Friday 4th November sees Horror Channel launch their ‘Season of the Banned’ with the world television premiere of VIDEO NASTIES: MORAL PANIC, CENSORSHIP & VIDEOTAPE. The documentary, from DOGHOUSE director Jake West, is an insightful look at the controversy that plagued a generation of horror and exploitation films in the early 1980s; the ‘Video Nasties’ scandal saw 72 films persecuted by the Obscene Publications Act. At best, films were banned for a considerable amount of time; at worst, distributors were prosecuted and even served time in prison.
West’s interest in the period stems from his proximity to the controversy. As a teenager during the 1980s, the withdrawal of titles such as THE BURNING or THE DRILLER KILLER sparked an interest in these films.
‘By making something forbidden it just makes it more interesting,’ West tells The Hollywood News. ‘A lot of people from my generation were into horror films because we were told they were evil – it’s counter productive.’
The scandal around the Video Nasties was sparked by the introduction of home video in the UK. As films became distributed more easily and cheaply than they had before, a slew of budget horror flicks surfaced in family homes. Whilst we are familiar with the certification laws that govern our home entertainment in 2011, back in the early 80s there were no such regulations in place. As a result, scenes of violence, rape, and all-out horror became available to anyone. Predictably, the British tabloids were quick to voice concern (most notably The Daily Mail), and before long had whipped up a moral panic and public outcry over the effects the newly-dubbed Video Nasties were having on our children.
‘There’s no evidence to support that,’ says West. ‘Terrible things have always happened – people invade countries and start wars. I don’t think these films harm anyone…’
Jake West came upon the idea for VIDEO NASTIES: MORAL PANIC, CENSORSHIP & VIDEOTAPE following the production of several DVD compilations of grindhouse trailers. Along with Video Nasties commentator Marc Morris, West set about making a trailer compilation for the Nasties themselves.
‘As we were looking at the trailers,’ says West, ‘we thought it be more interesting to find out why each title was banned. Then as we were digging into it we started uncovering more information and thought it would make a great documentary. It spiraled into a much bigger project.’
West recalls how difficult is was to get hold of many of the titles, regardless of how determined a teenage gorehound he may have been during the 1980s. In some cases, it took up to a decade to obtain one of the infamous films.
‘When you see them though, it’s amazing that they were banned,’ West tells THN. ‘Getting hold of these things got harder and harder in the 1980s. But when you finally found a copy of something you’d really wonder what all the fuss was about.’
West is referring, of course, to the fact that many of these films didn’t live up to their reputation. In many cases, their notoriety had come from the violent and blood-soaked artwork that decorated the videocassette packaging.
‘There are a few films in the canon that are stronger,’ says West, ‘CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT – but most of them are pretty tame really.’
Regardless of how tame some of the films may have been, the campaign against them waged on, proving a victory for the Conservative government and right-wing press. The scandal eventually led the Video Recordings Act 1984; from then on, films produced for home viewing were privy to the same classification laws as those released in cinemas. However, nearly 30 years later times have changed. Though the same – or equivalent – age certificates still exist, most of the films from the original ‘banned list’ are now readily available, and many in an uncut form. As the social concerns and mores change over time, so do attitudes to what is acceptable on screen, and what is ‘too far’.
‘That’s a generational thing,’ says West. “What was “too far” 50 years ago has completely changed. You would probably see a Hammer film on TV in the early evening now whereas it used to be late at night.’
But there are still issues that push buttons for the BBFC; as some explicit images become less provocative, others remain an issue of debate and concern.
‘Censorship is bound by the laws of the country,’ says West, ‘and in terms of the UK, the films they have problems with – as you can see recently – are things like A SERBIAN FILM and THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II and THE BUNNY GAME – it’s films that have any form of sexualized violence. It seems to me that there are inconsistencies in the rulings that the BBFC make. If you look at other films, such as IRREVERSIBLE, if that film is considered an art film, then that level of violence is acceptable. To me that’s a problem. I would prefer they just had a classification system with a clear age range guide, and adults should be allowed to see material at the top end. It seems ludicrous in an age when children can download films within a minute – there are a lot of contradictions there.’
