The BBFC: Cuts & Controversy
Villains: The British Board Of Film Classification
21/09/2009
I hear the BBFC are up to their old tricks again. They've just banned, sorry, 'rejected' a Japanese 'splatter' movie called 'Grotesque' (Gurotesuku). This is their first official banning since last year's 'Murder Set Pieces'. Both are considered too violent for the general public of Great Britain. Yet, Tarantino's latest 'Inglourious Basterds', 'Martyrs', and the glut of French & American 'torture porn' movies just slip through the BBFC's fingers. Double standards? Let's dig a little deeper.
Firstly, I don't believe in censorship of any kind. If an artist of any kind has created some sort of expression, I believe it should be seen. I despise the idea of a group of people, hopelessly out of touch with what is really going on culturally, deciding that I am not allowed to see something, purely because that is what they have decided. In this modern age, this ideal is archaic. It simply comes down to an individual's choice & taste.
I want to have that choice. I certainly do not want someone else to think on my behalf. That, surely, is my right as an individual? Or did I miss a meeting? With the BBFC in mind, I think I've missed thousands of 'em.
So, 'Grotesque'. What are we being protected from? Well, I've seen it, and whilst it may be grisly, it certainly is not worth banning. The BBFC's David Cooke said "(The film) is little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism... The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism for its own sake."
This horror film may have been made only to shock, but there is also some humour included. Humour missed by the waxworks at the BBFC. My point is, if Director Kôji Shiraishi has bothered to make it, then I want to see it. I want that to be my right It's called freedom of choice, I don't need to be protected from this, it's completely made up! Come on, I'm an adult, have been for years, don't feel it is your duty to protect me from this.. it isn't. Not anymore anyway. Here in the Netherlands, you can buy anything on DVD. Aaaaaaaanything. 'Murder Set Pieces' is sold in shops alongside Disney's Aladdin (not to be confused with 'A Lad In' that's another type of film altogether).
Does the release of this cause a breakdown in society? Are people foaming at the mouth, raping and butchering each other? Errrr, no. This is a civilised society, and in Japan more so. 'Murder set pieces' (and a whole glut of other horror movies) is available if you're aged 16 and over. You want it, buy or rent it. Simple.
Do you care about 'Murder Set-Pieces' anyway? No? Move on, then. It's a shitty movie anyway, but I'm glad to have the opportunity to see it.
Well, actually, let me just add that 'Murder Set-Pieces' is exactly that. A bunch of set pieces involving a serial killer and his victims, in various situations. There's no real plot, it really is just one SFX set-piece after another for an hour and a half. The SFX (by Toe Tag Pictures) are excellent , and if you're interested in that side of film-making, see the movie. Otherwise... well, yawn. And Sven Garret plays the killer. He maybe a big fella, but his acting is far more atrocious that the other horrors on show.
The BBFC has 2 main key concerns, which, if you include in your movie, will get the film either cut or banned. Ready? (drum roll)
1) Sexualised Violence (That's 'Murder Set-Pieces' gone then!)
2) Animal Cruelty.
Ahhhh yes. Animal cruelty. We simply must be protected from that. I mean, I may well be eating a burger, but I don't want to see where the meat has actually come from. No! I wouldn't want to see that. Tut tut. Animals getting killed in movies. A Bloody disgrace. Literally.
As a result of these kooky little rules, Monte Hellman's splendid 1974 movie 'Cockfighter' remains illegal to show in the UK. (It has been shown twice, however, but both those showings were illegal). The BBFC will never release it. This is due to it's cruelty to cocks (oops, we're back to 'A Lad' In' again!).
An attempt to get the film shown at the Edinburgh film festival in 2006 was cancelled, after the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) intervened.
A spokeswoman for the board said that the film contravened the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 because the cockfighting scenes were organised for the purpose of filming. “There’s nothing the festival organisers could have done,” she said. “The Act makes it illegal to show any scene which was organised or directed for the purpose of the film involving actual cruelty to animals. If you cut the cockfighting scenes from Cockfighter it doesn’t have anything in it.”
