Abducted

Dir Don Jones / 1973 / USA

Prestige Video released this on video in the early 80's, before it was reviewed and banned in 1984, and again in March 1985. Reasons given were gratuitous sexual violence. There is a second release on the Silver Screen Promotions label that runs 86min 35sec. The box title is THE ABDUCTION, though the actual print is titled ABDUCTION, and is preceded by the Prestige Video logo.

DEADLY SUNDAY was a later Donald M.Jones film that was also banned in Australia.

Abductors, The  

Dir Don Schain / 1972 / USA

In February 1974 Effie Holdings had a 2483.51mtr (90m 46s) print cut by 95.39mtr (3m 29s) for a R rated cinema release. The reasons given for the censorship was 'indecency'.

It was back before the censors in December 1984 when G.A International had a 90min print Refused Classification for reasons of 'Gratuitous Sexual Violence'.

Thanks to Matt G for this information about the film. 

The 2002 Monterey Media DVD from the US runs 90m 20s. I'm not sure if this print is uncut as there is a scene that may be censored. Before the scene a guy says "..and she'll crack", this is followed by the sound of the girl crying. At 20m 51s the film seems to jump and we next see the guy sitting on the end of the bed looking at the girl. He begins to rape her, and she eventually seems to enjoy it. Obviously this scene contributed to the film being banned in Australia. There are numerous other censors baiting scenes of naked male and female victims being threatened.

This is a sequel to the movie GINGER which was also banned in Australia in March 1985. Despite the video cover of the G.A. International release of GINGER  promising "One of 3 Action-Packed Ginger Movies", we've yet to see proof that they issued anything but the first movie. If anyone has information otherwise please let us know.

Adult Version of Jekyll and Hide, The

Dir Byron Mabe, Lee Raymond / 1972 / USA

A 2624.33mtr (95m 55s) was Refused Registration in May 1975. It was finally passed with an R-rating in December 1983 in a 2441.27mtr (89m 14s) print. The reason given for the rating was sex, which was described as:
Frequency: Frequent
Explicitness/Intensity: Medium
Purpose: Gratuitous

Thanks to Matt G for this review of the film.

The Something Weird DVD released in the US runs 91:25, and looks to be uncut. The scene that would definitely have caused our censors problems would have been at 17min when Hide whips, rapes, and kills the girl with a hot poker between her legs. Also at 47min Hide ties up, rapes, then beats a girl to death with a statue. There is also a graphic castration at 78min when the female Hide meets a sailor.

Adventure Kids :Episode 1  

Dir Hideki Takayama / 1993 / Japan

For this title, BPS Video Services had a 29min (v) video banned in 1994. Kiseki Films released this title in a 28min 00sec (v) version with an R18+ (High Level Sex Scenes) rating. A comparison between the UK Kiseki release and the uncut version can be found here. It is unclear how much of this footage is missing from the Australian version.

In the US this episode is available on DVD from Anime 18. The package is titled THE COMPLETE ADVENTURE KID and contains other episodes in the series.

Aftermath  

Dir Nacho Cerdà / 1994 / Spain

There is a confirmed customs confiscation of this from 1998. This Spanish Waken Video release was obviously taken due its necrophilia storyline.

Customs gave the following reasons for the confiscation.

"....seized under subsection 203b(2) of the customs act 1901 by an authorised person being goods suspected on reasonable grounds to be special forfeited goods"

"Persuant to regulations 4A(1)(1A)(a)of the customs (prohibited imports) regulations the items are prohibited imports and are therefore forfeited under section 229(1)(b)of the customs act 1901"

Coming soon to DVD from US label, Unearthed Films.

Aftermath, The

Dir Steve Barkett / 1982 / USA

In 1985 G.A International cut this from 91mins (v) to 81mins (v) in order to gain an R rating. The reason for the cuts were excessive violence. The Australian tape was released by Platinum Video with an actual runtime of 88min 44sec. 

