Misplaced Pages

#146853

80-556: The movie was one of the infamous " video nasties " banned in the United Kingdom in the 1980s. Sixteenth-century Spanish Satanist Father Lorenzo Esteban and his followers are told by a priest that they are banished to America and denied God's grace unless they renounce Satan. In the present, Stanley Coopersmith is a cadet at West Andover military academy . He is an outcast, bullied by classmates for being an orphan and maltreated by instructors who think him stupid. While cleaning

160-400: A "less obscene" charge, which allowed the police to seize a film they considered obscene and as long as the dealer cooperated, they legally admit that the articles are obscene and therefore escape any personal prosecution. The 33 films that could not be prosecuted under Section 1 automatically became Section 2 titles and were still seized by the police. The main difference between Section 1 and 2

240-400: A "less obscene" charge, which allowed the police to seize a film they considered obscene and as long as the dealer cooperated, they legally admit that the articles are obscene and therefore escape any personal prosecution. The 33 films that could not be prosecuted under Section 1 automatically became Section 2 titles and were still seized by the police. The main difference between Section 1 and 2

320-607: A "less obscene" charge. Tapes seized under Section 3 could be destroyed after distributors or merchants forfeited them. The moral concern extended to Ireland . In 1986, the Dáil Select Committee on Criminal Lawlessness and Vandalism issued a report "Controls on video nasties" recommending that the powers of the film censor's office be extended to videos. This was implemented by the Video Recordings Act in 1989. Video nasty Video nasty

400-554: A 1979 splatter film , took out full-page advertisements in a number of specialist video magazines, depicting the video's explicit cover; an action which resulted in a large number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Agency . A few months later Go Video, the distributors of the already-controversial 1980 Italian film Cannibal Holocaust , in an effort to boost publicity and generate sales that ultimately backfired, wrote anonymously to Mary Whitehouse of

480-472: A 1979 splatter film , took out full-page advertisements in a number of specialist video magazines, depicting the video's explicit cover; an action which resulted in a large number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Agency . A few months later Go Video, the distributors of the already-controversial 1980 Italian film Cannibal Holocaust , in an effort to boost publicity and generate sales that ultimately backfired, wrote anonymously to Mary Whitehouse of

560-617: A condemned church in South Central Los Angeles . According to DVD commentary, the dilapidated church was superficially renovated for the movie shoot, confusing a priest who previously worked there and causing him to get on his knees and pray to God. The church was burned to the ground some three days later. Evilspeak was released on August 22, 1981, in Japan, and February 26, 1982, in the United States. The movie

640-559: A film where screenshots could become illegal to possess. The DPP list of "video nasties" was first made public in June 1983. The list was modified monthly as prosecutions failed or were dropped. In total, 72 separate films appeared on the list at one time or another. 39 films were successfully prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act but some of these films have been subsequently cut and then approved for release by

720-431: A film where screenshots could become illegal to possess. The DPP list of "video nasties" was first made public in June 1983. The list was modified monthly as prosecutions failed or were dropped. In total, 72 separate films appeared on the list at one time or another. 39 films were successfully prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act but some of these films have been subsequently cut and then approved for release by

800-406: A gender-bent rip-off of Carrie ", though "there is enough in the way of spooky atmosphere and well-staged shocks to keep less discriminating horror fans interested." PopMatters gave the film a 7/10 grade, despite writing "What started as a standard wish fulfillment/revenge scheme mixed with Satanism flounders with a lack of focus." DVD Verdict wrote " Evilspeak is a crazy movie. Like, crazy. In

880-452: A good way. Unfortunately, it's also kind of boring at times, taking well over an hour to get where it's going. [...] Despite the slower spots—and there are plenty of slower spots— Evilspeak remains an enjoyably overlooked horror film just for its eccentricities." A slightly more favourable review came from TV Guide , who wrote "The directorial debut of Eric Weston, Evilspeak is remarkably engaging, imaginative and well-crafted. It contains