Best buy the DVD online from the USA, then.
As if simply banning a film isn't bad enough, the BBFC has the right to edit movies, as well. That way they can throw up their sanitised version of a film, almost without us knowing. 4 classic cases coming up:
The Evil Dead As home video was a rapidly emerging market, more and more horror and exploitation was creeping into people's homes. The sudden success of The Evil Dead changed everything. It upset the lunatic right-wingers so much, they got the then Tory government to implement a new law: The Video Recordings Act 1984. With this law in place, the BBFC could censor and ban any film it disliked. Many people who complained had not even seen The Evil Dead, but that didn't matter. The nutters had their way, and changed the face of censorship forever.
Baise-Moi ('Fuck Me') This French movie from 2000 fell foul of the sexualized violence rule. Although the film features actual sexual penetration (the 2 lead actresses were French porn stars), the BBFC were riled by the 'gun in the anus' scene. They cut the scene (12 seconds) and that was that. The blurb on the back of my uncut copy states "Like Thelma & Louise with actual penetration!" How we all laughed.
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer John Mcnaughton's brutal 1986 classic is a great example of cuts & controversy. Firstly, the film's UK distributers had already cut 38 seconds from the film (An early shot of a semi-naked woman with a bottle stuck in her face), before even submitting it to the BBFC. The BBFC then cut another 24 seconds from the scene where a family is massacred (the massacre is also video-taped by the killers). Sexualised violence again, oh dear! In total, that was 62 seconds cut, just for the cinema release!
So, in 1992, the film was re-submitted for Home video release (uh-oh). This time the then head of BBFC, James Ferman, insisted the family massacre scene be almost entirely cut out. Also, he re-edited the part of the scene where the killers are watching back the taped movie. And for good measure, another 4 seconds were cut (the death of the TV salesman scene). A film about a serial killer... butchered!
In 2001 the movie was again re-submitted, and re-released still cut. Finally, in 2002, the uncut, unedited version was finally released by Optimum releasing. 16 years after it was actually made.
Ichi The Killer Takashi Miike's 2001 film is renowned for it's extreme manga-style violence, and has a worldwide reputation for being OTT. In line with their sexualised violence law, the BBFC went and cut a whopping 3 minutes and 15 seconds! My, oh my, they really didn't like that one did they? Yet the BBFC, yes, the same BBFC, only weeks earlier, had passed uncut Gaspar Noé's notorious 'Irreversible', which, permit me if I'm wrong, has a scene where Monica Bellucci's character is getting beaten to a pulp whilst being raped by a homosexual. Sexualised violence? There seems to be a fog forming in Soho Square... rules... laws... unclear...
It's worth pointing out that the UK has some of the strictest censorship in the world, and by far the strictest within Europe. By contrast, the Netherlands has the most open-minded. A few random comparisons:
The dirty harry films 'Magnum Force' & 'The Enforcer' UK: 18 NL: 12
Woody Allen's 'Hannah & Her Sisters' UK: 15 NL: AL ('suitable for all')
The Dark Knight UK: 12 NL 16. Okay, so it's been well documented the BBFC got this wrong. It's too scary for 12 year olds.
So, it seems when a person in the UK reaches 18 years of age, they suddenly, officially become adults. They are allowed to live just about anywhere they want, get drunk, and even get locked up in prison! But if they want to see the the uncut film version of Michel Houellebecq's splendid book 'Extension du domaine de la
lutte' (aka 'Whatever'), they are not allowed. Why? Because it includes images of genitalia. Ooooooh! We can't have that. I mean, we're all here ("someone's been fuckin" as Bill Hicks once said), but we wouldn't want to find out how, would we?
I believe that there's so much culture flying around these days, so much of it easily available, that it's impossible for parents to keep track. I do believe some sort of review board should be set up to rate movies and video games. It gives people (especially parents) a general outline of the content within that particular product. Fine. But to edit, cut or to ban a film outright is archaic and hopelessly out of touch. If we all become official adults at 18, then we should have the freedom to decide for ourselves. It really is that simple.
