LAST DOGS ON THE LEFT
Sex and Violence in the Realm of the Censors
by David Flint

The following article was first published in 2002. I haven't changed the text,but updated information is attached at the end. The arguments made here remain as relevant as it was at the time.

When the British Board of Film Classification recently passed Straw Dogs uncut for video, several eyebrows were raised amongst more clued-in observers. Because although the long-overdue release of this seminal movie was something to celebrate, it once again seemed to reveal the inconsistencies, cultural bias and rather dubious practices of the board.

Straw Dogs was originally passed for theatrical release back in 1971, without cuts (although director Sam Peckinpah had made pre-cuts before submission on advice from then BBFC head Stephen Murphy). But the film was considered unsuitable for home viewing after the Video Recordings Act introduced state censorship in 1985, joining a handful of other films (most notably The Exorcist) which had played cinemas for years without problem but which were now forbidden on video. In any other country, this outrageous state of affairs wouldn't be tolerated, but the British have always been deferential to authority, and only too willing to be told that restrictions on freedom of expression are for their own good.

The film was re-released in cinemas during the mid-Nineties, this time in a slightly cut American print - once again, the BBFC passed the film intact. But when submitted for video certification in 1999, the Board was not happy. A new regime had taken over at the top, and for them, Straw Dogs represented everything that was dangerous about video. The problem lay with the pivotal scene where Amy (played by Susan George) is raped. Midway through the rape, she appears to respond positively, therefore breaking one of the BBFC's most sacred rules: thou shalt not glamorise rape. It's worth quoting the Board's own press release from the time:

"There are a number of difficulties here. The first is the fact that the rapes are clearly effected by violence and the threat of violence. The second is the extent of the erotic content, notably Amy's forcible stripping and nudity. The third element of concern is the clear indication that Amy comes to enjoy being raped. It is Board policy not to condone material which endorses the well-known male rape myth that 'women like it really'."

The Board also decided that, despite the age of the film, "the rape scene in Straw Dogs retains most if not all of its power today" and concluded "the video was potentially harmful because of the influence it may have on the attitudes and behaviour of a significant proportion of its likely viewers." This is worth remembering because although the Board's guidelines regarding sexual violence have not changed in the last three years, and despite a lack of evidence suggesting that British society has suddenly matured beyond the 'monkey see, monkey do' mentality which ensures that watching anti-social videos results in anti-social behaviour, the Board have now passed the film uncut.

Let’s pause to consider this: in 1999, Straw Dogs' visceral impact and potential dangers had not diminished one jot in 28 years. But just three years later, it is considered safe for home viewing. And the situation becomes even more bizarre when you discover that the approved version is actually longer than the print banned in 1999. It contains a second rape scene, previously cut for American release back in 1971!

The BBFC could, of course, simply admit to having been wrong back in 1999. We'd all applaud if they were to hold their hands up and say, 'Sorry, our information was wrong.' But that's not Board policy. Mistakes do not happen. So in order to justify this about-turn, the Board has come up with several convoluted and unconvincing arguments.

Firstly, they claim that the second rape scene somehow cancels out the impact of the first, because Amy clearly does not enjoy this one. It's a clumsy argument. After all, the oft quoted reason that video is treated more harshly than theatrical is because viewers can rewind, pause and generally savour favourite moments over and over again, out of context. So there is nothing to stop potential rapists being aroused by the first scene and then simply turning the TV off while they go and have a quick spank in the bathroom. And even if seen all the way through, surely the message viewers will receive - if we are to assume the BBFC's arguments are sound - would be that women only enjoy some rape - hardly a major step forward, given that the easily-influenced are hardly likely to believe themselves to be in the group who's attentions won't be appreciated.

The Board also falls back on its two favourite arguments: expert and public opinion. The former involves the Board showing videos to pet 'experts' who remarkably enough almost always tell the Board what they want to hear. When it comes to the effects of media, the jury is still definitely out, but the Board does not take into account opposing views. Much of the research they still rely heavily on dates from the 1980's and was carried out by pro-censorship bodies and researchers - it included the politically skewed findings of the Meese Commission on Pornography that the Reagan administration set up in the early Eighties for instance. The board also consults the work of Andrea Dworkin-acolyte Catherine Itzin, an arch feminist anti-porn campaigner (1). Much of this research has been widely discredited, but the Board still uses it daily to justify banning and cutting films.

To the surprise of no one, the 'leading clinical psychologists' who watched Straw Dogs found it "not harmful and not likely to encourage an interest in rape or abusive behaviour towards women." Similarly, a focus group of 26 people also found the film acceptable, only one favouring rejection.

