The_Perfect_Storm wrote:
What happens when a film isn't classified? What are they permitted to do with it?
Usually there are about two or three rejections a year for various reasons although sometimes refusals happen if the distributors elect not to make the required cuts for a certificate, as happened with the video submission of
Straw Dogs in 1999 and the cinema version of
The Last House on the Left the following year) and for the last ten years have all been for video/DVD (with the exception of the game
Manhunt 2 where a cut version was later passed '18' after appeal and of course the case of
The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) earlier this year. Another reason why a work might be rejected is because the amount of cuts would be so extensive or complex as to make a release not worth the bother.
Films are allowed to be released on video with a voluntary 'E' certificate if the content is strictly educational and does not contain anything objectionable.
If a work is rejected the distributor essentially has two options:
- To abandon the release altogether, or
- To reduce - and often emasculate - the work enough in order to get some sort of release through the BBFC.
Most distributors choose the former as many rejections are of low-budget horror films containing endless scenes of rape, torture and humiliation, death video compilations, instructive videos on how to produce your own illegal substances, pornographic films with rape themes and so on.
Quote:
The classifications board is misguided.
I think so too. I think it's wrong to reject films like this. As long as the content isn't illegal (and I think much of the "extreme porn" law ought to be repealed) I'd be all for passing the film '18' uncut but only with a specific warning on the DVD artwork.
Quote:
I really don't see how this film can pose a threat to adults.
It
might encourage some unbalanced or dangerous people and I think that's the BBFC's concern. I won't be losing any sleep over this rejection but I still believe it to be wrong.