Bond Banned…James Bond style gun ad banned by the advert censor

Based on article from asa.org.uk Read more ASA Advert Censorship on MelonFarmers.co.uk

A regional press ad, in the London Evening Standard, for Klaus Kobec watches. The ad featured an image of a man pointing a small gun towards the reader. This fabulous new gentleman’s watch is not only suave and sophisticated, it’s incredibly sexy looking too. With its nostalgic face and exceptionally robust stainless steel body it attracts admiring glances wherever it’s worn. Four complainants objected that the ad, in particular the image of the gun pointing towards the reader, was offensive and glamorised gun crime and violent behaviour. ASA Assessment: Upheld The ASA considered that James Bond was likely to be seen as a glamorous, suave character with an aspirational lifestyle. Although we acknowledged that the ad used a play on words associated with the Bond theme, we noted the image of the gun featured prominently in the ad and focussed on the barrel of the gun rather than on the mans face or character. We considered that, especially because the gun was pointing directly toward the reader, the ad was likely to be seen as glamorising gun culture and violence. On this point, the ad breached CAP Code and must not appear again in its current form.

Side Splitting…Calls for the VRA to be consigned to the dustbin of history

27th August 2009. From Alan Read more UK Government Censorship on MelonFarmers.co.uk

We really need to bring back weekly collections! I almost split my sides laughing, until I recalled that for a quarter of a century people have been flung in prison for crimes that never existed. I hope that the government ends up paying massive compensation. As far as my taxes are concerned, it’s a worthier cause than bombing Afghans, or prosecuting prostitutes’ maids for “controlling” them. We Brits need to wake up top what our control freak government is doing. Every time some nutter whinges about the opening of a sex shop, we need to point out that such shops are only necessary because of the (illegal) VRA. If M. LeBrun, Herr Braun and Sig. Bruni want a naughty film, they can buy it from a mainstream shop or by mail order, while Mr Brown is obliged (or, it appears, not obliged) to skulk into a sex shop in a sub-prime shopping area. I suggest that all Melon Farmers write to their MPS asking for this nonsense to be consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs. From Alan (writing from a civilised country, where the station bookstall has a range of mucky films available to commuters) Extra Laws 27th August 2009 by Jon Williams, See article from pleasedsheep.com The 1984 VRA has turned into rather a mess. As the Act was written a long time before DVD’s and DVD extras, it’s all a matter of interpretation as to what, besides the actual film, needed to be classified. In my book audio commentaries would be exempt, but the BBFC tells you that ‘Our lawyers suggest that these require classification’. And what about ‘the making of…’ documentaries, interviews with cast and crew members and so on. Ask the BBFC and they reply with, “It’s our job to classify things, it’s up to you what you send us, we can’t tell you what the law is – look at the Act”. I did, and I discovered that it’s policed by Trading Standards who only act in response to a complaint. Their concern is actually more with pirate copies. So I put the question to a cross section of Trading Standards departments as to what was exempt when it came to DVD extras. And I got a lot of different replies, ranging from nothing is exempt, to everything other than deleted scenes is. And then others pointed out that the film’s classification applies to the whole DVD, so if it’s an ‘18′ then the extras can’t be separately classified as they’ve got an ‘18′ by default. What’s more they couldn’t imagine anyone complaining about any extras not having been classified (how would they know) but they would complain if any of the extras went way beyond the film’s classification. Of course none of them wanted me to quote them, on the grounds that only a judge could make any legal interpretations. But I did get the impression that, provided the filmmakers included appropriate extras, they had more important things to be getting on with. Right now, for the next few months, all this has been made irrelevant. But it is a golden opportunity to push for some sensible reforms, such as the introduction of ‘unrated-18′ which would bring us into line with the US as well as several other civilised countries. Help for Small Circulation DVDs 27th August 2009. From John, see also www.myspace.com/julianmarshiii An idea that may have appeal even to MPs who don’t care about censorship issues… If I make a film – or even want to release one from the decades ago – I have to obtain a certificate (except for a few special cases – innocuous documentaries and music videos). And that will cost me over £1,000 for a feature length film. As a new and unknown film maker I may sell only 250 copies of my film (an adaptation of Shakespeare say – and not a Bard Nasty like TITUS ANDRONICUS but an innocuous tale like ROMEO AND JULIET with its street sword fights and under-age lust and… well, maybe one of his other ones *grin*). That means £4 or more has to be added to the final sale price merely to pay the BBFC. Isn’t this a choke on creativity? But aren’t we always being told that our creative industries are worth billions to the economy? The VRA is quite clearly preventing limited interest productions from being seen. (This is as true for our cinematic heritage as it is for new titles. What, for example, is the expected sales figure for a DVD of a silent film, I wonder? Considering the limited appeal, I’d imagine that the BBFC fee makes up a significant proportion of the cost of getting it to market.) Offsite: Could the UK Video Recordings Act of 1984 get any more useless? 28th August 2009. See article from spiked-online.com by Graham Barnfield The bottom line is that criminal law needs to butt out of the cinema and home entertainment industries. If consenting participants in film productions emerge unharmed from the production process, then the resulting films would meet a revised, forward-looking minimum legal threshold in future. (Whether they should go ahead on aesthetic or commercial grounds is a separate issue.) This latest humiliation for the Video Recordings Act 1984 should be a chance to wipe the tape clean and treat adult viewers as adults. …Read the full article

