BBFC decisions you agree/disagree with...

[CavebobSpongeman]

The Screenbound release of Thriller: A Cruel Picture is still cut for an 18 certificate.
"Compulsory cuts required to remove material that may cause harm to viewers by making sexual violence look appealing (explicit shots of unsimulated sexual acts edited into two scenes of sexual violence). Cuts required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. An uncut classification was not available."

In other news Weapons has been given an uncut 18.
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/weapo...pwwc0xmdi5mzu4

[Alexcap]

Originally Posted by ThePlushyMan

I sometimes wonder too, maybe they denote the content somehow?

IFCO means Irish Film Classification Office.

[Azizi23]

Weapons is an 18. Damn I was expecting a 15 ngl

[buggenhagen]

Originally Posted by CavebobSpongeman

The Screenbound release of Thriller: A Cruel Picture is still cut for an 18 certificate.
"Compulsory cuts required to remove material that may cause harm to viewers by making sexual violence look appealing (explicit shots of unsimulated sexual acts edited into two scenes of sexual violence). Cuts required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. An uncut classification was not available."

Sounds like they've just cut the hardcore inserts that were shot with alt actors and spliced in. I'm pretty sure they were only ever added to up the controversy around the film and they certainly don't add anything to it. I've got the old uncut Synapse version and the new Vinegar Syndrome release and tbh I'd generally prefer to watch with the hardcore scenes omitted

[SixteenthDentist]

Originally Posted by j bird

Could Apocalypse Now be cut now under POCA for the shots of underaged Laurence Fishburne in the same frame as topless pin up photos?

I think they care less about teenagers than under 13s with regard to the ultra strict child pornography rules. Even though theoretically all such pictures are illegal, if with under 18s.

I always wondered about Walkabout too, with a topless underage girl, although ostensibly asexual context.

[j bird]

the 2024 annual report is out now

[GaryCouzens]

Originally Posted by SixteenthDentist

I always wondered about Walkabout too, with a topless underage girl, although ostensibly asexual context.

That's the difference - nudity isn't illegal under POCA, but sexual contact is, if one of the participants is a minor. As for Walkabout, Jenny Agutter was sixteen when it was shot. David Gulpilil was approaximately the same age (no one knew his exact date of birth) and Luc Roeg was seven. All three of them are full-frontally nude in the final scene but it's clearly not a sexual scene. It's Agutter's idealised memory of their time lost in the outback.

As for Apocalypse Now, it's been a while since I've seen it, though I've seen all three versions. POCA was on the statute books before the film was made, so I don't think it's ever been problematic. If the photos are pin-ups I don't see an issue. If they'd been hardcore shots, a different story. As ever, a disclaimer - I am not a lawyer.

[GaryCouzens]

Incidentally, I saw One Potato, Two Potato at Cinema Rediscovered this weekend - excellent film, by the way. The DCP shown is presumably what will appear on the Blu-ray out in October. I guess the source of the restoration was British, as after the new StudioCanal ident, the film started with the ident for British Lion, who were its distributors back in 1964. No original A certificate in the version I saw.

I'm not sure why the BBFC insist on cutting old certificate cards out - by the time you've sat down to watch the film in a cinema, on a disc or a stream, you will only have seen the current certificate. The old cards are part of the film's history, though we know from the BBFC's website redesigns that they're much less concerned about that.

I did hear somewhere that one reason was that pre-1970 certificates have the examiners' initials on them and they could be identified. Never mind the fact that they're all or almost all long dead. Besides, you'd have to be a major censorship nerd to be able to do that. However, I can think of a couple of examples. I recently rewatched Michael Powell's The Edge of the World on Blu-ray and an alternative opening had the 1937 A certificate with the initials NS on it. That's Nora Shortt (who later married and became Nora Crouzet) who was the daughter of former BBFC President Edward Shortt, who before the BBFC had been Home Secretary in David Lloyd George's Liberal government. Shortt Senior probably holds the record for the most cuts and bans during his watch and he also laid the grounds for the H certificate, the first time the BBFC restricted audiences to adults (well, sixteen and over), though that was after his death in office in 1935.

