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.

Kids (1995) - Mini review

August Underground (2001) - Review and analysis

Zombie Flesh Eaters (1979) - Review

Demons 2 (1986) - Review

Demons (1985) - Review

In this episode we take a look at Lamberto Bava's Demons from 1985. Does this film represent the end of the Italian horror golden age? Thanks for listening.

Why Was It Banned? - A Serbian Film

In this mini documentray we take a look back at the release of A Serbian Film in the UK and its controversial removal from the Frighfest film festival. Thanks for listening! Full english text included below

When A Serbian Film began playing international film festivals in 2010 the storm of controversy and outrage that followed it cemented its reputation as the most divisive film in modern cinematic memory.
Its provocative, graphic depictions of child abuse, incest, rape and murder have seen it repeatedly banned and censored wherever it has sought an official release. In the UK the film spearheaded a new wave of active intervention by the BBFC when a slew of extreme horror titles including a 2010 remake of I Spit On Your Grave, The Human Centipede 2, The Bunny Game and Grotesque were denied public release in their intended form. Whilst it was not refused certification A Serbian Film was the most heavily censored film in 16 years with the 18 certificate version losing 4 minutes and 12 seconds from its original running time.

In August 2010 A Serbian Film was scheduled to be shown at the renowned horror film festival FrightFest in London. The agreed standard practice for the festival was that films could be shown before they have been classified by the BBFC with Westminster council granting certificates. However the council had received a number of complaints about the film leading up to the festival and they made the unusual decision to deny the film permission to be screened unless it had been classified by the BBFC.

The film was considered by the BBFC on the 13th August 2010 and its distributor was advised that 49 cuts amounting to 3 minutes 48 seconds of footage would be necessary to achieve an 18 certificate mainly due to the combination of sexual abuse and children on screen. BBFC guidelines require cuts to remove portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context and images of sexual and sexualised violence which have a tendency to eroticise or endorse the behaviour.

With the likelihood of a recut version being ready for Frightfest on the 29th of August the festival organisers decided they did not wish to show a cut version of the film and pulled it from the schedule. Co-director Alan Jones stated

“Film4 FrightFest has decided not to show A Serbian Film in a heavily cut version. As a festival with a global integrity, we think a film of this nature should be shown in its entirety as per the director's intention.

When the new edit with cuts totalling 4 min 12 seconds (with additional cuts to maintain continuity) was resubmitted for a home video certification on the 29th of August  it was passed with an 18 certificate. David Cooke director of the BBFC said:

"The cuts to A Serbian Film do not detract from the message of the film but remove the most problematic images of sexual and sexualised violence. The section in the Board's Guidelines which lists the possible grounds for compulsory cuts also includes material which portrays children in a sexualised or abusive context. Whilst the Board understands that these images are intended to make a political point, that does not remove the genuine harm risks to which they give rise."

The same edit was approved for UK theatrical release in November 2010. In 2021 A Serbian Film remains unable to be seen uncut in the UK. Its reputation as one of the most notorious films of all time remains firmly in place. 

Episode 40 - Anthropophagous (1980)

In this episode we discuss the legendary video nasty Anthropophagous The Beast from 1980 directed by Joe D'Amato. Thanks for listening!

Episode 39 - The Child (1977)

In this episode we discuss the American independent oddity The Child from 1977 directed by Robert Voskanian. Thanks for listening

EP 38 - Phantasm (1979) - Review

You can now check out our latest brand new episode over on YouTube. We discuss Phantasm (1979) and whether its a singular original vision or a victim of its own cinematic hubris. Please subscribe to the channel if you like the content.  

Thanks for listening!

Episode 37 - The Burning

You can now check out our latest brand new episode over on YouTube. We discuss The Burning (1981) and whether it's really slasher classic or if it was just a cynical cash in. Please subscribe to the channel if you like the content.  

Thanks for listening!

Why Was It Banned? - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

In this short video we look back at the censorship history of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the UK and why it was not officially released uncut until 1999. If you enjoy this episode please like the video and subscribe on YouTube for new content every Wednesday. Thanks for listening.

Why Was It Banned? - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was submitted to the British Board of Film Censors in March 1975. BBFC secretary Stephen Murphy had pre-viewed the film and recommended the distributors make a few cuts to the final scene to increase its likelihood of certification. Despite this it was refused a certificate on the grounds that the overall tone and atmosphere of the film was too traumatising with no obvious way to resolve this through cuts since the explicit violence in the film was in fact very minimal and restrained. 

Regarding theatrical film release in the UK it is local councils which maintain legal authority over what films can be shown publicly although in most cases they defer judgment to the BBFC. Greater London Council allowed the film to be shown with an X certificate in 1975 in a version cut by 28 seconds. The distributors then sought local releases across the UK and a small number of UK council areas certified the film. 

When James Ferman took over as BBFC secretary in 1975 he took the same view that the film was too problematic for a general audience labelling it ‘the pornography of terror’ and the film would remain unreleasable under Ferman’s tenure. Numerous attempts were made to make edits to the film for general release but Ferman realised that these made little difference to the overall impact of the film. 

Before the Video Recordings Act of 1984 films could be released on home video formats without a BBFC certificate and in 1981 the film was released by Iver Film Services in a number of formats. There was a 8mm version of the X certificate and multiple VHS releases of both the X certificate and the uncut version. Wizard Video also released an uncut VHS version. After the Video Recordings Act came into force all of these editions were removed from sale and although the film has been wrapped up in the Video Nasty scandal it was never prosecuted for obscenity charges. 

When James Ferman left the BBFC in 1999 a number of the films that were unreleaseable under his premiership were now able to be reconsidered. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre began to play a number of film festivals in London in the late 90s and although they maintained that they film remained unsettling the board concluded it would not be as troubling to modern audiences. The film was passed uncut with an 18 certificate for theatrical and home video release in March 1999.

Episode 36: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre on YouTube *NEW*

You can now check out our latest brand new episode over on YouTube. We discuss the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and break down why it is so terrifying. Please subscribe to the channel if you like the content. Our main format going forward will be 30 minute review episodes like this but we are also working in some mini audio documentaries. Thanks for listening

**BRAND NEW** Episode 36 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre