Canadian Horror Films

Horror movies from Canada that have been cut or banned in Australia.


The Brood

Directed by David Cronenberg / 1979 / Canada / IMDb

In March 1980, a 2509.92 meter (91:29) print of THE BROOD was censored by 31.1-meters (01:08) for an R-rating.

The cuts were made to remove ‘excessive violence’. The rating was awarded for ‘horror’, and for violence, which was said to be:
Frequency: Infrequent
Explicitness/Intensity: High
Purpose: Gratuitous

Everard Films (Aust) was the applicant.

Video releases

In 1982, THE BROOD was issued on tape by Intervision. This release, which was never rated by the Film Censorship Board, was presumably the same as their British pre-cert release.

The Brood (1979) - VHS videotape 1
VHS – Intervision

This UK Intervision tape ran 87:44 (PAL) and contained the censored American R-rated version. Movie-Censorship documents what was missing from this print.

Risis Ethnic Video Services had a 93-minute tape banned in March 1983. It was refused due to violence, which was said to be:
Frequency: Infrequent
Explicitness/Intensity: High
Purpose: Gratuitous

This was presumably an imported videocassette.

In November 1984, CBS/Fox Video had an 85-minute tape of THE BROOD passed with an R-rating. It was awarded for ‘horror’, and for violence, which was said to be:
Frequency: Infrequent
Explicitness/Intensity: Medium
Purpose: Gratuitous

The 85-minute (PAL) running time indicates that this may have been a pre-censored version. We have yet to see any proof that this tape was ever released.

During the 1990s, Force Video issued the film on VHS with a fake R (Graphic violence) rating.

The Brood (1979) - VHS videotape 2
VHS – Force

As was the case with most of their catalogue, it was never submitted for classification.

DVD & Blu-ray

Universal Pictures released an 87:41 print of THE BROOD on DVD in Australia in October 2004. Unfortunately, it was once again the censored American R-rated version.

The Brood (1979) - DVD cover 1
DVD – Universal

Universal chose not to have it reclassified, so it carried the original Australian R-rating with no consumer advice attached.

In December 2012, a 151-minute DVD of THE BROOD was passed with an R (Horror violence) rating. The submission was described as being the ‘uncut version’.

The Brood (1979) - Blu-ray cover 1
Blu-ray – Umbrella

Umbrella Entertainment released the DVD and Blu-ray in March 2013 with a cover that promised it was ‘totally uncut and complete’.


Hanger

Directed by Ryan Nicholson / 2009 / Canada / IMDb

In August 2012, a 90-minute DVD of HANGER was banned by the Classification Board due to sexual violence, high impact sexualised violence, and prolonged depictions of offensive and/or very high impact violence.

The applicant, Bounty Films, intended to release it on their Monster Pictures label.

Hanger (2009) - DVD cover 1
DVD – Cover design

August 2, 2012
Reason For Decision:

In making this decision, the Classification Board has applied the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Classification Act), the National Classification Code (the Code) and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005 (the Guidelines).

In the Board’s view this film warrants an ‘RC’ classification in accordance with item 1(a) of the films table of the National Classification Code:

“1. Films that:
(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena 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 classified;” will be Refused Classification.

The Guidelines state that sexual violence may be implied if justified by context within the R18+ classification; films will therefore be refused classification if they contain explicit depictions of sexual violence. The Guidelines also state that films will be refused classification if they contain gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed.

The film contains depictions of explicit sexual violence and sexualised violence that are very high in impact, as well as prolonged depictions of violence which are offensive and/or have a very high degree of impact. Depictions of violence include detailed mutilation and disfigurement, viscera and shattered bone as well as blood gushes, splatter and spray. A male character is tortured with a blow torch while two others are choked to death – one with excrement and the other with a used tampon. Sexual themes underpin the depictions of violence with pornographic footage and still images featuring full frontal nudity with genital detail and explicit sexual intercourse frequently viewed in the background. Other scenes of violence are cut with depictions of sexual activity and/or sexualised nudity. The sexual content and sexualised context both serve to heighten the overall impact of the violence viewed throughout the film. This content exceeds what can be accommodated within the R18+ classification and, as such, is Refused Classification.