The print of Frank Perry's Last Summer which I saw last month began with its 1969 X certificate (cut) and one of the examiners was KRP - Ken Penry, who was one of those who saw The Devils (he wanted it cut further than it was, if not banned) and was later James Ferman's deputy for a while.

[caib2003]

Originally Posted by ParamountChris

That logo is a PTSD trip

And it looks like whoever made it was on drugs, and I don't wanna know what kind lol

[caib2003]

Originally Posted by CavebobSpongeman

The Screenbound release of Thriller: A Cruel Picture is still cut for an 18 certificate.
"Compulsory cuts required to remove material that may cause harm to viewers by making sexual violence look appealing (explicit shots of unsimulated sexual acts edited into two scenes of sexual violence). Cuts required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. An uncut classification was not available."
In other news Weapons has been given an uncut 18.
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/weapo...pwwc0xmdi5mzu4

Interesting, Weapons to me seemed like the kind of film that wouldve gotten a 15, one of those traditional horror thrillers that don't push it major extents with the gore, but keep a bit there and the tension up like Cobweb or Tarot. I'll admit the 18 rating for the movie has intrigued me due to this expectation. Nice to see 18 rated horror being frequently released in the mainstream now though, as that was missing throughout most of the 2010s.

[ghoul-star]

Originally Posted by caib2003

Interesting, Weapons to me seemed like the kind of film that wouldve gotten a 15, one of those traditional horror thrillers that don't push it major extents with the gore, but keep a bit there and the tension up like Cobweb or Tarot. I'll admit the 18 rating for the movie has intrigued me due to this expectation. Nice to see 18 rated horror being frequently released in the mainstream now though, as that was missing throughout most of the 2010s.

Yeah the only real 18 rated big horror movies I can recall being released in the 2010s were 'Jigsaw' and 'Halloween' (2018), and even then only the latter received positive reviews in addition to being a box office hit, since Jigsaw wasn't very well received by critics or fans. So honestly, maybe Halloween 2018 was the only one to fit the description from the 2010s

[Jill Valentine]

Originally Posted by ghoul-star

Yeah the only real 18 rated big horror movies I can recall being released in the 2010s were 'Jigsaw' and 'Halloween' (2018), and even then only the latter received positive reviews in addition to being a box office hit, since Jigsaw wasn't very well received by critics or fans. So honestly, maybe Halloween 2018 was the only one to fit the description from the 2010s

I know I’ve said this before but Scream 4 being a 15 and not an 18 still gets to me

[Alexcap]

Thriller: A Cruel Picture is getting released for the first times in the UK by Screenbound but theres bad news is it as Compulsory cuts required to remove material that may cause harm to viewers by making sexual violence look appealing (explicit shots of unsimulated sexual acts edited into two scenes of sexual violence).

[CavebobSpongeman]

Originally Posted by Alexcap

Thriller: A Cruel Picture is getting released for the first times in the UK by Screenbound but theres bad news is it as Compulsory cuts required to remove material that may cause harm to viewers by making sexual violence look appealing (explicit shots of unsimulated sexual acts edited into two scenes of sexual violence).

Top of the page.

[caib2003]

Originally Posted by ghoul-star

Yeah the only real 18 rated big horror movies I can recall being released in the 2010s were 'Jigsaw' and 'Halloween' (2018), and even then only the latter received positive reviews in addition to being a box office hit, since Jigsaw wasn't very well received by critics or fans. So honestly, maybe Halloween 2018 was the only one to fit the description from the 2010s

Jigsaw absolutely counts as a big mainstream horror for the 2010s, Receptions got nothing to do with it. But you're right about that and Halloween 2018 being the only major 18-rated horror releases most people remember from the 2010s, alongside Ready or Not.

[caib2003]

Originally Posted by Jill Valentine

I know I’ve said this before but Scream 4 being a 15 and not an 18 still gets to me

I find it strange considering the first 3 Scream films are much tamer yet still 18 rated even upon resubmission. First 3 are solid 15 material, 4 was a borderline case imo but I can't decide whether it leans more towards hard 15 or light 18, I'll have to watch it again.

