Cannibal Ferox (1981) - In-depth Review

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers - In-depth Review

Black Mass of the Nazi Sex Wizard (2015) - In-depth Review

Eraserhead (1977) - In-depth Review featuring Moovies and Milk

A Perfect Child of Satan (2012) - Mini Review

Blue Velvet (1986) - In-depth Review

Why Was It Banned? - The BBFC and The Bunny Game

American Movie (1999) - In-depth Review

August Underground's Mordum - In-depth Review

A Serbian Film - Is it about Serbia? ¦ Mini review

A Serbian Film is a 2010 horror thriller directed by Srdan Spasojevic. The film follows the character of Milos a retired porn actor whom after having settled down with his wife and child is persuaded to resurrect his acting career for a high paying final film directed by the mysterious Vukmir. After keeping Milos in the dark about the content of the film Milos leaves the project when he discovers that Vukmir’s experimental art pornography includes child exploitation. However he is then drugged and coerced into completing the project. After waking in a confused state a few days later Milos seeks to discover what has happened to him and his family.

Whilst A Serbian Film will remain notorious for its more shocking moments the major takeaway from rewatching the film in 2021 is surprisingly how pedestrian and average the film is in terms of direction and narrative. Milos’ character arc follows a well worn trope of the reluctant antihero returning for one last high risk job and although the film takes time to establish character relationships these feel rather perfunctory rather than to develop affection for the characters. Once the film begins its final act it starts to pick up its tempo but for the most part the pacing is languid and slow. The film failed to develop any real engagement with its characters leaving its rather pompous ending feeling flat and inconsequential.

The film’s glossy crisp digital cinematography also feels rather incongruous to its seedy subject matter.
The visual style gives us the impression we are watching a slick action thriller rather than an extreme exploitation film and had the film been doused in the forgiving textures of grainy celluloid it may have played differently.

Another problem with the film is its inability to determine tone oscillating between serious and brooding for example when Vukmir reveals his filmmaking intentions to Milos and rather absurd cartoonish buffoonery illustrated mainly through the crazed director Vukmir who plays more like a Jamed Bond villain than a realistic antagonist. It is unclear if Spasojevic intended the film to play as a tongue in cheek satire or as a powerful thriller with political undertones or both. Spasojovic has stated that the film was intended as a critique of Serbian politics, culture and film. In an interview with Electric Sheep Magazine Spasojevic says:

first of all this film is an honest expression of the deepest feelings that we have about our region and the world in general. Concerning our region, the last few decades have been dominated by war and political and moral nightmares. The world in general is sugar-coated in political correctness, but it is actually very rotten under that facade. So we’re talking about problems in the modern world, only they’re set in Serbia. And it’s a struggle against all the corrupt authorities that govern our lives for their own purposes.

Whilst one cannot dispute that this was the intention these concepts are only apparent from the text itself in the most superficial way. Vukmir claims about his depraved art which captures the family destroying itself through generation on generation violence could be applied to many countries with histories of civil war. The text as a whole with its intentional shock value could be regarded as a retort to politically correct filmmaking but this also feels rather slight. There is nothing in the film which has anything deeper to say about Serbia specifically and it seems that the film would be more successful if it had spent more time developing its Serbian identity.

In my opinion he film’s most extreme scenes of violence and gore are probably more shocking on paper as opposed to how they actually play out on the screen. Saying this the film still has shock power in its more serious moments and will certainly be beyond the pale for the casual moviegoer.

G Sargenson


References

http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/2010/12/05/a-serbian-film-interview-with-srdjan-spasojevic/

How Do We Feel About Physical Media in 2021?

Under The Skin (2013) - In-depth Review

What Are the Video Nasties? - History of a Moral Panic

In this brand new video essay we take a look at the video nasties. What happened? What films were banned? Could it happen again? Please take a look on YouTube and subscribe to the channel. Thanks for watching

When considering film censorship in the UK the moral panic over the movies labelled video nasties was a definitive historical moment and a feverish, victorious high point for the censors. In retrospect the frenzy which erupted over a random selection of obscure horror films in the 1980s seems rather quaint and the absurdity of the panic is surely illustrated by the fact that of the 72 films prosecuted for obscenity the majority are now widely available to view and own in their original uncut form. For fans of horror cinema the panic canonised the banned films into a essential list of must see titles. In the late 1970s video cassette technology revolutionised film viewing and its rapid growth in the UK created a boom in home video rental. Major studios were slow to release their catalogues to the new market and public demand was filled with a slew of lesser known titles from independent producers and third party distributors.

