All language subtitles for Ban.The.Sadist.Videos.2005.720p.BluRay.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

To avoid fainting, keep
repeating to yourself:

"It's just a movie, just
a movie, just a movie."

Britain in the early 1980s
was suffering from its

fair share of social ills:
rising unemployment,

budget cuts, riots, strikes, war.

But a new threat was
lurking around the corner,

one that some said would
invade our homes, corrupt

our children and would attack
the moral fabric of our society.

There was a fairly high
level of unemployment.

People fired from companies
that were closing, from factories

that were closing, from
mines that were closing, used

very often their compensation money.

To start up as a video store.

Anyone could do it, they didn't have any

special experience, so a large number of

people who had never had
anything to do with the movie

business came together
and one supplied the other.

And it was huge, absolutely gigantic.

The growth was one
thousand percent overnight.

Every week, new movies from
around the world hit the video shelves.

New brands quickly emerged to meet the
growing demand for home entertainment.

People came in with
briefcases full of cash.

They want to open a video store, 20,000,
10,000, whatever, you give me movies.

Because everything we had
at that time, people rented.

We were doing so well at first that
we charged £50 per membership.

The public liked any type of
cinema that was available at that time.

And it went very well,
I don't know what kind

of movie it was, whether
horror, action, comedy,

childish or what, everything went very well.

Britain is at the forefront
of the video revolution.

We have more video recorders per
person than any other country in the world.

Nowadays, more movies are
seen on video than in cinema.

And this transformed the way British

audiences accessed filmed entertainment.

Until then, the only
films they saw were those

that had been accepted
and subject to censorship

voluntary in cinemas, or those they saw

televised by the BBC or
one of the ITV companies.

The majors weren't
particularly involved at the time.

When I started, there were about 20
films from Warner Brothers and CIC.

And it took them a long time to adapt.

And now, suddenly, those,
if I use the term responsible

distributors, found
themselves in competition.

In competition with others, very often

small people, with
limited resources, most

They were not British,
who had made, for various

reasons, films of a much
more extreme nature.

And that they were very interested
in finding a British market for them.

Ladies and gentlemen,
the bloodiest thing that

has ever happened in
front of a camera: tobacco.

The film that could only be made in
South America, where life is cheap.

In reality, people were looking for
something they had never seen before.

I mean, the only horror movies
they really saw in theaters

were Dracula movies and
very, very, very scary movies,

very soft Christopher
Lee or Vincent Price.

There was nothing like
the SS camp or any other

horror film that was
recorded on video afterward.

And people were really very,
maybe very interested in seeing

that kind of thing, which had
never been released in theaters.

Movies they could actually watch at home.

Love Camp 7 was actually filmed in
the location where the story took place.

The idea that people
could rent or buy videos

that they could show
at home, completely at

outside of any of the provisions that,

for example, restricted what people could

seeing in the cinema, for some
it was something quite shocking.

They were journalistic terms.

Coined, I believe, by a journalist called
Peter Chippendale, who wrote a review

from a video fair in Manchester,
late '81 or '82, in the Sunday Times.

A very extensive story about
the products that were offered

at this fair and that he
described as unpleasant videos.

There used to be a program called Depend to

Show, and it used to be every
six months, as I remember.

It was like a big bazaar.

I remember going to see Mike
Lee, and he had flesh-eating

zombies, and he was very
pleased to show everyone

the woman's face being
dragged towards the piece of wood

from the broken window, and
what happens when she gets out.

In the eye, it was
cut for the old film in

theaters, but since
there was no law, he said:

"Let's put this out, the
strong, uncut version."

"Ah!

Ah!

Ah!

There was a huge appetite for movies,

and the more lewd, sexy, harsh or

The more violent they
were, the better they sold.

Oh yeah, that's fantastic.

No.

No.

Not that.

It's time for you to start thinking.

Faces of death.

No.

No.

It's time for you to start thinking.

The driller's killer is approaching.

Evil Dead was a huge success, it was the
biggest video hit of its time, of its year.

I think it sold 50,000
copies in a year, which

was, I think, between
£40 and £50 at the time.

It was a video that
raised two million pounds.

A video, as I say,
took off so quickly that

when it was kind of
an annoying little thing.

That?

You know, it was like, oh, it'll go away.

Oh, it just doesn't matter.

Who cares? They're
just a bunch of perverts.

And suddenly, when Evil
Dead had such a big impact,

and suddenly the movie theater
chains say, ugh, what's going on here?

The big distributors, their
anxiety was that their image

and the image of the industry
they felt they had created

for what I call the
conventional orthodox material.

It was going to be
contaminated by associating,

literally, on the shelves of retailers,

you would find Mary Poppins next
to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

And the people who produced Mary Poppins
weren't very happy with that juxtaposition.

Without recognizable titles
or big stars, independents

would rely on sensational
packaging to attract consumers.

Well, in those days, I mean, it was a
shock tactic to advertise the product.

So the hype was a bit
much for a lot of people.

It was kind of but, you
know, clearly people were

offended because a woman
was upside down, a crucifix type

thing in captivity with obviously
threatening Gestapo guys.

Like I say, I don't think there's
any way to think anyone would think

they were posting nasty videos.
They were just putting out movies

commercial. The video industry
is somewhat to blame for mounting

advertising campaigns, which I believe
absolutely invited moral meddlers to

Get to work. Mary
Whitehouse, a tireless activist,

formed the National
Spectators Association

and Listeners in 1963 and
promised to clean up television.

In 1980, the Association had 30.

000 members. The nasty videos
would give Whitehouse a new crusade.

In fact, Mary Whitehouse
was one of the most astute

and effective political
organizers we have ever had in

this country. She was
a brilliant organizer.

Her skill was to articulate
it and point it all in

the same direction and
hit the target, which was the

violence and sex, in the
videos. She was an open,

easy target to attack,
and she did it brilliantly.

The British public, the vast
majority of whom are understandably

unaware of how serious
the threat the videos present

unpleasant, particularly
for young people.

What was becoming clear
was that the law was simply not

coping with the massive
explosion of available material,

much of which was
extremely violent, extremely.

Obscene and, you know,
the law just didn't deal with it.

They tear you apart, they tear you
apart, they tear you to pieces. Is...

It's the light of the damn apes.

Britain has the highest
proportion of national

video recorders in the
world, and protesters fear

has been that obscene videos
can fall into the hands of children.

Certainly the titles of the works
themselves are a catalog of depravity.

Cannibal Holocaust, SS
experimental camp, I spit on your grave.

The battle, if we can put
it that way, in which we are

involved, is a battle, it
is a battle for the whole,

I was going to say, I'm tempted
to say the soul of the nation,

that's not for me, but for the
whole quality of our culture.

I liked Mary Whitehouse.

She was a nice but
religious lady and she had

every right to say
exactly what she thought

about films she considered immoral.

What bothered me was the fact that it was

very difficult to mount
a campaign against it.

And in fact, in the end, the countercampaign

It wasn't so much to say that she was

talking nonsense but to say that she was

a silly old woman and laugh at her.

But it is a problem.

In reality, liberals don't rally or fight

anything as well as the other side.

The Daily Mail echoed the cause.

They ran a campaign on the issue.

It was a campaign to ban sadistic
videos, sensationally claiming

that disgusting videos were
raping the minds of our children.

I think that's a pretty
legitimate role for a newspaper

to play, rather than putting
it aside and not focusing on

in an area of influence
that I think is enormous.

Other national newspapers were
quick to jump on the bandwagon.

Certain broadsheet newspapers
such as The Times and The

Telegraph were equally guilty
of encouraging these stories.

Like, you know, newspapers
like The Sun and The Mail.

Well, I think what the press stands
to gain by encouraging these stories

is that, in a completely hypocritical
way, it helps sell newspapers.

You can have pages and
pages and pages talking

about the horrors that
are in all these videos.

And, you know, appeal to the
rather prurient senses of people here.