[doomgen]

Originally Posted by caib2003

I find it strange considering the first 3 Scream films are much tamer yet still 18 rated even upon resubmission. First 3 are solid 15 material, 4 was a borderline case imo but I can't decide whether it leans more towards hard 15 or light 18, I'll have to watch it again.

Scream 2 hasn’t been rated since 1999 and 3 hasn’t been rated since 2001 so I’d imagine they’d be solid 15s now. the first one I think isn’t quite as cut-and-dry, primarily due to the opening sequence. even with the slight comedic aspect of the anonymous killer asking his soon-to-be victim horror movie trivia, it’s a prolonged setpiece that fuses strong sadistic threat (the way he asks questions like “do you want to know what your insides look like” and forcing her to see her boyfriend being eviscerated evinces a clear enjoyment by the perpetrator of the terrorisation being inflicted) with bloody violence and gore, juxtaposed with the helplessness of her parents in being able to save her, and ending with both of them witnessing her hanged and eviscerated corpse.

even though afterwards the film takes a dive into schlockier territory in its sense of threat and violence, that beginning scene is still mean and nasty stuff. I don’t think a film being a comedy-horror necessarily mitigates everything in it as suitable at the 15 category, like Freaky has some truly brutal murders that linger in detail and aren’t even played for comedic beats yet that passed at 15 and Last Night in Soho didn’t.

[defwarrior4000]

Originally Posted by buggenhagen

Sounds like they've just cut the hardcore inserts that were shot with alt actors and spliced in. I'm pretty sure they were only ever added to up the controversy around the film and they certainly don't add anything to it. I've got the old uncut Synapse version and the new Vinegar Syndrome release and tbh I'd generally prefer to watch with the hardcore scenes omitted

The Synapse yellow version I have is pretty much the BBFC version with the eye gouge removed as well. The BBFC page lists the eye gouge as being intact.

[jmbe]

Originally Posted by CavebobSpongeman

Compulsory cuts required to remove material that may cause harm to viewers by making sexual violence look appealinghttps://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/weapo...pwwc0xmdi5mzu4

And as usual, the people who decide this are miraculously immune to such things. It's only us who must be shielded. We can only dream of having such moral strength and virtue as to be able to withstand these sinful photons without succumbing to our feeble, lizard-brained instincts. Praise be! Praise be! All hail our divine protectors!
Glad I got the Vinegar Syndrome release when I did.

Watched Single White Female for the first time last night. From what I can make out, Indicator didn't resubmit it and the 18 is a relic of the 90's. It'd be a 15 now, right? I suppose there is a healthy amount of nudity in it, but the violence is just... lame? Maybe my standards need recalibrating though.

Speaking of which, I'm surprised The Bunny Game has never been mentioned in this thread (nothing comes up when I search for it anyway). Finally watched it after the recent BD reissue. Do I agree with the BBFC for not passing it? No, of course not. Did it live up to it's reputation? Yes, and then some. But the idea that the sexual violence in this film would come across as in any way appealing is simply the most preposterous thing I can possibly imagine. I've seen more arousing war films.

Which brings me back to SWF. Is it perhaps the sexual assault scene in that which, despite being fairly unconvincing, would keep it at an 18 certificate?

[doomgen]

Originally Posted by jmbe

And as usual, the people who decide this are miraculously immune to such things. It's only us who must be shielded. We can only dream of having such moral strength and virtue as to be able to withstand these sinful photons without succumbing to our feeble, lizard-brained instincts. Praise be! Praise be! All hail our divine protectors!
Glad I got the Vinegar Syndrome release when I did.

I find the hardcore imagery in Thriller very distasteful given the context, but I also like having the choice to determine for myself whether or not something is distasteful. Baise-Moi has a very similar shot that they let slide, and while its makers have feminist credentials unlike the people involved with Thriller and the goal was likely to repurpose pornographic imagery, the impression is very similar without background context. I think “gratuitous” and “makes sexual assault look appealing” are two very different kettles of fish, and the BBFC are kind of telling on themselves, not to mention ignoring the true societal motivators for sexual violence, when they suggest age-gated access to something like this or Reality Killers could turn someone into a perpetrator.