BBFC decisions you agree/disagree with...

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Killer Meteor

Makes you wonder where the BBFC would stand on BIRTH OF A NATION these days...though since that already has two blu-rays,and is 116 years old it's a bit late.

The VHS of the Photoplay restoration was held up for around 18 months while they and the BFI hammered out the formula that led to contextual warnings before the film and on the sleeve. Both sides insisted it was never a question of a ban but how to present it. For all the snorts of indignation they cause, those viewer discretion warnings help keep films in circulation. Though from descriptions of the film, they wouldn't apply here if the BBFC thought they could fuel anti-Semitism: that particular audience often tends not to limit their actions to just watching and wanking, especially with the anonymity the internet gives them.

[Killer Meteor]

Originally Posted by Videojon

I’ll simply never understand why people feel more aggrieved by the BBFC refusing to pass a film they can easily get hold of than they do by the fact there are distributors who are trying to turn a profit by selling anti-Semitic rape porn. Sounds to me like there’d be far darker days without the BBFC.

Because it represents that UK's censorship is more restrictive than other countries in the modern world, and does make you wonder what other cases might occur for different films.

And it seems unfair financially on the distributor.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Killer Meteor

I don't mind the warnings/lectures, patronising as they may appear, if it means we can see the films. It's always been the approach suggested for an eventual release of SONG OF THE SOUTH.

I think one of the reasons that and some WB cartoons are regarded as more trouble than they're worth is the response studios get from the invariably WASP green crayon brigade. I thought the Whoopi Goldberg Looney Tunes warnings were great and inoffensive get out of jail cards but we still got mail from racists complaining about using a black woman to 'tell them 'what to think' in pretty vitriolic langage.

[Killer Meteor]

Originally Posted by Aclea

I think one of the reasons that and some WB cartoons are regarded as more trouble than they're worth is the response studios get from the invariably WASP green crayon brigade. I thought the Whoopi Golderg Looney Tunes warnings were great and inoffensive get out of jail cards but we still got mail from racists complaining about using a black woman to 'tell them 'what to think' in pretty vitriolic langage.

Astonishing!

There's a public service film about road safety from the 1970s on one of the BFI collections, and the booklet mentions that the makers got a lot of complaints for showing a black child in the film.

[Jackie Scanlon]

I'm ABSOLUTELY all in for warnings and notes at the beginning of films and on packaging, and wokeness in general is not necessarily a "BAD THING". My concern with the current continuing decisions of the BBFC, which are admittedly not really directly related to the current thread discussion regarding Gestapo's Last Orgy (and similar films), is that the cuts and objections do seem to becoming more random and less predictable when comparing with the official regs, and some of them do seem to be rather more idiosyncratic as if they were decided by a few examiners (or one) that any given film is not fit for an adult free-thinking audience - very much going back to the finger wagging guardians they once were.

[Peachfuzz]

Originally Posted by Videojon

There’s a heavy irony here. To call warning statements in front of classic movies and television shows as the harbinger of dark times. It could be argued that those statements are actually a sign that society might just have a chance of escaping the ‘dark’ times - the times when it was OK to openly mock or stereotype or demonise entire social groups and ethnicities.

The potential dark times of censorship I'm referring to is far broader in context than your example. Of course, attitudes have changed - predominantly for the better, I might add; however, something progressively getting better doesn't necessarily mean everything is getting better.

People do get hysterical, and all manner of things tend to get caught up in the net.

While I'm not fan of entertainment such as Mind Your Language and It Aint Half Hot Mum (I personally find them distasteful), these new cautionary labels are covering so much more than that type of stereotypical and often downright racist entertainment, flagging anything that a growing number of people are choosing to become offended by. Some of these examples have already been discussed in previous posts. Many of these new warnings, for example, blindly ignore historical context or geographical location. Some of them are downright ludicrous; so much so, that even the tabloids - those bastions or moral dignity - scoff at them.

If this knee-jerk cancel culture, which exists in many forms, this tendency of choosing to be morally outraged at a particular thing, for whatever reason (sometimes with good reason, admittedly), is allowed to flourish unchallenged, it could very well reach a point where all sorts of innocuous material is being elevated in rating, cut, or even outright banned (there was a massive shout to have the children's TV show Paw Patrol banned at the height of the 'defund the police' hysteria because one of the characters happened to be a police dog).