SECTION 10

#1732780693147

960-482: A law allowing MPs greater powers to tighten BBFC guidelines or force an appeal of a release. The bill failed to pass. The UK Government passed a law criminalising possession of " extreme pornography ". Whilst BBFC-rated films are exempt from the legislation, screenshots from these same BBFC-rated movies are not, and would also apply to unrated films. Hostel: Part II was cited in the House of Commons as an example of

1040-430: A law allowing MPs greater powers to tighten BBFC guidelines or force an appeal of a release. The bill failed to pass. The UK Government passed a law criminalising possession of " extreme pornography ". Whilst BBFC-rated films are exempt from the legislation, screenshots from these same BBFC-rated movies are not, and would also apply to unrated films. Hostel: Part II was cited in the House of Commons as an example of

1120-497: A list that contained names of films that had already resulted in a successful prosecution or where the DPP had already filed charges against the video's distributors. This list became known as the DPP list of "video nasties". The lack of regulation of the domestic video market was in sharp contrast to the regulation of material intended for public screenings. The BBFC had been established in 1912, essentially as an unintended consequence of

1200-448: A list that contained names of films that had already resulted in a successful prosecution or where the DPP had already filed charges against the video's distributors. This list became known as the DPP list of "video nasties". The lack of regulation of the domestic video market was in sharp contrast to the regulation of material intended for public screenings. The BBFC had been established in 1912, essentially as an unintended consequence of

1280-430: A message saying that blood is needed: they kill Fred, but the computer says it must be human blood. Finding Fred's body, Stanley becomes enraged. The diary appears on Esteban's casket. A teacher catches Stanley stealing another host, and follows him to the catacombs where he is finishing translating Esteban's diary. Stanley pledges his life to Satan, kills the teacher and collects his blood. Meanwhile, Stanley's classmates,

1360-524: A note to take to the headmaster Colonel Kincaid. In Kincaid's office, he accidentally leaves the diary on the desk of school secretary Miss Friedemeyer, who hides it. While Stanley has to clean the pigsty, she tries to pry the jewels on the book's front from their settings: this causes the pigs to attack Stanley. Stanley returns to his dormitory room to find his belongings scattered. Missing his book, he assumes that his classmates stole it, and confronts them about this, but they deny all knowledge. Stanley goes to

1440-557: A number of high-profile films which had passed cinema certification fell foul of the Act. In particular, The Exorcist , which was made available by Warner Home Video in December 1981, was not submitted for video certification by the BBFC and was withdrawn from shelves in 1986. Similarly Straw Dogs was denied video certification and removed from video stores. Popular culture backlash against

1520-401: A number of high-profile films which had passed cinema certification fell foul of the Act. In particular, The Exorcist , which was made available by Warner Home Video in December 1981, was not submitted for video certification by the BBFC and was withdrawn from shelves in 1986. Similarly Straw Dogs was denied video certification and removed from video stores. Popular culture backlash against

1600-537: A strong performance from Howard, plus a deliciously over-the-top nasty turn by veteran character actor R.G. Armstrong ." Video nasty Video nasty is a colloquial term popularised by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association (NVALA) in the United Kingdom to refer to a number of films , typically low-budget horror or exploitation films , distributed on video cassette in

1680-424: Is a colloquial term popularised by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association (NVALA) in the United Kingdom to refer to a number of films , typically low-budget horror or exploitation films , distributed on video cassette in the early 1980s that were criticised by the press, social commentators, and various religious organisations for their violent content. These video releases were not brought before

SECTION 20

#1732780693147

1760-448: Is knocked unconscious; these are his classmates in disguise. After they leave, Stanley's computer tells him that the ritual is incomplete. He accidentally wakes the drunken caretaker , Sarge, who accuses him of being a thief and attacks him. An unseen force twists Sarge's head completely around, breaking his neck. Stanley discovers a catacomb containing Esteban's crypt. He hides Sarge's body. Miss Friedemeyer, at home, again attempts to pry

