Irish censors ban re-release of 1978 horror film

PWEI

This is an odd decision when you consider some of graphic violence out there these days. Surely it's not as bad as Cannibal Holocaust which was unbanned in 2006?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11377869


Irish censors ban re-release of 1978 horror filmThe re-release of a controversial 1978 horror movie has been banned by film censors in the Irish Republic.

The Irish Film Classification Office (IFCO) has blocked the sale of the DVD I Spit on Your Grave, starring Buster Keaton's granddaughter Camille Keaton.

The IFCO confirmed the movie was prohibited on 14 September for depicting acts of gross violence and cruelty towards humans.

Director Meir Zarchi said he was not surprised Ireland banned the film.

It tells the story of an aspiring writer who is repeatedly gang-raped and left for dead by four men whom she systematically hunts down for revenge.

"It has relentlessly continued to shock and offend audiences since 1978 when it was first released, and it still does to this date," he said.

"However, with the level of graphic violence and horror available these days, it is surprising that IFCO sees this 1978 film as more offensive than some of the most daring and empty of content torture porn available today."

The IFCO last made a prohibition order in 2007 when watchdogs banned the video game, "Manhunt 2".

"I Spit On Your Grave" was regarded as one of the most graphic and violent films in cinema history. The cult film, originally released under the name "Day of the Woman" is still available in the UK. The movie has also been remade and will be in cinemas across the UK next February.

'Saddened'

Eoghan Burke, of Lace Digital Media Sales in Ireland, said he was disappointed and saddened by the IFCO decision.

"I thought we had moved on from these times. It just drives business away from bricks and mortar and into the hands of online, denying much needed revenue to traditional retail," he said.

However, Mr Zarchi said the ban will just give the movie more publicity.

"Since the birth of the internet all censor boards around the world have instantly become irrelevant, IFCO included," he added.

"Anyone, anywhere in the universe can simply push a button on any video website store and order a disc of 'I Spit On Your Grave'.

"There are no iron curtains in the skies that can stop it from landing at his or her door.

"Are we going through the "Lady Chatterley's Lover" syndrome all over again?

"The bottom line - thank you IFCO for promoting the film in Ireland."

indough

not missing much to be honest

Cantona's Collars

Gona watch it just to see what the fuss is about.The joys of the internet-as said by op-what's the point in banning something that can be got by a few mouse clicks.This movie would have passed me by except I heard about it being banned on the news this evening so out of curiosity I found it online in seconds.

Terrible film,its shown on one of the Horror channels the odd time..and worst of all We have this to look forward to in a few months

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KEr91djnuQ

Otis Driftwood

One of the most over rated horror movies of all time tbh.Last House On The Left is much more graphic and unrelenting yet it got passed uncut a couple of years ago.When measured against something like Irreversible the rape scenes are positivly tame by comparison.

mike65

Does anyone know if the Horror Channel cut of I Spit on Your Gravy is the one released in 1978? If it is (or anything close) then it makes a total mockery of prohibiting it on DVD here.

Otis Driftwood

The rape scenes in the horror channel cut are slightiy shorter,aside from that,nada.As an FYI for the OP,Cannibal Holocaust has never been released uncut here or AFAIK in the UK either.

Paparazzo

Haven't watched I Spit On Your Grave, but flicked through a few scenes of Cannibal Holocaust. Probably not something I'd show the kids

indough

for me the most potentially disturbing thing about both this movie and the last house on the left was that they are actually quite funny despite the subjact matter...having said that i didnt feel too guilty about laughing at them either

Banning this is a bit of a joke considering some of the material which is routinely passed uncut. I Spit and Last House are both very much products of their times and have aged very badly, in this day and age the most disturbing aspect of both films is the soundtrack.

PWEI

nedtheshed wrote: »

.When measured against something like Irreversible the rape scenes are positivly tame by comparison.

I was wondering about that when I read that it was banned. If the rape scenes
are tame compared to Irreversible then it's a stupid decision. The scene in Irreversible was one of the most disturbing pieces of film I've ever watched.

jaykhunter

That trailer posted looks just like Last House on the Left, except with a different family member taking revenge. Is I Spit of any merit? Or should i just skip it?

mike65

I watched part of it the last time it was on Horror Channel and its very slow, flat and the "shock" scenes are so poorly staged its very hard to get any sort of "bite" out of it.
I know that the point and shoot style can work but here its just uninteresting - as banal as the violence it captures. No doubt some would say thats as it should be, but it would be excusing poor film-making to be honest.

baalthor

I remember this was notorious as one of the first "video nasties" when VHS movies were becoming popular in the 80s. Apparently film critic Roger Ebert also campaigned against it, labelling it the "worst movie ever made" .
So maybe all the above baggage is keeping it on the banned list. But as others have noted, it's very tame by today's standards; I wouldn't even regard it as a horror movie. The gore/bloodshed level is minimal when compared with something like "Wolf Creek" for example.

