71 Slap the Monster on Page One
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
The problem with situations like this - and I speak from personal experience here (when submitting the longer cut of Walerian Borowczyk's A Private Collection and the following one-to-one discussion with the BBFC's Craig Lapper) is that there hasn't been a definitive test case to draw upon - we were discussing ways of presenting the film as completely as possible (I accepted upfront that four shots were unambiguously illegal), and I suggested going down the German Blu-ray route of pixellating the offending parts of the shots in question, but Lapper said that while he was sympathetic to that argument, the problem was that pixellating would make it obvious that actual bestial sexual contact was occurring in the footage, and therefore it might still legally qualify as being an infringement of Section 63 of the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.
Unfortunately, definitive clarification on that point could only be achieved by an actual court hearing, a route that we unsurprisingly didn't want to go down. Not least because even without the illegal bestiality, there was still a distinct possibility that that film might get an R18 instead of an 18 (there's some extremely graphic, albeit 100% human, rumpy-pumpy elsewhere) - in which case we'd have to drop it altogether as it would have rendered the entire Borowczyk project commercially unviable.
With regard to the composite "potentially indecent image of a child", citing a now 23-year-old comedy programme is meaningless when pornography laws were subsequently changed (the 2008 legislation includes several statutes that affect home video labels), and the fact is that unless a boutique label is brave enough to risk a test case - or, more accurately, rich enough, both to fund the upfront legal costs and be able to deal with any financial fallout - the BBFC is going to be playing safe.
Because one thing that was drummed into me from the moment I first started working professionally in this business (a full 35 years ago now) is that you don't mess with the 1978 Protection of Children Act and its successors under any circumstances; this is not the kind of criminal record you want to end up with, and if you end up actually imprisoned over it, however briefly, your fellow inmates won't be minded to appreciate any nuances; to them, you'll be a child sex offender and that's all there is to it.
Unfortunately, definitive clarification on that point could only be achieved by an actual court hearing, a route that we unsurprisingly didn't want to go down. Not least because even without the illegal bestiality, there was still a distinct possibility that that film might get an R18 instead of an 18 (there's some extremely graphic, albeit 100% human, rumpy-pumpy elsewhere) - in which case we'd have to drop it altogether as it would have rendered the entire Borowczyk project commercially unviable.
With regard to the composite "potentially indecent image of a child", citing a now 23-year-old comedy programme is meaningless when pornography laws were subsequently changed (the 2008 legislation includes several statutes that affect home video labels), and the fact is that unless a boutique label is brave enough to risk a test case - or, more accurately, rich enough, both to fund the upfront legal costs and be able to deal with any financial fallout - the BBFC is going to be playing safe.
Because one thing that was drummed into me from the moment I first started working professionally in this business (a full 35 years ago now) is that you don't mess with the 1978 Protection of Children Act and its successors under any circumstances; this is not the kind of criminal record you want to end up with, and if you end up actually imprisoned over it, however briefly, your fellow inmates won't be minded to appreciate any nuances; to them, you'll be a child sex offender and that's all there is to it.
- TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: Stretford, Manchester
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
First up, I do appreciate your contributions as a insider to discussions here on the forum, MichaelB. They always contain invaluable insight and you obviously have a wealth of relevant experience and industry expertise.
That said, I do think you are conflating issues here, with the reference to the works of Borowczyk that are unambiguously illegal at times and potentially so at others. I don't believe those works are a suitable comparison to this very, very, very obvious composite image of a teen girl's headshot and a nude adult model poster that adorns the home of a killer in this particular film. Any viewer is no more to believe that they are seeing the eroticised picture of a nude minor when seeing this particular composition, than they are to believe that this minor is the Madonna herself in the composite images that are immeadiately in the shot before it.
The idea the BBFC is routinely passing any number of films featuring minor actresses in nude scenes, such as Nastassja Kinski in Falsche Bewegung or To the Devil a Daughter, but then demands cuts to this film for this particular composition is frankly ludicrous. It is completely missing the wood for the trees when it comes to this legislation. We're being told that we can watch feature films that have 12 or 14-year-old girls appearing topless or completely nude themselves, but we cannot watch a film that briefly contains a composition of a child of the same age's face on top of a nude adult model's poster. It makes no sense. I don't see how the same censor can reach the same conclusion.
