SHAM001 - New York Ripper

[Angel]

Originally Posted by vipco

As it was banned outright the time of the new censorship bill was being discussed, do you think this was just the BBFC flexing their muscles to show their still up to the job.?

The murder scenes i've seen from it aren't nothing we haven't seen before. I think the BBFC were just looking for a scrape goat and MSP fitted the bill perfectly.

It was just a coincidence MSP being rejected at the time the censorship bill was being discussed, there was never any chance of this film getting through here...the content goes well beyond what will ever be acceptable to the BBFC. It was surprising they submitted it in the first place. The BBFC did at least make an attempt to cut the film but gave up, which surprises me not in the least. Cutting this film would be a nightmare. And in any case the sheer amount of cuts would have made any release pointless. The BBFC would never ban a film just to flex their muscles, they take their guidelines very seriously. People who know the BBFC very well would know if they did something like that ie this film is clearly not in breach of their guidelines/UK law but they banned it anyway.

[vipco]

I know it stood no chance of getting past the BBFC with out heavy cutting atleast.
What I ment was the BBFC 'delayed' classifying this film until the reading of the bill for their own reasons.
To say it was pure timing is like saying LH Oswald shot JFK, or Roswell is just an Airforce base with no alien's in it.
IMO the film was delayed then banned at the right time.
Any reason for a delay is easily covered by the 'we're trying to cut it'excuse then the papers get to hear about it (i wonder how ?) and report how are moral gardians are apt at doing the job in hand.

Please dont take this as me ranting, or having ago at your post Angel, Im just saying my own beliefs and am in no way dissing yours.

What is the big deal about the BBFC with naked people, they allow them to do dirty things to each other on film and thats ok, but as soon as somebody kills one it becomes a problem.
Maybe if they weren't nude they wouldn't get killed in the first place.

[dougal]

Originally Posted by Angel

How does cutting footage make the scene appear nastier?

It's possible for different editing of a scene to change it's impact, tone or completely hangine it's perceived meaning - editing a scene out for censorship reasons is no different. See Straw Dogs as a case in point - reputedly the BBFC asked for the rape scene to be cut but the way it was done actually made it seem nastier by appearing to change the nature of the rape.

[Angel]

Originally Posted by vipco

I know it stood no chance of getting past the BBFC with out heavy cutting atleast.
What I ment was the BBFC 'delayed' classifying this film until the reading of the bill for their own reasons.
To say it was pure timing is like saying LH Oswald shot JFK, or Roswell is just an Airforce base with no alien's in it.
IMO the film was delayed then banned at the right time.
Any reason for a delay is easily covered by the 'we're trying to cut it'excuse then the papers get to hear about it (i wonder how ?) and report how are moral gardians are apt at doing the job in hand.

Please dont take this as me ranting, or having ago at your post Angel, Im just saying my own beliefs and am in no way dissing yours.

What is the big deal about the BBFC with naked people, they allow them to do dirty things to each other on film and thats ok, but as soon as somebody kills one it becomes a problem.
Maybe if they weren't nude they wouldn't get killed in the first place.

There's no evidence that the BBFC ever delayed their decision regarding MSP, the reason why it took so long to classify/reject was because it was a very difficult film. Every film has to be examined very carefully, a lot of discussions will be held amongst senior examiners in regards to the possibilty of cuts. I can imagine this part especially would have taken a long time regarding this film. If this films classification was delayed it would suggest that after making their decision the BBFC then waited for the right time to ban the film in question. I very much doubt that was the case but only the BBFC can possibly answer this question. The BBFC would have nothing to gain by waiting for this Bill and then banning it. Parliament already knows exactly where the BBFC stand as their Annual Reports are submitted to them every year and they can see that the BBFC ban films from time to time. So this would have been no big deal.


The BBFC often cut rape scenes or scenes of sexualised violence because of the lingering focus on nudity which can cause a "harmful" response in some viewers eg I Spit on Your Grave, Tombs of the Blind Dead, Ichi the Killer, House on the Edge of the Park, Scrapbook etc. Cuts required under the VRA.

[vipco]

Ach Angel, are you telling me you believe that, c'mon.

The BBFC aren't gonna publish all their buiness.
Do you think that a firm that denies a nation access to films only after they've approved them or removed bits wouldn't pull a stunt like that when their structure is threatened .?

MSP was the BBFC's 'patsy' or 'sacrifical lamb' to keep things sweet to ensure their survival.

If I e mailed them and asked them that do you think i'd get a truthful answer.?

[vincenzo]

Originally Posted by vipco

Ach Angel, are you telling me you believe that, c'mon.

The BBFC aren't gonna publish all their buiness.
Do you think that a firm that denies a nation access to films only after they've approved them or removed bits wouldn't pull a stunt like that when their structure is threatened .?

MSP was the BBFC's 'patsy' or 'sacrifical lamb' to keep things sweet to ensure their survival.

If I e mailed them and asked them that do you think i'd get a truthful answer.?

I couldn't see MSP passing in any form whether the BBFC had been told to delay the decision or not.

Maniac was also originally rejected for cinema back in the 80's after spending what seemed like a small lifetime at the BBFC, and Ferman rejected it again for video in 1998 (even under the new Labour government).

[Angel]

Originally Posted by vipco

If I e mailed them and asked them that do you think i'd get a truthful answer.?

Yes. The BBFC always tell the truth whatever the consequences

[Angel]

Yes that's right Vince, MSP would have been banned no matter what the political situation at the time was. There is simply no way a film like this could be passed in the UK.

[vipco]

Dont get me wrong, im not sticking up for MSP but I think the announcement of the ban came at a very convenient time from the BBFC.
I acknowledge that yourself and Vince have far superior information and knowledge of the BBFC than I could ever hope to atain, and I do appreciate you both taking time to explain sometimes what can be a silly enquiry to me.
I know your more than likely right about the announcement being coincidental but surely the BBFC would have thought that people would have came to the same conclusion as me, particularly as the full film was submitted, not the R version , or so im told, and with the films owner believing it should cause little problems with the censor, and released the news at a different time.

Thankyou both for the input.

Anyone else having problems signing in today.?
I've been signed out twice and the page froze twice

[The Reaper Man@Cult Labs]

Alright,now that that's all sorted,what about the shameless release of NEW YORK RIPPER?