And then at the end
of it all he says, oh, and

of course, we need to
ban these nasty videos.

And have entertained people for pages and pages
with details of what is apparently in them.

But I also think this
plays with the agendas

completely populist and
right-wing of these newspapers.

You know, newspapers like The Mail
are always talking about the end of life

as we know it and, you know, society
is in a terrible state of moral decay.

And what we need is
strong moral leadership.

Bring on Margaret Thatcher.

The maintainer of the moralistic cause.

That the video store was
not a family entertainment

center, but a paradise of violent filth.

Margaret Thatcher and Mary
Whitehouse shared similar

views on the sanctity
of the family and home.

Margaret Thatcher would have
looked favorably on Mary Whitehouse

representing these kinds of
conservative and cautious values.

I think it resonated pretty
well, I would have thought,

With decent people like that, you see.

Well, certainly Mrs Thatcher, when

She was Prime Minister,
she listened to what we said.

Thus, the headlines
impacted the reader and made

them feel that there were
no longer problems, as for

for example the salary or if
the hospital was functioning.

The cause of all her problems
were the unpleasant videos.

First of all, what is a nasty video?

Difficult to define.

They are constantly being
classified, but it's any movie.

I mean, it turns out
it's on video, but it's a

movie that includes
violence, sadism, horror.

You know, the kind of horror movies
we used to call horror aren't so...

They were mild compared to some of these.

Things like Killer Driller,
they have horrible titles.

According to the media, the disgusting video
marked a new low in sick entertainment.

Even the adult industry
wanted to distance itself.

The sex shop would sell sexual videos.

Things like Driller Killer and

dirty videos, nothing to do with sex.

They are mainly violence, etc.

, so we have nothing to do with them.

By operating without regulation
or censorship, the industry

video threatened a
good and decent society.

The problem, of course, was the
children, and a lot of people took...

they jumped into the argument to
say that if only people had done it.

Violent or dirty videos,
children would not have access.

People like Mary
Whitehouse said that people

like me were serving children, minors,

10 and 15 years old,
with murderer type movies.

Trash.

It's almost as if video nasty has
replaced The Conjurer and party games.

That part is...

It's actually stupid the
way people complain.

It's not so scary.

What's with things like The Living
Dead and fleshy zombies and all that?

No, they are stupid.
They're not realistic, right?

My mom doesn't really let me, but I
watch them when she's not around.

The first thing is that it
desensitizes the child to violence.

Then they start enjoying
it and that's worrying.

The pow, wallop, they enjoy it.

And the third part, and I
think it's the most important

part, is that they
develop an appetite for it.

I prefer horror movies.

Why that?

Because they are scarier.

The right of adults to choose their own

entertainment did not
concern moral crusaders.

The purity of our children's
minds was at stake.

And I'm afraid, you know,
people say, but why shouldn't

adults be able to see this
kind of thing in their own home?

I'm almost tempted to say that
people who make that kind of demand,

knowing that children
are likely to see it,

they are actually not
very mature and adults.

And I had many confrontations

with Mary White, once on television,

regarding what she
classifies as disgusting videos.

I mean, in my youth, I used to
enjoy watching a good Western movie,

but that never made me want to
go out and start investigating people.

It is difficult to conceive
images that harm people.

I think you can conceive
images that bother people,

or bother people, or excite
them, or even make them

laugh, but the idea that
images actually hurt people,

or harming people, harming society, I

seems similar to the medieval
notion of witchcraft, I must say.

It has an imitation effect,

and I fear that some are trying to
discover what they have seen in real life.

Not only is there the issue of
people who will copy what they see,

and I would be the first to admit
that it will only be a minority of

people, but what is the
effect of this on all of us?

I mean, if you sit in
your chair, have your tea

or whatever, your chips,
your beans and everything

the rest, and with that,
you follow a diet of violence,

So he seems to be in shock.

Then there was the legal
profession, which often

He used the excuse of exposing
himself to unpleasant videos,

as they were becoming
known, as the reason why

their client had committed
a particular crime.

And the judges often accepted it.

And when these cases were
reported, more fuel was added to the fire.

The problem is that there is all this

research, and not only
research, the meaning

common, which says that
people do imitate what they see.

That's what parenting is all about.

I mean, she quotes, you know,
people saying that the evidence is

overwhelming, that violence in the
media, that violence causes harm, etc.

But in fact there is very
little in it that one can

point to as part of any
kind of academic analysis.

It is extremely unlikely
that a desensitization

to watching violent films
could be the cause of

someone goes out and
commits violence in the streets.

The former Archbishop of
Canterbury, Lord Cogan, who has just

witnessed some of the worst
unpleasantness, says he is shocked

and warns parents...
Watch very, very carefully.

Because the results in the
child's life and through him

later in society can be much
greater than most of us think.

You know, we have our
own views and there is a

considerable amount of
research on the effects of

terror, whether it introduces
nightmares or numbness.

Or it leads to imitation, and so on.

But they were not important in the debate.

These are simply rude images that
we should protect our children from.

What have you seen? Zombies.

What's happening

in that?

Zombies running around and killing people
with blood pouring out of their heads.

You see a lot of people
having their heads

cut off and being slaughtered everywhere.

She pierced his head.

She pierced her head.

And and...

- Didn't it scare you?
- Yeah.

I have never seen an unpleasant video.
I would not do it. I have too much...

But how can you judge a nasty
video? You've never seen one.

Look, if someone tells me,
while we receive these reports

from Europe, the United States
and this country, that a video

unpleasant in particular
contains that, that, that and that,

I don't actually need to visually
see what I know is in that movie.

I mean, I still think, "Oh,
well, have you seen it?"

Well, you know, how can you
criticize something you haven't seen?

And then you say, "Well,
yeah, I actually saw that."

"Oh, so it's okay for you to see it, but you
want to prevent everyone else from seeing it.

So we can't win in any way.

I've seen some parts of
them because I had to.

I don't dwell on it because I think
the images are quite disgusting.

Responding to that
specific criticism, if you

didn't see something,
you can't criticize them.

You know, does a doctor have to have
cancer to diagnose cancer in a patient?

Of course not.

Growing public concern
about the proliferation of these

types of videos has been fueled
by a powerful press campaign.

The police were urged to act.

But what exactly was the
crime that was being committed?

I arrived at the Obscene
Publications Branch in 1981.

And I think that after a
few months of being there,

We discovered that there was
an explosion within the media.

From external agencies
informing us of certain videos that

were reaching the country
and that were totally obscene.

Obscene Publications Act 1981.

He considered obscene any
article that had a tendency to

deprave and corrupt a significant
part of its target audience.

I led the campaign to include
films in the Publications Law

Obscene because it is proof
of damage, of harmful influence.

It is not a test of what
is offensive to the man

on the Clapham bus,
which we have had before.

And I don't think anything should
be banned for being offensive.

It should only be banned
for reasons of harm.

Because obscenity
is a pretty difficult test.

How do you prove that something
is depraved and corrupting?

It's quite difficult.

From my point of view, I didn't
know anything about videos.

I don't think any of my staff, and

I had 12 officers, I knew
something about videos.

Driller Killer was one of the main ones.

I spit on your grave, cannibal Holocaust.

There were three that stayed with me.

They were the first three that
caught my attention through the media.

And as a result of that, we got

copies, we saw them and I approached the

Director of the Public Ministry.

The reaction of the PPD was,

"I give you my authority
to go to court" to seek

an injunction under the
Obscene Publications Act.

"Police forces across
the country could now

confiscate any video they deemed obscene.

With more than 15,000 video stores alone

In England, they had a
lot of work ahead of them.

Surely we're talking about a small

minority of porn merchants, right?

We are not talking about ordinary
merchants and large companies.

No, please, I'm not talking
about pornography at all.

There is no pornography of
any kind in any of these videos.

They only relate to violence.

Consequently, the police began raiding

retailers, wholesalers
and distributors alike.