Bizarre decision by the censor.

PS: Here is a fairly positive review : http://www.cinemademerde.com/I_Spit_On_Your_Grave.shtml

the_monkey

PWEI wrote: »

I was wondering about that when I read that it was banned. If the rape scenes
are tame compared to Irreversible then it's a stupid decision. The scene in Irreversible was one of the most disturbing pieces of film I've ever watched.

Indeed , as was the fire extinguisher, totally unnessarily graphic - both scenes.

have to wonder about people who enjoy films like these.

Goldstein

Who cares tbh, it's a rubbish movie - famous for being infamous / controversial.
I Spit on Your Grave, Last House on the Left, Canibal Holocaust, A Serbian Film, The Saw sequels, The Hostel movies...they're all just snuff movies at the end of the day, nothing but tripe to indulge sadistic fantasies. It's a sad state of affairs that they're even attempting to make modern versions.

indough

they may be ****e but they arent snuff movies

Goldstein

indough wrote: »

they may be ****e but they arent snuff movies

meh, I don't care to dispute the thinness of that line.

mikom

Goldstein wrote: »

meh, I don't care to dispute the thinness of that line.

Well I reckon being either dead or alive is more than just a thin line.

Goldstein

mikom wrote: »

Well I reckon being either dead or alive is more than just a thin line.

Not to a viewer of these types of movies these days. Things look pretty much the same to the human eye as they would if the events were actually occuring.

mikom

Goldstein wrote: »

Not to a viewer of these types of movies these days. Things look pretty much the same to the human eye as they would if the events were actually occuring.

IMO

Goldstein

mikom wrote: »

IMO

I assume It goes without saying that everything I say is in my opinion.

These seem, to me at least, to have have one purpose and one audience. I've seen a few of them and while they don't bother me in the slightest, I don't like to see them dressed up as some kind of art form instead of the pure and simple sadism that they are.

As to whether it should be banned, I'd say no, there is much worse out there and the publicity generated only serves to raise the profiles of these exploitation / "wannabe" snuff movies.

mikom

Goldstein wrote: »

"wannabe" snuff movies.

That's them alright.

indough

Goldstein wrote: »

meh, I don't care to dispute the thinness of that line.

the line is about as thin as mary harneys belt diameter

Goldstein wrote: »

Can't believe people are being pedantic with an end goal of trying to defend these movies.

indough wrote: »

they may be ****e but they arent snuff movies

yep, i was clearly defending the movies alright...

actually i tend not to like anything too gory to be honest, i prefer my horror a bit more psychological

Gone West

I guess they are just trying to justify the existence of their Quango.
Yeah folks, your taxes paid for those guys to tell you that you can´t watch this movie in Ireland.
Presumably they are worried about cuts in funding and are trying to justify their existence.
The guy in the OP was totally correct, that quango and the people who get paid to work there are irrelevant and unecesscary bloat in an already bloated system.

patch

i'm disappointed people here rate it poorly.

Talking of cannibal holocaust, I thought it was pretty good for what it was. The most disturbing thing for me was the fact that they killed the animals for real.

candy-gal1

So allowing the Saw franchise to keep going is fine, which i hated and found to be one of the biggest wastes of money going to see them, but because a horror movie may have a few rape scenes (Halloween uncut has one too) then its banned?!

krudler

the_monkey wrote: »

Indeed , as was the fire extinguisher, totally unnessarily graphic - both scenes.

have to wonder about people who enjoy films like these.

They're not unnecessarily graphic, thats the point. The murder and rape scenes in Irreversible are designed to completely shock a jaded viewer, if you saw a guy get killed by a fire extinguisher in a hollywood movie nobody would bat an eyelid, same content but its the context in which Irreversible shows it that made it so shocking, brutal, realistic and up to that point of the movie uncalled for. Its only after we see why the two guys are in the club to begin with that you can reason their thinking behind wanting to kill the guy,

and the fact its the wrong guy makes it all the more violent.

Same with the rape scene, its so long that it exhausting to sit through, as it should be.

AnonoBoy

candy-gal1 wrote: »

So allowing the Saw franchise to keep going is fine, which i hated and found to be one of the biggest wastes of money going to see them, but because a horror movie may have a few rape scenes (Halloween uncut has one too) then its banned?!

The context of a rape scene and how the rape is portrayed is what ultimately leads to their decision not just the fact that there is a rape scene in the movie.