Please note that the examples described below do not represent an exhaustive list of the content that caused the film to be Refused Classification.

Examples include but are not limited to the following:

At approximately 10 minutes, a heavily pregnant prostitute, Rose, is implicitly struck across the face with the hook of a metal coat hanger. A deep, raw and bloody gash is viewed in close-up across the left side of her face. Her pimp, Leroy, forces her back on a bed, spreads her legs as he straddles her and implies that he is going to abort her foetus. When Rose pleads with him to convince him not to harm her baby, Leroy implicitly punches her with force, knocking her out. A close-up of Rose’s belly is viewed followed by an extreme close-up depicting the hook of the wire hanger being run across Rose’s genitals before Leroy explicitly inserts the hook between her labia and then implicitly through the birth canal and into her uterus – again viewed in extreme close-up. Rose screams and writhes in pain before a squelching sound effect is heard and Leroy implicitly forces the implement deeper into her womb below screen. He continues to manipulate the wire hook below screen before, in another extreme close-up, blood streams from between Rose’s labia as Leroy manipulates her belly. The camera cuts to a close-up of Rose’s face, contorted in pain, before it cuts back to another extreme close-up of blood flowing from between Rose’s labia. Leroy exclaims “Got cha!” and Rose cries out in pain before the blood-smeared head of the infant is viewed exiting the birth canal. Leroy drags the baby from Rose’s body with the umbilical cord still attached and, with wide blood stains viewed on the bed linen, tosses the infant to the floor. An extreme close-up of the blood-covered infant is viewed before the scene ends at approximately 14 minutes.

At approximately 31 minutes, when Russell tells a woman that she is “butt ugly” and looks pregnant, Hanger appears mesmerised by the woman’s protruding belly. He pushes the woman back on the couch saying “Give me baby”, then claws at the now screaming woman’s clothes and nuzzles at her breast while Russell, jumping up and down in excitement, looks on. At approximately 32 minutes, in an extreme close-up, Hanger lifts his head revealing a wide, open and bloody wound on the woman’s breast where he has implicitly bitten off her nipple and the surrounding flesh. Blood splatters over the screaming woman before the bitten section is dropped back onto her upper chest. The now blood-drenched woman continues to scream as Hanger savages her chest and body; gnawing and chewing on what appears to be bloodied viscera, entrails and flesh. The camera cuts to a front on close-up of the now silent woman and Hanger, both completely drenched in blood, then back to a close-up of Hanger as he continues to feed on and tear through the woman’s flesh and organs while repeating “give me baby”. The scene ends at approximately 35 minutes.

At approximately 63 minutes, Phil, dressed as Santa Claus, having swallowed a handful of tablets in order to achieve “the hard-on of the century” and having rendered Russell and Hanger unconscious with GBH, exposes his erect penis before, thrusting vigorously, he implicitly anally rapes Russell. The scene cuts to a close-up of a female character’s genitals as she masturbates with a small implement, then to John, tied up and having been tortured with a blow torch, now having his face forced into the genitals of a semi-naked prostitute. The camera cuts back to Phil as he crosses to Hanger, lying unconscious on the couch, his colostomy bag having been pulled from the stoma in his abdomen. In an extreme close-up, Phil explicitly inserts his penis into the stoma and thrusts repeatedly as copious amounts of thick brown fluid ooze from the hole in Hanger’s belly.

In the opinion of the Board, this film contains depictions of violence, sexual violence and sexualised violence that are very high in impact and exceed what can be accommodated within the R18+ classification. As such, this film is Refused Classification pursuant to item 1(a) of the films table of the Code.

Decision:

This film is Refused Classification in accordance with item 1(a) of the films table of the National Classification Code.

– Classification Board report

Why is the Classification Board so secretive?

In 2012, Brendan Molloy from the Pirate Party made a Freedom of Information request for an SQL dump of the National Classification database and ten reports relating to RC-rated content.

