In January 1973, a 2608.00-meter (95:04) print of FORBIDDEN DECAMERON was banned because of 'indecency'. Roadshow Distributors made an unsuccessful appeal to the Film Board of Review in March 1973.
A censored 2443.00-meter (89:03) version was passed with an R-rating in June 1973.
A 93m Italian tape under the title IL DECAMERONE PROIBITO was passed with
an R-rating in August 1982. It was awarded for sex, which was found to be:
A M Alessi Film and Video Service was the applicant. We presume the tape was an Italian import of the CVR label release.
In October 1981, a 2753.70-meter (100:39) print of THE FOXY LADIES was censored by 4.00-meters (00:09) for an R-rating.
The cuts were made to remove violence, which was described as being:
The R-rating was awarded for violence, which was now described as being:
Joe Sui International Film Co released the film in Australia to Chinese language theaters.
The Classification Board lists this as a Golden Harvest production. However, we believe it to be the 1979 Shaw Brothers film.
Thanks to Matt for this information.
Intercontinental Video [hk] VCD 97:39
It is hard to identify what the censor objected to in THE FOXY LADIES. However, I would hazard a guess that the 00:09 of cuts would have come from the climatic martial arts battle where the girls and their boss fight the bad guys.
FRAMED was first Refused Registration in September 1975 in a print running 2825.00-meters (103:15). The reason given for the ban was excessive violence. A censored 2743.00-meter (100:15) version was awarded an R-rating in March 1976 and United International Pictures went on to give it a theatrical release.
It was Refused Registration again in July 1985, this time in the
form of a 102m VHS. The reason given for the ban was violence, which was
CIC-TAFT Video censored the print down to 100m and received an R-rating
in March 1987. The reason for the rating was violence, which was described
The censored 100:14 VHS was released on the CIC-TAFT Video label. This matches the running time of the theatrical version, which would seem to indicate it was an NTSC print.
Thanks to Matt for this comparison between the Australian tape and the uncut version.
This Joe Don Baker revenge tale is (in the uncut version) a true guilty pleasure. Here is a comparison between the Aussie CIC-TAFT VHS, and the uncut Legend Films DVD from the U.S.. There may be other cuts, but these are the ones that were most noticeable.
15min approx- Here Haskins has come to arrest Ron for the shooting. The two get into a very violent and bloody fight. Ron finally kills Haskins by bashing his head four times of the garage floor. The CIC VHS cuts the first two of these (as well as a few seconds before), and only shows the last two.
19min - Susan is threatened by Frank and the blond guy. The CIC VHS cuts the part where she says "Ow, my breasts". The scene then continues with her slowly sliding down the wall before it cuts again. Missing here is around 25s of Frank threatening Susan by pushing the gun close to her mouth. He breathes deeply as he does so as if aroused. No nudity or any rape are shown in the uncut version although it is mentioned later in the film.
83min - In the CIC VHS Ron is shown placing his gun next to Frank's ear. It then cuts around 25sec of him shooting and of the now bloody ear as Frank is bundled into the car.
85min - Ron opens the hood of his car and pushes Frank under it. Missing in the CIC VHS is a shot of the spark plug being pushed into Frank's ear.
97min - The CIC VHS cuts the scene where Ron stabs the Mayor in the back of the hand.
The versions were:
Legend Films (U.S.) DVD 105:49 (NTSC)
CIC-TAFT Video (Aus) VHS 100:14 (PAL)
If the censored VHS is converted to NTSC then it gives a running time of 104:25 which would mean it is missing between a minute and a minute and a half of footage.
You mention the version (presumably uncut) that was first submitted back in 1975 as running 103:15 which does not really make sense when compared to these times. Anyway, I would safely say that now this would get through with all 'excessive violence' intact.
In 2000, FRAMED was screened by Channel 7 Sydney in their mid-day movie slot. We assume the print must have been heavily censored.
Daybill image courtesy of moviemem.com
Columbia Tristar Films had a 102m 35mm print of FREEWAY rated R18+ (Adult themes; Medium level violence; Sexual references) in March 1997. The following month saw Columbia Tristar Home Video have a 102m VHS passed with the same rating.