Having never seen the uncut film I can only speculate where the cuts are. The only definite is:

Before - Newman and Getman struggling on the floor. Newman says "Smile for me now Getman"

CENSORED AT 80min 40sec - The soundtrack jumps as presumably Newman stabs Getman.

After - Newman says "This is for Sarah" before he stabs Getman in the face.

Possible other cuts could be:

37-38min approx - Cutter raping a girl. This scene seems to end abruptly.

56min approx - The above scene continues.

61min approx- The attack on the house by Cutter's men. This does not show the rape and murder of the two women.

Amazing Shocking Asia, The

Prod-Flatline Productions / 1997 / USA

No cut video release followed.

Amityville 2-The Possession  

Dir Damiano Damiani / 1982 / USA

The missing footage discussed for this film is not the work of the OFLC!

A tape released by Force Video in the late 90's runs 99min 54sec, and shows more than the Thorn EMI print. Here we see Burt Young shot in the stomach, but still no head explosion scene. In 2003 Force also issued this on DVD. It has the same cover as their tape, and is presumably taken from the same print.

The film premiered on the Optus Movie Greats Network in early 2003. This print runs 104min 13sec, and is book-ended by distributor cards for Orion Films and Modern Entertainment. Again, this print does not show the stomach shooting/head explosion scene. The extra four and a half minute runtime may be a result of an NTSC version being used.

For video release in the UK, the film was also censored of the same scenes as the Australian tape. Castle Home Video have released this on DVD in the UK, but it is still cut. Pulp Video in Italy also have this out on DVD as AMITYVILLE POSSESSION. It has both English and Italian soundtrack options, and is reportedly uncut.

DVD Comparisons

Angel

aka Iron Angels

Dir Raymond Leung & Teresa Woo / 1987 / Hong Kong

"Angel was refused registration by the Film Censorship Board on the grounds of' 'detailed and gratuitous depictions of violence'. The Angels of the title are members of an undercover task force engaged by the police to smash an international drug ring. The film was made in Hong Kong, and its dialogue is sub-titled in English.

The Film Board of Review considered the film at length, and perhaps with greater earnestness than its cinematic qualities would merit. Angel belongs to a well-established genre - the kung fu movie, in which violence of a certain frenetic kind is presented in a quasi-comic style. The fist-fights and kung fu battles in which both male and female combatants are engaged for much of the film are orchestrated with considerable skill and ballistic energy; but since it is rare for the participants to sustain any discernible injury it is difficult to take the 'violence' seriously. The same can be said of the gunfights. Bullets fly in such profusion that the scenes are more reminiscent of a Mack Sennett comedy than a thriller. As a serious drama, Angel is absurd and entirely lacking in credibility, but in the opinion of the Board of Review should be judged for what it is - an entertainment of a special kind with few presentations to realism or serious content.

For these reasons the Board was of the view that the film should not be refused registration. Members were mindful of the guidelines proscribing 'unduly detailed and/or relished acts of extreme violence or cruelty', and undoubtedly there  are brief scenes in the film which could be held to infringe these guidelines. But because of their comparative brevity and stylised character- and tone of slightly self-mocking parody in which they are presented- the Board of Review considered their overall effect was not sufficiently disturbing to warrant refusal to register. If Angel were a more convincing and realistic film the violence might be more offensive. In the opinion of the Board of Review it is more likely to affront the intelligence and test the patience of audiences than offend their sensibilities.

The Board of Review accordingly directs the Censorship Board to register Angel with a 'For Restricted Exhibition' classification. 21 July 1988" 

OFLC & Films Board of Review-Report on Activities 1988-89

Now passed uncut with an R rating, it went onto a Chinese language cinema run.

In 1989 a dubbed 89min (88min 26sec) (v)  version of this was released by RCA/Columbia video with an R-rating under the title Iron Angels. 

