I think the fact that the BBFC pass 99% of films that come their way uncut means that they have very little concern about violence. In fact violence is no longer cut and only a certain type of sexual violence causes them concern. It's something they don't see much off either.

Actually I'm surprised the BBFC didn't cite the OPA when rejecting Grotesque because it definitely sounds like it would fall foul of this law ("corrupt and deprave").

Well said Angel. :nod:

But again, I ask, 'deprave and corrupt' who? Why can't the BBFC and their panel of experts actually define who it will 'deprave and corrupt'? That's my problem - there's this creation of a Boogeyman, that a film like this will cause danger out there...somewhere. They don't know where and to whom...but it might. So we start to move into the area of thought-crime or even anticipating criminal behaviour that hasn't happened yet.

So...my question to the BBFC is this: define exactly who will be affected? Although I can see in certain instances the link between sex and violence in films - most notably in scenes of rape, obviously, it doesn't create that correlation in me. For it to do that I would already have to have made that link within myself, to have connected to that concept. If I've already done that, then surely any scene depicting violence towards women would have the effect of arousing me. Wouldn't it? So just who are these dangerous people out there and - more importantly - have any sex crimes ever been committed as a result of watching a film like Grotesque?

Even though a cut-by-over-14 mins version of "Chaos" found its way on the shelves of German stores, nobody in their right mind would submit "Grotesque" to the German FSK, as it wouldn't stand a chance at all. It wouldn't pay off to get a "legal commission's" approval ("SPIO/JK geprüft" seal on the cover) for an edited cut either, as that other German censorship body- the BPJM- would put it instantly on their "B list" of the "Index of restricted Movies", which happened with mainstream fare like "Saw III and V" & "Hostel Part II", the latter has even been banned in a slightly cut version, with "SAW V" being cited as a likely canidate to follow soon, as the BPJM really rushed out this time in a hurry to stop the uncut version from being legally available for sale in Germany.:pout:


German fans have to import the uncut "Grotesque" in an expensive limited edition via Austria....:der:

I also doubt the film would fare at all well in Australia. They did pass I Spit on Your Grave uncut there but Grotesque sounds much stronger. They haven't even submitted Murder Set Pieces over there yet but again I can't see it passing. Presumably Grotesque would also be banned in Ireland. No doubt it would get an uncut 15 in Sweden. Norway are getting strict again so it might be banned here. I can see it having problems in New Zealand.

Certainly possible but it would be difficult to prove one way or the other.

To be honest as long as they keep passing older films like Caligula , Last House etc uncut i dont care if the bbfc rejects films like Grotesque.

By the way here is the Daily Mails view:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rror-film.html

Grotesque is one of a number of very violent Japanese films (eg Toky Gore Police, Machine Girl etc) that have been submitted to the BBFC recently and there are more on the way. The uncut Ichi The Killer is also up for re-submission as well. Remains to be seen what happens there.

It would be nice to see the Guinea Pig films getting a release here as well.

There's no question the BBFC have moved on in leaps and bounds over the past few years and, indeed, it it highly unusual for them to cut a film these days, never mind ban it. I'd certainly have them over the MPAA or ( god forbid ) the German censors any day. I think it's ( yet again ) their inconsistancy here. Why is Grotesque suddenly more 'harmful' than Saw / Hostel / Martyrs and any other number of 18 rated movies that have featured extreme violence and / or sexual violence?

It's a similar situation to them passing Irreversable uncut, yet removing 16 seconds of fumbling from Tombs Of The Blind Dead. Or, indeed, Shameless' own Venus In Furs.

From what I've read and heard, this ban has been widely criticised by the general public, so the widespread public support for this action isn't there - including the Daily Mail's own website, interestingly enough.

Part of me ( the cynical bit! ) wonders if maybe Grotesque was a bit of a kneejerk reaction to recent pressure on the BBFC from certain quarters?