Man Behind the Sun
Dir T.F.Mous / 1988 / Hong Kong
Originally banned in 1989, Yu Enterprises appealed to the Board of Review. Here is what they had to say."The Film Censorship Board's decision to refuse registration was taken under Regulation 13(1)(a) of the Customs (Cinematograph Film) Regulations on the grounds that the film contained scenes of excessive violence and extreme cruelty. The film was made in Hong Kong; the dialogue is sub-titled in English.
Before viewing the film the Board of Review heard submissions from Mr Raymond Yu (representing the importers of the film) and My Geoff Gardner (representing the Australian distributors, Ronin Films) . The applicants informed the Board that the film was a factual and accurate depiction of incidents in China during World War 2, and had been approved for screening in South East Asia and the US as well as the Berlin Film Festival. A written submission from the applicants was also considered.
Man Behind the Sun contains scenes depicting medical experiments alleged to have been conducted by a unit of the Japanese army on Chinese and Russian prisoners of war. The existence of the unit itself -codenamed 731-is well attested; it is known to have conducted experiments on living prisoners under the direction of Dr Ishii. The film includes historical footage of the war in China and the remains of the prison camp where the experiments took place. Most of the incidents portrayed are seen through the eyes of the recruits to the youth corps of the Japanese army. The experiments themselves are presented in horrific detail at intervals throughout the film: sub-titles purporting to give the dates of the experiments and the names of the victims appear on screen.
The Board of Review was divided on this appeal. The guidelines for film classification prohibit 'unduly detailed and/or relished acts of extreme violence or cruelty'. That the violence in Man Behind the Sun is both detailed and extreme cannot be denied; whether it is 'unduly detailed', whether the acts can be said to be 'relished', is open to question. Man Behind the Sun is ostensibly, and at least in part, a documentary. The question therefore arises: what constitutes undue detail in a documentary about war and its atrocities?
The Board took the view that the word 'unduly' in the context allows- and was intended to allow-a certain flexibility in the interpretation of the guidelines, particularly in cases where the presentation of violent acts may be thought to be justified by the intentions of the film and the circumstances in which the act is committed. A majority concluded that in a film specifically concerned with documented instances of atrocities and inhumanity, depictions of extreme cruelty can be justified, and may indeed be necessary to the filmmaker's purposes. In considering Man Behind the Sun, the majority took account of the film's strong anti-war message and the reaction of most of the characters in the film to the experiments they are forced to witness. Far from suggesting 'relish', the film provokes-and depicts-a powerful sense of revulsion.
A minority of the Board of Review nevertheless agreed strongly with the majority of the Film Censorship Board that the incidents depicted are so gross in their nature and in their power to disturb that the film should be refused classification. Whether the incidents actually happened in the way the film depicts the Board is unable to say. On this point the majority were prepared to accept the filmmakers claims in good faith; enough is known of the historical background to these events to suggest that the portrayal of particular incidents is not exaggerated. The further point was made that it is not unusual for horror films to show the dissection and mutilation of living bodies, and if such depictions are acceptable in horror films as a form of entertainment, it is difficult to insist that they are less acceptable in films of historical events-even if the exact nature of those events is open to question, and the films themselves are of a commercial character. The line is not easy to draw; but a majority of the Board of Review was prepared in this case to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant, and resolved to direct that Man Behind the Sun be registered and classified 'R' (for Restricted Audiences). 20 January 1989"
OFLC & Films Board of Review-Report of Activities 1988-89
So the film was rated 'R', and thanks to the publicity, went on to a very successful run in Chinese cinemas. In 1992 Eagle Entertainment released the uncut film on tape in either dubbed or subtitled versions. The tape runs 100m 37s.
The sequel, Laboratory of the Devil, also had problems with the OFLC. It was banned in its uncut form until 2004.
A DVD release is out in Holland on the Japan Shock label. C.A.V Distribution (USA) also issued a disc in 2003.
The Director, T.F Mous had his previous feature LOST SOULS banned by the Australian Censors in 1981.
Laboratory of the Devil
aka Man Behind the Sun 2
Dir Godfrey Ho / 1992 / Hong Kong
After reluctantly giving Man Behind the Sun an uncut R rating, the censors were obviously ready for Part 2. In 1992 for reasons of "extreme violence and cruelty", Chinatown Cinema had a 95min (f) print banned. An appeal to the Board of Review gave this response.
"Laboratory of the Devil purports to be a factual account of atrocities committed by a Japanese military unit as part of germ warfare and weapons experiments during the Second World War. It was refused registration by the Film Censorship Board on the ground that it contained prolonged and relished depictions of extreme violence and cruelty.
In their appeal the distributors argued that the film's purpose was to expose the cruelties and atrocities committed against human beings in war. Ms Cindy Lai and Mr Peter Yu, on behalf of Chinatown Cinema Pty Ltd, contended that the film was based on fact and was similar to an earlier film, Man Behind the Sun, which the Board of Review approved with an 'R' classification in April 1989.
In its decision on Laboratory of the Devil, the Film Censorship Board acknowledged the comparison with Men Behind the Sun, but argued that the present film was essentially a work of exploitation; that it lacked any real claim to historical or documentary seriousness and contained graphic scenes of prolonged and relished violence and cruelty which justified its refusal. In general the Board of Review concurred with this view. While some of us felt the first film, was, if anything, more graphic and disturbing than the second, we agreed that the second trivialised its subject-matter in an exploitative and objectionable way, negating any claim to serious historical or documentary purpose such as a majority of the Board had been prepared to concede to Man Behind the Sun. In the present instance, while none of us objected in principle to the films subject matter or in the graphic depictions of atrocities, it seemed to us that the depictions in Laboratory of the Devil exceeded the bounds of acceptability under current classification guidelines to the extent that the film should be refused. We accordingly upheld the decision of the Film Censorship Board. 17 September 1992".
OFLC and Film and Literature Review Board-Reports on Activities 1992-93
With the appeal unsuccessful, one month later the film was then cut down to 91min (f) before being given an R for Chinese cinema screenings. In 1994, Eagle Entertainment (distributors of Man Behind the Sun on video) applied to release the cut 91min print on tape. Even though this had an R for cinema showings, it was refused a video rating, and banned in Australia.
It would take another ten years before this was again submitted to the OFLC. In August 2004 Force Entertainment were awarded an R18+ (Graphic Violence) rating for a 92min (91m 55s) version. A DVD followed later that month. This particular release looks to be fully uncut, however it only contains the terrible English dubbed version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
