Opera  

Dario Argento / 1987 / Italy

Passed uncut by the Classification Board in 1989 with an R18+ rating. The same year it was released to VHS on the First Release label under the TERROR AT THE OPERA title.

This did not stop customs from targeting this title when a DVD was confiscated in 200? The reason given was:

One DVD titled OPERA depicting extreme violence.

DVD Comparisons

Organ  

Dir Kei Fujiwara / 1996 / Japan

One report of a VHS of this title being confiscated in 1998. It was sent to the OFLC who confirmed its status as:

"..... prohibited and subject to regulation 4A(1A)(A) of the customs (Prohibited Imports) regulations 1956"

A U.S. DVD is out on the Synapse label.

Outlaw Brothers, The

Dir Frankie Chan / 1990 / Hong Kong

Chinatown Cinema had a 100m (35mm) print Refused Registration on May 2nd 1990. 

Appeal to the Review Board

Following the ban, Chinatown Cinema took the film to the Review Board who confirmed it as Refused Registration. Here is what they had to say.

"The Outlaw Bothers is a Cantonese language film about policemen and car thieves in Hong Kong; it is well supplied with kung-fu fight sequences and would be unremarkable but for a scene near the end in which a container filled with chickens is broken open and the birds slaughtered with machine guns. Men are seen firing at the chickens on the floor of a warehouse; mutilated birds are shown writhing and twitching in close-up; finally a car is driven into a mass of live birds at high speed. A majority of the Film Censorship Board refused to register the film on the grounds that it depicted cruelty to animals.

The offending scenes are brief. The exact injuries inflicted on the animals are not easy to discern, and in the shot of the car are obscured by the vehicle itself. The film has apparently been leniently classified in some Asian countries, where somewhat different historical traditions prevail, and one can accept the comment of the distributors that they were 'mystified' by the films treatment in Australia. One can also accept their assurance that the birds seen falling en masse from the container at the beginning of the sequence are already dead (though one wonders how they were killed); and it is possible that the writhing of the mutilated birds was simulated (though this has not been claimed).

It must be said that the violence depicted is by no means extreme compared with the sorts of atrocities apparently inflicted on human beings in films readily accorded registration in this country. It was for this reason, no doubt, that a minority of the Censorship Board was prepared to register The Outlaw Brothers with an R or even an M classification.

To an extent, therefore, the issues raised by this appeal can be said to turn not so much on what is actually shown on the screen, but on assumptions or conclusions about the manner in which certain scenes were filmed and the attitude of the filmmakers to the creatures in their charge. This raises novel questions. The film classification guidelines make no reference to cruelty to animals, and innumerable films can be cited in which animals are seen to be mistreated or abused. (in the recent successful comedy A Fish Called Wanda, live goldfish are eaten whole.) Most people, however, would probably agree that scenes of simulated violence to animals, like scenes of simulated violence to humans, are acceptable if contextually justified and do not fall within the guidelines general prohibition of violence which is 'unduly detailed, relished or cruel'. In the opinion of the Board of Review , the violence to the chickens in The Outlaw Brothers, however tasteless or bizarre, and however offensive the assumption that audiences would find it amusing, would not warrant prohibition if it was simulated. It becomes unacceptable only when it is clear that it is real, or (no less decisively) when it is clear that audiences are meant to take it as real.

One hopes these distinctions are not obscure. There is an obvious difference in principal between killing animals (including those comparatively low on the evolutionary scale, like birds and fish) and simulating their killing In assessing scenes of this kind, however, it is necessary to consider not only what meets the eye, but the nature of the response invited; not only 'animal rights', however these may be defined , but the effects on audiences of scenes unnecessary and degrading cruelty. 

It seems to us overwhelmingly probable that in the making of The Outlaw Brothers birds were recklessly killed and injured. Nor were we left in any doubt that we were meant to enjoy the spectacle. We agreed with the majority of the Censorship Board that the maiming or killing of animals for entertainment could not be condoned in a humane and civilised society, and that films containing such scenes (even though worse examples than the ones in The Outlaw Brothers could easily be imagined) should not be registered for exhibition. We therefore dismissed the appeal.  
15 June 1990"  

OFLC and Films Board of Review-Report on Activities 1989-90

***

Refused again, and cut to an M-rating

Following the decision of the Review Board, it was censored down to 98m (35mm), but on July 9th 1990 was again Refused Registration. Further censorship eventually saw a 97m (35mm) version passed with an M (Frequent violence, Drug use) rating on July 23rd 1990. A Chinese language cinema run followed. There is no Australian video release.

***

THE OUTLAW BROTHERS Review

Thanks to Matt for this review of the film.

Having just viewed a 96:30 VHS of the uncut version of this film I don't think you can argue that chickens were killed and injured during its making. The scene in question starts at 81:42 when a container load of chickens fall to the floor of a warehouse and are machine gunned. The actual fall is very fast and it is difficult to see if the birds are alive or dead. Similarly I doubt the filmmakers actually got a machine gun and shot the birds. What is beyond doubt are the shots from 81:53 to 82:01 and 82:19 to 82:21 where mutilated dead and dying chickens are shown on the ground. There is no way that an early 90's Hong Kong film is going to go to the trouble of building fake chickens when it can be achieved for a couple of dollars with the real thing.

The film then plays out in the warehouse until the credits with various fight scenes taking place as all the while live chickens walk around on the floor. Between 91:29 and 91:33 a car is driven into the warehouse scattering the chickens. It looks like several birds disappear under the car as it does so.

Over the years the film has been cut by varying degrees by the British censors. These have involved the removal of the chicken cruelty,  butterfly knife scene, and shots of cars and houses getting broken into. The 2005 18-rated Hong Kong Legends DVD escapes with the least cuts. It was submitted in a 96:48 print and lost only 10s of the chicken cruelty. Having never seen this version I would hazard a guess that the cuts remove the shots where mutilated dead and dying chickens are shown on the ground. These are the only scenes where you can say conclusively that birds were hurt or killed. 

I really do not understand why the Australian censors required 2-3 minutes of footage to be removed back in 1990. As I have mentioned there is only around ten seconds of footage where you could say that chickens are definitely being mistreated.

I seriously doubt that the Australian censors would now ban an uncut version as these days they seem happy to simply warn the public. Witness the R18+ (High Level Sexual Violence, High Level Violence, Animal Cruelty) awarded to CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST back in 2005. This would now fit nicely into an MA15+ rating, an option which was not open back in 1990.

DVD Comparisons

Out of Control

Dir Allan Hollzman / 1985 / USA - Yugoslavia

In March 1985 Communications and Entertainment had a censored version of this title passed with an R18+. The film was submitted in a 2413.00mtr (88m 12s) print, but lost 32mtr (70s) of sexual violence. The eventual R18+ was awarded due to sex and violence, which were both described as:
Frequency: Infrequent
Explicitness/Intensity: Medium
Purpose: Gratuitous

This censored version went on to have a theatrical release. 

Communications and Entertainment had an 85m (83m 44s) print passed for video release in September 1986. The R18+ was awarded for sex, which was described as:
Frequency: Infrequent
Explicitness/Intensity: Medium
Purpose: Gratuitous

(Scan by Konrad)

Continue...

   www.refused-classification.com

| Online Since April 2002