[news]
[reviews]
[features]
BACK FROM THE DEADThe former video nasty Zombie Flesh Eaters will shortly be released uncut in the UK. To celebrate, we have a chat with the British Board of Film Classification's Craig Lapper about this movie and the state of horror censorship in general...
Hello Sir! Zombie Flesh Eaters finally makes its debut on uncut UK DVD on September 19, when it is released as part of Anchor Bay UK's Box Of The Banned. Did you expect Lucio Fulci's grisly, eye-popping gem to be passed uncut, this time around?Craig Lapper: "Yes. Last time we looked at the uncut version (in 1999) we made a couple of small cuts - to the eye gouging and to some flesh munching. These cuts were made largely because, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, the uncut version had been successfully prosecuted as obscene as recently as 1994. "Classifying something uncut that had been found obscene by a court as recently as five years ago raised problems for the BBFC, especially given that one of our terms of designation under the Video Recordings Act is to seek to avoid classifying obscene material. Our lawyers advised that, although we could pass it uncut if we felt standards had changed over the last 5 years, it might be safer to make some small trims. That way we could avoid classifying what the court had found obscene. However, if it hadn't been for that recent conviction we probably would have passed it uncut back in 1999. "Since 1999, BBFC policy has moved on somewhat. During the 2002 appeal against our decision to cut The Last House On The Left, we had cause to look in more detail at some of those recent obscenity convictions. We found that in many cases, including the 1994 case involving Zombie Flesh Eaters, the convictions had actually been obtained against huge batches of material (sold, for example, at film fairs) and that the defendant had simply pleaded Guilty, presumably because some of the other material he was selling was very clearly obscene. However, there was no evidence that a Jury had actually sat and watched Zombie Flesh Eaters or Last House On The Left and considered all the relevant issues. So, relying upon such convictions as proof of obscenity was unsatisfactory. After we changed our policy to be more sceptical about such convictions, it was clear that Zombie Flesh Eaters would probably be passed uncut if it were resubmitted." Could you talk us through the film's historical relationship with the BBFC? "The film was originally submitted for cinema release in 1980. The BBFC passed it 'X' (equivalent to '18' today) after 1 minute 46 seconds of cuts. At the time the BBFC was fairly strict on gore, to a certain extent because there was a concern that the most graphic depictions of violence could prove unacceptable to the local authorities on whose behalf the BBFC licenses cinema films. Back in the early 70s the BBFC had gone through a difficult period in which it had started to lose the confidence of local councils. This was partly as a result of the raising of the age bar for 'X' films from 16 to 18 (in turn a response to the new uncensored 'X' category in the US), which brought with it far stronger material such as The Devils, A Clockwork Orange and Straw Dogs. Some local councils didn't like this, partly in response to the campaigning efforts of Mary Whitehouse and others, and a number of them started to regularly review and overturn BBFC decisions. Since his appointment in 1975, James Ferman's main concern was to ensure that the BBFC's decisions were in line with what local councils would expect so that the BBFC would retain the respect and trust of local authorities and the industry. And I suppose it was felt that very detailed scenes of violence were not likely to be welcome to local councils, regardless of whether there was any evidence that they might cause harm. Of course, the irony is that those people who would be offended by such films wouldn't want to see them anyway, whereas those who would enjoy it (the horror fans) would be disappointed with the cuts. This was certainly something the Board was aware of and slightly sorry about but, to a certain extent, our hands were tied. 
"With the advent of video, however, public concern about such films increased, partly because children could now obtain the films (because there were no age restrictions at all on video) and partly because uncensored and sometimes possibly illegal material was being made available without any control. This led to Zombie Flesh Eaters being placed on the Director of Public Prosecution's list of video nasties (a list created by the DPP rather than the BBFC). The film was apparently found obscene (and not obscene) on a number of different occasions but the DPP's list fell out of use after the Video Recordings Act made video classification mandatory."When we were asked by the distributor to look at Zombie Flesh Eaters again with a view to video release we suggested that the cut 'X' rated version should be submitted rather than the uncut version. This was because the uncut version had obtained obscenity convictions against it, whereas the cut version approved by the BBFC (which was also available on video) hadn't. Our lawyers - and common sense - suggested that classifying something the DPP had prosecuted successfully for obscenity was not likely to be acceptable. And so, the cut cinema version was classified '18' without further cuts for video release in 1992. We next saw it in 1999 and you know the rest..." What were the specific problems with the movie in the past, as far as the BBFC were concerned? "Just the detail of the violence and gore, really. There was never any question that the film would seriously harm anybody - just that it was a bit 'too much'. Certainly it lacks the complicating elements of sexual violence that cause problems for us in other films, including Fulci's own New York Ripper." Would the splinter scene have been so troublesome, if the splinter had been piercing a man's eye, rather than a semi-naked female? "I think it was the gore rather than the gender that mattered. There is nothing explicitly sexual about the scene that seems to be 'selling' abuse or violence, whatever phallic subtexts one might read into it!" How would you describe the Board's approach to cutting (or rather, not cutting) horror these days? "Our two most recent public consultation exercises (in 1999-2000 and in 2004) revealed a strong desire on the part of adults to be allowed to make their own minds up about what they watch, provided it is not illegal (eg orchestrated cruelty to animals) or potentially harmful according to the research evidence (eg depictions of rape or assault that make it look sexy, erotic or even 'good for' the victim). When it comes to violence and gore, we don't really have a problem nowadays at '18' unless it's mixed up with sexual violence or the violence is of a sort that is genuinely likely to incite people." 