Without a clear definition
of what they were looking for.

There we are, we went down to
Thorne EMI, who were shocked.

Let Scotland Yard's Obscene
Publications branch come.

And I was known as Mr Video
Nasty with all those people there.

Are otherwise respectable
companies getting involved in this?

Oh yes, I'm afraid so. We have
public companies involved in it.

Large public companies?

Yes, we have Thorne EMI. Intervision.

My God, how... I feel...

All companies were in a big
dilemma following my arrival.

What do they do?

Distributors and retailers
had no more idea than

the police which of
their films were obscene.

The Publicity Director The
prosecutor's offices began to publish lists.

But police enforcement varied
from county to county, and

titles were added and removed
from the list without notice.

The logical course of events
should have been that the Director

of Public Prosecutions should
have seen the films before his

premiere and then having given
instructions to the police forces.

But they didn't.

The police who decided to
prosecute the nasties were

not what the censors
would call very film literate.

They didn't really know
much about movies.

Then several embarrassing cases arose.

They confiscated
Apocalypse Now, thinking that

It was a nasty one called
Cannibal Apocalypse.

They confiscated El Mejor Caballito, or House
in Texas, a rather unremarkable musical.

They also pursued a movie
called The Big Red One,

presumably thinking it
was a pornographic film.

In fact, it was a Sam Fuller
movie about his old WWII battalion.

After visiting my store and checking
out 20 movies from my library,

I took me and my wife home to see if

she had any special movies at home.

Then they took me to the local police
station and put me on bail, precisely,

while they research my films.

They took between 4,000 and
5,000 videos, which were probably

all the products that were
on the shelves at the time.

So they didn't come looking specifically.

They just took everything
and then took them away.

They probably had viewing parties.

They took the three
directors and the junior buyer,

who was a teenager, and
then returned threatening,

saying that they could be
charged under Section 2 and the

Section 3, what
subsequently happened to us.

This was obviously quite
serious because it carried fines of

up to £20,000 and he could
receive up to two years in prison.

Both distributors and
retailers were accused

under the Obscene
Publications Law and calls for trial.

Well, we were all very
nervous at that time

because they were sending
people for much less,

just for the fact that they
were scared, they didn't

defend, they didn't fight
and they were easy targets.

Even though it was a farce,

I really didn't feel like spending
two years in strange ways.

I think I lost two kilos of weight.

And not knowing on a
particular day if I was going

to go to court and be
acquitted or go to jail.

And so we were in front of
the stipendary magistrate, with

Richard Dukan defending
or asking questions, the

magistrate and the prosecution
of Police Chief Anderson.

And Dukan...

requested to the
prosecutor's office, he said:

"Could you tell me how
many cases in the Greater

Manchester" police have
investigated since 1982?

"Of people being attacked
by flesh-eating zombies?"

They showed two of the
films in court, I don't remember

which ones they were,
and the jury was hysterical.

They really loved them.

Which was very good for my defense.

In court, a lawyer for the
Director of Public Prosecutions

described the material as
"a spectacle of violence."

bloody", capable of depraving
and corrupting those who saw it.

"Court cases across the country
only added to the confusion.

In one court, a film may be condemned as
obscene, but in another, declared not obscene.

Some defenders were
fined or even imprisoned.

Others were acquitted.

Several film titles were
found guilty of being obscene.

But many were not.

Many juries and many magistrates
decided that the unpleasant

videos were not as harmful as
Mary Whitehouse seemed to think.

She was trying to comply
with what she considered right

in the industry and she
should not continue like this.

And I got a message that the
police wouldn't bother us again.

But lo and behold, the
police came in because at

that time there was a
company in our premises, Palace

Virgin Gold, and they
had a title called Evil Dead.

I think my partner Nick really
took a risk by testifying for the film.

We hire lawyers and take it to court.

We basically wanted him to
be tried by a judge and jury.

Unfortunately for the
government, the jury decided

that Evil Dead was
not guilty of obscenity.

So the government's program,
its campaign against Evil

Dead, against the unpleasant
ones, was falling apart.

Not all distributors were so lucky.

David Hamilton Grant was a softcore porn

producer whose video
label, World of Video 2000,

released an Italian film, Nightmare.

Grant retitled the film Nightmares
in a Damaged Brain and promoted

it with a fancy Guess the Weight
of the Human Brain contest.

Shortly thereafter, the
police paid him a visit.

The prosecution questioned me.

Who is going to see these movies?

Why don't you think they are harmful?

This scene where something

terrible happens, isn't it disgusting?

Don't you find it disgusting?

It's very difficult to say, look,
there's violence in it, there's

blood in it, but it's not really
particularly harmful to anyone.

If you don't like seeing masses of blood,
you don't go to those kinds of movies.

I don't remember, but this is what I said.

It's not a classic, but it's
well executed, prompting

the judge's irritated retort
that I can hardly believe.

So was the German invasion of Poland.

Well, if you have
judges like that, you know

you've come to the
end of the road, really.

Grant was sentenced
to 18 months in prison

for supplying obscene
material for profit.

The David Hamilton grant verdict
increased uncertainty and confusion

within the industry, and action would
need to be taken to restore order.

The David Hamilton grant verdict
increased uncertainty and confusion

within the industry, and action would
need to be taken to restore order.

The PDP's list of banned
nasties reached 79 at one

point, but was finally settled
at 39 in December 1985.

Films by Dario Argento, Wes Craven,
Abel Ferrara and Sam Raimi ranked

alongside films such as The Last
Gestapo Orgy and Faces of Death.

The filmmakers responsible for the
depravity were not called to testify.

But it was his work
that caused the hysteria.

I don't think it's
acceptable to ban movies.

Not my movies, of course, not
my movies, but none of them.

I have a lot of respect for the English,
for their democracy, for their serenity.

Censorship is not democracy.

We're all kids, you
know, we're all stupid.

You kind of know there must be
people who censor these things.

There are certain things
you're not supposed to show.

And all kinds of mythologies
are invented to enforce that.

You know, this is going to be harmful to
the children or this is, I don't know what.

But I think there are actually
certain truths that are so

painful and ugly that people
don't like to have them expressed.

Cannibal, yes, he was born thanks to my son.

At that time we watched
a lot of television.

My son, who was only seven
years old at the time, complained

about the Telegiornale
delle Venti because it always

he reported on the death
of the red brigade members.

It was a very cruel period.

He didn't want to make a
complicated film just to make it.

The film was dedicated
to these journalists.

These journalists who
did this kind of nonsense.

In the end, at that time he didn't
want to make a commercial film.

He wanted to make a real, tough movie.

I tried to make it quite difficult.

The images were absolutely for children.

They were strong.

But life is strong.

He used to say, "Look,
I don't want to resort

to the usual hypocrisy
of American cinema.

At a certain point, you only see the
knife, but you don't see the wound."

Let's do one thing.

If we really have to walk this path,
let's walk it to the end, without hypocrisy.

One of the interesting
things the film does is

show how sexuality can
be perverted into violence.

And it's ugly. It's terribly ugly.

It was the first time,
really, the first time, that

the camera did not flee
from the horror, but rather

He remained there to witness it, observe

it and, obviously,
present it to the public.

I would hope someone would see that and say:

"My God, I hope I don't
do anything like that."

"Of course, 99% of politicians get
involved because they make a fuss, right?

All these crazy things make a scene.

Politics must be seen, it
must be read, it must be heard.

If it is silent, who will notice?

It was the system
introduced by an English

governor, whose name
was Margaret Thatcher.

She introduced this very
violent censorship against films.

Thatcher was the one who had the idea.

She gave violence to her enemies,

because she sent the English to fight at

other side of America,
and she didn't kill anyone.

I don't know violence. Thatcher.

So is my movie better?

Or is it better to send a ship
to shoot at the Argentines?

It is a work of art.

What is the point?

What is the point?