What that might mean in the future for deliberately challenging material (socially inappropraite material, some may say), such as slasher films, rape-revenge, home invasion and torture porn flicks...?

Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

[TrentW1982]

Originally Posted by Videojon

There’s a heavy irony here. To call warning statements in front of classic movies and television shows as the harbinger of dark times. It could be argued that those statements are actually a sign that society might just have a chance of escaping the ‘dark’ times - the times when it was OK to openly mock or stereotype or demonise entire social groups and ethnicities.

We really don’t experience censorship in the U.K. - as is constantly pointed out on this forum, even if the BBFC do ask for cuts or ban films from release, you can still watch them very easily. And if anyone has the resources to do that, it’s people on this forum. Why isn’t that enough?

The BBFC serve a wider purpose than just being party-poopers to people who enjoy watching Holocaust porn. A useful one - they classify films, which is useful basic consumer information - and they apply (not decide) the law in regards to certain forms of content.

I’ll simply never understand why people feel more aggrieved by the BBFC refusing to pass a film they can easily get hold of than they do by the fact there are distributors who are trying to turn a profit by selling anti-Semitic rape porn. Sounds to me like there’d be far darker days without the BBFC.

That would all make sense, except that Gestapo's Last Orgy isn't anti-Semitic rape porn, it's an anti-Nazi revenge movie with a Jewish protagonist, albeit one marketed and titled as an exploitation movie.

So really, you could argue that banning an anti-Nazi film for depicting nazis in a negative light is almost defending the attitudes that the film goes out of its way to depict as repugnant and deserving of revenge.

The BBFC either didn't actually understand what the film was about, or they understood it but don't trust the UK public to understand it, which is what my Ferman quote about class referred to.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by TrentW1982

That would all make sense, except that Gestapo's Last Orgy isn't anti-Semitic rape porn, it's an anti-Nazi revenge movie with a Jewish protagonist.

So really, you could argue that banning an anti-Nazi film for depicting nazis in a negative light is almost defending the attitudes that the film goes out of its way to depict as repugnant and deserving of revenge.

Or, as many have argued, it's simple Naziploitation rape porn using the fig leaf of posing as an anti-Nazi film to revel in the atrocities it depicts, in much the same way that Hollywood of old used to use the Bible as an excuse to include censor-baiting violence and orgies and in the 50s, 60s and 70s porn films used to masquerade as 'educational films' by hiring someone to pretend to be a doctor to introduce it. It's pretty clear that in this case the BBFC judged this one as going out of its way to depict and exploit repugnant actions for mere titillation.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by Peachfuzz

or even outright banned (there was a massive shout to have the children's TV show Paw Patrol banned at the height of the 'defund the police' hysteria because one of the characters happened to be a police dog).

tbh, those responses to Paw Patrol shouldn’t be taken that seriously, for a lot of leftists it’s a joke and facetious than something that should be taken at face value. there are enough aspects of the police to discuss and take action about that a children’s cartoon series really isn’t that important to get riled up about. i don’t think anyone was seriously wishing for the series to be banned or cancelled.

that said, how the police are represented in the media we consume is an important aspect of debate on a broader level because of how pervasive these depictions are. cancelling a live action fly on the wall series like Cops carries a little more weight, and so do adult dramas. and obviously children can be heavily influenced by what they watch

Originally Posted by Killer Meteor

Because it represents that UK's censorship is more restrictive than other countries in the modern world, and does make you wonder what other cases might occur for different films.

And it seems unfair financially on the distributor.

At least we don’t have the FSK

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by Peachfuzz

While I'm not fan of entertainment such as Mind Your Language and It Aint Half Hot Mum (I personally find them distasteful), these new cautionary labels are covering so much more than that type of stereotypical and often downright racist entertainment, flagging anything that a growing number of people are choosing to become offended by.

I think this comes down to the unconscious lack of empathy most people have over issues that don't affect them that I wrote about in another thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...s#post18439517

There's the assumption in your post that because you are not offended by something, others aren't and therefore have to make a conscious choice to be offended rather than genuinely and sincerely being offended. That doesn't just apply to people who feel aggrieved that a piece of Holocaust porn hasn't been passed by the BBFC: family and children's TV from the past can have material that the groups its characters demean can genuinely find offensive.

