Yeah, me too. :)

Indeed. On another site we had this troll who declared that D H Grant "deserved his time inside because he had broken the law" :mmph::crazy::doh:
Why would you bother, really? There's something missing with folk like that imo, and they call US sickos cough cough.

It was thrown out, quel surprise btw.;)

Yes, and think of the poor dogs! Graham (not so) Bright said so - it must be true!

Seriously though, the likes of Whitehouse, Ferman etc spent their lives devoted to a cause that got them nowhere. Practically all previous censorship decisions have now been reversed and just about all the 'nasties' are now available uncut in the UK. Being pro-censorship of fictional media is a fruitless cause and your work will always be undone over time. It's utterly pointless.

God...it's amazing how a single incident can get blown out of proportion! :rolleyes:

Yes, a dog did attack his owner, but only because he was watching House by the Cemetery will his TV volume turned right up - the dubbing of Bob could drive anyone insane, now imagine what it must sound like to a dog!?

On the subject of 'Nasties', let me say this.

I actually think Tenebrae has some artistic merit. However, because it's labelled a 'nasty' I can never have a rational discussion about this film in the UK in the near future.

I can't discuss it's deconstruction of the giallo concept. Can't talk about it's double edged twist. Can't talk about how Argento plays with conventions...because....y'know.....it's a 'nasty'.

Still like 'video nasties'? The term itself denigrates the genre we love, not elevate it.

?

Apart from jokes about the cover being censored in the UK, I rarely see/hear Tenebrae discussed as a "Nasty".

Well, it WAS a 'nasty'. My point being that because it's labelled as such it will always be considered as trash.

Even Arrow in their promotion of the film referred to it as a video nasty:

If being a 'nasty' is a major selling point, then any actual merit the film may have is lost by labelling the film with this tag. That's my main problem. They're selling the film based on its 'nasty' status. I just want the tag to be forgotten and let's all grow up a little.

Tenebrae is a great film, truly masterful IMO. But it's all too easily dismissed because it's just a 'video nasty'. It will never get the proper critical appraisal it deserves.

While I agree it's kind of sad Arrow felt the need to promote it as a "nasty", to help it reacher a wider audience.

Some other Argento films don't have the "nasty" tag, yet still don't get the proper critical appraisal.

In my experience, most horror fans checked it out because it was an Argento film, not because it was a "video nasty". (Although granted there are bound to be a few who did.)

I think most DVD companies who release former-nasties use the fact the film was on the DPP list as a selling point.After all, if a film is/was banned it only wants to make people want to watch it more.If I was in the business of releasing films I'd probably use the tag to promote my product too.On the subject of the guy who promoted and released the WOV2000 pre-cert video release of Nightmares in a Damaged Brain being imprisoned, was there anyone else connected to a video nasty release banged up as a direct result of being involved with its release?

I'm sure that in Kerekes and Slater's book See No Evil they cite the case of a video dealer being jailed for having The Evil Dead - a cut version with an official 18 cert too. But the judge still locked him up. And in the 90's some guy in Cardiff was banged up for several months for trading in so-called banned films.

You see, this is kind of what I mean. It was a shameful part of UK film history. I'm not saying we should forget it, but it's hardly something to celebrate and some people cynically milk it for personal profit.

The thing is, anything remotely unpleasant on film and in the UK it's automatically lumped in as a 'nasty'. Hence Argento's entire body of work is considered 'nasty' and trash not worthy of critical debate.