If you wasted your money going to see Saw then that's your look out. The censor won't ban a film merely because it's rubbish - sure if that was the case then we'd be spared the likes of Grown Ups and Epic Movie.

You do realise that the Censor's office has no control over what movies get made, don't you? There's no question of them "allowing the Saw franchise to keep going" or not. They can merely rate the movies that are submitted to them and I don't think anyone thinks that the Saw movies should be banned.

Goldstein

indough wrote: »

yep, i was clearly defending the movies alright...

actually i tend not to like anything too gory to be honest, i prefer my horror a bit more psychological

Sorry, just to clarify I didn't mean you or anyone here, was talking in generalities as I'd recently had a similar conversation with a friend.

faceman

I couldnt believe it when I heard it had been ban on re-release. I thought IFCO had moved away from banning films. Its not a great film (and I agree that Last House was more graphic and grim) but as someone said, it was a film of its day.

The graphic violence in the film (and Last House) serves a few purposes. The obvious being the crowd pleaser/puller but it also served somewhat as a plot device. In "Spit" and "last house", we see the "good guys" engage on a campaign of revenge. It serves as a test to the audience's humanity to see if you get sucked into justifying the level of revenge that is carried out, in a graphic fashion.

indough wrote: »

they may be ****e but they arent snuff movies

There is no such thing as a real snuff movie. It's almost an urban legend which resulted from a clever (viral?) marketing ploy by a South American film maker in the 70's for his film "Snuff". His film sucked but it didnt stop crowds going to see the film.

krudler

faceman wrote: »

There is no such thing as a real snuff movie. It's almost an urban legend which resulted from a clever (viral?) marketing ploy by a South American film maker in the 70's for his film "Snuff". His film sucked but it didnt stop crowds going to see the film.

Depends on what your idea of a snuff movie is really, theres plenty of stuff on the internet showing people being murdered, 3 men 1 hammer for instance, thats about a close as to being a real snuff film as you could get.

moomooman

I remember being 5 or 6 years old (early 80s) when RTE showed the "lad removal" scence in the bathroom, in "I spit.."

I think the programme was "The Womens Hour", hosted by Marian Finucane, so in an effort to highlight the evil of video nasties, I got to be traumatised watching some dude getting his todger cut off and a woman being gang raped :eek:

Only RTE could manage to provide a "ban this filth now" bandwagon and then show the filth they wanted banning.

patch

faceman wrote: »

There is no such thing as a real snuff movie. It's almost an urban legend which resulted from a clever (viral?) marketing ploy by a South American film maker in the 70's for his film "Snuff". His film sucked but it didnt stop crowds going to see the film.

In fairness in a world where there are degenerates with money and video cameras, I'd be fairly certain that that some nut job has made a snuff movie and distributed it to like minded freaks.

mailforkev

I have to laugh at the state of this country sometimes when stuff like this happens.

To be completely honest I don't think any movie should be banned, providing it's not showing something illegal actually happening (child porn etc.).

The 18 rating is there to allow an adult to know that the movie has adult content that they might not want to see, and more importantly to inform parents that the movie is not suitable for their children.

It is then the parents' job, not society and not the censor, to ensure the proper upbringing of their child when armed with this information.

Lest we end up with the "moral turpitude" brigade being seen as anything more than a bunch of cranks. Life's golden rule being if you don't like something then turn it off.

johnny_ultimate

In fairness to IFCO, they did get considerably better under the control of John Kellegher (now gone I think), and this is only the second major banning since Manhunt 2 (I half think the bannings are based on quality issues :pac:).

However, I don't agree with this kind of thing being banned at all. As pointed out above, we are adults and should be able to make up our own mind about this. Bannings don't have any place in an open society, barring true 'snuff' content etc... Especially since we have an 18s rating that is - in theory - strictly 18s there's no reason for outright bans.

Goldstein

Goldstein wrote: »

Who cares tbh, it's a rubbish movie - famous for being infamous / controversial.
I Spit on Your Grave, Last House on the Left, Canibal Holocaust, A Serbian Film, The Saw sequels, The Hostel movies...they're all just snuff movies at the end of the day, nothing but tripe to indulge sadistic fantasies. It's a sad state of affairs that they're even attempting to make modern versions.

Cannibal Holocaust and Last House on the Left are actually two of the most impressive horror films of the 70s. The violence is graphic sure but it's the small moments which really make them so loved. In the scene with Krug and company after repeatedly raping the girl and killing the other there is a moment when all three look down at their blood stained hands and recognise that they are monsters, it's an amazing powerful scene and one which singles the film out as being about more than just sex and violence.