A Flood of Unclassified Cover Ups…Barbara Follett tried to keep the lid on the VRA being erased from UK law

Thanks to emark Based on article from wikileaks.org See also leaked letter [pdf] from Barbara Follett to the DPP Read more UK Government Censorship on MelonFarmers.co.uk

Wikileaks has published a letter sent from UK Parliament Under Secretary Barbara Follett MP to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC. The letter is dated 24th of August 2009 and is informing Public Prosecutions of an issue that has risen in relation to the Video Recordings Act 1984, which appears to be that offences under the Act are unenforceable, and existing investigations should not be continued. After explaining the situation, Follett in an obvious attempt to suppress a spreading public knowledge about this issue asks DPP to consider carefully what reasons are given to the court in relation to any discontinuations, fearing the market could be flooded with unclassified DVDs.

Still Life on TV…Ofcom rules that nude models in Life Class were ok for daytime TV

Based on article from telegraph.co.uk Read more Ofcom TV Censorship on MelonFarmers.co.uk

A Channel 4 life drawing programme which featured naked female models was acceptable lunchtime viewing, the television censor, Ofcom, has ruled. 37 viewers complained about the content of Life Class: Today’s Nude, which was broadcast daily at 12.30pm over a week in July. It was adult viewing, not for screening in the middle of the day, one viewer said after tuning in to the programme, in which artists guided students through various drawing techniques. However, Ofcom rejected the complaints and ruled that Channel 4 did not breach broadcasting guidelines. The watchdog has written to every complainant explaining that the nudity was justified. Life drawing is a well-known and respected form of art. In Ofcom’s view, although the images of nudity were broadcast for long periods of time, they were not presented in a sexualised manner and were clearly justified by the context, given the editorial purpose of the series, the letter read. The programme was broadcast during school term time and was not aimed at children, the watchdog said, adding that each episode was prefaced by a warning about its content.

Ofcom Unpersuaded…TV censor whinges at strong language by Tony Curtis

Based on article from ofcom.org.uk Read more Ofcom TV Censorship on MelonFarmers.co.uk

Talkback BBC Radio Ulster, 22 May 2009, 13:00 Talkback is a political and current-affairs phone-in programme broadcast daily after the midday news. This edition of Talkback featured a live interview with veteran Hollywood actor, Tony Curtis. During the course of the interview Mr Curtis used the words “bastards”, “bullshit” and “fuck”. After each, the presenter apologised to the audience, as follows: Tony Curtis [speaking of journalists]: …some bastards go ahead and make them headlines. Presenter: I guess I have to apologise for that Hollywood realism moment there. Tony Curtis [speaking of being nominated for an Oscar]: Yeah but that was bullshit… I’m sorry. Presenter: More Hollywood realism breaking through on Radio Ulster. Tony Curtis: So I just got up and said ‘fuck off’. Presenter: Oh no, now come on. We really, really can’t use that kind of language. Tony Curtis: You can’t use that kind of language? Presenter: We can’t use that language, no, I apologise to our listeners. Tony Curtis: Now listen, my dear friend, you can take that, er…Oh, it is live. Presenter: Yeah, we’re live, we’re live on the radio. Curtis: I apologise to everyone…I don’t want to offend anyone. Everyone has the right to enjoy what life giveth. Ofcom received two complaints from listeners who felt this language was offensive and unsuitable for the time of transmission. Ofcom considered these complaints under Rule 2.3 (material that may cause offence must be justified by the context). Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 2.3 Ofcom noted that Talkback is a political and current affairs programme and therefore that children were not particularly likely to have been listening to this broadcast. Notwithstanding this, Ofcom went on to consider whether the language used in the broadcast exceeded generally accepted standards and was justified by the context. Ofcom took into account the nature of the programme, the fact that it was a live broadcast, and also the apologies offered to listeners by both the presenter and Mr Curtis. Ofcom considers that during live interviews it is important for the broadcaster to properly brief interviewees of the need to avoid offensive language (where appropriate) and also to be particularly vigilant during the broadcast itself for any potential breaches of the Code and where necessary take action to prevent them. While Ofcom acknowledged that the apologies to listeners went some way in mitigating the potential offence of the language used, Ofcom considered that the language, in particular the use of the word “fuck” was likely to have gone beyond the expectations of the audience for a programme of this type and at this time.

Possessed by Evil Censors…Ofcom don’t buy the argument that 12 years has healed an 18 certificate for the X Files

Couldn’t Virgin have just paid for an BBFC advice viewing to see if time had indeed downgraded the 18 to a 15? Virgin were probably correct. Based on article from ofcom.org.uk Read more Ofcom TV Censorship on MelonFarmers.co.uk

The X Files Virgin 1, 21 April 2009, 19:00 Virgin 1 is a general entertainment channel, which is available without access restrictions on all digital platforms. The X Files is a drama series devoted to two FBI agents and their attempts to solve cases that appear to have some unexplained, paranormal element. In this episode, a The Holvey family is apparently infiltrated by the spirit of their dead son. This particular episode of The X Files, entitled The Calusari had received a BBFC ‘18’ rating in April 1997 for video release. During the course of the programme the spirit periodically possessed the Holvey family’s living son, Charlie, and brings about the death of three members of the Holvey family. The family members were killed by: being pushed into the path of an on-coming fairground train; being attacked by birds; and, strangulation. The culmination of the episode shows Charlie, in a hospital bed, being exorcised of the spirit by several Romanian ritualists (the eponymous Calusari). At one point during the exorcism scene Charlie struggled to such an extent with the ritualists (who were holding him down) that his neck bones sounded as if they had cracked. Ofcom received a complaint that this episode of the series contained frightening content and was unsuitable for broadcast before the watershed. Ofcom conidered Rule 1.21 (BBFC 18-rated films or their equivalent must not be broadcast before the watershed). Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rule 1.21 Ofcom considered that, whilst the Calusari Episode was in The X Files tradition, it was, as Virgin Media had noted, stronger than other episodes from The X Files strand. Ofcom noted that the overarching dark and menacing paranormal theme of the programme resulted in the Calusari Episode receiving a BBFC ‘18’ rating. Ofcom acknowledged that the ‘18’ rating had been given to the episode some 12 years prior to the broadcast, but noted that this episode has not been re-classified by the BBFC since. To Ofcom’s knowledge the Calusari Episode is the only episode of The X Files currently in receipt of a BBFC ‘18’ certificate. Ofcom also noted Virgin Media’s comparison of the Calusari Episode to two films which had received BBFC ‘15’ ratings in 2004 and 2005. Ofcom did not accept this argument because the rule clearly states that BBFC ‘18’ rated material must not be broadcast before the watershed on any service. This Rule applies, regardless of the time that has lapsed since the material was originally rated and the broadcaster’s own judgement on the strength of the material in comparison to more recent films. Ofcom considered that the BBFC’s summary of the Calusari Episode as containing occasional strong horror was an accurate reflection of this programme. This description, taken together with its BBFC ‘18’ rating should have alerted the broadcaster to the potential harm and/or offence of various scenes within the programme (in particular the exorcism scene, to any children that might have been watching). Given the above, the programme was therefore in breach of Rule 1.21.