1840-501: Is that video dealers or distributors could be personally prosecuted in court for holding the film under Section 1 but not under Section 2, where the obscenity is admitted through forfeiting the material. A supplementary list was issued along with the official list which featured a list of so-called "Section 3 Video Nasties". Titles on the Section 3 list could not be prosecuted for obscenity but were liable to seizure and confiscation under

1920-446: Is that video dealers or distributors could be personally prosecuted in court for holding the film under Section 1 but not under Section 2, where the obscenity is admitted through forfeiting the material. A supplementary list was issued along with the official list which featured a list of so-called "Section 3 Video Nasties". Titles on the Section 3 list could not be prosecuted for obscenity but were liable to seizure and confiscation under

2000-481: The British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) for cinema release, others had been refused certification which effectively banned them. The Obscene Publications Act defined obscenity as that which may "tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it". This definition is of course open to wide interpretation. If

2080-419: The British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) for cinema release, others had been refused certification which effectively banned them. The Obscene Publications Act defined obscenity as that which may "tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it". This definition is of course open to wide interpretation. If

2160-585: The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) due to a loophole in film classification laws that allowed videos to bypass the review process. The resulting uncensored video releases led to public debate concerning the availability of these films to children due to the unregulated nature of the market. Following a campaign led by Mary Whitehouse and the NVALA, prosecutions were commenced against individuals engaged in trades exploiting allegedly obscene videos. To assist local authorities in identifying obscene films,

2240-484: The Cinematograph Act 1909 , and it was their responsibility to pass films intended for the cinema for certification within the United Kingdom (though local councils were the final arbiters). As part of this process the board could recommend, or demand in the more extreme cases, that certain cuts be made to the film in order for it to gain a particular certification. Such permission was not always granted, and in

2320-417: The Cinematograph Act 1909 , and it was their responsibility to pass films intended for the cinema for certification within the United Kingdom (though local councils were the final arbiters). As part of this process the board could recommend, or demand in the more extreme cases, that certain cuts be made to the film in order for it to gain a particular certification. Such permission was not always granted, and in

2400-455: The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) felt that a certain video might be in breach of the Act, then a prosecution could be brought against the film's producers, distributors and retailers. Prosecutions had to be fought on a case-by-case basis and a backlog of prosecutions built up. However, under the terms of the Act, the police were empowered to seize videos from retailers if they were of

2480-400: The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) felt that a certain video might be in breach of the Act, then a prosecution could be brought against the film's producers, distributors and retailers. Prosecutions had to be fought on a case-by-case basis and a backlog of prosecutions built up. However, under the terms of the Act, the police were empowered to seize videos from retailers if they were of

Evilspeak - Misplaced Pages Continue

2560-508: The Director of Public Prosecutions released a list of 72 films the office believed to violate the Obscene Publications Act 1959 . This list included films that had either been previously acquitted of obscenity or already obtained BBFC certification. In addition, a second list was released that contained an additional 82 titles which were not believed to lead to obscenity convictions but could nonetheless be confiscated under

2640-516: The Hungerford massacre and the murder of James Bulger (where the 1991 film Child's Play 3 was erroneously held up as influencing the perpetrators, possibly prompting the 1992 film Mikey to be prohibited in the UK), provided an additional impetus to restrict films and as late as December 1997, the board claimed it "has never relaxed its guidelines on video violence, which remain the strictest in

2720-410: The Hungerford massacre and the murder of James Bulger (where the 1991 film Child's Play 3 was erroneously held up as influencing the perpetrators, possibly prompting the 1992 film Mikey to be prohibited in the UK), provided an additional impetus to restrict films and as late as December 1997, the board claimed it "has never relaxed its guidelines on video violence, which remain the strictest in

2800-637: The National Viewers' and Listeners' Association complaining about their own film. Whitehouse sparked off a public campaign and coined the term "video nasty". Amid the growing concern, The Sunday Times brought the issue to a wider audience in May 1982 with an article entitled "How High Street Horror is Invading the Home". Soon the Daily Mail began their own campaign against the distribution of these films. The exposure of "nasties" to children began to be blamed for