Is it because it is puritanism?

An ancient heritage of Christianity?

I used to go to England very often.

Luckily they never asked me

passport, otherwise they
would have arrested me.

As an author of who knows

what, I asked him and wrote it down.

I wrote it in church.

I produced a short video
of excerpts from four videos.

In the end I took it to
the House of Commons.

I took it to the House of Lords.

I took him to Strasbourg.

First of all, can I ask you what the reaction of
the parliamentarians was to what you showed them?

I think they were
horrified by what they saw.

What kind of things, what kind
of clips were you showing them?

Well, the three clips, or
there is an excerpt of six clips,

"Driller Killer", "Snuff", "I Spit
on Your Grave", "Faces of Death".

"In the House of Commons we saw

people eating live monkey brains.

This is absolutely true. You can laugh.

But that's... Just a moment.

The video industry
was eager to clean up its

image following the
video nasties scandal.

With the blessing of the
government, the Association

British Video, together with the British

Film Sensors Board, set out to establish

a definitive system of self-regulation.

The government, through the
Ministry of the Interior and the

then Minister of the
Interior, assured us that they

wanted us to succeed, that
they applauded our efforts and

They were very reluctant
to legislate in this area.

They did not want to be
associated with legal censorship.

But with an election around
the corner and the moralists

still not satisfied, the industry
could not be trusted to regulate itself.

Mrs Thatcher, I mean, very, very
explicitly introduced into the Conservative

election campaign the promise to
do something about disgusting videos.

Model panic is very easy
to cause in this country.

You only need a couple of newspapers.

Painting nightmarish pictures
of the effects on children

and so on, and everyone is
horrified and we all run inside.

I mean...

I had model panics in violent dogs.

And it is always in that
situation, when there

is model panic, that bad
legislation is approved

because it is approved hastily.

You know, "We should
legislate this. Stop it."

"And they do it so fast
that they make mistakes.

Mary Whitehouse was
eager to find a candidate

within the House to champion the cause.

Then she Mary said to Graham
Bright: "Well, you know, if you turn out

elected, will you introduce a
bill to address this problem?"

And then Graham Bright said publicly:

“Yes, of course I will, Mrs. Whitehouse.

"Some people think they look
a lot like the kind of Hammer

horror movie that is sometimes
shown on late-night television.

Of course, that is not the case.

We are talking about scenes
that are truly horrible and leave

nothing to the imagination:
body mutilations, cannibalism,

gang rapes. That's
what a nasty video is.

Of course, the officials of the
Ministry of the Interior and the

parliament the rapporteurs who
were drafting the bill, which was later

would make it an act, in the name of
Graham Bright, that he was actually

a puppet in all of this, I mean, it
was the Home Office who were really

doing this, behind the scenes,
and using Graham Bright

as a vehicle for getting
this into the statute book.

My bill is intended to
protect children, because

I have no doubt, having
seen some of these, of

that we really need to protect children
from those things, and there is no

doubt in the minds of the members who
came and saw that program yesterday.

I think a young man who sees that
could have his mind scarred for life.

Bright's beliefs about the
dangerous effects of video

violence reflected those of Mary
Whitehouse and the moralists.

The Video Inquiry
parliamentary group was set up to

investigate the viewing
habits of the country's children.

Both former MP Graham
Bright and research director

Clifford Hill declined to be
interviewed for this documentary.

Research is being
done that will show that

these films not only affect young people,

but I think they also affect adults.

They asked me if I
would lead an investigation

to find out the facts
about what children really

come home that would
impact and allow parliaments

to give a rational debate on this issue.

I'd rather not talk about
some of the weapons.

Which the moralists
used to achieve their ends.

I would be delving into areas of
possible defamation if I said what I know.

I would just say that I found the methods
used and some of the tools they used.

To achieve your goals.

I was able to understand his
goals and the purity of his motives,

but, in my opinion, the
means by which they

achieved those goals were
sometimes questionable.

More than a third of all minor children.

The first time I heard about
the investigation carried out

by the so-called Parliamentary
Video Research Group was

when a newspaper headline
appeared saying that four

in ten six-year-olds had
seen an unpleasant video.

45% of children between 7 and
16 years old who attend schools

Great Britain have seen one or
more of the so-called disgusting videos.

And we managed to get our hands on the
questionnaire that was used in this survey.

Then the PGVE very kindly
gave us the questionnaire.

When we looked at it, we
were horrified by the design.

Do you know what a questionnaire is?

No.

Can you guess what a quiz is?

The problem was that there
were 113 movie titles on

his questionnaire and it
took up more than six pages.

Now, that is a very long questionnaire.

And although the questionnaire
said at the beginning,

"If you've seen these movies on video,
please tell us what you think of them," of

course, on page two, the conditional "if
you've seen them" is quickly forgotten,

and the kids go on to rate the movie title
whether you like the sound of it or not.

So to demonstrate this, what we did

was, I think in the end
we had four classes,

of children of 11, 11, 12
years old, and we gave them

the video questionnaire
of the parliamentary group.

With an important change.

We removed all the
obnoxious titles from the

videos and added movie
titles that didn't exist.

There were things like
Blood on the vampire's teeth.

And then we substituted the
titles of these movies into the

original questionnaire and
gave it to 11- and 12-year-olds.

Now, behold,

More than two-thirds of children say
they have seen movies that don't exist.

What is the hospital of horrors like?

It gives a little scary.

What kind of movie is it?

It has a lot of blood.

A lot of blood?

I can't say much about it, really.

So we can see that the claim
that four out of ten children

have watched unpleasant
videos must be seen in the

context that, in fact, most
kids are going to say they've

seen these movies because
they like the way they sound.

I don't think it's a valid test
to give them fake degrees.

I think it is a dishonest way
to conduct an investigation.

I think our method was much better.

We are very concerned that this evidence from
the parliamentary group's video investigation.

It was being used to push a bill
that seemed draconian in its entirety.

It doesn't seem
credible, but this is what

dozens of British
schoolchildren do every day.

But then there was a
huge push of government

support behind the so-called Bright Bill.

The report itself certainly highlights
that there is a very serious problem.

Tonight the parliamentary
inquiry team said

they were so concerned
about the effects of

videos like these that called in
several prominent psychiatrists

to find out how much damage
had already been caused.

The British government
has decided that the bill

Bright, if passed in
Parliament, would ensure

that videos published in
Britain would have to be

classified by a censor
appointed by the State.

Those who would have to pay special
attention to watching the film at home.

Normally the invoices
of individuals disappear.

In 95% of them nothing happens.

But it was at Christmas
that it became clear that the

government was going to
support this private members' bill.

And as far as I was concerned,

Actually, my main motivation
was not to start engaging in too

many questions of judgment about
whether or not this material was

harmful, but to provide a
mechanism where experienced people,

not including myself, would
determine whether or not it was.

The Conservative members of
Parliament, because we are now

talking about a Conservative
government, were left in no doubt

which they were expected
to come forward and vote

for, even though it was
a private member's bill.

I remember that Mrs Thatcher,
the then Prime Minister, interrupted

the conversations she was
having with the then Prime Minister

Canadian Minister, Mr. Trudeau,
at number 10, to come to

the House and record his
vote in one of the readings..

The Prime Minister met other
MPs in the House of Commons

today to show the government's
support for the new bill

to take drastic measures against
so-called unpleasant videos.

The bill's sponsor is now relieved that
these measures appear to become law.

Well, honestly, I'm absolutely delighted.

I mean, the Prime Minister made it
quite clear yesterday that she was

behind the bill and that the
government was behind the bill and that

she wanted the bill to pass the
House as quickly as possible.

It was just worth it...

No one is willing to oppose it and no one
wanted to incur the hatred of killing him.

And Mrs Thatcher's displeasure.

No one really wanted to stand up
and defend the nasty videos because

they were being universally
condemned as the cause of everything,

from plane crashes to
swearing on the playground.