In January 2013, the database dump was declined and the ten reports were released in massively redacted versions. One of the requested reports related to HANGER, a copy of which was supplied to us by Monster Pictures. We have reproduced it above in its unredacted state. Below is the redacted report, which removes the film’s title, director, applicant and names of the named of the Classification Board members who viewed the film. Also missing are four lengthy paragraphs that describe the problematic content.

We suggest you compare the unredacted report above and the redacted one below to see what the Classification Board was trying to hide.

August 2, 2012
File No: T12/2268
Australian Government
Classification Board

Decision Report
Classification decisions are made in accordance with the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act), the national Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines.

Production Details:
Title: [REDACTED] Exempt under section 7 (2) and Schedule 2 Part 2 Division 1
Alternate titles: [REDACTED] Exempt under section 7 (2) and Schedule 2 Part 2 Division 1
Director/s: [REDACTED] Exempt under section 7 (2) and Schedule 2 Part 2 Division 1
Producer/s: not shown
Year of Production: 2009
Duration: 90 MINUTES
Version: ORIGINAL
Format: DVD
Country/ies of origin: CANADA
Language/s: ENGLISH
Application type: FO2
Applicant: [REDACTED] S47G (1)(a)

Dates:
Date application received by the Classification Board: 05 July 2012
Date of decision: 02 August 2012

Decision:
Classification: RC
Consumer advice:

Synopsis:

[REDACTED] film which tells the story of a boy who survived a forced abortion which killed his mother, and which, at the age of eighteen, seeks to have his revenge on the pimp who murdered his mother.

Reason For Decision:

In making this decision, the Classification Board has applied the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Classification Act), the National Classification Code (the Code) and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005 (the Guidelines).

In the Board’s view this film warrants an ‘RC’ classification in accordance with item 1(a) of the films table of the National Classification Code:

“1. Films that:

(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena 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 classified;” will be Refused Classification.

The Guidelines state that sexual violence may be implied if justified by context within the R18+ classification; films will therefore be refused classification if they contain explicit depictions of sexual violence. The Guidelines also state that films will be refused classification if they contain gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed.

[Paragraph No. 1 – REDACTED]
Exempt under section 7(2) and Schedule 2 Part 2 Division 1

The sexual content and sexualised context both serve to heighten the overall impact of the violence viewed throughout the film. This content exceeds what can be accommodated within the R18+ classification and, as such, is Refused Classification.

Please note that the examples described below do not represent an exhaustive list of the content that caused the film to be Refused Classification.

Examples include but are not limited to the following:

[Paragraph No. 2 – REDACTED]
Exempt under section 7(2) and Schedule 2 Part 2 Division 1

[Paragraph No. 3 – REDACTED]
Exempt under section 7(2) and Schedule 2 Part 2 Division 1

[Paragraph No. 4 – REDACTED]
Exempt under section 7(2) and Schedule 2 Part 2 Division 1

In the opinion of the Board, this film contains depictions of violence, sexual violence and sexualised violence that are very high in impact and exceed what can be accommodated within the R18+ classification. As such, this film is Refused Classification pursuant to item 1(a) of the films table of the Code.

Decision:

This film is Refused Classification in accordance with item 1(a) of the films table of the National Classification Code.

Classification Board use only

Names of panel members constituted for decision
[REDACTED] S47F (1)

Details of opinions (including minority views):
UNANIMOUS

A senior panellist has confirmed that the application was valid under the Act.

A senior panellist has confirmed that all members constituting the Board for this decision have considered the application and that this Decision Report is a true and accurate reflection of the Board’s decision and any minority opinions

Decision signed off by a senior panellist.

Decision signed off by Director

Date
(required by all enforcement applications, commercial RC decisions and non-ISP ACMA RC decisions)

– Redacted Classification Board report

FOI – Why the redactions?

The dubious justifications for the missing information can be found in the following letter from the Attorney General’s Department.

22 January, 2013
Dear Mr Molloy
Re: Freedom of Information Request – Stage 2 Release

I refer to your request to the Department under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (‘the Act’) dated 17 September 2012. Your request was expressed in two parts. By agreement, Part A of your request was revised on 29 October 2012 and Part B was revised on 9 November 2012, such that your request, as revised, now seeks:

Part A
A machine-parseable dump (ie SQL dump) of the entire Classification database; and

Part B
Classification Board reports relating to the determination of an RC rating for content for the July-September 2012 quarter.