Video Recordings Act Erased…1984 Act governing video censorship was never properly enacted

Sounds bad, it will give his nasty mean minded government another chance to tinker Perhaps they could at least do something for the UK adult industry and let them sell R18s by mail order, no doubt with mandatory adult verification. Based on article from timesonline.co.uk Read more UK Government Censorship on MelonFarmers.co.uk

The discovery of a Whitehall blunder means that the 1984 law regulating the video industry was never enacted. The disclosure that for 25 years the Video Recordings Act governing the classification and sale of videos, video games and now DVDs was never brought into force is a big embarrassment to both Conservative and Labour governments. It also leaves the industry in disarray with the classification system no longer officially in operation. Police and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are to be told to stop bringing any prosecutions until the Government brings in emergency legislation to re-enact the 1984 Video Recordings Act. Until then people will be able to sell videos, including violent and pornographic ones, to people without fear of prosecution. The video industry was stunned by the Government’s admission that the Act was not properly enacted 25 years ago. Officials in the Home Office had failed to notify the European Commission of the existence of the Act as they were required to do so under an EU directive. The mistake was not spotted on two subsequent occasions, in 1993 and 1994. It was finally discovered during plans to update the law and introduce a new video-game classification system. Barbara Follett, Minister for Culture and Tourism, said last night: Unfortunately, the discovery of this omission means that, a quarter of a century later, the Video Recordings Act is no longer enforceable against individuals in United Kingdom courts. In a letter to representatives of the video industry, Follett said: As the then British Government did not notify the European Commission of the VRA’s classification and labelling requirements, they cannot now be enforced against individuals in UK courts. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that it had received legal advice that people who had previously been prosecuted and convicted would be unable to overturn their convictions or seek compensation. [Sounds like bollox to me, how can you not fail to overturn a conviction for a law that was not enacted]. The British Video Association said that it is urging members to continue submitting work to the British Board of Film Classification and to continue labelling them under the system.

BBFC Masterclass…Explaining the difference between harmful and grotesque

Based on article from inverness-courier.co.uk Read more BBFC News on MelonFarmers.co.uk

Emily Fussell’s BBFC masterclass Eden Court’s La Scala cinema, Inverness Tuesday 25th August at 6.30pm. Note: This event is suitable for aged 15 and over, but some clips from 18 certificate films may be shown. Emily Fussell, a former cinema manager, works for the BBFC. Previously known as the British Board of Film Censors, these days the BBFC prefers to avoid the more emotive “censor” and titles Fussell and her colleagues examiners. However, the old terminology has not entirely died away. When you’re in the pub trying to explain what you do, you pretty much have to say ‘I’m a film censor’, Fussell acknowledged. Fussell will be in Inverness next week to give an insight into the enclosed world of film classification – and give Highland film enthusiasts a chance to do some censorship of their own. I get the audience to use their knowledge and try and classify something themselves, Fussell said: It’s amazing the reactions you get. Sometime you feel that young people are quite lenient and older people are more censorious, but when I showed people a clip from ‘Team America: World Police’ where the puppets have sex, the younger people wanted to give it quite a high rating but the older people were fine about it: ‘Oh, it’s just puppets.’ Most years see the BBFC embroiled in some controversy over its decisions, most recently Cannes prize-winner Antichrist from Danish director Lars Von Trier has been attacked for explicit sex and violence and faced calls for local authorities to ban the film after it was passed uncut by the BBFC. Defending the BBFC’s decision to pass the film, Fussell suggested much of the controversy had been generated by people who had not actually seen the film: A lot of the controversy about ‘Antichrist’ is based on a scene of explicit sex. There’s also a close up shot of genital mutilation, but that’s obviously not real, just gore and special effects. There’s nothing in it that would be harmful and that’s primarily what we are looking at. When we watched it we never had any doubt that it would be an 18 uncut. That’s the way we operate these days: an adult should be able to see what they want as long as it is not harmful. [...or Grotesque?]