It's a simple division
between the fight of good

and evil and these movies
are bad and therefore

So, if you don't agree with us that they

should be banned, then
you yourself are bad.

So a wave of pomposity was
transmitted, basically, without any

of the liberal forces, not very
strong at that time anyway, but

None of the liberal forces in
Parliament did anything about it.

Trash.

The reason the bill made it through committee
was because everyone was cooperating.

I never had to have a bill in the
11 years I was a guillotined minister.

He believed in committee
stages, not as a way for

people to obstruct and abuse
the parliamentary process.

And what we did was put it
into a practical mechanism where

I wasn't deciding, Mary
Whitehouse wasn't deciding, the

Mrs Thatcher was not
deciding what people could see,

but rather a group of people
who, rightly or wrongly,

were deemed fit to do so, I could
make that determination on the videos.

The government appointed
the British Board of Film Censors

as the regulatory body to
enforce the Video Recordings Act.

The A-Team category will
serve as the regulatory body

and it will remain quite
liberal, in fact more

liberal than most
countries in this world.

Contrary to Mr Bright's
claims, over the next 15

years, Britain would be subject to the
strictest censorship in the Western world.

It is not surprising
that horror movies in

particularly suffered
cuts and total bans.

We had a catalog of about
300 titles that we had to

withdraw, all of them, and
reissue after we had them

certified, and that was a
very, very expensive process.

You know, in some ways it
seemed a little unfair that the

small distributors had to
pay as much as the big ones.

A very, very large part
of distributors, stores and

companies that had really
jumped on the bandwagon

when the video started
they were gone due to the

fact that they had to
delete all the catalogues.

So on the one hand, it was partly
a question of censorship, but I

think the most important thing was
how big companies took back control.

Well, let's arrest some of them,
beat them, take them to court.

So it was a way to
suppress, in many aspects,

The importance of independents.

21 years on, the
BBFC is still in charge of

what the British public
can and cannot see.

But in recent years, many of the original

unpleasant things have not been cut,

while others are still banned
in their unpurged form.

With the advent of DVD
and the Internet, fans of

cinema can easily acquire one of their

favorite nasty movies
in foreign territories.

The original DPP-39
boxes have become items

collectible and some sell for
hundreds of pounds on eBay.

I think it's ironic that The Evil
Dead is now a collector's item, with

Sam Rainey directing it, and here
we are now putting together this movie,

which 20 years ago I could have
made two years if I had been found guilty.

The time has changed.

It seems awfully silly now,

but I would say.

That Mary Whitehouse and
that group had every right to do

exactly what they did if they
were genuinely shocked by these

movies and actually thought
they were harmful or immoral,

or susceptible to being
depraved and corrupt.

But the other side should have flexed their
muscles a little more and said nonsense.

We have been fighting nothing less than a

battle for the total
quality of our culture,

our faith, our democratic way of life.

The days of nasty videos are over.

I'm still here, the
audience is still here and

they're still watching
the same type of film.

So, Mary Whitehouse, what did
you really achieve? I don't know.

I think his legacy is that the

broadcasters and the
film industry are very

more open now to question and surrender

accounts, to be
accountable for what they do.

I think the audience was assaulted,
so to speak, by this orchestration,

Campaign to make us believe
that there was a problem

when, in reality, we are
the ones who investigated.

I think the evidence is very weak.

I think the fact that the
Video Recordings Law is in

the statute book, be accepted,
is because, I dare say,

self-praise is not a
recommendation, as I always said

my mother, but in reality
we made a sensible,

objective decision, cold
and analytical judgment.

We were not part of the hysteria.

The British Board of
Film Censors opened its

doors in 1912 and for
the next six decades

would rank as the world's
leading film agency.

And remove all filmed entertainment
intended to be shown to the British public.

But by the late 1970s cinema
attendance was in decline

and, as a consequence, the
BBFC's income was declining

at its lowest level of all
time. The relevance of the

board in the modern world
will be further undermined

by the arrival of home video, which for
a brief period had no formal censorship.

To compete with the big studios,
small distributors released films from

around the world, packaged in eye-catching
ways to attract the attention of a

growing and video-hungry audience.
Films that were often quite lewd

and would certainly never make
it past the censors for exhibition

film filled the shelves of
video stores across the country.

But this period of unrestrained
home entertainment will be short-lived.

Thanks to the tireless
campaigning of Media Supervisor

Mary Whitehouse, the
national press and members

of parliament, a new law
was introduced into the statutes

to block the torrent of
unsorted garbage that was

infiltrating our homes
and corrupting our children.

As a designated body, under
the terms of the Recordings Act

Video, the British Board
of Film Censors had

to grant the public
age-appropriate films.

The British Board of Film Censors had to

give age-appropriate ratings to all films

video intended for distribution.
This government-granted

monopoly would ensure that
the BBFC was the only company

on the planet guarantee to make a profit
with every video published in Great Britain.

When the Video Recording
Law was being discussed,

this was an ideal situation
because it could create a

body that the government
could turn around and say:

"Well, censorship has
nothing to do with us now."

It is this body that will
have to take care of

it," which was a wonderful
way out for politicians.

The whole problem was
exacerbated by the fact

that we had already gone to market before

the enactment of the Recordings Law

Video in 1985: there were
already 10,000 videos.

They went on the market and
they all had to be classified as

well. And the government
gave us three years to edit 10,000

videos. So it was
really a wonderful gift

when the Video Recordings
Act came into effect.

Large sums of money
immediately arrived. Before

this happened, before all
the money came in, the BBFC

It was kind of a nice,
seedy hole in the wall and.

Suddenly the thing took
on a kind of corporate sheen.

From time to time we argued why
the Ministry of the Interior had to

approve their rates and sometimes
we argued that this was the case.

Exorbitants, who were incurring
unnecessary expenses and

making overly elaborate
changes to their offices and things

so they then had to be
passed on in the form of fees.

The BBFC was now responsible for the

acceptability of images
displayed in the home.

And thanks to recent moral panics in

the national press,
they had to be cautious.

The law did not specify what

censors were supposed to worry about.

The original law only said that
they had to take into account

the likelihood that the film
would be shown in the home.

Now, I don't know what that
means because the whole point

of home video was to have
your product shown in the home.

In many homes there are no children.
So the balance was between.

Guaranteeing the freedom of those adults.

I think about a third of
households in the country

don't have children.
They have rights too.

We strongly suggest that you
say: "By virtue of your treatment

of sex, violence, drugs,
blasphemy, da-da-da-da-da-da."

And not just give him carte
blanche to censor what he saw fit.

And the government said, “No, we cannot take
what they call the laundry list approach.

"We have to trust that the censor will
use his common sense and judgment."

That is fine when the Minister
of the Interior, his officials

and the censors are sensible
and responsible people.

BBFC director James Furman
was wary of the ways new

technology could be used
and abused in the home.

You can't control the age of your
audience at home. can you advise

and you can impose penalties on
stores if they supply underage customers.

But once it reaches the home,
it is in the hands of the parents.

And some parents care and some don't.

Plus, some kids are smart
enough to outsmart their parents.

And they're not afraid to
say, "I'm not going to do this."

"It was up to the censor, as the designated
body, to subjectively interpret the act.

The pornography of violence is allowing

physical process of injuries,
wounds, mutilations and torture.

And again, for fun,
for voyeuristic interest.

And that's the problem with them,
they don't encourage compassion.

They encourage detachment.

And then... I think James
really believed, at least

at first, that he was
holding back the floodgates.

And that he had allowed
us a glimpse of the terrors

that could occur if you
had unregulated videos.

And James saw it a lot, I think, his
job is to close those floodgates again.

Between 1986 and 1988,
more than 10% of films

submitted for video
classification suffered cuts.

James Furman loved to censor.

He considered himself a film
editor and loved to tinker with movies.

So when several nasty videos

were subjected to censorship,
he loved editing them.

