Banned from TV
Prod Mantra Films / 1998 / USA
This compilation of news footage dealing with death was Refused Classification on August 31st 2007. A censored print was resubmitted but was again refused on November 21st 2007. The applicant in both cases was Zeal Entertainment.
******
Our own Classification Board give very little information when they ban a title. Here is what we have been told.
BANNED FROM TV Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
category Film - Sale/Hire
Version ORIGINAL
Duration variable
Date of Classification 31 August 2007
Author MANTRA FILMS
Publisher MANTRA FILMS
Production Company MANTRA FILMS
Country of Origin USA
Applicant ZEAL ENTERTAINMENT
File Number T07/3971
Classification Number 50705569
BANNED FROM TELEVISION (said to be
BANNED FROM TV - 1) Film (DVD)
Classification RC
Consumer Advice
Category Film - Sale/Hire
Version REVISED
Duration variable
Date of Classification 21 November 2007
Author MANTRA FILMS
Publisher MANTRA FILMS
Production Company MANTRA FILMS
Country of Origin USA
Applicant ZEAL ENTERTAINMENT
File Number T07/3971
Classification Number 5253654A
Now we are not ones to easily give praise to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), but at least they explain their decisions. Here is what they had to say about BANNED FROM TV when they rejected it back in February 1999.
British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)
Press Release 1999
BANNED FROM TELEVISION
As the authority designated by Parliament with the responsibility for
classifying videos under the Video Recordings Act 1984, the Board must determine
whether or not a video is suitable for a classification certificate to be issued
to it, with special regard to the likelihood of video works being viewed in the
home. In making this decision, the Board must also have special regard, amongst
other relevant factors, to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or,
through their behaviour, to society because of the manner in which the work
deals with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violence, horror or sex.
BANNED FROM TELEVISION
The Board carefully considered this video in the light of these tests. The main
consideration for the Board was the question of harm referred to above. In
short, does the work have the potential for anti- social influence?
In the Board's view it does. It is a compilation of scenes of extremely violent death, injury and mutilation, many of which are repeated in slow-motion. The commentary draws attention to the grislier aspects and in effect invites enjoyment at human suffering. The inclusion also of sex scenes reinforces the impression that the purpose of the video is to provide entertainment. There is no attempt to justify the images by placing the incidents in any other journalistic or educational context. Whatever current relevance the images might have had when they were originally photographed has been lost in the general compilation of horrors. The Board is conscious that a particular genre that has always been identified as entirely unacceptable is that of so-called 'snuff movies'. Their main identifying feature is that at least one of the participants is actually killed. BANNED FROM TELEVISION is only different in that, instead of a death being created for the work, actual death and injury is collated from a wide range of pre-existing sources to create the work.
The Board has concluded that the video is potentially harmful because of the influence it may have on the attitudes and behaviour of a significant proportion of likely viewers. The instinct of concern and compassion for the suffering of others is a basic social necessity. So is respect for the dignity of real human life. By presenting actual human death and mutilation as entertainment, the work, in the Board's view, has the potential to erode these instincts. There is a danger of it falling into the hands of young and impressionable persons (whatever its classification) and of some significant brutalising effect on their attitude to human life and pain.
The Board has considered the possibility of cuts as a remedy for these difficulties. It has concluded, however, that they would be unlikely to modify the tone and effect of the work acceptably.
Here is what Robert Duval from the BBFC had to say about the British Censors banning the video.
RSA lecture : 21st February 2001
“Does censorship for adults make sense in the internet age?” Robin Duval
Banned from Television
IN Start of ‘Champaign, Illinois’ sequence (begin at start of fade in)
OUT End of sequence
DURATION: 1 min 16 secs
A typical sequence from Banned from Television which the BBFC banned from video
in 1999. Should we have done it? Or should we be content for works of that kind
- a sort of snuff movie news clips compilation with no journalistic or
educational context: just for entertainment - should we be content for it to
find its audience with no censorship by us? That certainly is the kind of
question increasingly likely to be put in the ‘Internet age’.
