The Eureka & Masters of Cinema Thread

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

My copy arrived today.

There's still one left.

There are now 15 in stock priced £11.94, so I missed out on the cheaper batch. Maybe next time.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

There are now 15 in stock priced £11.94, so I missed out on the cheaper batch. Maybe next time.

It's still there at £9.84 via Amazon, Nos.

Those others are from a seller called Global Buyer.

[Dave Boy]

Originally Posted by Rob4

So Eureka have chosen to pre-cut Murders in the Zoo for animal cruelty.

This is very disappointing because if it's the scene I'm thinking about I'm pretty sure the BBFC would have passed it because it's edited in such a way that you can't tell if the real animal was subjected to any cruelty - I suspect it wasn't.

Anyway, for Eureka not to even try to get it through is inexplicable. I can only think that it must be more expensive for the distributor if the BBFC mandates the cuts?

Guess I'll be sticking with my DVD then.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally Posted by Rob4

So Eureka have chosen to pre-cut Murders in the Zoo for animal cruelty.

This is very disappointing because if it's the scene I'm thinking about I'm pretty sure the BBFC would have passed it because it's edited in such a way that you can't tell if the real animal was subjected to any cruelty - I suspect it wasn't.

Anyway, for Eureka not to even try to get it through is inexplicable. I can only think that it must be more expensive for the distributor if the BBFC mandates the cuts?

I suspect either the animal cruelty so blatantly infringed the Animals Act that there wouldn’t have been any point submitting it uncut or they had private conversations with the BBFC prior to official submission.

The latter happens if a label is handling something that they know for certain is going to be problematic (and the rules governing animal cruelty are unusually clear-cut), because if there’s obviously no way certain material is going to get through (for legal rather than BBFC policy reasons) the main question concerns how best to make the cuts while damaging the film as little as possible.

I myself had a very useful pre-submission chat with the BBFC over half a dozen shots of genuine bestiality in a Walerian Borowczyk short. We knew that four shots were open-and-shut illegal, so removed them prior to submission (they were so illegal that even possession was proscribed, meaning that the BBFC would be obliged to call the police if we’d left them in), but they said that they thought the first was probably OK and the last at least sounded ambiguous enough to make it worth submitting. In the event they let both shots through at 18.

[Rob4]

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

I suspect either the animal cruelty so blatantly infringed the Animals Act that there wouldn’t have been any point submitting it uncut or they had private conversations with the BBFC prior to official submission.

The latter happens if a label is handling something that they know for certain is going to be problematic (and the rules governing animal cruelty are unusually clear-cut), because if there’s obviously no way certain material is going to get through (for legal rather than BBFC policy reasons) the main question concerns how best to make the cuts while damaging the film as little as possible.

I myself had a very useful pre-submission chat with the BBFC over half a dozen shots of genuine bestiality in a Walerian Borowczyk short. We knew that four shots were open-and-shut illegal, so removed them prior to submission (they were so illegal that even possession was proscribed, meaning that the BBFC would be obliged to call the police if we’d left them in), but they said that they thought the first was probably OK and the last at least sounded ambiguous enough to make it worth submitting. In the event they let both shots through at 18.

Thank you for the clarification Michael. The law is the law whether we like it or not... I was about to pull the trigger with the Scream release before the announcement anyway. It just means that it back on the list again

Michael, what would be likely to happen if the movie was streamed uncut on a platform under the BBFC's self certification rules? Because it seems to me those rules are simply no rules as opposed to the expensive rules for physical media distributors.

[marvinnashsear]

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

I suspect either the animal cruelty so blatantly infringed the Animals Act that there wouldn’t have been any point submitting it uncut or they had private conversations with the BBFC prior to official submission.

The latter happens if a label is handling something that they know for certain is going to be problematic (and the rules governing animal cruelty are unusually clear-cut), because if there’s obviously no way certain material is going to get through (for legal rather than BBFC policy reasons) the main question concerns how best to make the cuts while damaging the film as little as possible.

I myself had a very useful pre-submission chat with the BBFC over half a dozen shots of genuine bestiality in a Walerian Borowczyk short. We knew that four shots were open-and-shut illegal, so removed them prior to submission (they were so illegal that even possession was proscribed, meaning that the BBFC would be obliged to call the police if we’d left them in), but they said that they thought the first was probably OK and the last at least sounded ambiguous enough to make it worth submitting. In the event they let both shots through at 18.

In the documentary The Good Old Naughty Days there is apparently an explicit scene with a dog that was passed as an R18 but never released on home video. I did hear stories that to see it you had to become a member of a club for one night only. According to melonfarmers this would be illegal to import under the Dangerous Pictures Act. I'm just wondering why such a scene would be considered acceptable at all and be passed uncut by the bbfc at any rating? Or was the Dangerous Pictures Act amended after the film was passed. Or is this an acceptable for cinema but unacceptable for home viewing case?