I don't think the public
realized that not only

was he certifying and
labeling, but he was cutting.

And often James, James Furman,
would show us these examples,

who was proud of what he
had been able to do and the

skill with which he had
exercised these cuts.

Our standards are certainly
stricter on video than on film.

Video is very difficult
because, of course, how

you use it is entirely
in the hands of the user.

I mean, you can see things out of order.

When we watch a movie,
we watch it in context.

That is seen from beginning to end.

But in video, it is not necessary
to see things from the beginning.

You can dip here and
there and, you know, you can

Play it whenever you want
and you can change its meaning.

If you hit the censor
and encouraged him to

care about almost
anything depicted in movies,

you would find him deciding that all
sorts of things should not be allowed.

Although Furman never made public
what he considered objectionable,

certain images would always
end up on the clipping list.

Criminal and instructive

behavior, such as explicit drug use.

Dangerous weaponry, like stars

throwing knives, butterfly
knives or nunchuckers.

And without exception,
blood on naked female breasts.

But how is it possible that
the brave examiners could

handle the dangerous images from
which the rest of the country was protected?

Our examiners observe
in a two-stage process.

First, they must be
open to the film or video,

and second, they have to be able to
capture the average audience member

because they have to experience
it as the audience will experience it.

On the other hand, when
they react to something

that appears to be a
classification problem,

They have to take a
step back and analyze it.

And so it's a double reaction.

They are having the emotional
reaction and they are always analyzing it.

They observe themselves, observe
where their solar plexus reacts.

We have to see everything
again on the small screen.

Pretend you're watching it at home.

I mean, pretty ridiculous about a lot
of it, but that's what had to happen.

They would often get quite a bit of
money for not spending a lot of time

deciding that the self they gave in the
film should also be applied in the video.

The subjective nature of
the censorship process.

It inevitably sparked heated
debate within the board.

And James Furman's
opinions on that process

They sometimes differed from
those of the other board members.

Well, James Furman was a
very contradictory and quite

ambiguous figure and, in
my opinion, very interesting.

But yes, he certainly he was autocratic.

There is a great deal of evidence
to suggest that he was autocratic.

Evidence in particular from examiners

who have since retired from the board.

James Furman was
largely in charge and could

eventually overrule the
rest of the board members.

But this didn't happen
very often, I assure you.

Especially in the so-called Soho Six,
everyone has a university education, etc.

They were very vocal in their comments
about how cinema should be treated.

So Jim, on the one hand, loved this.

He liked and welcomed the idea of creating
a forum for debate and discussion.

But the other side of him,

his much more authoritarian
side, there was always,

I think, somewhere in
the recesses of his mind,

The net result of this
discussion is assumed

to be one in which
the forces of are known.

Sanctified goodness,
sanctified that is to say by

Fuhrman himself, would
reach the correct conclusion.

What are you doing? I'm not worried
about that. You're not doing anything.

Arrest! Just look. You're crazy!

We are very concerned
about exploitative rape scenes.

Because people can watch
them over and over again in the

privacy of their living room and
go crazy and you know that can

feed the fantasy of
quite disturbed people.

Let me go! You know, James
infamously considered himself a better

feminist than many women and I
know that some of the board examiners

They found it very difficult
to deal with. We had a lot of

movies that treated rape as
entertainment for a male audience.

And the audience was expected
to enjoy it as a sexual spectacle.

What we should eliminate
is behavior that we

believe will influence
people to behave badly.

There are some good
reasons to even cut things.

You should at least have the
courage to make it clear what those

reasons are, know what you think
those reasons are, and open them up

under discussion. And I don't
think we're always very good at that.

It's pretty mild. We're fucking horrible.

The Video Recordings Act did
not require the board to explain the

reasons for a given decision to
either the industry or the public.

The climate in the industry
following the nasty video scare was

such that some distributors
were cautious about what to stock

and certain films will be cut
before submission to the BBFC.

The censors also had an
informal means of power over

the film producer. If a film
producer produced some

controversial article and had
a dispute with the British Board

of Film Classification over
what he wanted to do with it,

or did not agree with the type of
certificate they proposed to grant

or may be threatening to
withhold certification altogether.

So there would often be a dispute
between the censors and the particular

producer about what you're going
to do. Are you going to give him this?

Do I have to delete
this and everything else?

Now, if the censor was bothered by this,

when that guy came
to certify another film,

They said, oh, how unfortunate.
You wanted to get this

out in time for Wimbledon
or Christmas or something.

What a pity, because
I'm afraid that by then

we won't be able to communicate with him.

We are three months
late. We are looking at

Mary Poppins and we're
watching, you know, and of course,

This put enormous pressure
on this producer not to fight with

the censors, to bite his
tongue and accept his decisions.

It was a power that was
not in the Recordings Act.

Video, but it was definitely
operating and I witnessed it.

I think the business was
pretty nervous for a while.

A lot of things were
rejected at the time,

anything they considered
to be nasty videos.

None of them would get
a certificate at that time.

So we lost a lot of what was
then a very good rental product.

And then I think the quality of
the films decreased even more.

I mean, if I remember
correctly, Evil Speak was cut

to about 14 minutes or
something stupid like that.

It wasn't just the video.

It was the unpleasant
videos that suffered cuts.

Many horror and adult films
fell into the hands of censorship.

In fact, sex films became quite
chaste in the wake of the act, exposing

less of the naked human body
than the average top-notch magazine.

I remember the first one
we removed from the BBFC.

I remember the line very
easily as if it were yesterday.

Butt glaze removal site.

And we all laughed a lot about it.

So we removed the throbbing
butt on top of the woman

and then removed the
film from wherever it was.

I don't remember what it was, but I

think we had to adapt to the times.

That was the law.

Some relatively mainstream
films became personal goals.

For Furman and they would not be
granted a certificate, even though they had

been widely available and had never
been banned in the years before the VRA.

Most notably the Massacre of

Texas, Straw Dogs and The Exorcist.

James Furman insisted that it would probably
be very damaging to young girls if they saw it.

And when we researched
it, interestingly, we had a

group of people who
hadn't seen the movie before.

We called them virgin exorcists
and a group of people had seen

it before when they were younger
and observed their responses.

And people who had seen
the movie before thought it

was much scarier than people
who hadn't seen it before.

So by today's standards, The
Exorcist isn't that scary of a movie.

I think he really felt that it was very,

A very, very disturbing movie

for teenagers, and he felt that

It would be harmful if they saw her.

Don't think he was right.

If a video did not have a BBFC certificate,

then the owner of the video store or the
distributor would be exposed to a heavy fine.

So those who did not have BBFC
certificates were now declared illegal.

I mean, I think the
Video Recordings Act has

been frankly a fucking
nuisance for a long time.

It prevented people from
at least easily seeing the

movies that many people
would like to be able to see.

The only way to get
nasty videos like Texas

Chainsaw Massacre or Evil Dead
after 1984 was on the black market.

The illegal status of
horror and violent sex films

generated a healthy black
market for uncertified videotapes.

Zines, festivals and fairs
would provide a space

for like-minded film buffs
to discuss and exchange

the forbidden fruits of
the pre-certificate era.

I started advertising
the dark side with some

nasty top video titles
to get people's attention.

Large representative sample of people.

People wrote asking for movies
they couldn't get anywhere else.

But sometimes you would get
some really strange answers.

As if they were written
with blood and all

kinds of monsters, some strange people.

They wanted weird
stuff, but weren't willing

to risk importing it, so they bit me.

It's a safer bet.

A 2018 film will almost
certainly have an adult theme

and could well contain strong
scenes of sex or violence.

Which could be quite graphic.

It may also contain
very explicit language,

which will often mean sexual profanity.

The video industry
adapted to the new regime.

But the dangers of video violence
were never far from the tabloid headlines.

Thank you for your time.
Enjoy the movie.

On August 19, 1987, Michael Ryan
walked out onto the quiet streets of

Hungerford, dressed in combat
gear and armed with several firearms.

