• 1999 Total Home Entertainment VHS

After an inordinate delay for procrastination, The film had been submitted in 1996) 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.

UK: Later in 1995, the BBFC told Polygram that there was no chance of a video release noting also a new law allowing the BBFC to be stricter when censoring films for home video.

UK: The BBFC told the BFI in 1995 that although it had passed the cut R rated version for cinema, there was no chance of the same version being released on video.

UK: The uncut version was unofficially banned by the BBFC for:

• 1990 VCI VHS

UK: The uncut version was unofficially banned by the BBFC through delaying tactics for:

• 1987 VCI VHS

This submission was made doubly impossible due to the bad timing of coinciding with The Hungerford Massacre and the press clamour to ban violent videos, particularly those featuring Rambo.

UK: The uncut version was unofficially banned by the BBFC through delaying tactics for:

• 1986 Futurevision VHS

After the BBFC were appointed as state censors through the 1984 Video Recordings Act, the film censors assumed a policy of being particularly strict on sexual violence. Straw Dogs was perhaps the most high profile example and simply could not be allowed to pass. Ferman and co spent 14 years stretching out their ludicrous unofficial ban implemented by refusing to get on with the job of examining the film.

BBFC examiners continually recommended a relaxation of the ban throughout the period yet Ferman would never sway from his ban

• 2006 Shots video (rated 22/12/2006)

The BBFC commented:

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.

• 2019 Something Weird Sharp Shooter Triple Feature R1 DVD at US Amazon

• 1987 Network Distribution (Mids) VHS

The killer targets couples who are engaged in sex after watching them through his viewfinder. The BBFC found this an unacceptable combination of sex and violence.

• 2005 R1 DVD

• 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.

• US 2008 Loaded Video on Demand at HotMovies.com
• US 2008 Loaded R0 DVD at Adult Video Universe

• UK 2008 Third Millennium DVD

The BBFC issued 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.

• 1992 VHS

The BBFC commented:

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.

• 1992 VHS

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

• 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.

• 2016 Signal One Entertainment RB Blu-ray at UK Amazon
• 2004 MGM R2 DVD at UK Amazon
• 2002 Channel 4 unreleased, submitted to allow an uncut showing on TV

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• 2016 Olive Films RA Blu-ray at US Amazon released on 22nd March 2016
• 2016 Olive Films R1 DVD at US Amazon

• 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

Senior examiner Richard Falcon commented: The Trip was rejected on video in 1983 because of its almost advocatory depiction of drug usage.

• worldwide VoD at Adult DVD Empire

• 1999 Sheptonhurst VHS

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 was successfully appealed.

The BBFC had been oscilating about whether to ban or allow mediumcore R18s. This seems to have been 1 of about 7 titles submitted to try and sort what the BBFC actually were. Although the level of explicitness had been passed R18 before, this time it was banned, so the distributors took this decision to appeal. The appeal was successful and hardcore was effectively legalised.

• 2023 88 Films video

• 2020 Unearthed Records (RA) Blu-ray at US Amazon
• 2020 Unearthed Records R1 DVD at US Amazon #ad

Thanks to Scott.The BBFC offered a cut release in 2005 but the distributor didn't take this up. The BBFC explained:

A work called THE UNTOLD STORY co-directed by Danny Lee and Herman Yau was submitted in 2005 for classification. The film was discussed across the Board, and cuts were requested under the Board's sexual violence policy to a scene of sexual assault. The work was never classified as the distributor - according to our records - did not respond to the request for cuts within the allotted time scale. The work was withdrawn after there was no further response from the distributor to a reminder sent to them.

• 2000 Paradox/Revelation R0 DVD

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.

• 1996 Kiseki /Manga VHS

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.

• 2001 Paradox/Revelation Films DVD

The BBFC commented:

• Cuts required to remove sight of tentacular rape and breast groping

See pictorial cuts from movie-censorship.com . 3 scenes were cut for UK DVD

From Board Meeting minutes from bbfc.co.uk

Valkyrie Drive: Mermaid [Season 1, Episodes 1 -12] is a Japanese anime series submitted for DVD classification with an 18 request.

Two of the main characters are described as being 15-years-old and 16-years-old respectively. They are shown engaging in sexual activity, both with each other and with other characters. They are also sexualised.

Sections of the submission were viewed by the Chief Executive, the Head of DEA, the Head of Compliance and the Compliance Manager. It was concluded that the submission is not in violation of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 but that the scenes showing the children engaged in sexual activity, or otherwise being sexualised, are in violation of the harm provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the BBFC's Guidelines which prohibit portrayals of children in sexualised or abusive contexts. Accordingly, a general cuts list has been issued instructing the distributor to remove all such material throughout.

Presumably the cuts list proved unviable for a release so the video was effectively banned by the BBFC

• 2017 Olive (RA) Blu-ray at US Amazon #ad

• 1987 Avatar VHS

The BBFC commented in the original rejection letter:

Rejected because of its callous exploitation of women, especially in the context of sexual violence and humiliation.

• 2012 4Digital/Redemption [Visions of Ecstasy + Sacred Flesh] R0 DVD at UK Amazon

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for:

• 2012 Sacrament [Visions of Ecstasy + Sacred Flesh] R1 DVD at US Amazon

The BBFC explained its decision in a press release:

Visions of Ecstasy is a 19 minute short film, featuring a sequence in which a figure representing St Teresa of Avila interacts sexually with a figure representing the crucified Christ. When the film was originally submitted to the BBFC in 1989, for video classification only, the Board refused to issue a classification certificate. This decision was taken on the grounds that the publication of the film, which the issue of a BBFC certificate would permit, might constitute an offence under the common law test of blasphemous libel.

The Board is required, as part of the terms of its designation under the Video Recordings Act 1984, to seek to avoid classifying any work that might infringe the criminal law. Therefore, the Board had no alternative at the time but to refuse a classification. The Board's decision to refuse a classification to the film was subsequently upheld by the independent Video Appeals Committee.

In 2008, section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. This means that the BBFC is no longer entitled to consider whether the publication of the film might comprise a blasphemous libel.

The BBFC has carefully considered Visions of Ecstasy in terms of its current classification Guidelines. These reflect both the requirements of UK law and the wishes of the UK public, as expressed through regular large scale consultation exercises. With the abolition of the offence of blasphemy, the Board does not consider that the film is in breach of any other UK law that is currently in force. Nor does the Board regard the film as likely to cause harm to viewers in the terms envisioned by the Video Recordings Act.

The Board recognises that the content of the film may be deeply offensive to some viewers. However, the Board's Guidelines reflect the clear view of the public that adults should have the right to choose their own viewing, provided that the material in question is neither illegal nor harmful. In the absence of any breach of UK law and the lack of any credible risk of harm, as opposed to mere offensiveness, the Board has no sustainable grounds on which to refuse a classification to Visions of Ecstasy in 2012. Therefore the film has been classified for video release at 18 without cuts.

• 1989 Axel VHS

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. Mark Kermode explained:

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...

• 1987 VHS

• 1987 Gatisle/Janus VHS

The video is widely available on porn tubes

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

UK: The film has been broadcast uncut on satellite on The Performance Channel

• 2003 R2 DVD but was never actually released.

• 1987 AVR VHS

• 1971 cinema release

• 2017 Full Moon Features R0 DVD

• 2004 Anchor Bay 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.