[Michael Brooke]

I don't know what the Dangerous Pictures Act is - there's nothing on the statute book by that name. Reading between the lines I assume it's a sarcastic reference to the more prosaically named 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which first defined "extreme pornography" and criminalised its possession as well as distribution.

To quote the legislation directly, this is what causes problems:

• A [sexual] act [genuinely] threatening a person's life
• An act which results (or is likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
• An act which involves (or appears to involve) sexual interference with a human corpse
• A person performing (or appearing to perform) an act of intercourse (or oral sex) with a non-human animal (whether dead or alive)

But this legislation postdated the UK release of The Good Old Naughty Days so it wouldn't have been a problem at that time. However, if anyone was ever minded to reissue it in any format in the UK, the bestiality would have to be removed, no matter how brief and mild it is (a small dog performing a bit of opportunistic cunnilingus, if I remember rightly). And yes, it is technically illegal to possess the French DVD, although in practice I suspect you'd only be likely to get into trouble over it if you were being investigated for other reasons and the police fancied an easy legal win.

(Tartan wanted to put it out on DVD over here prior to 2008, but the BBFC wouldn't give it anything milder than an R18 - understandably, as it's proper hardcore filth regardless of its advanced age. And since it's impossible to make money on R18 video releases unless you actually have a financial stake in a sex shop, there wasn't any point. Same goes for Thundercrack!, which Tartan also wanted to release.)

[marvinnashsear]

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

I don't know what the Dangerous Pictures Act is - there's nothing on the statute book by that name. Reading between the lines I assume it's a sarcastic reference to the more prosaically named 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which first defined "extreme pornography" and criminalised its possession as well as distribution.

To quote the legislation directly, this is what causes problems:



But this legislation postdated the UK release of The Good Old Naughty Days so it wouldn't have been a problem at that time. However, if anyone was ever minded to reissue it in any format in the UK, the bestiality would have to be removed, no matter how brief and mild it is (a small dog performing a bit of opportunistic cunnilingus, if I remember rightly). And yes, it is technically illegal to possess the French DVD, although in practice I suspect you'd only be likely to get into trouble over it if you were being investigated for other reasons and the police fancied an easy legal win.

(Tartan wanted to put it out on DVD over here prior to 2008, but the BBFC wouldn't give it anything milder than an R18 - understandably, as it's proper hardcore filth regardless of its advanced age. And since it's impossible to make money on R18 video releases unless you actually have a financial stake in a sex shop, there wasn't any point. Same goes for Thundercrack!, which Tartan also wanted to release.)

Yeah, you're right it was a sarcastic reference. So, if that film did get a video release at R18 prior to the legislation that version would then be illegal? Also did you have anything to do with the DVD release of Sweet Sweetback? I've always found that situation interesting. When I watched it on Channel 4 I was surprised at the opening scene. I thought it was blatant that that was Mario Van Peebles who was clearly underage and the scene as uncut. IMDB claims Melvin Van Peebles lied to the bbfc about it being an older actor but it's often wrong.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally Posted by marvinnashsear

Yeah, you're right it was a sarcastic reference. So, if that film did get a video release at R18 prior to the legislation that version would then be illegal?

Yes. A BBFC classification won’t confer immunity from prosecution. I suspect what would happen in a case like this is that the BBFC would have to withdraw the original certificate, citing the change in the law as the reason.

Also did you have anything to do with the DVD release of Sweet Sweetback? I've always found that situation interesting. When I watched it on Channel 4 I was surprised at the opening scene. I thought it was blatant that that was Mario Van Peebles who was clearly underage and the scene as uncut. IMDB claims Melvin Van Peebles lied to the bbfc about it being an older actor but it's often wrong.

That’s exactly what happened, and as soon as the truth about his son’s age came out the uncut version of the film became liable for prosecution under the 1978 Protection of Children Act - so the old 18 certificate wouldn’t have conferred any legal protection. Obviously, no label wants to get prosecuted, let alone jailed, for distributing what is legally child porn - and they wouldn’t be able to plead ignorance going forward.

(See also the mad panic that engulfed the porn industry in the US when Traci Lords’ real age was revealed. The second that story broke, they could no longer plead ignorance, and Reagan-era prosecutors were itching to nail them for something open and shut. People had to scour the proofs of soon-to-be-printed porn mags for the tiniest hint of her presence - and since she was a massive star at the time, she was everywhere, not least in countless ads.)

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Eureka saving me money in June with yet three more Asian titles just announced.

Lady Reporter, Samurai Reincarnation and Revenge.

I could post the spec but will leave it to someone who actually gives a stuff about them.