'Inglourious Basterds' got a release because it is comic, self-aware and ironic. 'Irreversible' & 'Martyrs' got released uncut, because they are considered 'art-house'. 'Murder Set Pieces' and 'Grotesque' have been rejected for release because of the unrelenting, occasionally sexualised horror. But It isn't real though is it? Like the classic trailer for the formerly banned Wes Craven flick 'Last House On The Left' states: "It's only a movie... only a movie..." I believe that the BBFC should remain in place, but the laws that govern it need to be strongly re-evaluated.
LINKS:
Murder Set Pieces review at the BBFC
The 2005, erm, 'shockumentary' 'Terrorists, Killers & Other Wackos' aka TERRORISTS, KILLERS & MIDDLE EAST WACKOS (from the makers of 'Bumfights!') was also rejected.
Think Drink
Hero: Keith Waterhouse
10/09/2009
Sad to hear about the death of writer & journalist Keith Waterhouse. I didn't follow his column very often (that would've meant reading The Daily Mail), but I know he was indeed a prolific writer... and a prolific drinker.
His blotchy drink-addled face was always instantly recognizable, no matter which rag he was writing for.
After his fame from 'Billy Liar', Keith would drink a bottle of champagne a day. He still lived to be 80!
Mr Waterhouse, if you don't know, wrote 'Billy Liar' and the incredibly funny 'Jeffrey Bernard is Unwell'.
Jeff & Keith were big drinking buddies back in the, erm, 'good-old days', when practically all journo's were pissed-up all of the time. The Groucho Club & Gerry's in Soho were popular hangouts for this rabble, and somehow, amongst all the drinking, work was actually accomplished!
Keith Waterhouse was a true writer. He wrote enormous amounts of words... books, plays, and columns for -amongst others- Punch, The Daily Mirror, and even the (shudder) Daily Mail. Just yesterday, I read an article by journalist & chat-show host Michael Parkinson, who ended his memoir on Keith, by describing him as a 'freak'! What I imagine he meant was 'unique character', but I know what he was driving at, so to speak.
My personal favourite will always be 'Jeffrey Bernard is Unwell', in which Keith took the best of Jeff's columns from The Spectator magazine, and turned them into a very funny play where Jeff is locked inside a pub all night. The pub is the now legendary 'Coach & Horses', the regular drinking den for Jeff back in the days. Funnily enough, Keith and Jeff both died on exactly the same date... September 4th (1997 for Jeff, and of course 2009 for Keith). Keith Waterhouse's talent will be missed.
And also... Simon Dee passed away last week. It may sound like a cliché, but 'Swinging Sixties' is indeed a term synonymous with Simon Dee. He had the first chat show ('Dee Time') to appear on UK TV, which turned him into a hugely-popular star. Unfortunately, his fame went straight to his head, and Mr Dee got rather greedy. So he decided to ask for more money from his then employers, the BBC, who refused, and decided to cut his pay instead! Dee promptly switched to LWT -the BBC's independent TV rival- for a large amount of cash, but it was a doomed move. His popularity wained, and some years later he was 'on the dole'. I believe at one point he became a bus driver, and also had spent some time in jail.
Last time I saw Simon Dee was on the UK's Channel 4, where they revived 'Dee Time' for one night only.
It aired straight after a documentary called Deeconstruction. I remember him interviewing another fallen celebrity, the actor Peter Wyngarde, who had also ended up on the dole after being a big star in the 60's.
I remember these two 'doleys' chatting bitterly about how great the swinging sixties were, and how nobody 'these days' (it was 2003) had any talent. Oh dear. But credit to Victor Lewis-Smith for getting that one back on the air, albeit for one night only..
I think it's best that we remember Simon Dee not only for Dee Time, but for playing the roles of Doctor Dare
in the farcical 'Doctor in Trouble', and of the camp tailor in the 1969 classic 'The Italian Job'. Groovy.