I was surprised to hear the 'N' word used so casually in The Ravelled Thread (1979) when it was rerun on Talking Pictures recently while watching the excellent The Talons of Weng-Chiang over Christmas it was pretty clear why there are issues with its much more prevalent than I recalled offensive language that do require a warning on its TV broadcasts. Both are historically accurate for the periods they're set in, neither go out of their way to be malicious, yet there's no wider context to their presentation - the racist epithets are just accepted as perfectly natural without criticism or challenge by the characters. Put yourself into the position of a child from a family of Chinese origin who encounters that kind of thing cold and you understand why warnings are necessary. And frankly I'd put at least warning that kid over offensive material over anybody's right to be offended by an onscreen warning before the unaltered show.

Many of these new warnings, for example, blindly ignore historical context or geographical location.

No, they take into consideration the fact that the vast majority of the audience for films or TV aren't going to educate themselves about history or geographical context before watching something.

If this knee-jerk cancel culture, which exists in many forms, this tendency of choosing to be morally outraged at a particular thing

Except it's not a self-righteous choice for many - whether it's a BAME person simply 'choosing' to be offended by the N word or one of Chinese origin 'choosing' to be offended by a similarly derogatory racist term - and far from being a knee-jerk 'cancel culture,' it's a considered response to keeping these films and TV shows in circulation while acknowledging their capacity to offend and giving fair warning that those who are likely to find them genuinely offensive (even if you 'choose' not to) not to proceed rather than locking them up forever in a vault to rot. It's contextual warnings for the vast majority of consumers who don't undergo a written cultural, social and historical exam before watching something that keeps films from being cancelled - and why we can still buy GWTW, Birth of a Nation, The Talons of Weng-Chiang or Love Thy Neighbour.

[Killer Meteor]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

tbh, those responses to Paw Patrol shouldn’t be taken that seriously, for a lot of leftists it’s a joke and facetious than something that should be taken at face value. there are enough aspects of the police to discuss and take action about that a children’s cartoon series really isn’t that important to get riled up about. i don’t think anyone was seriously wishing for the series to be banned or cancelled.

that said, how the police are represented in the media we consume is an important aspect of debate on a broader level because of how pervasive these depictions are. cancelling a live action fly on the wall series like Cops carries a little more weight, and so do adult dramas. and obviously children can be heavily influenced by what they watch



At least we don’t have the FSK

As a child, I was a PC Pinkerton fan - a children's cartoon about a policeman who had the most crime-free beat ever!

Speaking of the FSK, has anyone ever tried releasing Naziploitation films in Germany?

[AlexJRascal]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

tbh, those responses to Paw Patrol shouldn’t be taken that seriously, for a lot of leftists it’s a joke and facetious than something that should be taken at face value. there are enough aspects of the police to discuss and take action about that a children’s cartoon series really isn’t that important to get riled up about. i don’t think anyone was seriously wishing for the series to be banned or cancelled.

Indeed,
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/di...-get-canceled/
but it seems this is already becoming a 'fact' to people who are offended by other people being offended.

[TrentW1982]

Originally Posted by Aclea

Or, as many have argued, it's simple Naziploitation rape porn using the fig leaf of posing as an anti-Nazi film to revel in the atrocities it depicts, in much thesame way that Hollywood of old used to use the Bible as an excuse to include censor-baiting violence and orgies and in the 50s, 60s and 70s porn films used to masquerade as 'educational films' by hiring someone to pretend to be a doctor to introduce it. It's pretty clear that in this case the BBFC judged this one to go out of its way to depict and exploit repugnant actions for mere titillation.

Not disagreeing with you that the BBFC judged the film that way.

The fact that the BBFC so clearly misjudged the film is the very issue I suspect most people are taking with their decision.

Nazisploitation films were mostly made by left-wing Italian film makers who suffered under Mussolini's regime. That's well documented.

As far as the audience goes, using myself as an example and not meaning to get too political, I'm about as left-wing and anti-fascist as you can get, and I like films that deal with such subject matter whether it be Salō or The Night Porter, right through to more exploitative titles like Salon Kitty and Gestapo's Last Orgy, because they are so anti-fascist.

If these were fascist or anti-Semitic films, bleeding heart Green voting lefties like myself wouldn't like them.

If distributors back in the day marketed them in an exploitative manner, or demanded more exploitative elements in the film, that doesn't change the film's political stance. It just adds to the context of how and when it was produced.

Similarly if an idiotic neo-nazi audience misinterpret the film to be reinforcing their view, that's their own fault.

The 1992 Australian film Romper Stomper is a clearly anti-fascist film but local neo-nazis embraced it as a celebration of their subculture and it became a favourite in their circles, because they didn't have the mental capacity to understand the subtext and all they saw was the skinheads beating up Vietnamese victims to an "Oi punk" soundtrack and got their rocks off.

What you describe is pretty much the same thing. Yes people, and dangerous people too, will misinterpret the film and might get their jollies to it, but do you ban a film just because the dregs of society might not "get it"? Romper Stomper isn't banned because a bunch of low IQ knuckleheads didn't get it.

I find it offensive that the BBFC would assume I must be a fascist if I'm interested in watching an anti-fascist film, even if back in 1977 the distributors did present the subject matter questionably to exploit a commercial trend at the time. I understand the context in which it was made.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by Aclea

And frankly I'd put at least warning that kid over offensive material over anybody's right to be offended by an onscreen warning before the unaltered show.

No, they take into consifderation the fact that the vast majority of the audience for films or TV aren't going to educate themselves about history or geographical context before watching something.

Except it's not a self-righteous choice for many - whether it's a BAME person simply 'choosing' to be offended by the N word or one of Chinese origin 'choosing' to be offended by a similarly derogatory racist term - and far from being a knee-jerk 'cancel culture,' it's a considered response to keeping these films and TV shows in circulation while acknowledging their capacity to offend and giving fair warning that those who find them genuinely offensive (even if you 'choose' not to) not to proceed rather than locking them up forever in a vault to rot. It's contextual warnings for the majority of consumers who don't undergo a written cultural, social and historical exam before watching something that keeps films from being cancelled - and why we can still buy

I do think if 88 are able to release a film of this sort they should provide some sort of context for both the genre and historical events and how they are depicted, either as an essay or video essay and sure a warning at the start of the film if they chose to do so. Sexualising the Holocaust and the way women were treated vs. men is a very loaded question with a lot of implications.

While I haven’t watched the films or video essays themselves, I’m glad someone like Jon Spira has turned to discussing Jewish identity on the discs for The Golem, An American Werewolf in London - whatever your thoughts on him as a video essayist are. One thing that antisemites like to latch onto is the idea “Hollywood is run by Jews!” (demonstrably not true, despite the fact that of course there are Jewish people within Hollywood) - and something generic like that dilutes actual nuanced discussion about how Jewish lives depicted on screen and how Jewish people involved in the industry have explored those aspects and how it has intersected with their own lives, as of course it is not a monolith.

One of my memories of SS Experiment Camp is it does depict Jewish resistance against Nazis, which does help to dispel some of the myths - but it also shows the futility of it, which is depressing viewing and both perhaps realistic but sometimes resistance was successful. Wikipedia (and apparently the BBFC too) describes the sexual activity in the film as “consensual”, but I don’t think any activity with the architects of genocide can really be considered consensual - it’s weighted. I think there’s numerous Holocaust films one should watch before they watch Nazisploitation though. I think the issue with the sensationalistic depictions is it’s removed from what actually occurred. Most Jews in Auschwitz wouldn’t be having orgies or sex of any kind. Do any of these films depict the starvation and disease that spread rapidly, or how dead bodies were everywhere? My impression is that prolonged torture directly from officers isn’t what often happened - it was cumulative, and often indirectly received - or being killed instantly on arrival.

[anephric]

What always bakes my noodle is how popular Nazisploitation novels were in Israel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_fiction

[TrentW1982]

I feel like I need to re-watch to refresh my memory, but I mostly remember Gestapo's Last Orgy as being a lot lighter on torture than I expected, and as having far more of a focus on the way the high ranking Nazis discussed utterly vile racial theories while being "entertained" by the prisoners.

