"Sadistic" horror film refused classification by the BBFC

Otis Driftwood

Film chiefs have taken the unusual step of refusing to give a certificate to a sadistic horror movie.

Distributors of Japanese movie Grotesque had hoped to be given an 18 certificate for the film, which involves torture such as amputation and eye-gouging.

But the British Board of Film Classification said the film featured sexual sadism for its own sake. It said that giving the film a rating would involve a "risk of harm" to those viewing it.

Selling or supplying the film would now be illegal.

The BBFC rejects films only rarely, preferring to give advice about how appropriate cuts would achieve the preferred certificate.

The decision was taken by BBFC director, David Cooke and senior colleagues.

The board said the majority of the film focused on the assault, humiliation and torture of two victims. The main character takes them prisoner, restrains, strips and sexually assaults them before inflicting horrific injuries until they die.

Mr Cooke said: "Unlike other recent 'torture'-themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism. The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake."

The BBFC rates around 10,000 films for DVD release each year.

The last film which the BBFC rejected for an 18 certificate was the 2004 movie Murder Set Pieces, which was turned down earlier this year. Until that, it had not refused an 18 rating since 2005 when the film Terrorists, Killers And Other Wackos - made up of real clips of execution and torture - was turned down.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090819/tuk-sadistic-horror-movie-in-cinema-ban-6323e80.html

Nice to know big brother is still looking out for us.:rolleyes:

Just did a quick ebay search,its currently available for pre-order but doesnt have english subtitles,yet.

Boston

Glad to hear there's little dialogue, I was worried about subtitles.

Karl Hungus

Bah, and the director's film Noroi doesn't seem to have any DVD release in sight. I really want to see that.

Galvasean

And yet they release Antichrist. Seems like a double standard to me.

genericguy

Galvasean wrote: »

And yet they release Antichrist. Seems like a double standard to me.

ah, but antichrist was "art" :rolleyes:

Fysh

I find the motivations behind decisions to approve or reject films interesting, given that there's still no conclusive research on the individual impact of a film on a viewer. I'll be honest though, a film that's described as having little in the way of character development or narrative focus is always going to be a more likely target for this kind of censorship because of its focus - a film that's basically about showcasing acts of torture and sadism is difficult to defend in the face of allegations that it will corrupt and deprave viewers.

Quite aside from which, you have to bear in mind that the UK has the rather worrying Extreme Porn law in place, under which the Metropolitan Police can stick their oar in and give grief to people owning or possessing such material despite having famously provided no clear indication on how to determine if an individual film or image transgresses the law. Under those circumstances I can sympathise with the BBFC ruling as it has done.

I'm faintly curious as to why you're wound up at the BBFC since IFCO are the body you'd be more affected by in Ireland?

genericguy wrote: »

ah, but antichrist was "art" :rolleyes:

More likely Antichrist was directed by an individual who, controversial though his filmography may be, has garnered significant and widespread critical acclaim. Von Trier has a bit more leeway when it comes to boundary-pushing than a creative team with no great international reputation (as far as I can tell, though I could be wrong) or particularly lauded/notable works (again, as far as I can tell).

iseethelight

But its only been banned in the UK. At least give them a chance to ban it here before you start complaining. I know its unlikely but it may be released here.

Otis Driftwood

Fysh wrote: »

I'm faintly curious as to why you're wound up at the BBFC since IFCO are the body you'd be more affected by in Ireland?

Im hardly wound up in fairness.I just find it a little sad that in 2009 any movie will be banned/refused classification.

Irreversible was passed uncut and that has the single most difficult to watch and prolonged rape scene Ive ever seen

iseethelight wrote: »

But its only been banned in the UK. At least give them a chance to ban it here before you start complaining.

Again,Im not complaining.

If I waited for a movie to get certified by either the BBFC or the IFCO then I wouldnt own half the movies that I own.:pac:

Anyway,the BBFC banned it so Id be pretty sure the IFCO will follow suit.

Decuc500

I don't agree with banning films but I really don't see the point of some of these sadistic 'Torture Porn' movies. What's the point in watching someone being tortured then murdered for 90 minutes? This stuff gives horror movies a bad name.

Hostel was good but it turned into a revenge movie so there was a point to the whole thing.

Fysh

nedtheshed wrote: »

Im hardly wound up in fairness.I just find it a little sad that in 2009 any movie will be banned/refused classification.

Irreversible was passed uncut and that has the single most difficult to watch and prolonged rape scene Ive ever seen

Well yeah, but irreversible also provided a narrative context to that scene as well as exploring its impact and consequences. The general comments from the quote you posted suggest that the same cannot be said of Grotesque.

Aside from which there are other considerations relating to film classification which aren't yet well understood, as well as the legal issues I already mentioned, which will have an obvious impact on the guidelines employed by the BBFC when making decisions.

nedtheshed wrote: »

Anyway,the BBFC banned it so Id be pretty sure the IFCO will follow suit.