I do find your final paragraph slightly insulting in this regard. Again the idea that this film contains anything indecent regards to minors and that somehow distributors or consumers of it should be fearful of prosecution, imprisonment and being deemed a child sex offender is both deeply patronising, alarmist, but also a tad defamatory to both those distributing the film and those who were excited to see it be released. It is somewhat hypocritical to hear that come from someone who has played their part in championing and distributing material, which would be both far more likely to be considered indecent or was in fact unambiguously illegal.
You have previously frequently cited the BBFC's hands being tied or words to that effect with many of their prior decisions, but I don't believe for a second that they are actually are in this case and this appears to an outsider to be a ridiculous misinterpretation of legislation, completely inconsistent with the BBFC routinely passing films featuring actual topless or full frontal nudity of minors. I would be intrigued to know what would happen if the Paedogeddon episode of Brass Eye was resubmitted for classification now. Are we suggestting that too would have to be banned for a similarly obvious composite, albeit one for comedic effect, thereby completing the satirical loop?
Edit: Revised for ease of reading.
That said, I do think you are conflating issues here, with the reference to the works of Borowczyk that are unambiguously illegal at times and potentially so at others. I don't believe those works are a suitable comparison to this very, very, very obvious composite image of a teen girl's headshot and a nude adult model poster that adorns the home of a killer in this particular film. Any viewer is no more to believe that they are seeing the eroticised picture of a nude minor when seeing this particular composition, than they are to believe that this minor is the Madonna herself in the composite images that are immeadiately in the shot before it.
The idea the BBFC is routinely passing any number of films featuring minor actresses in nude scenes, such as Nastassja Kinski in Falsche Bewegung or To the Devil a Daughter, but then demands cuts to this film for this particular composition is frankly ludicrous. It is completely missing the wood for the trees when it comes to this legislation. We're being told that we can watch feature films that have 12 or 14-year-old girls appearing topless or completely nude themselves, but we cannot watch a film that briefly contains a composition of a child of the same age's face on top of a nude adult model's poster. It makes no sense. I don't see how the same censor can reach the same conclusion.
I do find your final paragraph slightly insulting in this regard. Again the idea that this film contains anything indecent regards to minors and that somehow distributors or consumers of it should be fearful of prosecution, imprisonment and being deemed a child sex offender is both deeply patronising, alarmist, but also a tad defamatory to both those distributing the film and those who were excited to see it be released. It is somewhat hypocritical to hear that come from someone who has played their part in championing and distributing material, which would be both far more likely to be considered indecent or was in fact unambiguously illegal.
You have previously frequently cited the BBFC's hands being tied or words to that effect with many of their prior decisions, but I don't believe for a second that they are actually are in this case and this appears to an outsider to be a ridiculous misinterpretation of legislation, completely inconsistent with the BBFC routinely passing films featuring actual topless or full frontal nudity of minors. I would be intrigued to know what would happen if the Paedogeddon episode of Brass Eye was resubmitted for classification now. Are we suggestting that too would have to be banned for a similarly obvious composite, albeit one for comedic effect, thereby completing the satirical loop?
Edit: Revised for ease of reading.
Last edited by TMDaines on Tue Sep 10, 2024 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Maybe it's the language barrier, but I don't think that's what Michael meant in his last paragraph, but how the law is the law, and that while some might be kinda okay to try and transgress because stakes are low, this one doesn't seem to be the case at all, hence nobody wanting to be the one to find out.
- TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: Stretford, Manchester
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Maybe it wasn't intended, but I felt slighted by the suggestion that I was dying on the hill for wanting material that could see one deemed a child sex offender. I'm consious not everybody reading this may have watched the clip I posted to see just how ludicrous that position might be. I am certain that virtually everybody on this forum likely has one or more films on their shelves that contain actual unambiguous nudity of minors, which would seem far more logical to be considered indecent under this legislation.tenia wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 9:27 amMaybe it's the language barrier, but I don't think that's what Michael meant in his last paragraph, but how the law is the law, and that while some might be kinda okay to try and transgress because stakes are low, this one doesn't seem to be the case at all, hence nobody wanting to be the one to find out.