Sixteen people, including
Ryan's mother, were shot

to death that afternoon,
before Ryan shot himself.

It wasn't long before the
media began to equate

these horrific events
with video violence.

I don't feel what happened in

Hungerford, and I don't feel...

What happened at Hungerford is shameful.

Can't you handle...
a lot of violence on screen?

Control this person on your set?

Michael Ryan was dressed as Rambo.

Well, no one knows that
he was dressed as Rambo.

You mentioned Death Wish.

Now, Death Wish 3.

Did you see it, Maria?

A body drop, a shooting,
every 90 seconds.

Can I interrupt just for a moment?

I would like to get an
independent opinion, if

possible, from our TV
expert, Jimmy Greaves.

OK.

When Kate Adie did a Panorama special,

seeing cases where...

It had been claimed that a movie or a
television show affected someone, that

they had gone out and committed a crime,
of the eight cases that were very clear,

of which, they said, there was
supposed to be compelling evidence, none

of them stood up to close scrutiny,
including that of Michael Ryan.

So those dramatic cases that
appear in the newspapers are

singularly uninformative and
the psychiatric evidence later.

..

..in the cases it hasn't
helped much either.

In times of enormous
national stress, people naturally

feel very, very upset about it
and want to blame someone.

And they don't want to
know that maybe one of

these killers just wasn't
right about their case.

They want to blame someone.
I think that's human nature.

So who can they blame?
The video is the obvious scapegoat.

When the Video Recordings
Act first appeared in statute, I don't

think the notion of harm was
actually mentioned in the law itself.

The notion of harm lurked in the background.

In the BBFC's own guidelines and things.

I think what happened was
that the notion of harm came

to the fore and was highlighted
when the Law was amended

of Video Recordings after
the murder of James Bulger.

On February 12, 1993,

Two-year-old James Bulger was
kidnapped from a Merseyside shopping centre.

His body was later found beaten to
death on a railroad track two miles away.

It turned out that he had been
murdered by two ten-year-old boys.

What initially brought the
Jamie Bulger case together

to the scare video.

They were the images of Jamie Bulger

being carried out of
the shopping arcade by

the two boys who finally killed him.

This was an image that
resonated with everyone.

It was constantly repeated
on the news and, as was said

at the time, represented
every mother's worst nightmare.

The public was shocked
by the case and the

media was quick to
depict the national outrage.

Soon after I joined the British.
Video Association in November 93,

The court case was underway and I
remember that probably a few weeks later

After I joined, the media suddenly
took over the idea that the video

industry was somehow responsible
for the murder of James Bulger.

In his summary, Lord Justice

Morland, the judge presiding over

the case, made the following statement:

"It is difficult for me to
understand how it is possible

that two mentally normal
children, "10 years old,

of average intelligence,
"committed this crime.

"It's not my place to judge
his upbringing," but I suspect

that exposure to violent films
"may be partly an explanation."

When we heard Justin's comment

Morland, when I heard it
on the news, I was stunned.

He was drinking a cup of
coffee and I almost dropped it.

Because there was nothing in the
trial to suggest that the children had,

in this terrible, terrible case,

but they had seen some video.

And of course, in any
case, him saying that

meant that the warp packs
would be upon us again.

♪♪.

That made the media get to work with

this story, and they
searched and searched

a possible title that was responsible.

They posed in the video
for Chucky, The Child's

Play 3, which was a Paramount title,

uh, that no one had commented on before.

One way or another, including a
video in that seemed very wrong to me.

Uh, and then this movie,
the face of a demonic doll,

Chucky, appeared on the
front page of the newspaper.

Because there was, you know...

And the juxtaposition of
Chucky and his face and these.

..the still photographs of these
two little children and this little victim.

It was appalling at a time when I think

public sensitivity was
probably very high.

Um, it seemed almost criminal to me.

And I know that the police who
interviewed the two children, um,

said that they weren't really
influenced by a child's game because

either... I don't think either
of us would have seen that.

However, what those guys did

to Jamie Bulger's body, you know,

They couldn't have
thought of it for themselves.

They must have... been
subject to some outside

influence to have come
up with what they did.

And I understand that
at... at one of the guys'

house, you know, some
of the really extreme videos

They were accessible to
them, or to one of them, at least.

Um, that, I think, is a fact.

They were able to establish
that the father of, um, one of the...

The boys, John Venables,
had seen, um, or rented,

Child's Play 3, um, a few
months before the... murder.

But since the son didn't
live at home at the time and

said he didn't really like
horror movies, which was later

demonstrated by psychiatric
evidence, he dismissed it as a

possibility and said it is
extremely unlikely, therefore,

that the film had anything
to do with the murder.

The real question is: why would the judge

Did Morland feel able to
make those comments?

There is actually nothing in the case to
suggest that the videos played a role in it.

But why did he feel like he
could make those comments?

Because there had been years
and years and years and years of

stories in the press about the
supposedly evil effects of the videos.

I would also like to know, for
example, why it was when the

police began to investigate
the families of the two boys who

They killed James Bulger, why
was they wasting their time going to

the local video store and finding
out what the families had rented?

What the hell does it matter?

It seems like an absurd and
ridiculous waste of time to me.

The media published a sensational story.

Unsurprisingly, vote-hungry
politicians did the same.

The new witch hunt was
led by MP David Alton.

The amendment aims to
introduce a new category of

not suitable for home
entertainment and will cover

around 3% of the videos produced

currently, the really
ultraviolent videos.

Which are having such a
detrimental effect on young people.

Do you think videos are a
contributing factor to this?

Does the level of violence
increase? Yes of course.

You see some children
playing in the streets and

they pretend to be not
so much gladiators but

people who have been killed in movies.

They don't play Donald
Duck in the streets, right?

No.

Shooting and killing
each other, or drugs.

My sister has three
kids, ages seven and ten,

and they say, "Mom,
can we go watch a video?"

Give them the card and they can come
back with whatever tape they want to watch.

And you think that, of course,
should be illegal? Oh yeah.

David Alton, who was

Liverpool MP,

proposed a draconian law
to modify the Recording Law

Video Act, which would
criminalize the provision of videos

that are not suitable for
viewing by families or children.

So effectively, that would have
banned anything above PG.

My very modest measure aims to solve

those, like Child's
Play 3, which contains

Graphic and gratuitous scenes that

should not be available in anyone's home.

And I think it is very
wrong that we do not

pillory the producers
of this pornography.

Because most people who
make movies like society to

I consider them well, and yet these
people who make these horrible

movies get away with it and
pose as decent members of society.

And I think that the people
who produce these things,

like those child murders,
which were related to the case

Bolger, they should
also be publicly ridiculed.

Alton had the backing of 80 Conservative
MPs and victory was within reach.

But at the last moment he found

himself facing an unlikely opponent.

We cut more videos about violence in this
country than anywhere else in the world.

There is no other country
that reduces so many.

I campaigned very hard
against David Alton's amendment.

Because he got a lot of support
from both sides of the House.

For an amendment that
would have banned any video

that could constitute a
bad role model for a child or

be psychologically
disturbing for a child.

And I pointed out that that
would ban Schindler's List,

which surely no sane person wanted to do.

If James Furman is serious that he

and the British Board
of Film Classification

They can't tell the difference
between Schindler's List

or Toad in Toad Hall and
something like Child's Play 3,

So it makes you wonder what they
are doing in that job in the first place.

It's Hollywood shock films like Child's
Play that fuel the ugly video debate.

But David Alton's hardline
stance could affect much more.

The type of video that David

Alton wants to ban, or have

it banned, The Crying Game.

I probably have to say
that I agree with David Alton.

With reservations.

The reservations like
the fact that you could

hire something like that chaplain? But.

David Alton's bill suggests that

retail rentals should not be allowed

videos of movies that have a rating of,

say, 18 and that
contain violent material.