2880-480: The National Viewers' and Listeners' Association complaining about their own film. Whitehouse sparked off a public campaign and coined the term "video nasty". Amid the growing concern, The Sunday Times brought the issue to a wider audience in May 1982 with an article entitled "How High Street Horror is Invading the Home". Soon the Daily Mail began their own campaign against the distribution of these films. The exposure of "nasties" to children began to be blamed for

2960-459: The Obscene Publications Act 1959 . This list included films that had either been previously acquitted of obscenity or already obtained BBFC certification. In addition, a second list was released that contained an additional 82 titles which were not believed to lead to obscenity convictions but could nonetheless be confiscated under the Act's forfeiture laws. The resultant confusion regarding the definition of obscene material led to Parliament passing

3040-546: The Video Recordings Act 1984 , which required certification of video releases by the BBFC. The implementation of the Video Recording Act imposed a stricter code of censorship on videos than was required for cinema release. Several major studio productions were banned on video, as they fell within the scope of legislation designed to control the distribution of video nasties. In recent years,

3120-404: The 1970s, there was no legislation specifically designed to regulate video content, apart from the Obscene Publications Act 1959 which had been amended in 1977 to cover erotic films . Major film distributors were initially reluctant to embrace the new medium of video for fear of piracy and the video market became flooded with low-budget horror films. Whilst some of these films had been passed by

3200-529: The 1984 Act, the British Board of Film Censors was renamed the British Board of Film Classification and became responsible for the certification of both cinema and video releases. All video releases after 1 September 1985 had to comply with the Act and be submitted for classification by the BBFC. Films released on video before that date had to be re-submitted for classification within the following three years. The increased possibility of videos falling into

3280-466: The 1984 Act, the British Board of Film Censors was renamed the British Board of Film Classification and became responsible for the certification of both cinema and video releases. All video releases after 1 September 1985 had to comply with the Act and be submitted for classification by the BBFC. Films released on video before that date had to be re-submitted for classification within the following three years. The increased possibility of videos falling into

Evilspeak - Misplaced Pages Continue

3360-431: The Act's forfeiture laws. The resultant confusion regarding the definition of obscene material led to Parliament passing the Video Recordings Act 1984 , which required certification of video releases by the BBFC. The implementation of the Video Recording Act imposed a stricter code of censorship on videos than was required for cinema release. Several major studio productions were banned on video, as they fell within

3440-447: The BBFC. The remaining 33 were either not prosecuted or had unsuccessful prosecutions. 10 films remain banned in the UK because they have not yet been resubmitted for classification by any distributors or have been rejected for classification. A number of films spent a short time on this list because their prosecutions failed shortly after publication or because it was decided that prosecution

3520-399: The BBFC. The remaining 33 were either not prosecuted or had unsuccessful prosecutions. 10 films remain banned in the UK because they have not yet been resubmitted for classification by any distributors or have been rejected for classification. A number of films spent a short time on this list because their prosecutions failed shortly after publication or because it was decided that prosecution

3600-697: The Video Recordings Act included the May 1984 release of " Nasty " by the punk - goth outfit The Damned , who celebrated the condemned genre with the lyrics "I fell in love with a video nasty". With the passing of the Video Recordings Act, the films on the list could be prosecuted for both obscenity and not being classified. As well as not passing any film liable to be found obscene, the BBFC imposed additional bans and cuts on films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre . Claims, since proven at best to be speculative, at worst outright media fabrication, relating to

3680-586: The Video Recordings Act included the May 1984 release of " Nasty " by the punk - goth outfit The Damned , who celebrated the condemned genre with the lyrics "I fell in love with a video nasty". With the passing of the Video Recordings Act, the films on the list could be prosecuted for both obscenity and not being classified. As well as not passing any film liable to be found obscene, the BBFC imposed additional bans and cuts on films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre . Claims, since proven at best to be speculative, at worst outright media fabrication, relating to