Despite the censorship database not listing it as such, FREEWAY had actually lost two minutes prior to being past with an R-rating.
Freeway to open despite Detours
theaustralian.com.au, September 18, 1997
The Office of Film and Literature Classification has taken such a dim view of parts of a new American film called Freeway that it has demanded two minutes be cut before granting it an R certificate. The film, which has Oliver Natural Born Killers Stone as an executive producer and is the debut feature for writer director Matthew Bright, is to be released locally in its censored version in November.
According to distributor the Globe Film Co, two sequences have been censored: one where Sutherland repeatedly insults Witherspoon with profane language and asks her in a highly ungenteel manner if she would care for a spot of anal intercourse. The other shows dead grandma with her legs spread, her private parts concealed by a vase.
According to the article in The Australian, two sequences were removed.
one where Sutherland repeatedly insults Witherspoon with profane language and asks her in a highly ungenteel manner if she would care for a spot of anal intercourse.
This presumably takes place at approximately the 32m point in the VHS release. This is where Bob is talking to Vanessa as they drive. It starts with him listening to her problems of abuse at the hands of her stepfather, to him threatening her with a scalpel.
The other shows dead grandma with her legs spread, her private parts concealed by a vase.
The first shot of the dead Grandma is around the 91m mark in the VHS. Bob takes Vanessa to her body. Here we are only shown the top part of her naked torso, with a rope around the neck. The second shot is around the 93m mark where the cops enter the trailer and view the body. Again, only the top half is shown.
In February 1998, Columbia Tristar Home Video had a 104m VHS Refused Classification. It is unclear why the longer version was submitted as the censored 102m version had already been rated R18+ in April 1997.
The censored version was eventually released on VHS by Columbia Tristar Video and ran 97:43.
In January 2007, Force Entertainment gave FREEWAY its Australian DVD premiere.
Thanks to David V. for sending in this disappointing news about the disc.
Being well aware of the censorship issues the film FREEWAY had here in Australia I was quite interested to see what the R4 DVD released by Force Entertainment on Jan 17 would be like. If the details of what was censored from the Australian version listed on your site through the article is accurate, than it appears we are still faced with the exact same censored version of the film. We still only get to see the two quick above the torso shots of the dead grandma on this DVD release, the other shot detailing her with her legs spread out covered by a vase is not to be found.
A line of dialogue also looked to have been edited out during the Freeway conversion when the character played by Keifer Sutherland quizzes Reese Witherspoon's character sexually about her past. The last question he asks her before she starts to flip out and verbally abusing him back seemed abruptly cut almost like a whole bit of middle dialogue was taken out. However the line that was edited from the US release (Reportedly 'Get your pants down you fucking cunt') by the MPAA is actually still present in the Australian version.
Interesting things to note about this release by Force Entertainment is that the DVD version still carries the same consumer advice of "Adult Themes, Sexual References, Medium Level Violence" it received in 1997, infact according to the OFLC database, that was the last time the film was submitted for classification. Another thing is the DVD version of the film runs in at just under 102 minutes (101:57 I think to be exact) and appears to be a NTSC-PAL conversion - 102 minute version listed as being the censored version.
In November 1973, a 2863.00-meter (104:21) 'reconstructed version' of FRENCH SEXY GO-ROUND was censored by a further 56.68-meters (02:04) for an R-rating. The cuts were made to remove 'indecency'.
Robert Kapferer was the applicant.
United International Pictures had a 2496-meter (91:14) print of FRIDAY
THE 13TH: THE FINAL CHAPTER passed in
May 1984, and a 93m version passed in November 1984.
In both cases the reason given for the R-ratings was violence, which was described as:
CIC-TAFT Video had an 89m video Refused Registration in January 1985.
The reason given was violence, which were described as:
In February 1985, CIC-TAFT had a censored 86m video of FRIDAY THE 13TH:
THE FINAL CHAPTER passed with an
The reason given was violence, which was described as:
This is the first video release, and the actual running time was 86:44. Jason's death scene has been censored in this version.