Angel Mine

Dir David Blyth / 1978 / New Zealand

Valhalla Films submitted a 1812.72 mtr (66min 15sec) print in February 1980. They were awarded an R18+ rating only after the deletion of 12.1mtr (26sec) of footage.

In August 1982 a 64min tape described as an 'optically modified version' was awarded an R18+. I believe this was released on the Videoscope label.

The following explanation of the cuts is from Cinema Papers magazine.

Angel Mine a New Zealand short, was Rated "R" after the deletion of a sequence. Blyth claims however that the cut was made without his approval. This raises the difficult issue  of whether a distributor should be allowed to make cuts in a film to satisfy the censorship rulings of individual countries. In many distribution contracts these rights are clearly spelt out; in others not at all.

Angel Mine was shortened by the deletion of one scene where a blue movie is seen flickering on a screen in the background.

In 1985, another of David Blyth's films, DEATH WARMED UP, also ran into problems with the Australian censors.

Annie: The Virgin of St Tropez  

aka The Awakening of Annie

Dir Zygmunt Sulistrowski / 1973 / France - Brazil

This was released on VHS in the early 80's on the King of Video label. This very rare tape must be heavily censored as it only runs 64m 37s. We cannot find any mention of this in the censor's decisions, but we suspect this print would have been prepared for Australian theatrical release in the early 70's. 

During the early-mid 80's Platinum Pictures released this on VHS on their Eros label as ANNIE:THE VIRGIN OF ST TROPEZ. At the time distributors were not compelled to have video tapes classified. This changed in February 1984 when it became law for all video tapes to be rated. The censors began the slow task of reviewing all the titles that had been released up until that time. They finally got to the ANNIE: THE VIRGIN OF ST TROPEZ in September 1985. The 90min Eros VHS was Refused Classification due to 'gratuitous sexual violence'. Despite the ban, the film remained on the shelves of many video stores.

They finally got to the King of Video version of THE AWAKENING OF ANNIE in December 1984. 14th Mandolin (the company behind King of Video) had a 63m (v) VHS Refused Classification, again due to 'explicit and gratuitous sexual violence'. 

It was finally passed R18+ (High Level Sex Scenes, Sexual Violence, Nudity) in March 1985. Force Entertainment released it to DVD (As THE AWAKENING OF ANNIE) the following month. This was part of an eight disc box set titled THE FRENCH EROTIC COLLECTION. It was re-released in April 2008 with new packaging.

Thanks to Matt for this review of the film.

Despite the box listing it as THE AWAKENING OF ANNIE, the actual on-screen title is ANNIE THE VIRGIN OF ST TROPEZ. The print looks uncut, with a running time of 89:58,  nine seconds of which is the Cinema Arts titles card. This would seem to indicate that the Eros/Platinum VHS banned in 1985 was also uncut as the censors list it as running 90m. The 'gratuitous sexual violence' that the censors state as the reason for the ban would be from these three scenes.

39m: Mark attempts to force himself on Annie. He gets as far as pulling her bikini top off and trying to kiss her. This is followed by a seemingly never ending chase along the beach. This is probably the tamest of the three sequences.

51m-56m: A flashback shows Annie delivering a dress to the home of an extremely ugly South African guy. He forces her at knife point to strip, and then attempts to rape her. This is quite an unsettling sequence, mainly because the guy is so convincing. He looks like he has had major surgery for burns, and has huge lips which he licks as he looks at the naked Annie. This scene would definitely been the main reason that the film was banned.

73m: When they fly into the Amazon, Annie and the other passengers are held up by a group of armed men. The other girl on the plane is held down by two men and they pull her top off. This is a brief sequence, but understanding how the censors reacted back in 1985, then this could have contributed to the ban.

These three sequences would not even get close to making up the approximately 25m that are missing from the King of Video tape that you list. This must have also been missing the long sex scenes that are littered through the film. These are quite graphic, but still your typical 70's soft-core variety.