Decision

Pursuant to arrangements approved by the Secretary of this Department under section 23 of the Act, I am authorised to make decisions in relation to this matter on behalf of this Department.

This decision concerns Part B of your request and is the Stage 2 release which follows my Stage 1 decision of 27 November 2012 concerning Part A of the request.

I have decided to release the attached documents to you – some with deletions made to them. I trust they are useful. Where exemptions have been made, the provisions under which the material has been deleted are indicated on the face of the documents.

Section 26 of the FOI Act provides that where access to material has been denied to an applicant under the Act he or she shall be provided with a written statement setting out the finding on material questions of fact, the material on which those findings were based and the reasons for the decision. Such information, in relation to the material which has been exempted on this occasion, is set out below.

Findings on Material Questions of Fact

My finding on material questions of fact is that some of the documents you have requested contain:

• Material coming within the definition of ‘exempt content-service document’ in section 4 of the Act

• Personal information about identified individuals; and

• Material concerning the business affairs of identified organisations.

Material on Which Those Findings are Based

The material on which those findings are based consists of the documents themselves.

Reasons for Decision

Section 7

I have decided that with respect to some of the material, this Department and the Classification Board are agencies which are exempt from the operation of the Act under section 7 and Schedule 2 Part II Division 1 of the Act. That section and schedule provide:

“Exemption of certain persons and bodies

7 (2) The persons, bodies and Departments specified in Part II of Schedule 2 are exempt from the operation of this Act in relation to the documents referred to in that Schedule in relation to them.”

“Schedule 2 Part II — Agencies exempt in respect of particular documents Division 1

Attorney-General’s Department in relation to:

(c) exempt content-service documents concerning the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, under Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

Classification Board in relation to:

(a) exempt content-service documents concerning the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, under Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992;”

Section 4 of the Act defines “exempt content-service document” as:

“(a) a document containing content, or a record of content (within the meaning of Schedule 7 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ), that:

(i) has been delivered by, or accessed using, a content service (within the meaning of that Schedule); and

(ii) was offensive content-service content when it was delivered by, or accessed using, that content service; or

(b) a document that sets out how to access, or that is likely to facilitate access to, offensive content-service content (for example, by setting out the name of a website, an IP address, a URL or a password).”

The simplified outline of Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) provides:

“The following is a simplified outline of this Schedule:

• Content (other than an eligible electronic publication) is prohibited content if: (a) the content has been classified RC or X 18+ by the Classification Board; or

• Content that consists of an eligible electronic publication is prohibited content if the content has been classified RC, category 2 restricted or category 1 restricted by the Classification Board.

• Generally, content is potential prohibited content if the content has not been classified by the Classification Board, but if it were to be classified, there is a substantial likelihood that the content would be prohibited content.”

I have decided that some of the deleted material falls within these definitions and, as such, this Department and the Classification Board are agencies which are exempt from the operation of the Act as being required to disclose this material.

Section 47F

Some of the material is conditionally exempt under section 47F(1) of the Act which provides:

“(1) A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person).

The material which I have deleted under this provision is, in my view, conditionally exempt because it contains personal information about identifiable individuals – the disclosure of which I have decided would be unreasonable.

Section 11A(5) of the Act provides that a conditionally exempt document must be released to an applicant unless its disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. I have decided that disclosure of the material I have deleted would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. That is because, in my view, the factors in favour of disclosure (for instance, the public’s right to view Government-held documents) is outweighed on this occasion by the factors against disclosure, such as the individual’s right to privacy.

Section 47G

Some of the material is, in my view, conditionally exempt under section 47G of the Act. Section 47G(1)(a) provides:

“A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would disclose information concerning a person in respect of his or her business or professional affairs or concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking, in a case in which the disclosure of the information:

(a) would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect that person adversely in respect of his or her lawful business or professional affairs or that organisation or undertaking in respect of its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs;”

I have decided that disclosure of the information would constitute unreasonable disclosure of business affairs in circumstances where it would reasonably be expected to prejudice the affairs of the organisation concerned and cause harm and damage to that organisation.