What was the last gore effect you remember the BBFC cutting on film or DVD?"I honestly can't remember cutting a gore effect at '18' since Zombie Flesh Eaters. It's really not something we do now unless there are complicating factors, such as sexual violence." Horror films have to work pretty hard these days, to even get an '18' certificate, don't they? Do you realise that you're diminishing some movies' appeal and credibility with those '15' certificates? "I'm not so sure about that. I think a good proportion of the audience for these films is - and perhaps always has been - teenagers. That's certainly who many of the more mainstream horror films are aimed at nowadays. "Would a 15-year-old boy or girl really be traumatised by seeing House of Wax? I doubt it, although we can never judge the response of every possible viewer. The problem for hard-core horror fans, if there is a problem, is the increasing tendency by Hollywood to soften horror films so that they can achieve lower and more commercial ratings. As ever, it's all about money. But there's still some pretty strong stuff coming from outside the Hollywood mainstream, like Haute Tension (Switchblade Romance) and some of the far eastern films." If a board member is a horror fan, is it easy for them to separate their own feelings from the job at hand? "I can imagine it would have been very frustrating in the past, knowing that you enjoyed The Evil Dead but still had to cut it anyway. Now things have loosened up to some extent I think there's less likely to be such a need to separate personal feelings and the job. Of course, people will always have different opinions within the BBFC, which is what makes it interesting, and nobody ever agrees with every decision. But I, for one, have been pleased to see the unleashing of The Exorcist, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre etc since 1999 and was glad to be part of that." Have any horror/general cult films have banned since Love Camp 7 last year? "Not unless you include Traces of Death, which isn't really a film but more a rag-bag of nasty images of real pain and suffering. I suppose, in terms of gore, that's where we still might draw the line - when it's real and it's being mocked and trivialised at the same time. We do feel that presenting real suffering for cheap entertainment (as opposed to a serious documentary purpose as in Executions or The Killing of America) does have a coarsening effect on viewers and society." Is the Nightmares In A Damaged brain in the new Box of The Banned set still the cut version? If so, did this have anything to do with the BBFC? "Yes, the version appearing in the 'Box of the Banned' is the same version we previously classified for DVD release in 2002. Although the BBFC classified that DVD version '18' without cuts, it seemed fairly clear that it was still missing some material that the BBFC had removed for the original cinema release (certificate 'X') in 1982. 
"The original cuts made
for cinema release were to remove (i) repeated close shots of throat
slitting, blood pumping and repeated stabs at around 26 minutes, (ii)
repeated hacks with an ice pick and the rotating of the ice pick in the
wound at around 81 minutes and (iii) repeated axe swipes and blood spurting
in the flashback at the end of the film (including the head gushing blood).
Because of the vagueness of the cuts we are unable to say for sure whether
the version we were given in 2002 is the same as the 'X' rated cinema
version or whether the cuts have been partially (but evidently not
completely) restored. I very much doubt that we would cut the full version
now so it's a pity we've haven't been presented with it.2005 has already seen a couple of highly sadistic and occasionally sexually violent horror movies, in the shape of The Devil's Rejects and Wolf Creek, which nevertheless seem to be passed uncut in the UK. To what degree did they get through by the skin of their teeth? "Well, we didn't feel that the sexual violence in those strayed into territory where it eroticised or endorsed sexual violence. That's our main test. But both of them could have gone quite a bit further, in which case we might have had problems." As a movie, is Zombie Flesh Eaters better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick? "It's definitely one of my favourite Fulci films, although I am a particular fan of House By the Cemetery. Bob.... Bob????" Craig Lapper is Chief Assistant (Policy) at the BBFC and we thank the fine man for his time. You can see Anchor Bay's Box Of The Banned at Amazon UK. [Back To Top] [Video Nasties Feature] [Features Menu] [Home] © Copyright Slasherama 2002-present |