As both P-Mac and Dan have rightly said, there are films that do go to far. We are not talking about Ferox. Neither are we talking Holocaust or any of the other extreme, low budget movies that came out in the seventies / eighties. Due to their censorship histories, no company in their right mind (barring one willing to pre-cut their releasese by ten, eleven, twelve minutes) would ever consider them.
Inferno is indeed above those titles and I have always been convinced that it became involved in the Nasties debate simply due to the time it was released... in the same way that Sam Fuller's classic "The Big Red One" was also drawn into the debate over concerns that it was a porn movie.
It is sad that it has taken one run-in with the censors to split the UK buying public down the centre over this release.
Even more of a concern is that one of the other forums on this site was asking the publics opinion of Arrow taking on the heavily censored Island Of Death and one poster mentions that Arrow should release as many of the video nasty titles as possible. As much as I like this idea (and own a number of the films), this would be crazy as it is still highly likely that reputation alone will see the majority of these censored and then Arrow would have to up the ante in order to try and entice a split target audience into buying them - in turn costing more money.
I, for one, hope that Arrow seriously considers their run of releases and doesn't slip in their judgment. While their release of the classic Silent Night, Deadly Night is a welcome one, a heavily censored video nasty would bring their releases to an untimely end and will plunge us back into the bad old Vipco and Cornerstone Media (who can't even spell cast names of their cover for Stage Fright) releases.
|