Since there was no legal framework of censorship for the new technology, films which would have had trouble with the censors in cinemas found their way into video stores. This core of horror and exploitation titles were dubbed ‘video nasties’ by the Sunday Times journalist Peter Chippendale and as the popularity of video grew they drew attention from the tabloid media who saw an opportunity for shocking headlines. Titles such as Cannibal Holocaust, I Spit On Your Grave, The Burning, Driller Killer, and The Beyond, were displayed across the pages of the tabloid press and lambasted as a direct cause of social and moral decay. The issue was then adopted by social conservatives and Christian moralists who perceived this proliferation of seedy content to be a threat to the minds and wellbeing of their consumers but particularly children who they argued were regularly viewing these movies due to the lack of official age certifications or restrictions on renting.

In particular Mary Whitehouse , the founder of the National Viewers and Listeners Association, a pressure group which campaigned to keep offensive content out of the media became the figurehead for the case for censorship. She became involved after GoVideo, the UK distributor of Cannibal Holocaust, in a bid to win publicity for their own film, sent her a letter complaining about its release. Since cover art was the main marketing tool for these unknown horror titles distributors aimed to make a film seem as depraved as possible with the most garish images displayed across the front often exaggerating the actual content of the film. These covers eventually proved fatal for the banned films as they were ready made for the pro censorship campaigners to rally against. A media debate developed but despite attempts by anti censorship campaigners the argument was heavily weighted to the pro censorship alliance of Whitehouse, the tabloid press and the Conservative government who vowed to tackle the issue in their 1983 manifesto.

Having been made aware of the video issue by the press the Director of Public Prosecutions (the UK official who decides which cases should be prosecuted in criminal court) was in the process of prosecuting individual films on grounds of obscenity. Peter Kruger who was with the Obscene Publications Unit at Scotland Yard recalls in the documentary Ban The Sadist Videos that he sought authority from the Director of Public Prosecutions to seek court warrants for the seizure of videos which breached the Obscene Publications Act, a law which set outs to protect the public from the dissemination of immoral and obscene publications which may ‘deprave or corrupt’. This gave police the authority to seize obscene tapes but this proved problematic due to the largely subjective decisions over what was and was not obscene. Over this period a mass collection and destruction of video cassettes took place across the country. As individual video rental owners began to be prosecuted this led to the creation of the nasties lists which were films which were successfully prosecuted under Section 2 of the Obscene Publications Act. This list which accounts for the 72 films we know as video nasties today provided a legal base for prosecuting the supply of these titles. Despite this 33 of these films were eventually removed after a series of acquittals meant they were unlikely to continue to be successfully prosecuted. There is also another list known as Section 3 consisting of 82 films which were liable for seizure by police but were not considered obscene enough to be prosecuted.

To advance the path to a government bill Mary Whitehouse wrote to all MPs looking to gain support for legislation and Conservative MP Graham Bright agreed to use his right to propose a Private Members Bill to deal with the issue. The Video Recordings Act became law in July 1984. The act made it illegal for a film to be sold or rented without a video certificate from a government appointed body or to a person under the age stated by the age classification. Retailers and distributors would be liable for prosecution for breaching this. The implication of this was that it created an important distinction of the same material depending on where it was consumed. With video the new act now completely prevented the viewing of the 72 video nasties and films on home video became subject to additional cuts not required for cinema viewing. It also gave the BBFC statutory legal authority over film censorship whereas it had previously only been an advisory board. Subsequently the UK had one of the most strict censorship regimes in Europe and the freedom of individual adults to choose what they wish to watch in their own home was now significantly restricted. Whilst the BBFC today is a lot more liberal and most video nasties are no longer considered a threat 13 films still remaining effectively banned. Over the past two years two of these titles: Gestapo’s Last Orgy and Love Camp 7 have been submitted and have again been refused certification proving the legacy of the video nasty era is still with us in 2021.