3760-410: The availability of these films to children due to the unregulated nature of the market. Following a campaign led by Mary Whitehouse and the NVALA, prosecutions were commenced against individuals engaged in trades exploiting allegedly obscene videos. To assist local authorities in identifying obscene films, the Director of Public Prosecutions released a list of 72 films the office believed to violate

3840-406: The case of the release of The Exorcist in 1973, a number of enterprising managers of cinemas where permission had been granted set about providing buses to transport cinema-goers from other localities where the film could not be seen. Public awareness of the availability of these videos began in early 1982, when Vipco (Video Instant Picture Company), the UK distributors of The Driller Killer ,

3920-406: The case of the release of The Exorcist in 1973, a number of enterprising managers of cinemas where permission had been granted set about providing buses to transport cinema-goers from other localities where the film could not be seen. Public awareness of the availability of these videos began in early 1982, when Vipco (Video Instant Picture Company), the UK distributors of The Driller Killer ,

4000-477: The catacombs but a reanimated Sarge rips out his heart, killing him. The church burns to the ground. An epilogue states that Stanley survived, but went catatonic from shock and was committed to an asylum. Stanley's face appears on the computer screen in the cellar with the words "I WILL RETURN". The film was shot in three weeks, using locations in Santa Barbara at what is now Garden Street Academy and

4080-519: The church cellar as punishment, he finds a room belonging to Esteban containing books of black magic. He uses his computer skills to translate one book from Latin into English. This diary contains rituals for performing the Black Mass and a promise by Esteban: "I Will Return". Oversleeping the next morning, Stanley finds his alarm clock unplugged and his clothing tied in knots by his classmates. This makes him late for class, and his teacher writes him

SECTION 50

#1732780693147

4160-399: The church's pastor, nearly discovers him and sends him off to the mess . Arriving too late for dinner, he befriends the school's cook who makes him food and shows him some puppies that his dog just littered. Stanley takes the smallest, names him Fred and hides him in the cellar. Stanley steals the host from the church. He attempts the ritual and figures in robes with pig faces appear. Stanley

4240-506: The coach, Kincaid, and Jameson are attending a service . After Stanley successfully performs the ritual, Esteban's soul possesses him. A nail from the crucifix over the church's altar is pried out by an invisible force and lands in Jameson's forehead. Stanley rises through the floor, wielding a sword. He decapitates Kincaid and his coach. His classmates, trying to flee, are devoured by the pack of boars. One bully, Bubba, tries to escape through

4320-465: The computer screen. It was then subsequently passed uncut by the BBFC in 2004 and is now available in both an uncut form and a version re-edited by the distributors to tighten up the dialogue. Anton LaVey , the late founder and High priest of the Church of Satan , was a great fan of the film and considered it to be very Satanic. Actor Clint Howard said that director Eric Weston's original version of

4400-408: The cover art of the original big box releases seen in the video shops of the early 1980s. Unless noted otherwise, all films that have been released have been rated 18. The DPP list is divided into two sections: Section 1 and Section 2 . Any title seized under Section 1 would make the dealer or distributor liable to prosecution for disseminating obscene materials. Dealers could be fined or jailed and

4480-408: The cover art of the original big box releases seen in the video shops of the early 1980s. Unless noted otherwise, all films that have been released have been rated 18. The DPP list is divided into two sections: Section 1 and Section 2 . Any title seized under Section 1 would make the dealer or distributor liable to prosecution for disseminating obscene materials. Dealers could be fined or jailed and

4560-399: The early 1980s that were criticised by the press, social commentators, and various religious organisations for their violent content. These video releases were not brought before the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) due to a loophole in film classification laws that allowed videos to bypass the review process. The resulting uncensored video releases led to public debate concerning