United International Pictures had a 1001.10-meter (91:25) 16mm print
Refused Registration in July 1985.
The reason given was violence, which was described as:
United International Pictures successfully appealed to the Review Board, and in August 1985 the ban was overturned and the 16mm print was rated R.
Showing just how inconsistent they really were, in 1986 the censors passed the same scene when it was included in the Showcase Video release of SCREAM GREATS VOLUME 1: TOM SAVINI. See our separate database entry for more information regarding this classification.
In 1994, CIC-TAFT released an 87:34 uncut sell-through video of FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE FINAL CHAPTER. This tape could be identified by the bottom of its front cover, which has the words 'Horror House Unlimited' printed over blood red. Thanks to Peter Verevis for the cover and running time.
In 2002, FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE FINAL CHAPTER began screening on Foxtel's Encore channel in a print that ran 87:15. Jason is shown getting the machete in the face, but his following death scene is missing.
The R4 Paramount DVD released in July 2002 was uncut and ran 87:34. It was re-released in 2009 with new packaging.
Daybill image courtesy of moviemem.com
An 89m 35mm print of THE FRUIT IS SWELLING was Refused Classification in May 1997. A week later Chinatown Cinema had censored the offending footage, and were awarded an R18+ (High level Sex Scenes) rating. The cuts must have been minor because the R-rated version also ran 89m.
Here is what the OFLC had to say about THE FRUIT IS SWELLING in their 1996 to 1997 Annual Report.
An eight-year old girl, whose wish to be eighteen years old is magically granted, is the central character of the Chinese language film The Fruit is Swelling. This sex comedy exploits the fantasy theme of a young girl suddenly in an adult body. In a majority view of the board the film warranted an RC classification for a depiction of sexual violence, with a minority view that the film also warranted RC for an offensive/exploitative fantasy and an offensive depiction of a minor.
An alternative minority view was that both the fantasy depicted and the scene of sexual violence was sufficiently implied and undetailed to be accommodated in the R classification. It acknowledged that the film was likely to offend some sections of the adult community but not to the extent that the film warranted an RC classification. The film was subsequently edited and the revised version was classified R.
In December 1973, a 2202.18-meter (80:16) print of FRUSTRATION was censored by 58.13-meters (02:07) for an R-rating. The cuts were made to remove 'indecency'.
Lyra Films was the applicant.
This appears to be a different film to Jose Benazeraf’s FRUSTRATION (1971), which was passed with an R-rating in 1977 as FRUSTRATION "THE TRIP TO PERVERSION".
Peacock Films had a 98m VHS of FUGITIVE X: INNOCENT TARGET Refused Classification in July 1996.
Thanks to Wayne for this.
The print of FUGITIVE X: INNOCENT TARGET that I viewed came from a US cable TV screening and ran only 94:17. I have no idea why the Aussie censor banned it. The film itself is a cheap action flick that has a “most dangerous game” plot.
From what I saw, I would say it should be MA15+. However, the running time was around four minutes shorter than the print the OFLC banned in 1996. Although I could not identify what was missing, I would assume that the one I viewed was censored of some scene of sexual violence. I can't believe that the scene at 13:15 when Eddie the pimp slaps Alisha and threatens her would have cause an RC-rating. This plot point turns out to be a set-up to trap Adam.
This film has never had problems with the Australian censors. It is included because the distributor censored it prior to submission to the Classification Board.
LA FURA DELS BAUS, the controversial Spanish theatre group, performed their work XXX in Sydney and Melbourne during February and March 2004.
As a backdrop to the performance, they screen sexually explicit film clips. They had performed XXX in a number of countries, and although controversial, they had never felt the need to censor their work.
However, for Australia it was decided to pixelate and obscure the film to prevent any possibility of prosecution. It was also decided to submit the film to the OFLC for classification.
The Australian producer, Rodney Rigby, explained why.
"... submitting the video to the OFLC was a necessary safeguard akin to "fire-proofing the scenery".