As a conditionally exempt document, I have also considered the public interest factors both in favour and against disclosure of the information as required by section 11A(5) of the Act – which, as stated above, provides that a conditionally exempt document must be released unless its disclosure would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest. I have in this instance weighed the importance of the accountability and transparency of government processes against the need for private sector organisations to be able to conduct their affairs with a degree of privacy. On this occasion I have decided that disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

Right of Review

Should you wish to have my decision in this matter reviewed, you have two options. First, you can have it reviewed by a senior officer of this Department. Should you wish to pursue that course of action you should write to me within 30 days of receiving this letter. Alternatively, you can seek to have it externally reviewed by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC). Should you wish to pursue that course of action you should, within 60 days of receiving this letter, write to the OAIC requesting a review. The OAIC’s address is GPO Box 2999, Canberra City, ACT, 2601.

In this respect, I confirm the advice in my previous letter that the time limits for review of my decisions in either Stage 1 or Stage 2 will commence from the date of this letter.

– Stuart Plowman, Legal Officer, FOI & Privacy Section
– Office of Corporate Counsel, Attorney-General’s Department

Freedom of Information (FOI)

See our ‘Protest’ page for information on how you can make an FOI request.


Fathers Day

Directed by Astron-6 / 2011 / Canada – USA / IMDb

The Australian Premiere of FATHER’S DAY took place at Sydney’s Dendy Newtown cinema on March 24 2012. It screened as part of the sixth Night of Horror Film Festival.

Fathers Day (2011) - Advertisement 1
Ad – A Night of Horror

The film went on to pick up four awards, best male performance for Adam Brooks, best director, best feature film and best special effects.

Banned on DVD

In October 2012, a 99-minute DVD of FATHER’S DAY was refused by the Classification Board.

October 31, 2012
Reason: Film 1(a) The film is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Films Table, 1. (a) as films that ‘depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena 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 classified.’

– Classification Board

The applicant, Bounty Films, was due to release it on their Monster Pictures label.

Cancelled Film Festival screening

The Refused Classification rating meant that the film was dropped from Monster Fest.

October 2012
Monster Fest, 31 October – 9 November, Cinema Nova, Melbourne.

The Astron 6 mayhem continues with this tale of a daddy-defiler by the name of Chris Fuchman and his nemesis, a one-eyed vigilante named Ahab, who had his own male parent snuffed by the Father’s Day Killer. A hit at festivals across the globe, FATHER’S DAY is pure grindhouse madness and is brilliant on every level! See it on the big screen with an audience. And remember… Lock up your Fathers!

A few years back Winnipeg filmmaking collective Astron-6 produced a trailer for a feature idea they had called FATHER’S DAY. Soon enough Lloyd Kaufman came sniffing around and before long they hooked up with Troma to produce a feature length version of the film – FOR 10 THOUSAND BUCKS!!

Low budget films come and go but this film is proof positive that brilliance can be achieved on next to nothing. The performances from the Astron 6 team are universally top-notch, the score is amazing, the production design awesome, wardrobe is spot on, as is make-up, effects, stunts etc. It’s gory, sick and twisted yet utterly hilarious – this film seriously has everything! Make no mistake, FATHER’S DAY is one of the finest films of the last bunch of years – big budget, small budget, no budget, whatever! Mark my words – YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE FATHER’S DAY.

Astron 6 are one of the most exciting filmmaking teams on the planet at this point in time – this film has been scooping up awards all over the world and here is your chance to see why – where else will you see Lloyd Kaufman playing God and Satan not only in the one film, but in the one scene? SERIOUSLY PEOPLE THIS FILM IS UNMISSABLE!

Screening Times November 4, 2012, 8.00 pm

monsterfest.com.au

The Distributor responds

Monster Pictures were upset by the decision as it was their third title to have had censorship problems.

A year earlier, they had been forced to cut THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE (2011) after it too was refused. This was joined by HANGER (2009) in August 2012, which was never resubmitted.