That's more of a complaint about the IFCO though; it's hardly the BBFC's fault that the IFCO regularly ape their decisions, though I can appreciate how frustrating it can be. I'm intrigued and confused in equal measure by the disconnect between how sex in films is treated versus how violence in films is treated, given that we're now at a stage where actual sex in a film can be released uncut without being considered porn, as shown in 9 Songs, but realistically simulated violence still gets frowned upon, cut or banned. I wouldn't have thought we understand the impact of exposure to graphical sexual material any better than we understand the impact of exposure to graphical violent material, especially if you're not incorporating context into the comparison...

Karl Hungus

Fysh wrote: »

I find the motivations behind decisions to approve or reject films interesting, given that there's still no conclusive research on the individual impact of a film on a viewer. I'll be honest though, a film that's described as having little in the way of character development or narrative focus is always going to be a more likely target for this kind of censorship because of its focus - a film that's basically about showcasing acts of torture and sadism is difficult to defend in the face of allegations that it will corrupt and deprave viewers.

While the idea of refusing a film classification on the basis that it could 'harm' the viewers is contemptible enough as it is, the implication that this harm comes not from the violent content, but from the lack of narrative is flippantly stupid. It's ignorant justification for prudish opinions that have little or no basis in fact. Violence is violence, and whether it's presented as part of a narrative with character development and dialogue, or it's merely shown as large set piece, it's the same thing - fictitious depictions of violence.

Of course, context for us defines how we consider the film, we can be drawn into the experience with well written characters, we can be engaged by the story, and whether we consider a film to be good or not depends on this. But none the less, violent content is violent regardless of the context, and if there was ever a coherent argument for it effecting or very well harming viewers, then that either applies across the board or it doesn't at all.

In that sense, even though I have no intention of seeing the film, I don't find it hard to defend at all, it's merely fiction.

Fysh

Karl Hungus wrote: »

While the idea of refusing a film classification on the basis that it could 'harm' the viewers is contemptible enough as it is, the implication that this harm comes not from the violent content, but from the lack of narrative is flippantly stupid. It's ignorant justification for prudish opinions that have little or no basis in fact. Violence is violence, and whether it's presented as part of a narrative with character development and dialogue, or it's merely shown as large set piece, it's the same thing - fictitious depictions of violence.

Of course, context for us defines how we consider the film, we can be drawn into the experience with well written characters, we can be engaged by the story, and whether we consider a film to be good or not depends on this. But none the less, violent content is violent regardless of the context, and if there was ever a coherent argument for it effecting or very well harming viewers, then that either applies across the board or it doesn't at all.

In that sense, even though I have no intention of seeing the film, I don't find it hard to defend at all, it's merely fiction.

In the absence of credible and significant research on the subject, it's kind of hard to draw any serious conclusions on this most contentious of subjects. We can each draw on our own experience and anecdotal evidence, but none of that can realistically be turned into a conclusion that stands up to scrutiny.

I would argue that there is a difference between an extended set piece focusing on an act of violence and a narrative piece exploring character development and consequence of the same act of violence, because one is just depicting the violence and the other is depicting it in a context to which viewers can relate. For instance, take Crime & Punishment. The book opens with a description of a gruesome double murder. A reader could read those pages and then stop. A second reader could read the entire book. They clearly don't have the same experience, because one has only read the gruesome murder scenes whereas the other has read the impact those actions have on the murderer.

With film as with any form of fiction (be it highbrow or lowbrow) it will be easier to defend something that has a narrative and some sort of thematic or character development than something which does not, on the basis that beyond the initial visceral response to what is depicted there is an easily-identified aspect of the fiction to be appreciated by the audience. Though in saying that, I'm fairly sure I'm not the target audience for this film so I can't say that this material has no appeal, just that it's not for me.

Edited to add:

I just saw this article on The Register which discusses the legal requirement for the BBFC to consider "potential harm" rather than "actual harm" in terms of impact of the material they review.

Karl Hungus

Fysh wrote: »

In the absence of credible and significant research on the subject, it's kind of hard to draw any serious conclusions on this most contentious of subjects. We can each draw on our own experience and anecdotal evidence, but none of that can realistically be turned into a conclusion that stands up to scrutiny.

But that absence of research and conclusion cannot be used as a justification as to why a film isn't banned or has classification refused, it would be like detaining a prisoner in spite of any evidence because they can't prove their innocence. I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, but if there's a lack of any definitive research on the subject, then I don't believe any party should be involved in banning films because the only grounds to do so is merely guesswork and opinion.

I do however believe that there is a very strong argument to the contrary of fictional violence causing 'harm' to viewers, simply by virtue of the extreme psychological toll that witnessing real violence takes such as post traumatic stress disorder. Soldiers can come back from war extremely traumatized from what they've seen, but film fans watching films that depict the horrors of war do not suffer in the same way. Many people have seen Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Letters From Iwo Jima and other war films, and while they do stir emotions greatly, I don't believe they exact a traumatic effect.