4640-564: The early 2000s either uncut or with cuts restricted to sexual violence or actual animals being harmed. A list of these is given below. Among modern films, many, such as the Hostel and Saw series, contain brutal, graphic violence but have passed through uncut. In 2008, there was another brief media frenzy over such films that had years earlier been approved for release by the BBFC, in particular SS Experiment Camp . This coincided with an attempt by MPs Julian Brazier and Keith Vaz to pass

4720-513: The early 2000s either uncut or with cuts restricted to sexual violence or actual animals being harmed. A list of these is given below. Among modern films, many, such as the Hostel and Saw series, contain brutal, graphic violence but have passed through uncut. In 2008, there was another brief media frenzy over such films that had years earlier been approved for release by the BBFC, in particular SS Experiment Camp . This coincided with an attempt by MPs Julian Brazier and Keith Vaz to pass

4800-422: The film itself would be declared obscene if the prosecution was successful, meaning it could not be distributed or sold in the UK until the obscenity was quashed. 39 of the Section 1 films were successfully prosecuted and remained banned. 33 of the Section 1 films had unsuccessful prosecutions and were subsequently dropped from the list and placed onto Section 2. Section 2 titles were liable to be confiscated under

4880-422: The film itself would be declared obscene if the prosecution was successful, meaning it could not be distributed or sold in the UK until the obscenity was quashed. 39 of the Section 1 films were successfully prosecuted and remained banned. 33 of the Section 1 films had unsuccessful prosecutions and were subsequently dropped from the list and placed onto Section 2. Section 2 titles were liable to be confiscated under

SECTION 60

#1732780693147

4960-482: The film that was submitted to the MPAA was longer and contained more blood, gore and nudity than the unrated version of the film, especially during the scene where pigs attack Miss Friedemeyer in the shower and the final confrontation. In a July 2017 interview for Gilbert Gottfried's Amazing Colossal Podcast , Howard also revealed that the film's producers made him pay for his own toupée. AllMovie called it "essentially

5040-400: The hands of children required that film classification for video be a separate process from cinema classification. Films that had passed uncut for cinema release were often cut for video. The supply of unclassified videos became a criminal offence, as did supplying 15 and 18 certificate videos to under-aged people. As well as the low-budget horror films the Act was originally intended to curb,

5120-400: The hands of children required that film classification for video be a separate process from cinema classification. Films that had passed uncut for cinema release were often cut for video. The supply of unclassified videos became a criminal offence, as did supplying 15 and 18 certificate videos to under-aged people. As well as the low-budget horror films the Act was originally intended to curb,

5200-626: The increase in violent crime amongst youths. The growing media frenzy only served to increase the demand for such material among adolescents. At the suggestion of the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, the Conservative MP Graham Bright introduced a Private Member's Bill to the House of Commons in 1983. This was passed as the Video Recordings Act 1984 which came into effect on 1 September 1985. Under

5280-424: The increase in violent crime amongst youths. The growing media frenzy only served to increase the demand for such material among adolescents. At the suggestion of the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, the Conservative MP Graham Bright introduced a Private Member's Bill to the House of Commons in 1983. This was passed as the Video Recordings Act 1984 which came into effect on 1 September 1985. Under

5360-413: The jewelled pentagram from Esteban's book, and is savaged to death by a pack of large black boars. The diary dematerializes. Stanley's classmates assault him, saying that if he tries to play in the soccer game tomorrow they'll find and kill Fred. Witnessing this, Kincaid kicks Stanley off the team instead of punishing the bullies. Stanley's classmates, drunk, find Esteban's hidden room. The computer flashes

5440-432: The mistaken belief it was pornographic. The Video Retailers Association were alarmed by the apparently random seizures and asked the DPP to provide a guideline for the industry so that stockists could be made aware of the titles which were liable to be confiscated. The DPP recognised that the current system, where the interpretation of obscenity was down to individual Chief Constables, was inconsistent and decided to publish