That focus on dialogue, discussion, attitudes and repugnant racial theory which is depicted to show how insane and repulsive it was, in a setting of Gestapo officers using prisoners to impress high ranking government officials, rather than your usual WIP tropes such as sadistic wardens and doctors doing experiments, is what made Gestapo's Last Orgy come across as a more politically charged film with a lot more subtext and substance than most nazisploitation fare, which is what makes the rejection more curious.

Similar to Tinto Brass' Salon Kitty, I considered it to be half way between trashier exploitation like SS Experiment Camp and more seriously subversive films like The Night Porter.

I can imagine a film like The Beast in Heat being banned a lot more than this one.

[TrentW1982]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

I do think if 88 are able to release a film of this sort they should provide some sort of context for both the genre and historical events and how they are depicted, either as an essay or video essay and sure a warning at the start of the film if they chose to do so. Sexualising the Holocaust and the way women were treated vs. men is a very loaded question with a lot of implications.

While I haven’t watched the films or video essays themselves, I’m glad someone like Jon Spira has turned to discussing Jewish identity on the discs for The Golem, An American Werewolf in London - whatever your thoughts on him as a video essayist are. One thing that antisemites like to latch onto is the idea “Hollywood is run by Jews!” (demonstrably not true, despite the fact that of course there are Jewish people within Hollywood) - and something generic like that dilutes actual nuanced discussion about how Jewish lives depicted on screen and how Jewish people involved in the industry have explored those aspects and how it has intersected with their own lives, as of course it is not a monolith.

One of my memories of SS Experiment Camp is it does depict Jewish resistance against Nazis, which does help to dispel some of the myths - but it also shows the futility of it, which is depressing viewing and both perhaps realistic but sometimes resistance was successful. Wikipedia (and apparently the BBFC too) describes the sexual activity in the film as “consensual”, but I don’t think any activity with the architects of genocide can really be considered consensual - it’s weighted. I think there’s numerous Holocaust films one should watch before they watch Nazisploitation though. I think the issue with the sensationalistic depictions is it’s removed from what actually occurred. Most Jews in Auschwitz wouldn’t be having orgies or sex of any kind. Do any of these films depict the starvation and disease that spread rapidly, or how dead bodies were everywhere? My impression is that prolonged torture directly from officers isn’t what often happened - it was cumulative, and often indirectly received - or being killed instantly on arrival.

It's very interesting that the BBFC passed a film they describe as having "consensual" sexual activity in the setting of a concentration camp, but reject the film they describe as having "non-consensual" sexual activity in the same setting.

Context matters, and as you say, in that setting you would think consensual should be more problematic.

[Videojon]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

While I haven’t watched the films or video essays themselves, I’m glad someone like Jon Spira has turned to discussing Jewish identity on the discs for The Golem, An American Werewolf in London - whatever your thoughts on him as a video essayist are. One thing that antisemites like to latch onto is the idea “Hollywood is run by Jews!” (demonstrably not true, despite the fact that of course there are Jewish people within Hollywood) - and something generic like that dilutes actual nuanced discussion about how Jewish lives depicted on screen and how Jewish people involved in the industry have explored those aspects and how it has intersected with their own lives, as of course it is not a monolith.

Thank you - whatever your views of me as a video essayist are (probably best not to push on you on that one) A thing that’s worth saying is that, although my colleagues at Arrow and Eureka were entirely supportive and encouraging of those two video essays, I was not brought in to provide a Jewish contextualisation. In both of those cases, that’s what I pitched. I think the BFI is the only label which sets out to explore such perspectives as a mandate, and that’s a shame.

I’ve had some fantastic emails from AWIL fans who had never realised not only the depth of Jewish experience at play in the film but that the entire history of the cinematic werewolf was deeply rooted in modern Jewish history. This kind of material can enhance the experience for the viewer, deepen their appreciation of the film itself, but also create empathy. And empathy is so important.

People (exclusively WASP people) have recently roundly dismissed the notion of offence - the phrase ‘choosing to take offence’ has become prevalent as a replacement for ‘being offended’, which diminishes the experience of those still existing under the shadow of systemic racism and oppression. The irony of this is that they feel aggrieved and ‘treated like children’ when the BBFC insist on 4 seconds of cuts to a trashy horror film. They don’t like higher authorities or prevailing cultural attitudes to affect their lives and how they want to live them. Irony. They’ll whine publicly about a rape film being banned but not care at all about the actual issue of rape and the experiences of sexual abuse victims in the real world.