If the BBFC censor hadn't demanded this cut, I don't believe for one second any reasonable adult would pass mention from now until eternity at the otherwise-to-be-excised content being potentially indecent. It's as about as logical as cutting the compositions of the girl's head with the Madonna for blasphemy.
- TechnicolorAcid
- Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2023 7:43 pm
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
The Streisand Effect strikes again!TMDaines wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 9:46 amIf the BBFC censor hadn't demanded this cut, I don't believe for one second any reasonable adult would pass mention from now until eternity at the otherwise-to-be-excised content being potentially indecent. It's as about as logical as cutting the compositions of the girl's head with the Madonna for blasphemy.
- TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: Stretford, Manchester
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
It reminds of me when people cry "Spoiler!" at a film poster, when anyone yet to watch the film would just see an advert, and only subequent to watching could such an interpretation be made.
- ellipsis7
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Cutting or zooming in to remove that part of the shot mucks up the ironic juxtaposition with the religious iconography earlier in the shot - while the dialogue earnestly protests Maria Grazia's innocence in the face of sexual smears & insinuations "Era innocente era pura era una santa un angelo era una madonna era la Madonna era la Madonna..."
It features in full on the Italian Raro Video DVD....
It features in full on the Italian Raro Video DVD....
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Where laws probably are different than in the UK, hence the difference in handling.
I get what people are saying here, but I think what Michael says is that the law might not be that nuanced that what we'd like in such a context. I thus didn't take it as "people are dying on this hill", just that sadly, sometimes, there's not much, or even nothing, that can be done.
(on a side note, I saw Une vraie jeune fille a few days ago, and could have done with this frontal nudity of a child girl not even 10 years old)
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
My point was to do with the absence of legal precedent in the form of test cases.TMDaines wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 8:15 amThat said, I do think you are conflating issues here, with the reference to the works of Borowczyk that are unambiguously illegal at times and potentially so at others. I don't believe those works are a suitable comparison to this very, very, very obvious composite image of a teen girl's headshot and a nude adult model poster that adorns the home of a killer in this particular film.
Obviously the Borowczyk shots would have had to be censored in some form - I mentioned this upfront when discussing it with Craig Lapper because there was no point pretending otherwise - but the point I was making was to do with how they were censored, and whether or not it was possible to remove the specifically illegal elements while still retaining the rest of the shot, as had happened in Germany. To which Lapper's answer was essentially "maybe, but there's no British legal precedent for this, and I'd much prefer it if there was."
Which would appear to be the situation here too.
It could well be, but it currently has a BBFC classification and nobody has suggested resubmitting it. This is not an area that I've had to deal with professionally, but the law has certainly changed since 2001 with regard to faked images, and I'm not aware that it distinguishes between obvious composites and ones where the joins are less apparent. Hence the BBFC's caution, presumably.TMDaines wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 8:15 amI would be intrigued to know what would happen if the Paedogeddon episode of Brass Eye was resubmitted for classification now. Are we suggestting that too would have to be banned for a similarly obvious composite, albeit one for comedic effect, thereby completing the satirical loop?
Completely irrelevant as far as UK law is concerned. One of the reasons why the 1978 Protection of Children Act and the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act are so hard to deal with is that the material is deemed to be illegal, there's no defence recognised in law - and understandably so, because paedophiles are very good at exploiting legal loopholes, so from the law's perspective it's better not to create any in the first place.
You could use an argument like that if the legislation being invoked was the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, whose famous "artistic merit" defence is why the BBFC's James Ferman was so keen for it to be extended to cover films (which happened in 1977, two years after he started there), but that's not the case here.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
For the record, I was speaking purely from the perspective of a distributor having to handle such material and having to run what is sometimes a very tricky legal gauntlet from a professional perspective. Which is why I deliberately didn't mention the equally thorny legal issue of consumer possession because I wanted this distributor-focused approach to be absolutely clear.
And I still think it's completely clear, so I'm honestly baffled as to why you're taking such apparent offence over it. Seriously, what phrase in what I originally wrote can in any reasonable way be deemed to be referring to anyone other than industry professionals?