Calling A Serbian Film a wannabe snuff film is completely missing the point, like Martyrs it's a thought provoking and powerful film which stays with you for days afterward.

faceman

indough wrote: »

they may be ****e but they arent snuff movies

krudler wrote: »

Depends on what your idea of a snuff movie is really, theres plenty of stuff on the internet showing people being murdered, 3 men 1 hammer for instance, thats about a close as to being a real snuff film as you could get.

I wouldnt consider those movies snuff, because they arent movies.

There is a very watered down cousin of snuff called mondo movies. Cannibal Holocaust is considered one. Its when the film makers uses a mix of real and fake footage in the movie to lure the audience into a sense of thinking, on some level, that the film is real or is as real as they can make it.

WRT Cannibal Holocaust, most of the scenes of animal cruelty in the film (e.g. the giant turtle death) are unfortunately real.

TheWarrior

Deleted User wrote: »

Calling A Serbian Film a wannabe snuff film is completely missing the point, like Martyrs it's a thought provoking and powerful film which stays with you for days afterward.

Saw a Serbian movie recently, having absolutely no idea what it was about beforehand (Only that it was some Saw Type Horror). I turned it off about an hour into it- for those that have seen it after the baby scene. I looked up the plot later on wikepedia & was glad not to have watched it. I wouldn't call it thought provoking or powerful- repugnant yes. Now I have no problem with controversial/ disturbing content but there is line & they definitely crossed it there.

faceman

I havent seen A Serbian Film but wrt to violence and how graphic it is in a movie, it should really only be used to serve a purpose.

Similar is said about sex scenes in films. Think a film with a graphic or gratuitous sex scene (non prawn movies obviously!) and then ask yourself what difference it would have made to the plot if it wasnt that graphic.

There are probably less than a handful of movies where graphic sex scenes are necessary for the story. ("Open Water" being one of them)

Eddie Ere

krudler wrote: »

Depends on what your idea of a snuff movie is really, theres plenty of stuff on the internet showing people being murdered, 3 men 1 hammer for instance, thats about a close as to being a real snuff film as you could get.

Curiosity got the better of me

Horrific stuff.

Ash.J.Williams

the_monkey wrote: »

Indeed , as was the fire extinguisher, totally unnessarily graphic - both scenes.

have to wonder about people who enjoy films like these.

Irreversable was great

Shryke

I was coming in here full of indignation but **** that's a bad film! I'm actually not bothered, not even on principle.

DWCommuter

Regardless of what we think of the film, this decision is a dangerous precedent. As an aspiring filmmaker, I'm very disturbed by this action. If anyone has a minute, maybe you could lend some support to a facebook campaign. Its just a base for a wider campaign to get the ban over turned.

Banning films in these circumstances is a backward step and must be addressed.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Remove-the-ban/155525131139149?ref=ts

Ash.J.Williams

I have to say it feels weird having someone watch over you like this.

Dublindude69

The IFCO is full of retards, always has been, they over rated most movies in my opinion. Why is Kick Ass 18s? Why is Superbad 18s? Why is The Hole (Being advertised as a family adventure movie) 15s? Why is Case 39 18s?

Dublindude69

Dublindude69 wrote: »

The IFCO is full of retards, always has been, they over rated most movies in my opinion. Why is Kick Ass 18s? Why is Superbad 18s? Why is The Hole (Being advertised as a family adventure movie) 15s? Why is Case 39 18s?

I'm fairly certain that the IFCO is far from staffed with "retards", I take it that you feel hard done by when cinema staff refuse to let you see 15A titles without your parents present.

THe Hole is rated 15A meaning that any child can see it when accompanied with an adult and as for Kick Ass being an 18s cert, if you've seen the film you will know why it is rated so.

mike65

www.todayfm.com

Matt Cooper talking about this now (in a moment)

mike65

Anyone listening to this "family values" nutjob?

AnonoBoy

mike65 wrote: »

Anyone listening to this "family values" nutjob?

I love that guy. Best comic creation in a long time.

Who does him?

AnonoBoy

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I love that guy. Best comic creation in a long time.

Who does him?

As long as there is language, sex, violence, adult content in cinema then we will continue to have the morally outraged brigade who feel that it is their job to protect the rest of us from being corrupted.

You'd be surprised by how many there are out there, I recall a poster on here awhile back who felt that any film rated over 12s should be banned as his kids could be exposed to it outside his home.

As far as I'm concerned, being over the age of 18 entitles me to watch whatever I choose. I recognise that we need a rating system in place to ensure that adult content is only available to adults but to expect all adult content to be removed so as to protect the children is ludicrous.