Wrestling with the Censors…BBFC cuts for the cinema version of 12 Rounds

The uncut region 2 DVD is available at UK Amazon for release 12th October 2009 The uncut UK Blu-ray is available at UK Amazon for release 12th October 2009 The uncut region 1 DVD is available at US Amazon The uncut US Blu-ray is available at US Amazon Read the Latest Cuts Info on MelonFarmers.co.uk

12 Rounds is a 2009 US action film by Renny Harlin The BBFC passed the 2009 20th Century Fox Extended Version (Extreme Cut or Unrated Version) 15 uncut: 12 Rounds is an action thriller about a cop who has to complete twelve tasks to rescue his kidnapped girlfriend. This extended version of the film was passed ‘15′ for strong violence. The violence is unrelenting and the film moves from one action sequence to another without let up. Although much of the violence takes the form of car smashes and explosions, with no detail of human injury, there are some stronger sequences. In the first, a man is stabbed in the stomach by the main villain. We do not see the impact or the injury, but there is a clear close-up on the very bloody blade as it is drawn out. The second strong scene is that in which the villain’s girlfriend is, shockingly, hit by a truck. The impact is swift and undetailed, but we see several mid- and close-up shots of the body lying on the ground, with blood on her face and in a pool on the ground. Finally, a climactic helicopter fight sequence is also bloody and contains some hard blows, including several impressionistic but crunchy blows to the face. BBFC Guidelines at ‘12A’ state that ‘Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood,’ and in this case the film is better placed at ‘15′, where ‘Violence may be strong.’ The film also contains two uses of strong language. Previously the BBFC cut the 2009 cinema release (based on the US Theatrical Version) by 15s: Company chose to remove focus on a bloodied knife used to stab a man and close-up focus on the bloodied face of a woman after she has been hit by a van. Cuts made to achieve a 12A classification. An uncut 15 was available.

Grotesque Censorship…BBFC ban Japanese horror film

Thanks to Gav See article from bbfc.co.uk See also Brits ban ho-hum-sounding flick from newhorror.wordpress.com Read the Latest Cuts Info on MelonFarmers.co.uk

Grotesque (Gurotesuku) is a 2009 Japan horror film by Kôji Shiraishi The BBFC have banned the 2009 4Digital Media DVD. The Japanese Unrated Version was submitted. See review from IMDb: Pointless torture movies The new wave snuff films (or rebirth of 70’s uber violent films) are just not my taste… this movie is a prime example of these pointless torture movies, While in context the aspect of torture in a horror film i.e. Saw, Hellraiser, Texas chainsaw (the original) etc… works great because it’s bad people getting their come up-pence or just a cautionary of the cruelty of man but this film is just a fictionalized snuff film with no story what so ever. Watching people getting brutally killed (particularly those who were just there) for the bulk of the movie then…. “the end” after some silly f/x does nothing for me except feeling a little dirty for watching this piece of trash. If you a fan of Devils rejects, Vacancy and the like check it out but if you are like me a little and like at least a little mental stimulation with your gore fix skip this one. Film censors explain their case From bbfc.co.uk Bbfc Rejects Sexually Violent Japanese Horror Dvd The BBFC has rejected the DVD Grotesque. This means that it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK. The decision was taken by the Director, David Cooke and the Presidential Team of Sir Quentin Thomas, Alison Hastings and Gerard Lemos. Grotesque is a feature that focuses for the majority of its running time on the sexual assault, humiliation and extreme torture of a male and female victim. The central character abducts, restrains, strips and masturbates both the man and the woman. After this he inflicts grave injuries on the restrained couple, including amputation, eye gouging, castration and evisceration. The torture becomes even more extreme, leading to the gory and violent death of both hostages. The film ends with the killer choosing his next victims. David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said: “Unlike other recent ‘torture’ themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with 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 (including sexual sadism) for its own sake. “It is the Board’s carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to Grotesque, even if statutorily confined to adults, would involve risk of harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, would be inconsistent with the Board’s Guidelines, and would be unacceptable to the public. The BBFC has a strict policy on sexual violence. With portrayals of sexual violence which might eroticise or endorse sexual assault the Board may require cuts at any classification level. “Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.” “Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.” Note: The Video Recordings Act makes clear that harm is not to be interpreted narrowly as behavioural harm, but may also include more insidious risks, and the Board follows this approach in having regard to, for instance, moral harm and possible desensitisation. The correct legal definition of the harm test was clarified by Mr Justice Mitting in his ruling of 24 January 2008 at the High Court. In that ruling he stated that ‘The task of the Board [...] is to have special regard to any harm that may in future be caused to potential viewers’. The Act also makes clear that harm is not the only issue to be weighed in the balance.