The film itself is incredibly dull, despite the climax having Annie wandering through the Amazon, battling alligators, and dodging

Anthropophagous: The Beast  

Dir Joe D'Amato / 1980 / Italy

Force Video gave this an unofficial Australian Video release in the late 90's under the title SAVAGE ISLAND. It is reportedly a very heavily cut version. Thanks to Jason D for confirming this. 

There is one report of the R2 German Double DVD set on the Relax label being confiscated by customs in 2005.

Reasons given were:

"This DVD portrays scenes of Cannibalism in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be imported."

This has never been released in Australia, and despite the IMDb saying otherwise, (I believe) never been rated by the OFLC.

DVD Comparisons

Assault: Criminals Part IV

Dir Chih-Hung Kwei and Chung Sun / 1977 / Hong Kong

In June 1979 a 2547.80m (93m 07s) print was Refused Registration by the censorship board. No cut version was ever submitted. The reason given was 'indecency and excessive violence'.

Auditions

Dir Harry Hurwitz / 1978 / USA

Videotapes running 78m were Refused Registration twice in the early 80's First in June 1982 for Video Classics and again in May 1983 for Syme Home Video. The reason given for the ban was "sexual exploitation of a minor".

Thanks to Jay for this explanation.

I'm a big Linnea Quigley fan and came across your site whilst tacking down some of her lesser known titles. AUDITIONS was one of her earlier works and was released on VHS here in the States by Wizard Home Video in the early 80's. I finally managed to find a download of this, and having watched it I think I can explain what problem your censors had with it. The film is a mock documentary involving auditions for a soft-core porn film. The scene in question actually involves Linnea's character, Sally Webster. 

We are introduced to Sally at around 6min when she auditions for her part. The producer asks her to take her clothes off and dance. After she does this he then says "we are going to have to check out your age though, because I don't know if I'll go for that eighteen though, but we certainly enjoyed the dance". The scene ends around 8mins.

The second scene starts at around 26min where Sally has been invited back for a second audition. Two guys pull her top off and lift her onto a bench. The producer then stops the scene and says there is a problem. The following discussion takes place.

Producer: "Is your name Sally Webster?"
Sally: "Yeah"
Producer: "How old are you Sally?"
Sally: "18"
Producer "How old?"
Sally: "18"
Producer: "Sally, I happen to know for a fact that you are fifteen years old. When you told me you were eighteen I wasn't sure, and had some people check, and I just found out the whole story. There is no way you are going to be in this picture, you are underage and we'll get in trouble. You are already in trouble because they know where you are. Your folks are very upset, why don't you give them a call and arrange to go back home"
Sally: "I'm going to be sixteen next month!"

So that would probably have been the two scenes that your censor's considered to be "sexual exploitation of a minor". Incidentally, Linnea Quigley was born in 1958, and AUDITIONS was made in 1978, making her twenty years old at the time. Get over it, it's a films guys, she was acting! 

The actual film itself is not bad, and is surprisingly well acted. Also (a 20yr old!!!) Linnea has a full frontal nude scene which should be recommendation enough.

Autopsy  

Dir Armando Crispino / 1973 / Italy

In January 1980 House of Dare had to remove 44 seconds of "excessive violence" to gain an 84min (f) R rated cinema release. Never issued on tape in Australia.

An uncut DVD is available from Anchor Bay in the US.

Axe  

aka California Axe Massacre

Dir Frederick R Friedel / 1977 / USA

The censors also saw this in 1985, when applicant C.White presented the video under the title of California Axe Massacre. This 63mins (v) (63min 26sec), release was rated R and put out by Platinum Video.

Released on DVD in Germany on the Red Edition label, and in the US from Something Weird.

DVD Comparisons

Azumanga Daioh

Dir Nishikiori Hiroshi / 2002 / Japan

This title has been included as it is a controversial classification decision. it has not been censored.

