Just saw it, so I'll share my review I wrote on my Facebook profile and my anti-censorship group The Censor Fighting Collective
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1436811173225463/
"So I just saw Video Nasties: Draconian Days- An anti-censorship documentary by Jake West and Marc Morris (who signed my copy so thank you both very much in advance!) and sequel to Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship and Videotape.
It was similar in tone to the first one, however this time the target of attention was the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification). This surprised me as I was expecting more humiliation of notorious censor-lovers like Mary Whitehouse and Graham Bright (they are in it at brief moments, one scene in particular displays Whitehouse in a debate against the Rambo movies where the people sitting behind her are dressed up as Rambo, further displaying how stupid and out of touch with society she really was) , however this new focus was actually very interesting so it was a welcome addition.
James Ferman (former head of the BBFC) is the main topic of discussion. I always knew he was incredibly strict with film classification, notoriously censoring and banning many films. However this documentary reveals his particular pet hates in films. If a scene had ninja stars or nunchuks for example, it was mandatory that that scene had to be cut. So both Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movies and Bruce Lee movies had extensive cuts to them, as well as many other martial arts movies. It is also revealed that he would actually take scissors and physically remove scenes from film reels and in addition, totally re-edit the films!
He also used the power of the censor to create propaganda. For example while showing an audience how "depraved and corrupt" a film was, he wouldn't actually show the film in full. Rather he would edit the most disgusting and censored scenes from multiple films and put them all as one slideshow so to speak. This was used to brainwash the masses (as far as they knew, this was in fact all these films had to offer: gore and sex and violence) and have them believe all he was doing was right, whereas they were in fact taking scenes out of context and showing them not in the way they were meant to be shown in feature length films. He attempted to justify his ban on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre by saying it was perfectly fine for festival-going ‘middle-class cinéastes’ to witness its depravities, “but what would happen if a factory worker in Manchester happened to see it?” And that to me can be summed up like this: "I can see it, because I am INTELLIGENT. However all you working class people of the public are to ****ing stupid to see it and thus I am banning it." We do not need decision making like that in our life and this sums up the hypocrisy of the censor.
However in a lighter portrayal, he is seen going against censorship. He defended First Blood (Rambo 1) when it was linked to the Hungerford Massacre by the press all due to the killer wearing a headband (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and he also defended Childs Play 3 when it was linked by the press to James Bulger's murder. I have already wrote essays and done videos on this Bulger case so I will leave to you to find my videos on Youtube about it as opposed to explaining it here.
In essence he is an interesting figure of sorts. On one hand he comes across as a power hungry dictator deciding what we can and can't watch, which lead to him sacking colleagues who disagreed with him and also insulting the audience through underestimating our intelligence and by showing inaccurate representations of the films. On the other hand he did come forward and defend horror and film during real-life shootings and murders, which climaxed in the legalisation of pornography in sex shops (this was due to him).
He was not a pure evil bat-shit crazy crusader like Mary Whitehouse and he was far more intelligent than Graham Bright ("Bright" to this day believes that the video nasties are both ‘evil’ and "REAL", is seen in library footage of the first documentary expressing his conviction that the films affect not just younger viewers but “dogs as well.” Head of the National Viewers and Listeners Association, and friend of Thatcher, Mary Whitehouse is also shown in the first one declaring that she has never in fact seen any of the films that she so forcefully condemns. “I actually don’t need to see, visually, what I know is in this film,” she claims).
Ultimately Ferman seems like a confused man that had little to no idea what he was doing, be it for the right or wrong purposes and just made everything up as he went along, resulting in his downfall.
Other people in the documentary include Sir James Anderton, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and opponent of video traders.He also believed and stated that god SPOKE to him directly. I hadn't even heard of him before, but that sentence sums him up as just another Mary Whitehouse bat-shit crazy wannabe. Funny how if Charles Manson or Peter Sutcliffe were to say something like this they were laughed at, but with a Chief of Police, nobody even cares.
I may be wrong (have only seen it once) but I also thought I saw another notorious MP called Jack Straw condemning all these fake horror films and the trading of them... Though I already know that in 2009 he made it illegal for Children in care homes to report abuse... So he immediately loses credibility here based on that stance.
Aside from all this, it was fun to hear them talk about the like of how controversial titles like New York Ripper were back then. This is devoted time to where all kinds of movies I didn't even know existed are discussed.
All in all it just makes the censorship side look terrible and unprofessional, but its not like thats news. I heavily enjoyed it and look forward to watching the special features. 10/10.
PS. It makes me long for a third and final chapter covering the 2000's- present day to make it a perfect trilogy
"