Fysh wrote: »

I would argue that there is a difference between an extended set piece focusing on an act of violence and a narrative piece exploring character development and consequence of the same act of violence, because one is just depicting the violence and the other is depicting it in a context to which viewers can relate. For instance, take Crime & Punishment. The book opens with a description of a gruesome double murder. A reader could read those pages and then stop. A second reader could read the entire book. They clearly don't have the same experience, because one has only read the gruesome murder scenes whereas the other has read the impact those actions have on the murderer.

I'd actually say that discriminating on a film's violent content based on the context it's presented in is a worrying path to take. There's plenty of action films that throw consequence to the wind and glorify and exaggerate violence. Does censorship take to weighing the worthiness of a film to depict violence based on whether it's showing the consequences, as Irreversible does? Where's the line drawn, and who's deciding what context is appropriate for a film to depict violence? I really don't like the idea of violence needing such stringent context in order to be acceptable.

humanji

This is probably a stupid question, but is this film based on the Japanese book of the same name? The description doesn't sound like it, but I'm wondering if someone just butchered (excuse the pun) the book and made a crappy slasher flick out of it?

Fysh

Karl Hungus wrote: »

But that absence of research and conclusion cannot be used as a justification as to why a film isn't banned or has classification refused, it would be like detaining a prisoner in spite of any evidence because they can't prove their innocence. I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, but if there's a lack of any definitive research on the subject, then I don't believe any party should be involved in banning films because the only grounds to do so is merely guesswork and opinion.

I do however believe that there is a very strong argument to the contrary of fictional violence causing 'harm' to viewers, simply by virtue of the extreme psychological toll that witnessing real violence takes such as post traumatic stress disorder. Soldiers can come back from war extremely traumatized from what they've seen, but film fans watching films that depict the horrors of war do not suffer in the same way. Many people have seen Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Letters From Iwo Jima and other war films, and while they do stir emotions greatly, I don't believe they exact a traumatic effect.

I agree wholeheartedly that any decision to approve or reject films under the current system is groping blindly in the dark, and would hope that when we finally get some credible and solid research on the subject, that film classifications over all (not to mention other media) would be reconsidered to ensure that the decisions made are consistent and well-reasoned. It only takes the likes of the Box Of The Banned to see what happens otherwise.

At the same time, the BBFC have evidently been told that they have to have some methodology by which they evaluate films, and in the absence of any concrete evidence over the long-term effect of violence in visual fiction I suspect that being more lenient on violence that is part of a narrative with thematic and character developments was seen as a reasonable compromise. In the country that banned Lady Chatterley's Lover and panicked over the effect that The Picture Of Dorian Gray might have on readers, that's still a more level-headed option than might be expected.

In terms of long-term damage to witnessing violence on screen, I'm not so sure. Back in the days of first getting internet access a bunch of people I knew regularly emailed round short videos of various sorts, and one guy I knew hunted down stuff from Gore Gallery and so on - lovely things like photos of suicides, clips of people being shot or having horrible accidents and so on. At first it was interesting in a visceral way to see them, but after a time I felt very uncomfortable about watching them. I feel the same way about torture-obsessed horror films, because they seem to have the same mentality as what I've heard described as "anatomy lesson porn" - they show you the act in minute detail, but don't offer any insight or perspective on it. When the act being discussed is physical violence upon a human being, I find myself disturbed by it. It's well and good to say "that's the intended effect", but if that's the case why not put narrative or character development into the film to explore it in more depth?

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I'd actually say that discriminating on a film's violent content based on the context it's presented in is a worrying path to take. There's plenty of action films that throw consequence to the wind and glorify and exaggerate violence. Does censorship take to weighing the worthiness of a film to depict violence based on whether it's showing the consequences, as Irreversible does? Where's the line drawn, and who's deciding what context is appropriate for a film to depict violence? I really don't like the idea of violence needing such stringent context in order to be acceptable.

I'm no fan of censorship, and certainly not censorship that's based on "presenting positive values". I don't like the idea because it's so often abused.
I'm not talking about all violence here, though - I'm talking about minutely detailed, explicitly grisly and extended scenes of torture or mutilation. I can't think of any action film featuring such scenes that also feature the more usual staples of Guns With Infinite Ammo, Heroes Immune To Post-Traumatic-Stress After Shooting Dozens Of People Dead, or The Amazing Recoil-Less Gun Show.

When we talk about these kind of torture films I think of watching the climactic scene in Audition only devoid of the film's build-up and tension, and that's where I don't get the appeal. I can see the appreciation for special effects, especially where they're done well, but not the inherent appeal of watching the material itself.

spongeman

Being a big fan of Asian horror I did watch Grotesque, and found it extremely boring.

At least Hostel had some kind of story to it.

spongeman

iseethelight wrote: »

But its only been banned in the UK. At least give them a chance to ban it here before you start complaining. I know its unlikely but it may be released here.

I would say having seen it, it has no chance of being released here. It is nothing more than a series of unrelenting torture sequences with no character development whatsoever.

Eirebear

Mr Cooke said: "Unlike other recent 'torture'-themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism.

Saw and Hostel had a deep narrative and character development did they?!

spongeman

no, but they did have 1% !