The Japanese animation AZUMANGA DAIOH: ENTRANCE - CHILD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT/ OSAKA TODAY AS WELL/ NYAMO/ A FUN PROFESSION/ SUMMER BREAK was classified on June 22nd 2004 with an MA15+ (ADULT THEMES) rating. 

On July 8th 2004 Madman posted the following on their message boards.

Well thought I'd might let you all a little heads up. Azumanga Daioh has been given the rating of MA by the OFLC.  It was quite a shock to us as we were expecting a PG or heck even a G rating for this title!

Reasons for the MA (Adult Theme) was due to Kimura Sensei's actions in Episode 4 - Pool! Pool! Pool! Unfortunately because of his perverse on what is considered to be minors and "pathetic" antics, this stepped over the guidelines and were the reasons given for the MA rating.

***

Thanks to Matthew W for the following information on this title.

I thought you'd like to know about a recent decision by the OFLC. Madman Entertainment had "Azumanga Daioh: Entrance" classified by the OFLC and they gave it an MA15+ which surprised the hell out of the company since they were expecting it to get a PG at the most. The title is a Japanese animated comedy focusing on a group of young high school girls and follows their everyday life, some which is a little surreal. The main problem the OFLC seems to have had is with the antics of one of the teachers; Kimura, who makes a comment that the students should wear more revealing swimsuits (or words to that effect, I haven't seen the show in a little while). During the entire season of the show he occasionally makes remarks like this. The OFLC took offence to this as the girls are all under 18. There is no sex, nudity, violence (except that of the mild cartoon variety), or any real adult themes. There are no explicit discussions about sex or anything of that nature during the show. Any sexual content is of a very innocent nature and is really restricted to girls telling each other they have "big boobs" or girls blushing when they're talking about what a kiss tastes like (kind of a common cliché in Japanese pop culture of this sort). 

The show with the same version of the English dub and subtitles has been classified PG and 12 in the UK by the BBFC without any cuts. The US company that released it placed a suggested rating of 13+ on the cover of the DVD (it was not rated by the MPAA). It's a really odd decision which a lot of long time fans of the show are totally bewildered by it. There is a discussion going on about the classification on the Madman messageboards.

***

I've watched the "offending" episode again, (the "Pool! Pool! Pool!" segment of episode 4) . What actually happens is that while the girls are having a P.E. lesson at the pool with their female gym teacher, Miss Kurosawa, Mr Kimura appears and suggests they should play Basketball in their swimsuits (which are of the typical Japanese High School one piece dark blue variety - very unflattering) in the gym. He then suggests that perhaps it's better that they're wet before they play. Miss Kurosawa is slightly annoyed but lets him stay. She eventually throws him out when he makes an unflattering remark about her. He then pleads to swap lessons with her, but she just ignores him.

The lecherous teacher is a common type of character in Japanese animation and comics. These characters are almost always perceived as an annoyance and used as comic relief and are not depicted as some sort of sexual predator, nor does the character ever take on these roles.

Watching the episodes again, I'm even more puzzled by the OFLC's decision. Since Mr Kimura's behaviour gets slightly worse during the course of the show, will future volumes be rated R18+ or even RC? When did Australia become so conservative? Even the BBFC gave the show PG and 12 ratings, and it's exactly the same version that's being released in Australia. It's fairly disturbing, and I don't understand how a simple little cartoon like this cause the OFLC to give it such a high rating.

***

The following information from the 2004-2005 shows that Madman Entertainment did consider appealing against the decision to the Review Board, but eventually decided against it. 

Classification Board & Classification Review Board
Annual Report 2004-2005

Page 91
Classification Review Board
Applications withdrawn 

During the course of the year, the Classification Review Board received a number of applications that were later withdrawn. A determination is not made on withdrawn applications, yet a considerable amount of time is spent by the Convenor and the secretariat on these applications.

Table 22: Applications to the Classification Review Board withdrawn

Title: Azumanga Daioh
Media: Computer game
Review applicant: Madman Entertainment
Reason for withdrawal: Commercial decision

Continue...

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com