November 2, 2012
Neil Foley, manager of Monster Pictures, decried the latest decision. ‘We think it’s an appalling decision. The film is a comedy, it’s been taken way out of context. We’re not really sure what scenes they have a problem with but there’s nothing in this film that hasn’t been seen before and anything that is in the film has been put there in the name of comedy by very talented, well-received and comic artists.’

Mr Foley noted that the film had been approved for release in Britain, a country that he claims is generally less forgiving in such matters. ‘It’s been taken in the right context everywhere in the world except Australia,’ he said.

– Dad rape, maple syrup and friendship’ movie banned
theage.com.au

November 2, 2012
The festival’s director, Neil Foley, believes the decision by the Classification Board to be outrageous, especially given that the film – which chronicles a one-eyed vigilante who sets out to prevent the murderous rampage of a psychopath – is playing within a festival dedicated to twisted genre pics. ‘Yes FATHER’S DAY is an edgy film,’ Foley acknowledges, ‘but it is an hilarious and over-the-top spoof that, despite its gore, is actually one of the sweetest films in the Monster Fest program!’

The Classification Board has not disclosed their reasons for the banning of the film, but Foley points to this as ‘yet another example of the draconian censorship in this country. Laws that restrict Australian adults from viewing legally produced materials.’

Foley experienced a similar predicament earlier in the year when another film he was distributing via Monster Pictures, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL CIRCLE [sic], was also banned before finally being granted an R18+ rating and a whole swag of free publicity in the process.

– Controversial Horror-Comedy Pic Banned In Melbourne
filmink.com.au

November 5, 2012
‘They’ve just given the Australian public an incentive to watch this film. It’s a lure for them now,’ Neil Foley, Festival Director and Monster Pictures Manager, told me. ‘For us as marketers it’s a hiccup in that it slows down our release strategy, but it also brings attention to the film…On the downside for us, people can now download the film for free and are much more inclined to do that.’

Foley says last week’s decision by the ACB to ban FATHER’S DAY took the company by surprise: ‘we absolutely did not see it coming.’ After all, the ACB did allow the award-winning film to screen in March this year at Sydney’s A Night of Horror International Film Festival despite now deeming that it offends ‘the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults.’

‘We are positioning ourselves as a genre film festival that shows films that push boundaries and challenge the status quo and the censors,’ says Foley.

‘We look for films that are edgy and confronting. If audiences know we’ve had a film banned, it can’t really hurt our reputation.’

– A handy tip for festival organisers: get your films banned
article @ crikey.com.au

Second application banned

Monster Pictures decided not to appeal the decision and instead submitted a censored print.

February 14, 2013
…we still have it slated for late march, so long as it passes this time. We took 31 seconds of penis out.

– Monster Pictures @MonsterPics
– twitter.com

Unfortunately, on February 22, the cut 98-minute version of FATHER’S DAY was also refused. The original uncut submission was listed as running 99-minutes.

The Classification Board’s reasons were the same as in October 2012.

Third application passed

On February 27, FATHER’S DAY was passed finally passed with an R18+ (High impact violence, blood and gore, themes and sex scenes) rating. This version was also reported as running 98-minutes.

The extended classification information described,
High impact: themes, violence, sex
Moderate impact: language, drug use, nudity

27 February 2013
#FathersDay for #monsterfest perth screening given the all clear from the classification board!

…latest edit. 98 mins long. about 40 seconds is gone.

…mostly shots of penis.

– Monster Pictures @MonsterPics
– twitter.com

On March 2nd, the censored version played at Perth’s Monster Fest at the Luna Palace Leederville.

Fathers Day (2011) - Advertisement 2
Ad – Monster Pictures

The DVD release followed on March 21.

Australian DVD cuts

On their website, Monster Pictures say that the R18+ version of FATHER’S DAY ‘…is less than 40 seconds shorter than the uncut version and we cut predominately full frontal shots of penis’s’.

This is confirmed by the following examination of the disc.

Fathers Day (2011) - DVD cover 1
DVD – Monster Pictures

Troy C reports.
Monster Pictures [au] – Censored R18+ DVD – 97:47 (NTSC)
Troma/Astron-6 Video [us] – Blu-Ray – 100:19 (NTSC)

According to IMDb, Troma’s DVD and Blu-ray was not the final cut of the film. It was missing some sound effects and colour tweaks but included extra shots of Walnut’s death. The final cut reportedly runs 98:32 (NTSC).