These points have had particular relevance of late, as the BBFC has refused classification to two films this year, the aforementioned THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) and THE BUNNY GAME. However, horror fans will be aware that the BBFC reversed their decision on Tom Six’s HUMAN CENTIPEDE sequel in October. It was passed with an ‘18’ certifcate after 2.37 minutes of cuts had been made to the material.
‘I was saddened to hear it had been rejected at first,’ West tells THN. ‘I saw the film and thought it was strong – but Tom Six was going for the “hard end” of the “18” certificate. It’s designed to push people’s buttons and annoy them.’
One of crucial factors behind the BBFC’s original ruling was perhaps the content of Tom Six’s film. It tells the story of a man corrupted and influenced by a DVD copy of the original film. He embarks on a copycat spree of violence and sexual perversion, creating his own grotesque ‘Human Centipede’ experiment. The issue of the copycat has long been a contentious topic for the BBFC, and the film’s plot was undoubtedly problematic for the organization.
The BBFC’s rejection of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II was subsequently challenged by Six has the film’s distributors, a campaign that proved successful.
‘What was interesting,’ considers West, ‘is that they refused it then recanted and gave it a certificate. The only reason that happened is because the distributor was willing to spend the money and fight the case, whilst most filmmakers wouldn’t have the resources to do that. Had that been the case, the film would have stayed withdrawn. Because it had an established market and market potential, it was worth fighting for. With THE BUNNY GAME, it seems unlikely that that will happen. If you want to fight censorship you need resources, which is a problem.’
West thinks that maybe the BBFC just ‘didn’t know what to with it’, as their approach is outdated. Having been operating the same way for many years, is it possible that they haven’t moved with the times, when those they seek to protect are easily savvy enough to access almost anything they want?
‘The idea of censorship protecting young people is completely out of date now,’ says West. ‘Kids download stuff from the Internet all of the time. You’re not living in the real world of you don’t know that, and I think the BBFC are protecting something because that’s the way things have been done for a long time.’
The reality is, of course, that historically the British press and public have not responded well to explicit materials. It’s likely that by refusing classification to films such as THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 or THE BUNNY GAME, the BBFC considers itself to be acting in the best interests of the filmmakers, who could be liable for prosecution if their film is deemedv responsible for a particular crime or societal problem. Examples of this have been seen before, most notably when CHILD’S PLAY 3 was wrongly blamed for the James Bulger murder and Croneberg’s CRASH linked to ram-raiding and joyriding (though no filmmakers were prosecuted, thankfully). In past examples such as these, the British press and public has been quick to blame films and TV for their problems without looking to see the inherent problems with our society.
Whilst research into the negative effects that explicit media has upon audiences has produced no valid evidence to date, belief in such effects remain popular in the British consciousness. As a result, the BBFC will undoubtedly continue to operate as they have done until now in an effort to shield viewers from the ills of cinema. But West considers that the Video Nasties, controversial as they were, have influenced some people in a positive way.
‘A lot of people have had careers,’ he says, ‘writers, filmmakers, journalists – they have been inspired by that work. We were watching these films when we were kids. I understand age classification, and you don’t really want to watch I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE when you’re 12-years old, but Neil Marshall did – is he affected? No he’s not. Does he make gory films? Yes, he does. I see that more as a positive influence rather than a negative one.’
There is a strong argument to suggest that much of the scandal around the Nasties was due to alternative political agenda: the government at the time had no control over the home video market, an issue they were keen to amend; the streets of Britain had been wracked with violent riots in Brixton and Toxeth due to economic downturn and spiraling unemployment figures; and Margaret Thatcher had been criticized for the violence of the Falklands War. The Video Nasties were a way for the government to incite frenzy in the public and then stand alongside them in solidarity.
‘The Video Recordings Act and all these things were passed through government on falsified evidence,’ says West, ‘because the powers-that-be wanted to get their own way. The films were being used for somebody else’s political agenda. That’s the thing to be aware of. If horror films are being to blame for the ills of society then there’s something wrong with that argument.
‘Hopefully we’re sensible enough to not fall into another moral panic and know that horror isn’t a trigger for these things.’
VIDEO NASTIES: MORAL PANIC, CENSORSHIP & VIDEOTAPE will be shown on Horror Channel Friday 4th November as part of ‘Season of the Banned’.
Visit Horror Channel here