To counter this rather embarrassing revelation, the Board's press release constantly refers to the fact that it is 'this version' of the film that was found acceptable. However, there is nothing to show that the earlier version had been shown to anyone, and it seems highly unlikely that any sensible person would have reached a different conclusion if it had. Amy's reaction to the first rape may be ambiguous (and I'd suggest that her 'enjoyment' is in fact a numbed acceptance that fighting was useless, and faking some pleasure was the easiest way to get the ordeal over with. but I'm no expert...) but within the context of the film it is clearly an unwelcome violent assault.

Still, feeble excuses aside, the Board should be congratulated on finally doing the right thing and passing the film. It's the latest in a series of previously forbidden movies that have been released in the last few years. Britain has a shameful record in film censorship, but recently, the situation has improved markedly. Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salo, for instance, had been banned outright in 1975, and when a cinema club screened it shortly afterwards, the police raided. The film was also favourite target of HM customs, who gleefully impounded all copies whenever collectors attempted to import videos. This continued right up to the BBFC rather surprisingly passing it uncut in 2000. I say 'surprisingly', because Salo is little more than a catalogue of cruelty, degradation and sexual violence, Art it may well be - for the record, I think Salo is a masterpiece - but the film also seemed to transgress most of the Board's policies. Based on De Sade, and updated to WW2 fascist Italy, the film tells the story of a group of Nazi libertines who kidnap a group of teenage boys and girls, and spend 120 days abusing and torturing them. Most of the dehumanised teenagers spend the film naked; they are raped, beaten, forced to eat shit, piss on people, and finally tortured to death, with graphic nipple-branding, scalping and genital burning. You can buy this film quite legally on DVD from HMV or Virgin.

Also passed in recent years; Herschel Gordon Lewis' infamous gore movies, including The Wizard of Gore and The Gore Gore Girls. The latter film include footage of a woman's buttocks being beaten to pulp with a meat tenderiser, and nipples sliced off... but as milk squirts out, it's clearly played for laughs and therefore okay (the Board have always had the rather strange belief that realistic violence is dangerous, but trivialised, humorous violence is harmless... go figure). Walerian Borowczyk's wonderful La Bete is now available, complete with the outrageous ending, where a bear-like animal (not real!) is shagged to death by a frisky young woman. Previously, shots of the beast's prosthetic erection and excessive ejaculation were considered beyond the pale.

Hardcore has crept out of the sex shop and into the World Cinema section of video stores, with vintage classics like In the Realm of the Senses rubbing shoulders with modern art-core like Romance and The Idiots, giving the chattering classes a chance to watch real life fornication without compromising their social status. Again the excuse is Context and Artistic Validity - it seems that subtitled art porn is suitable for general sale, whilst no-nonsense hardcore is still banished to the licensed premises.(2)

In fact, looking around video stores these days, with a plethora of previously banned or cut films available intact, you might think we're living in some new Golden Age of liberal freedom. Sorry, you'd be wrong.

Censorship may have loosened in certain areas, but it's still alive and well. You might be able to buy Zombie Holocaust uncut, but the copies of Cannibal Holocaust sitting near it are still butchered as brutally as the victims in the film were before the BBFC arrived on the scene (3). Notorious Nasties like The New York Ripper and House on the Edge of the Park might be out there, but not in any recognisable form. The latter film has been shorn of a disgraceful 11 minutes. I Spit on Your Grave has lost seven minutes, rendering the film incomprehensible.(4)

These cuts are made because distributors simply accept them without a murmur, knowing that the reputation of the films will ensure healthy sales to people who don't know any better. Film distributors in Britain are notoriously feeble at fighting against censorship - look at how the people releasing Spider-Man meekly accepted a restrictive 12 rating for what should have been a PG film. And who can blame them? Fighting seems pointless, if the experiences of Blue Underground are anything to go by when they recently appealed against cuts to another notorious film from the early Seventies, Last House on the Left.

The story of Last House and its journey through the BBFC is a depressing one. Shot in 1972 by Wes Craven (later to direct Scream and A Nightmare on Elm Street ), the film is a grim faced rape/revenge drama. Two teenage girls heading for a rock convert are kidnapped, abused and murdered by a gang of escaped convicts, who in turn are then butchered by the parents of one of their victims. It's brutal stuff, made all the more effective by the gritty look that low budget films of the time had, and was always going to be problematic for the Board. When first submitted to the Board in 1975, they banned it outright, and a video release in the early Eighties saw the film joining the select band of titles successfully prosecuted as Video Nasties.

Last House was resubmitted for a theatrical certificate in 1999. Like Straw Dogs, it had lost none of its impact over the years as far as the BBFC were concerned. Major cuts were demanded, totaling 90 seconds. Potential distributors Feature Film were - to their credit - unwilling to make the cuts, and so the film was again officially banned in February 2000. The film rights were then picked up by Blue Underground (5), a small video label specialising in cult horror. The company had already suffered unduly at the hands of the BBFC, having had both Maniac and Deadbeat at Dawn refused certificates. But they felt confident that the Board could be convinced that Last House was acceptable - and planned to go to the Video Appeals Committee if they couldn't.

