Scrapbook (2000)

[Angel]

Only 15m 24s, Dis.

Original reports of 17m 50s were wrong.

[RoXX0rz]

Yeah. I had the UK DVD of Nutbag for a long time before getting my hands on the director's cut DVD. They might as well just have rejected it because the UK version of the movie is pretty pointless as it stands. The editing and cutting though was very neatly done. They cut out a chunk of it where he has a naked woman tied to a chair with a pig's mask on her. I didn't get why they cut that part at all. There's not really any violence in that scene just dialog. I wonder how Nutbag would fair up compared to today's standards. Oh well, not to go off topic, but thought I'd add my say on Nutbag And Scrapbook is cut by 15m and 24s as Angel said.

I can imagine the main candidate scenes for being cut would be the beginning rape scene around 15mins into the movie, the forced shower scene, and pretty much all of the sexual violence nearing the end of it.

Edit: I think in my opinion the BBFC should have an upper cuts limit (eg, if a movie requires really extensive cuts like Nutbag and Scrapbook). I mean the cuts to some of these movies don't really leave a viable product, and they certainly don't with Nutbag.

[Jaimie]

Didn't the UK distributor (Cryptkeeper?) sell this in it's uncut form without a certificate via their website prior to the BBFC 'advising' them that they were breaking the law?

Having got it from the States I've got to agree that I'm suprised the BBFC didn't just ban it. Over 15 mins cut has got to be a record for a non-R18 DVD surely!!!

[RoXX0rz]

I think I heard that somewhere too, that it had been released without a certificate by mistake. When the BBFC got hold of it, that was the end to it. I can't imagine the BBFC being happy with that happening lol given the fact the movie wasn't a straight forward 18, it was very close to being rejected I'd imagine, and the cuts being so extensive backs that up. Apparently the cut list for Scrapbook are as follows (A warning that some content may be of adult nature):

"15:43s-18:24s. Remove in its entirety scene in which woman is raped and degraded, from forcible stripping through to, and including, sight of man urinating on woman.
53:21s-67:20s. Remove in their entirety the following consecutive scenes: humiliation of woman in the shower (including enforced stripping and photographs take); extended sexual humiliation and rape of woman. Remove also the subsequent repeat footage of shower scene (intervening shots of scrapbook may remain). Sight of man drilling door may remain.
84:30s-85:40s. Remove all sight of woman running knife across man's chest and penis., ending after wounds inflicted on chest."

[Angel]

Yes 15m is a record for a DVD/video passed since the introducion of the VRA and just including live action/ non sex works. I would imagine this record will be beaten in time. As mentioned there must be something in Scrapbook that made the BBFC feel it worth classifying - it surely can't be just the revenge scene. They do try to avoid rejections when they can though, which is why there are so few rejections these days.

[Daemonia]

Scrapbook was a strange case involving the BBFC. The UK company Crypt Keeper were selling the uncut version (without submitting it to the BBFC) to UK customers via their website. The BBFC themselves took the law into their own hands and took legal steps against them to stop selling it (I always thought the BBFC said they weren't a law enforcement body?).

So, Crypt Keeper submitted the film and it got a whopping 15mins 24secs of cuts. Personally, I think the BBFC were harsher on it than usual because they had a vendetta against the releasing company. Just speculation that, mind - but you have to wonder...

[vipco]

Originally Posted by Angel

Yes 15m is a record for a DVD/video passed since the introducion of the VRA .

They do try to avoid rejections when they can though, which is why there are so few rejections these days.

Do you have to pay the BBFC fee if your film is rejected.?

Is the fact that the BBFC are willing to cut over 15 mins from films for them pass not sort of putting a false figure on the amount of yearly BBFC rejections. ?

[Angel]

Originally Posted by vipco

Do you have to pay the BBFC fee if your film is rejected.?

Is the fact that the BBFC are willing to cut over 15 mins from films for them pass not sort of putting a false figure on the amount of yearly BBFC rejections. ?

Yes you do have to pay if your film is rejected.

The BBFC will only reject a film if they feel there is no other choice ie cutting is not an option as pretty much everything would have to go. So classifying it would be pointless. They cut Scrapbook by 15m 24s because it contained 15m 24s of footage that were not consistent with Board policy and the VRA. But there must have been something left after the cuts that they felt was worth classifying. Theyr'e not going to start rejecting films just because the cuts are heavy. Of course if the company aren't pleased then they don't have to release it. In cases like Scrapbook, Murder Set Pieces, Nutbag etc everyone knows films like these would require very extensive cuts at the very least.

[RoXX0rz]

Vipco just asked a question that I've always wondered. Man, that must suck having to pay hundreds only to find out you can't legally release your DVD. :/

[vipco]

Originally Posted by Angel

Yes you do have to pay if your film is rejected.

The BBFC will only reject a film if they feel there is no other choice ie cutting is not an option as pretty much everything would have to go. So classifying it would be pointless. They cut Scrapbook by 15m 24s because it contained 15m 24s of footage that were not consistent with Board policy and the VRA. But there must have been something left after the cuts that they felt was worth classifying. Theyr'e not going to start rejecting films just because the cuts are heavy. Of course if the company aren't pleased then they don't have to release it. In cases like Scrapbook, Murder Set Pieces, Nutbag etc everyone knows films like these would require very extensive cuts at the very least.

Thanks for explaining that Angel. Im sorry but I never phrased my question very well .