- ellipsis7
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
It doesn't have an entry for SBATTI IL MOSTRO IN PRIMA PAGINA, but FYI this CINECENSURA website is an useful resource on film censorship in Italy featuring original documents relating to many individual films & noted directors..
- kindaikun
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:04 pm
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Since HMV are saying this is in stores already, can anyone who’s already received the UK disc please confirm if it’s uncut when played on a region A player? I’d like to know if I’m going to need to import. Thanks
-
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:29 am
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
I assume it will be just the cut version ala Sister Street Fighter 2. Whether your import gets seized at customs, I couldn't say. I have no idea whether BBFC deciding something has minor porn in it gets filted back to HMRC.
- ellipsis7
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
When I switch my player to region A with the UK disc, it still shows the cut/edited version... What they've actually done is that they have zoomed the image of the offending shot so that the nude picture and the head attached now lie out of frame & cannot be seen...
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
The problem with the law is that - unlike, say, the animal cruelty situation - even possession of material infringing the 1978 Protection of Children Act is a criminal offence in the UK. I think the only other situation where possession is also legally problematic is with so-called "extreme pornography", as defined by Section 63 of the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act - and the fact that I didn't have to look that up shows how familiar I am with it!
So while there might be wiggle room with, say, the same disc locking animal cruelty out of Region B but making it available in Region A and C players (although that in itself is an untested grey area), with regard to sexualised material involving children a distributor would be entering rather trickier legal territory, and absolutely not the kind of thing that they want to find themselves defending in court.
So while there might be wiggle room with, say, the same disc locking animal cruelty out of Region B but making it available in Region A and C players (although that in itself is an untested grey area), with regard to sexualised material involving children a distributor would be entering rather trickier legal territory, and absolutely not the kind of thing that they want to find themselves defending in court.
- TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: Stretford, Manchester
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Happy to be corrected, but it looks like UK viewers will need to import for the unedited film. Inspecting what is presumably the US disc with the uncensored video (it is still absolutely absurd what the BBFC adjudged this to be), the disc has not been authored with alternative playlists or alternate means to playback a censored version. I presume the UK version has been replicated from a separate master with only the censored version in the 00000.m2ts file.
- kindaikun
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:04 pm
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Understood. Thanks for the updates, folks.
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
I suspect it would need to have been the subject of a successful prosecution, specifically under the 1978 Protection of Children Act, so you'd probably be OK.
I imagine stuff like that only ends up as evidence in criminal prosecutions if the police are after you for something else and they just happen to find you in possession of something that they can perhaps nail you for more easily while their investigation is still ongoing.
I imagine stuff like that only ends up as evidence in criminal prosecutions if the police are after you for something else and they just happen to find you in possession of something that they can perhaps nail you for more easily while their investigation is still ongoing.
- GaryC
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm
- Location: Aldershot, Hampshire, UK
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Nudity of minors is not illegal. The shot you're referring to in To the Devil a Daughter isn't a sexual scene as Kinski is the only person on screen. Ethically dubious to film a fourteen-year-old full-frontally nude? I wouldn't disagree. But it's not illegal and so the BBFC have never cut To the Devil a Daughter, given that there are plenty of other reasons for its being a X/18. (I haven't seen Falsche Bewegung, so can't comment there.)
It turns out that Slap the Monster on Page One is not the first film the BBFC have cut under the Protection of Children Act because of "pseudo-images". From the 2022 Annual Report: "Caught in the Net is a Czech
language documentary which explores the online sexual abuse of children. The documentary involves three adult women posing as children as part of a safeguarded attempt to expose predatory men online. In some scenes, they receive unsolicited explicit sexual images and videos sent by various men, including genital nudity and masturbation as well as continued verbal propositions. We could contain these scenes at 18 uncut; however, there was another sequence which required cuts. To highlight how certain men coerce young women into sharing images online and then blackmail them with threats of sharing those images further, the creators of the documentary create pseudo-images of nude children by superimposing the faces of the actors onto adult nude models with their bodies digitally altered to appear more child-like. In doing so, the filmmakers had created pseudo-images of children that would likely be deemed indecent under the Protection of Children Act. These images were therefore removed or fully obscured as a condition of classification. We classified Caught in the Net 18 for child sex abuse, strong sexual images and nudity."