I’m completely against censorship but, firstly, a lot of people who use that term in this forum don’t seem to understand how lucky we are in this country that our government’s form of censorship extends mainly to cut images from films which might cause sexual abuse or making an effort to prevent children from seeing images which might distress them. In other ‘modern’ countries, censorship means no freedom of the press. It means state-controlled news reporting, regulated internet, and no freedom of speech. As misguided and outdated as you might view the BBFC, their motivation is not one of political or cultural censorship and in the context of the wider world, it’s embarrassing to portray them as such. Try talking to a Russian about censorship.

To get back to the case at question, I think there is a responsibility on the part of distributors putting material with the potential to cause genuine offence out into the world to provide context. I’ll always come back to the BFI’s excellent Birth of a Nation Blu Ray which allowed a viewer to both experience it as an important and excellent piece of early filmmaking but also to understand how vile it was and how harmful it’s existence was to society.

If 88 Films were to release Gestapo’s Last Orgy in that manner, exploring the genre, the subject matter and the filmmakers themselves, then I might even be tempted to buy a copy. But they won’t. Because to commission such material would be expensive and might alienate the people who pay to enjoy such things. And they want to make money out of it.

And that’s what I find offensive. People making money out of other people’s misery.

[Markgway]

People have a right to be offended, but they don't have a right not to be offended. What offends me may not offend others, etc. These Nazi-orgy films are by most accounts offensive, but that shouldn't give one group the right to censor it on another's behalf. If the film falls foul of the law, that's another matter. Otherwise, the best way not to be offended is to not watch it. I'm not watching it because I know it's likely to offend me.

Which brings me to unexpected offence. Aclea mentioned an old Doctor Who episode as being racist (against Chinese). Now I've not seen that as I think Doctor Who is pants - er, sorry if I've offended any fans - but you could argue that this programme is aimed at more impressionable children and thus a content warning isn't unreasonable. Is it genuinely racist? I've no idea, but if it is... fair enough. If it's just white guy playing Chinese in an otherwise non-offensive film (i.e. Charlie Chan movies) then I don't believe a content warning is necessary - you have to use common sense to draw the line somewhere or else every single picture and programme made before 2015 will require trigger warnings and insincere apologies.

As for films aimed at adults... well, if it's genuinely problematic (i.e. Birth of a Nation) then a content warning is appropriate - and in the case of that shocking film accompanying contextual extras. For the most part though I think we should just trust viewers to know what is right and not assume they need a historical explanation every time someone uses a racial slur or cracks an "offensive" joke. If a tiny minority think racism is A-OK then that's who they are and a film or content warning isn't going to change that. I'm sure black and Asian people know what attitudes prevailed in the golden age (and beyond) and are capable of coming to their own conclusions.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Which brings me to unexpected offence. Aclea mentioned an old Doctor Who episode as being racist (against Chinese). Now I've not seen that as I think Doctor Who is pants - er, sorry if I've offended any fans - but you could argue that this programme is aimed at more impressionable children and thus a content warning isn't unreasonable. Is it genuinely racist? I've no idea, but if it is... fair enough. If it's just white guy playing Chinese in an otherwise non-offensive film (i.e. Charlie Chan movies) then I don't believe a content warning is necessary - you have to use common sense to draw the line somewhere or else every single picture and programme made before 2015 will require trigger warnings and insincere apologies.

It’s TV Tropes, so there may be a better source, but

This story was not aired in Canada during the original 1980 syndication run on TVOntario, due to complaints from the local Chinese Canadian community, specifically the Chinese Canadian National Council. In their complaint to TVOntario, the CCNC had described it as "dangerous, offensive, racist stereotyping to associate the Chinese with everything fearful and despicable". The similarities to Fu Manchu were also noted as a concern too.
The story was not shown on Los Angeles television after 1985 for similar reasons, this time involving a local sponsor of Asian extraction.

So, the story has essentially been considered racist since its broadcast.

Originally Posted by Videojon

Thank you - whatever your views of me as a video essayist are (probably best not to push on you on that one)

I enjoyed Elstree 1976, good documentary