Now, it's not that he wants to
see all video stores like this closed.

In fact, there are many
very good videos on

the market today, movies
like Schindler's List.

But there are undoubtedly
many parents who share

my concern about the
levels of video material

ultraviolent that are increasingly
available in this country.

David Alton privately commissioned
a report on the dangerous

effects of video violence on
children to support his argument.

Before the Alton Amendment
was debated in Parliament,

Elizabeth Newsome,
professor of sociology at the

University of Nottingham,
published a report.

On the links between
screen images and children.

In the case of the Newsom Report,

which was released on April 1, We thought
that was an indication that it really

how it should be taken, that
maybe it was a joke, but no, it wasn't.

It was simply a statement, well

written, powerfully
argued in her rhetoric,

but which contained
very little evidence or

was considered part
of the scientific debate.

These are mainly newspaper clippings,
many from the local Nottingham newspaper.

In fact, she hadn't done any research.

What she had done, I think, was

look at a bunch of academic articles,

mainly coming from the United States,

all the media effects
surrounding it and this theory

that if you see violence on
the screen, your heart rate

increases and therefore
you are in danger of going out

and committing a serious
crime, murder, for example.

And that's why we
press furiously, all of us,

I think with the Video
Standards Council and the

BBFC were very involved, just to

make sure politicians understood

that the implications of what
David Alton was proposing, but

also that they understood that
the United Kingdom is already the

most tightly regulated video
industry in the free world.

And it really wasn't
necessary to go that far.

In the great debate over
the Alton Amendment,

The word freedom was never mentioned.

The only person that week
who used the word freedom was

me in all the articles I
wrote in the press and in the

radio interviews, because
I was on The World This

Weekend and on the Sky News
discussion program that Sunday.

Trying to overturn that amendment.

And it was ridiculous that he...

The censor was the one who spoke of freedom.

Fortunately, leaders
on both sides of the aisle

House, Michael Howard,
then Home Secretary, and

Tony Blair, who at the
time was spokesman for the

opposition, they took up
this point that I had raised.

The key is to find a way to overcome it.

To prevent extremely
violent, unnecessarily violent

videos from reaching people's
homes and, at the same time,

to ensure that we don't,
by casting the net so wide,

they end up preventing people
from seeing movies like The

Schindler's List, which
are clearly decent films.

Despite strong support
within the House, the

Home Secretary rejected
the Alton Amendment.

In the 24 hours prior to the
debate of an amendment,

that will probably be successful,

spreads a certain amount
of black propaganda.

I have always been
satisfied that the amendment

would achieve its goal of capturing 3% of

ultraviolent videos that I had my eye on.

But the Minister of the Interior
wants to rewrite it and put

it in his own words to achieve
precisely the same objectives.

I don't disagree with that.

If we had had the Alton
Amendment, the industry

would have been crushed
and there would have been

been impossible for
filmmakers, whether in

Hollywood or anywhere else in the world,

Hollywood, Bollywood, UK,
they couldn't have made any

profit from the movies because,
as everyone knows, most

of a film's income is derived
from video exploitation.

Distributors who violate these provisions
by providing videos to underage children.

Or videos that have not been
classified at all face strict penalties.

The video industry will have to

pay more attention to public concerns

and the board will not
be afraid to be stricter.

Modifications were made
to the Video Recording Law.

The supply of an unclassified
work now carried a penalty

of up to two years'
imprisonment and a £20,000 fine.

The provision of
classified work to a minor

age now carries a sentence
of up to six months in prison.

They are very, very
strict penalties for that.

And one has to wonder
if they were fair, in a way.

I think we were fair.

One unclassified video, two years

in prison, seems like a lot, right?

Following the Bulger case,

the Newsom Report, the Alton Amendment,

and the apparent, apparently, apparent
tightening of the Video Recordings Law,

because all these things
had firmly put the issue

of so-called nasty videos
back on the agenda,

In certain areas, some
police forces went back to

work and raided video
stores and video sellers.

For so-called nasty videos.

But I mean, I think
other than that, one of the

most shocking things
that has happened so far

over the years is the way the police,

With the aid and complicity of
those responsible for training

standards, they have frequently
raided the homes of collectors

of videos, who simply exchanged
videos between themselves.

You know, if I gave you a video,

apparently that counts as distribution.

And this has given carte
blanche to these people, to

the police and to the
training standards officers,

Break down people's
doors, confiscate their video

collections, confiscate their
recorders, take them to court,

You know, all accompanied
by terrifying stories

in the local newspapers
about these evil perverts.

I was at home, someone
knocked on the door, and there

were two training standards
officers and a police officer.

They had a warrant to search the premises.

And the training standards
officers were walking

around, like they had
just arrived in heaven.

They were just throwing
things into evidence bags.

My VCRs, video tapes,
everything video related.

They also took all my certified videos.

They took home videos
that I had, family videos.

Then it went to court
and there were three tapes

that they actually gave
me sample charges for.

They were Driller Killer,
Faces of Death and The Police.

And Violent Shit too.

I think they were just
looking for those titles for

the shock value and the
media coverage about them.

They did it in a
somewhat sensational way.

Even in court, apparently,
the judge was saying that

they didn't look favorably
on the fact that I was selling

movies with real-life
deaths, like Driller Killer.

They actually said that in court, which

I laughed at, and they scolded me for it.

They were trying to
make an example of me.

Which I really didn't like too much.

I guess it's one of those
disastrous routes that someone

can take and in the end all
they can do is come back

to be hanged for possession
of an unclassified video.

For the rest of the '90s, stories would

continue to appear in
the press equating the

video violence with
the collapse of society.

James Fairman occasionally defended
the rights of the country's spectators.

In 1998, Fairman awarded
certificates to two hardcore

adult films without
consulting the Home Office.

This measure caused
his retirement, but also

led to the partial
legalization of the sale of

hardcore videos in
authorized adult stores.

However, Britain still has
much stricter rules on the

sale of pornographic material
than the rest of Europe.

Robin Duval took over as
director of the BBFC in 1998.

Within a year, both The Texas
Chainsaw Massacre and The Exorcist

were legally available in Britain
for the first time in 15 years.

Straw Dogs followed in 2002.

In fact, numerous films that
had suffered cuts or bans

under Fairman they debuted
without any copycat criminal behavior.

Not a sensational frenzy.

What a change in the
British public that made

these images safe to
view just a few years later.

Get your hands off me!

No!

Ah!

Ah!

But it would be a mistake to assume that the scars
of that unpleasant era have completely healed.

Eroticized sexual
violence still attracts the

attention of censors
and often requires cuts.

But at least now the board
of directors is more open and

explains to the distributor the
legal reasons for its decisions.

In 2005, only 4% of movies
rated for home video were cut.

Could the notion of violent
video threatening our society

become a strange footnote
in recent British history?

Values are changing.

I think that's the case too.

People are becoming more
semi-literate, which I think helps.

I think it is more difficult to
promote these types of campaigns.

It becomes increasingly difficult
to understand this as time goes by.

We now have 24-hour
porn available at the touch

of a button on the Internet
and everything else.

It seems almost innocently silly.

It's hard to know why
we are different in Britain.

It's one of the things I've
been asking in focus groups.

You know, it's the liberal
mind and the conservatives

say, "Well, we're British
and I can't explain it,

but, you know, “basically,
that's how we are.

"I think it's a quintessentially
British problem.

I think it brings together all
the things that are not attractive.

About British life really, I should say
English life really. The class structure,

the horrendously salacious and
populist press we have here, politicians

who seem to be wildly disconnected
from many aspects of modern life, a

sort of awful tendency to meddle with
bossy boots that I find deeply unpleasant.

Hello Hello hello.

Tight Shoes is mother.
Have you ever read Tight Shoes?

I am a walking nightmare,
a talking psychopath, the

king of the jungle like
a stalking gangster, who

Live life like a
firecracker, fast like a fuse.