5520-432: The mistaken belief it was pornographic. The Video Retailers Association were alarmed by the apparently random seizures and asked the DPP to provide a guideline for the industry so that stockists could be made aware of the titles which were liable to be confiscated. The DPP recognised that the current system, where the interpretation of obscenity was down to individual Chief Constables, was inconsistent and decided to publish

5600-565: The opinion that the material was in breach of the Act. In the early 1980s, in certain police constabularies, notably Greater Manchester Police which was at that time run by devout Christian Chief Constable James Anderton , police raids on video hire shops increased. The choice of titles seized appeared to be completely arbitrary, one raid famously netting a copy of the Dolly Parton musical The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (1982) under

5680-453: The opinion that the material was in breach of the Act. In the early 1980s, in certain police constabularies, notably Greater Manchester Police which was at that time run by devout Christian Chief Constable James Anderton , police raids on video hire shops increased. The choice of titles seized appeared to be completely arbitrary, one raid famously netting a copy of the Dolly Parton musical The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (1982) under

5760-428: The school's computer lab to perform research on Satanism, but his allotted time runs out before he can complete it. Stanley appears in the cellar with computer equipment, apparently stolen from the lab. He sets up the computer and checks the requirements for a black mass. He attempts to initiate one but the computer informs him that he is still missing crucial ingredients: blood and a consecrated host . Reverend Jameson,

5840-469: The scope of legislation designed to control the distribution of video nasties. In recent years, the stricter requirements have been relaxed, as numerous films once considered video nasties have obtained certification uncut or with minimal edits. Due to a legislative mistake discovered in August 2009, the Video Recordings Act 1984 was repealed and re-enacted without change by the Video Recordings Act 2010 . At

5920-405: The stricter requirements have been relaxed, as numerous films once considered video nasties have obtained certification uncut or with minimal edits. Due to a legislative mistake discovered in August 2009, the Video Recordings Act 1984 was repealed and re-enacted without change by the Video Recordings Act 2010 . At the time of the introduction of domestic video recorders in the United Kingdom during

6000-490: The time of the introduction of domestic video recorders in the United Kingdom during the 1970s, there was no legislation specifically designed to regulate video content, apart from the Obscene Publications Act 1959 which had been amended in 1977 to cover erotic films . Major film distributors were initially reluctant to embrace the new medium of video for fear of piracy and the video market became flooded with low-budget horror films. Whilst some of these films had been passed by

6080-443: The world". However, the board did loosen its standards, especially at the 18 level, in response to public consultation in 2000. The departure of James Ferman from the BBFC may also have allowed some long-proscribed films to be re-appraised around this time. The Exorcist was granted an uncut 18 video certificate on 25 February 1999, followed by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in August, and several official "nasties" were passed in

6160-443: The world". However, the board did loosen its standards, especially at the 18 level, in response to public consultation in 2000. The departure of James Ferman from the BBFC may also have allowed some long-proscribed films to be re-appraised around this time. The Exorcist was granted an uncut 18 video certificate on 25 February 1999, followed by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in August, and several official "nasties" were passed in

6240-533: Was cited as a video nasty in the UK following its release on the Videospace label. It remained banned for a number of years as part of the Video Recordings Act 1984 , thanks to its gory climax and themes of Satanism . The film was reclassified and re-released in 1987 but with over three minutes of cuts, which included the removal of most of the gore from the climax and all text images of the Black Mass on

6320-445: Was not worth pursuing. Ultimately, the list became obsolete when the Video Recordings Act came into force, and since 2001, several of the films have been released uncut. In the majority of cases below where cuts were made, they were scenes of real-life animal cruelty and/or excessive violence to women, both of which are still regarded with some degree of severity by the BBFC. A large number of these movies caused additional controversy with

6400-445: Was not worth pursuing. Ultimately, the list became obsolete when the Video Recordings Act came into force, and since 2001, several of the films have been released uncut. In the majority of cases below where cuts were made, they were scenes of real-life animal cruelty and/or excessive violence to women, both of which are still regarded with some degree of severity by the BBFC. A large number of these movies caused additional controversy with

#146853