The VAC is an independent body made up of the 'great and good' who adjudicate in disputes between the BBFC and distributors. It was such an appeal that led to the relaxing of R18 guidelines in 2000, effectively legalising hardcore porn in Britain. But before any appeal could take place, the film had to be submitted to the Board for certification, and Blue Underground decided - following in the footsteps of the Board - to gauge public opinion prior to any submission. A print of the film was toured around the country, and far from causing offence or public disorder, went down well. Leicester City Council granted the film a local 18 certificate, as did Southampton and other councils. Blue Underground kingpin Carl Daft debated the film with BBFC head Robin Duval at the Bradford Film Festival, where he made it clear that he would appeal against cuts. Soon afterwards, a new list of cuts was sent to Daft. And this is where it gets weird.

Although they'd previously asked for 90 seconds removed for theatrical release, the Board now demanded 16 seconds for video - where censorship is supposedly more stringent. More bizarrely, only five seconds were the same as cuts previously requested. The Board had waived previous cuts to 'forced stripping' but now demanded a scene where a woman is forced to "piss your pants" be removed. The reason given for the cuts was unambiguous: Obscenity.

Blue Underground, true to their word, immediately gave notice of appeal. The Board then wrote back to the company, stating that the actual reason for the cuts was "harm", as defined in the Video Recordings Act. Daft was understandably perturbed by this, as he possessed a letter sent to all distributors from the BBFC some time before stating that all reasons for cuts would be listed at the time they were requested. Now the Board seemed to be coming up with new reasons. Nothing to do with the forthcoming appeal, surely?

Blue Underground seemed to have an ironclad case. Securing the services of David Pannick QC - who had successfully represented Sheptonhurst during the R18 appeals - their argument that Last House was not obscene and not harmful was well researched, and in the opinion of most observers, demolished the BBFC's rather desperate arguments completely. The BBFC reliance on studies and surveys was revealed as misguided and flawed, and the attempts to move the goalposts from the issue of obscenity to one of harm was attacked as an act of bad faith (not to mention desperation).

Blue Underground also wanted the VAC to watch a tape of clips from other BBFC approved films such as Salo and A Clockwork Orange, which showed that they had passed far stronger images of sexual violence in other films. The VAC declined to do so, however, saying that not only would it be unfair to view clips 'out of context' but also that watching the films would in effect see the Committee making a judgment on them - something they couldn't do. Still, everyone was confident of victory.

Last House lost. The BBFC won. In a unanimous decision, the VAC - which included former Blue Peter editor Biddy Baxter - not only agreed with everything the BBFC claimed, but even suggested that the Board had been unduly generous in only cutting the film by 16 seconds. They also dismissed testimony by journalist Mark Kermode regarding the film's importance, saying that intellectuals like him could easily see the film anyway - it's the great unwashed out there (that'll be you lot) who needed protecting. Most people were, upon hearing the decision, reminded of the Lady Chatterley trial, where the jury were asked if they wanted their servants to read such filth... or former BBFC head James Ferman telling a National Film Theatre audience that it was okay for middle class intellectuals like themselves to watch The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but what effect would it have on the car worker in Birmingham?

A week or so after Last House lost, the BBFC made further cuts to the film - three years, three sets of cuts, three different reasons: and these people are supposed to be experts? (6) At the same time, the uncut release of Straw Dogs - which had been sitting awaiting a decision for a year - was announced. Coincidence? Or had the Board been aware that to pass another sexually violent film before the appeal would damage their case? I really couldn't comment....

Notes:

(1) Catherine Itzen was most recently the co-author of a government commissioned 'rapid response document' that offered 'evidence' - in reaity, a fact-free, one-sided opinion piece - to support the law banning the possession of 'extreme pornography'. Rather like hiring the head of a moralising Christian organisation to report on an issue they were already campaigning against. Oh....

(2) In the ensuing decade, such 'artcore' - and even less respectable movies - have been frequently passed with hardcore scenes intact. However, the BBFC still make a distinction between 'sex works' and 'non sex works', with scenes cut from the former - which are restricted to sale in sex shops (and with mail order banned) - that would be allowed in the latter.

(3) Cannibal Holocaust has now been passed with most cuts waived, the BBFC virtually admitting that previous cuts because of animal cruelty were not legally required.

(4) Resubmitted in 2010, I Spit on Your Grave is still cut by almost 3 minutes. The New York Ripper is still missing around 30 seconds and House on the Edge of the Park is currently awaiting re-submission.

(5) Carl Daft and David Gregory of Blue Underground now run Severin Films.

(6) Six years after the BBFC were willing to take the cuts made to Last House as far as a quasi-legal hearing because they believed the film was either obscene or harmful, it was quietly passed uncut.No word from the BBFC about what changes had taken place in society in that brief time period to make this dangerous film now harmless.