New Theatricals submitted the censored 27m film for classification and on February 3rd 2004 and received an R18+ (Strong Sexual Violence, Sexual Activity). The censorship database lists XXX as being the original version and makes no mention of the cuts. This kind of under reporting goes on all the time in the X18+ category. Distributors feel the need to pre-cut to avoid being banned, the OFLC can then safely pass the film and it is listed as an original version. At the end of the year, the OFLC can produce statistics in their Annual Report that show they ban very few submissions.
The advertising for the show itself carried the warning:
"ADULTS ONLY 18+: This production contains extreme and explicit
sexual themes and images throughout.
Persons under 18 will not be admitted in the theatre."
One of the creators of XXX, Valentina Carrasco explained her reaction to this being the first country in which they had to censor the film.
"We had this idea of Australia being a very open country and people being relaxed, so when this first arose we thought it was a joke, but it got serious pretty quickly,"
"It was quite unbelievable. The only other place we had a little bit of a reaction, and it was mainly a tabloid reaction, was in London."
"This has never happened before,"
"It doesn't alter the quality of the show because the show's not just about the video. But it was very, very strange to have to do it. We were not expecting that."
XXX opened in Melbourne on February 4th, and moved to Sydney on the 25th.
The review of the opening night in The Sydney Morning Herald stated.
"..... the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification granted an R-rating to XXX's 20 minutes of pre-recorded explicit footage.
However, an announcement before the show, explaining that the footage had been modified to achieve the rating, drew boos from the audience.
The Sydney Morning Herald also reported that a protest was held by six of Fred Nile's Christian nutters at the opening Sydney show.
They applied and were refused a police permit, but went ahead anyway. The police were quoted as saying:
"They're pretty gentle people. We're not expecting any trouble"
The above quotes are taken from the following articles.
Risque think piece takes on porn world
smh.com.au, February 4, 2004
Show's censorship 'a joke'
sunherald.com.au, February 15, 2004
Sex and sensibility
smh.com.au, February 20, 2004
How to protest politely
smh.com.au, February 26, 2004
The next day, Fred Nile asked the following questions about XXX in the NSW Parliament.
NSW Legislative Council Hansard
XXX COMMONWEALTH OFFICE OF FILM AND LITERATURE CLASSIFICATION
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police and the Attorney General, a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Spanish hard-core pornographic live stage show and film production called XXX opened last night, until 7 March 2004, at the Enmore Theatre, Newtown? Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification, following the Melbourne presentation, proposed to refuse classification to segments of the hard-core pornographic film shown on stage, but finally reclassified those segments R-rated if they were blurred? What action is the New South Wales Police Force taking to enforce the Commonwealth's ruling as State police have the responsibility to stop persons under 18 years of age attending XXX ? What action is the New South Wales Police Force or the Attorney General taking to ensure New South Wales criminal laws concerning offensive behaviour, et cetera, are not being broken by the XXX production?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I congratulate Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile on the peaceful protest that was arranged at the Enmore Theatre, and I was pleased to learn that apparently there were more police there than there were protestors, according to the news reports. In any event, I will obtain an answer from the Minister and advise the honourable member in due course.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: A peaceful protest.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: A peaceful Christian protest, I was told.
NSW Legislative Council Hansard
XXX COMMONWEALTH OFFICE OF FILM AND LITERATURE CLASSIFICATION
On 26 February Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Justice, representing the Minister for Police a question without notice regarding the XXX Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification. The Minister provided the following response:
NSW Police has advised me that officers from the Newtown Local Area Command took appropriate action to ensure that restrictions relevant to the film segments' "R" classification were enforced.
The following is taken from the REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES. It includes further information about the classification of LA FURA DELS BAUS: XXX. It shows that despite being pre-cut before submission, a minority of the Classification Board still wanted it banned.
REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE 2003 GUIDELINES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES.
Prepared by Kate Aisbett, Entertainment Insights
A review of the first twelve months’ operation of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2003 (the 2003 Guidelines) was promised by the former Attorney General, the Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, to ensure that the decisions made under the 2003 Guidelines align with those made under the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes – Amendment No. 3, 2000, and Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games – Amendment No. 1, 1999 (the previous guidelines). The review of the 2003 Guidelines has been conducted and is the subject of this report.
The principal object of the review is to assess whether the combining and recasting of the previous guidelines into the 2003 Guidelines has had the effect of changing the level of content that falls into the various classification categories for film and games.
4 Complaints received by the OFLC
4.3.2 Ministerial Correspondence 1 July 2003-30 June 2004
The OFLC processed 250 items of ministerial correspondence, including letters, emails and facsimiles referred to the Attorney-General in the financial year 2003- 2004. This was about 70% less ministerial correspondence than the previous year. Report on the Review of the Operations of the 2003 Classification Guidelines for Films and Computer Games 27 Main issues raised in the correspondence were:
• the theatre production Les Fura dels Baux XXX and the lack of a classification system for theatre (30 items);
7 Examination of Board decision reports
7.6.4 Split decisions for R18+ classifications
The other split decision was for the video components sequences accompanying the theatre production of Les Fura dels Baux XXX by Spanish theatre company La Fura dels Baus. As the Board report describes:
The film elements contain disparate subject matter including female and male genitalia, simulated sexual activity, graphic breast surgery, television news footage and simulated sexual assault.
In the minority view:
… the depictions of sexual violence were explicit rather than implied and that the impact of the material exceeds high. Furthermore, in the view of a minority of the Board, the film as submitted did not have sufficient context or artistic merit to allow it to be accommodated at R.
In the majority’s view the sexual violence scene was implicit and lacked detail. The Board report noted that ‘the implied sexual assault at this point are obscured by pixilation’. The majority argued that the film was ‘unlikely to be screened without the context and narrative of the live production….in the majority view: ‘The work has a serious artistic intent, is not intended to titillate and is likely to be heralded as a controversial work for an adult audience.’
The decision does not indicate a change in standards resulting from the change in guidelines. The Board members formulated their argument based on the 2003 Guidelines statement that ‘sexual violence may be implied’ at R18+. Board members differed in their reading of the film content in this particular case.
Attachment D – OFLC responses to titles referred to in the report
La Fura Dels Baus XXX
On 2 February 2004, the Board classified the film component of La Fura Dels Baus XXX R18+ with the consumer advice ‘strong sexual violence, sexual activity’. The theatre production La Fura Dels Baus XXX included video screens displaying disparate subject matter including depictions of sexual activity and sexual violence.
The Board took into account the principle in the Code that ‘adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want’ together with other principles including ‘minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them’.
In applying the classification guidelines, the Board considered that the classifiable elements of the film did not exceed the high impact level and could be accommodated at the R18+ category.
In February 1992, a 92m 35mm print of FURY IN RED was banned by the OFLC because of sexual violence.
Yu Enterprises censored it to 89m, and the following week, were awarded an R18+ (Medium Level Violence) rating.
Here is what the OFLC had to say about FURY IN RED in their 1991 to 1992 Annual Report.
With regard to FURY IN RED, a Chinese contemporary crime drama set in Hong Kong, the board noted a lengthy and exploitative scene
...with clear indications of coercion and non-consent.
It was considered by the board to be 'indecent' pursuant to the Customs Regulations as the pregnant women's clothing is forcibly removed and her rape by three males is shown in considerable detail, culminating with implied knife cuts to her breasts. The resulting wounds are shown in a subsequent scene.
Thanks to Matt for this review.
I viewed an English dub of FURY IN RED under the alternate title of EASTERN HEROES. It ran 88:46, which I presume makes it a PAL version. The two scenes mentioned by the censor are:
56:30 to 59:38 - Paula is grabbed and her underwear torn off. Three masked men then take turns to rape her. Eventually, a fourth man runs a knife and breasts, and we see his face as he cuts her chest off-screen.
62:10 to 62:30 - In the hospital, the dressing on Paula’s chest is pulled back to reveal two Chinese characters carved onto her breasts.
It appears around three minutes was removed for an R-rating, meaning most of the rape scene was censored.