- TMDaines
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
- Location: Stretford, Manchester
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Nothing, because nobody other than the BBFC officers actually believes this material is anyway in contravention of the law. There’s more chance of being hit by a car crossing the street tomorrow, and I’m not about to stop leaving the house, than a series of events that sees you being prosecuted for possession of a feature film with such a composite image in the background for a few seconds. Just because the BBFC have refused classification, it has no basis as a precedent for rendering this uncut film illegal to own and in contravention of the law. Radiance wouldn’t be working on publishing the film and handling the uncut footage in the UK, if there was any reason to believe it was illegal and liable to see you prosecuted.
I, and anyone else, who had imported the film previously, have had the film uncut for years. None of us had any reason to ever believe that a future UK release would end up cut, and I highly doubt Radiance did either. I sold my Italian DVD on eBay and nobody cared. There’s lots more available. Grab one for your friends through Rarewaves too!
Again, for anyone who has not yet seen the footage on Youtube as linked earlier, please enjoy a good laugh at the absurdist decision. I look forward to the circle eventually being completed and Brass Eye finally being censored too before satire fully consumes itself.
- spectre
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
While some may see this as a bigger deal than others, perhaps a small price to pay for more urgent matters than artistic freedom, I do think the boneheaded rigidity of UK law (and/or the BBFC’s interpretation thereof) makes a strong case for the benefits of multipolarity. It’s a very good thing that we have other jurisdictions in the world that don’t require works of art to be bowdlerised in this manner – in this case, as TMDaines has pointed out, for absolutely nobody’s benefit – even if they themselves have their own blind spots in other areas.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
The problem with the 1978 Protection of Children Act is that it was designed to be completely watertight because of course paedophiles are notorious exploiters of legal loopholes. Hence the lack of the kind of "artistic merit" escape clause that you get in the 1959 Obscene Publications Act - the law doesn't care about art if the material under consideration legally qualifies as a recording of underage sexual activity.
Which has created a humungous headache for the police in recent years, because nobody back in 1978 can have imagined in their wildest dreams that under-eighteens would ever end up manufacturing and distributing pornography of themselves - which of course is legally the case any time someone underage "sexts" someone.
Fortunately, as with being in possession of cannabis in such small quantities for a "personal use only" defence to be viable, the police are generally pretty sensible about this, hence the lack of horny sixteen-year-olds banged up for sending dick pics to their girlfriends.
But - a serious question - how would you modify the law in such a way as to avoid opening up the loopholes that it was designed to shut down? I suspect there'll be a revision to the PCA before too long, as the sexting problem is one that clearly needs attention, but I'm glad I'm not involved with debating its various nuances.
(Obviously, what's under discussion here is more contentious, which is why a bona fide test case would help clear the water - but I'm not surprised that nobody has risked one.)
Which has created a humungous headache for the police in recent years, because nobody back in 1978 can have imagined in their wildest dreams that under-eighteens would ever end up manufacturing and distributing pornography of themselves - which of course is legally the case any time someone underage "sexts" someone.
Fortunately, as with being in possession of cannabis in such small quantities for a "personal use only" defence to be viable, the police are generally pretty sensible about this, hence the lack of horny sixteen-year-olds banged up for sending dick pics to their girlfriends.
But - a serious question - how would you modify the law in such a way as to avoid opening up the loopholes that it was designed to shut down? I suspect there'll be a revision to the PCA before too long, as the sexting problem is one that clearly needs attention, but I'm glad I'm not involved with debating its various nuances.
(Obviously, what's under discussion here is more contentious, which is why a bona fide test case would help clear the water - but I'm not surprised that nobody has risked one.)
- jazzo
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:02 am
Re: 71 Slap the Monster on Page One
Slightly off topic, but eight years ago, in the middle of the Snapchat craze, a tech friend told me that all of the underage kids who thought they were safe sexting each other because the photos self-deleted after seven seconds were completely unaware that Snapchat retained all of those photos on its servers, and that it was, in effect, the largest unintentional repository of child-pornography in the world. I'm sure things have changed since then.