If that time is correct then it confirms the approximately 40-seconds that Monster Pictures said they removed. I have no idea why the Blu-ray runs nearly two minutes longer when Walnut’s death is supposed to be the only extra footage.

I noticed twelve individual cuts in four separate scenes and, although not timed, I would say around 40-seconds of trims is correct.

Flashback of oral rape by Fuchman
13:43 in R18+ version.
Before – Father O’Flynn says ‘Many Fathers were killed at that time. Not one was safe from the beast’.
Shot of the man eating a bread roll.
Censored – Boy screams.
Father O’Flynn says ‘And then one day…’.
Close-up shot of penis going into the man’s mouth.
The man’s son continues to scream.
After – Father O’Flynn says ‘…he found Ahab’s Father’.

Fuchman bites off Walnut’s penis
31:17 in R18+ version.
This scene contains footage such as Fuchman licking his lips and a shot of Walnut’s bloody face that only appears in the R18+ version.
Before – Fuchman begins to unbutton Walnut’s trousers.
Censored – Fuchman exposes Walnut’s penis.
After/Before – Twink looks on in horror as Fuchman looks up at him.
Censored – Fuchman bites Walnut’s penis.
After/Before – Chelsea watches and holds her hand to her mouth.
Censored – Side view of the Fuchman biting Walnut’s penis. This is followed by a close-up of him tearing it off.
After – Twink watches in horror.

Fuchman rapes & murders a man
40:45 in R18+ version.
Before – Fuchman cuts off his victim’s finger and it lands in the sink. Side view of him raping the victim.
Censored – Naked rear-shot of Fuchman. His testicles are visible as he rapes his victim.
After/Before – Close-up side view of the Fuchman.
Censored – Close-up of the victim’s bloody buttocks and Fuchman’s erect penis.
After – Fuchman holds up the victim’s organs.

Fuchman mutilates himself
53:29 in R18+ version.
Before – Fluid squirts from the end of a syringe. Close-up of the Fuchman’s face as he breaths heavily, followed by out of focus shot of his penis as the syringe moves toward it.
Censored – Close-up of the Fuchman’s penis as he injects it.
After/Before – Close-up of the Fuchman’s face as he breaths heavily.
Censored – Close-up of the Fuchman’s penis as he continues to inject it.
After/Before – Shot of the Fuchman’s face as he holds his head back and moans with pleasure.
Censored – Close-up of the Fuchman’s penis with liquid squirting from the syringe wound.
After/Before – Shot of the Fuchman’s face as he drops his head and groans, followed by a side view as he stands naked. His penis is obscured by white light at the base of the screen.
Censored – Fuchman’s erect penis is briefly shown above the white light as he opens a flick knife.
After/Before – A more obscured shot of his penis is shown with the open knife held above it. Close-up of his face.
Censored – Fuchman slicing the tip of his penis with the knife.
After/Before – Close-up of Fuchman panting with his tongue hanging out.
Censored – More explicit shot of the penis being cut.
After – Close-up of the Fuchman panting and groaning.

Censorship recap

August 9, 2013
FATHER’S DAY is a Canadian black comedy which tells the story of Ahab, a man obsessed with exacting revenge on the man who brutally raped and murdered his father. The Classification Board originally classified this film RC Refused Classification on 31 October 2012 as it contains actual sexual violence and sexualised violence that exceeds a high impact, including depictions of rape, sexualised torture, sexual activity with body parts and cannibalism.

A modified version of the film was also classified RC by the Classification Board on 22 February 2013 as the version submitted for classification contained an explicit depiction of sexual violence in a scene of sexualised torture that exceeded a high impact.

On 27 February 2013 the Classification Board viewed a further modified version of the film, this time with all depictions of explicit sexual violence removed. The Classification Board classified this version of the film R 18+ with consumer advice of ‘high impact violence, blood and gore, themes and sex scenes’.

– Classification Board, Annual Report 2012-2013

back to top of page arrow