Hi,
I recently discovered this article of mine, (dating back at least a couple of years now), originally intended for publication on another site, but which - for reasons I no longer recall - it never made it online. As such, and because I thought you might all find this of interest, here are...
Ten Extremely Disturbing Movie
Moments That Got Past The British Censors!
The
BBFC is the UK’s film censorship body, and unlike the USA, where films can be
released uncut and uncensored, without a certificate, every film here has to be
classified. And as many of you with even the most cursory knowledge of film
censorship history will know, the BBFC have been very strict about what does
and does not pass them, even at the most restrictive levels of classification –
18 certificates.
Now,
this article is not going to go into the rights and wrongs of censorship, nor
am I going to argue for more or less censorship either. They are discussions
for another day. Today, though, we focus on the Ten Most Shocking Scenes that
did pass through the BBFC. We shall start our countdown at the 10th
most extreme title, and work our way up to the granddaddy of nastiness. As
ever, these choices are my own, and are open to debate.
10
- THE STORY OF RICKY (1991, Ngai Choi Lam)
If
you like live-action manga, or martial-arts films, this one will deliver scenes
you will never forget, in spades. When a teenage boy is incarcerated into a
maximum-security prison, he is forced to endure painful beatings from both
fellow prisoners and wardens, using his super-powered martial arts skills. In
the film’s most memorable scene, Riki-Oh (Siu-Wong Fan) tackles a muscle-bound
opponent, by tearing a hole in his stomach, ripping out his intestines, and
strangling him with them! Passed uncut in 2002. If it weren’t so unbelievably
far-fetched and outrageous, it would be incredibly disturbing. Not unlike our
next entry...
9
- BAD TASTE (1988, Peter Jackson)
Peter
Jackson’s first film was a gory little affair. Aliens are taking over New
Zealand, and it’s down to The Boys (Jackson and fellow cohorts Terry Potter, Craig
Smith, Peter O’Herne and Mike Minett) to save the country, and possibly even
the world. With an almost zero-budget, and filmed over a two-year span, this is
still one of the best horror films ever committed to celluloid. Original,
inventive, and full of scenes you won’t forget in a hurry, one of the most
memorably nasty being Jackson’s cameo as an alien indulging in a bit of light
soup-consumption, when a corpse has the top third of the skull missing, and the
brain has been liquidised. The film pans up, and you see the corpse, with a few
odd squirts of blood still ejaculating, and there is Jackson, dessert spoon
in-hand, happily (and furiously) digging into some mashed brains. The film was
passed uncut by the BBFC in April 1989.
8
- BRAINDEAD (aka DEAD ALIVE) (1992, Peter Jackson)
Another
bloody Jackson affair. Timothy Balme plays Lionel, a mummy’s boy. Bored, alone,
single, until one day, the beautiful Paquita (Diana Penalver) arrives, and
turns his life upside down. After Lionel’s mum gets bitten, (in a sickeningly
funny scene also involving pudding and a pus-filled boil), by a Sumatran
monkey, she turns rabid and goes on the warpath. It’s up to Lionel to save the
day, even if it does involve killing his dear-old Mum. Peter Jackson’s early
splatterfest was – rather surprisingly – released uncut in the UK, but cut in
the USA – due to the graphic and blood-filled finale, which has to be seen to
believed. The highlight, if you can call it that - is the mass slaughter of
half of Lionel’s sleepy town, by lawnmower blades to the face! Gallons and
gallons of gore ensue, as do limbs of every description, as they fly past the
camera’s lingering gaze. The comedic tone helps diffuse any potential offence,
but it’s a scene of gore that ranks up there as being one of the most
in-your-face.
7
– DUMPLINGS (2004, Fruit Chan)
Ah,
there’s nothing like Far Eastern food. Chinese, Thai or Japanese, they have so
much culinary delights to offer us, but this is one thing you would definitely
not want to eat, no matter what. Asian actress extraordinaire Bai Ling take on
the role of chef Mei, a woman who will stop at nothing to make the most
delicious dumplings in town. Her food is so popular, that she promises they
will improve a woman’s health, even to making her look and feel younger. But
like any food scare, if customers knew what was inside them, the Asian Food
Standards Agency would be having severe words.
This
film was originally a short – part of three films made for the acclaimed
THREE... EXTREMES (2004). It was then expanded to feature-length, and released
separately. The notoriety of the film is because of the main ingredients of the
dumplings themselves – aborted baby foetuses! Mei has discovered that by mixing
them up and adding them into her food, they can enhance the consumer’s physical
appearance. The detriment, is the problem in obtaining a steady supply of
foetuses, and staying one step ahead of the law. The subject matter alone may
put many of you off this stunning and shocking piece of Asian Extreme cinema,
but it’s definitely a film that lingers in the memory.
6
– BAD BOY BUBBY (1993, Rolf De Heer)
The
Western World is one that loves its animals. Even though as adults, we know
full well where our meat comes from, and how items like leather are made, it’s
still very shocking to see animals appearing to be harmed or in distress.
Moreso in fictional cinema films. This Australian shocker is not one many of
heard of, but it gained notoriety on the festival circuit, not only for its
content, but for its subject matter. Bubby (Nicholas Hope) has lived in
complete isolation from the world, for over 35 years. His whole existence, has
been formed and restricted by his domineering and disturbed mother (Claire
Benito), who has controlled everything he sees, hears and does, inside a
grotty, unkempt shed of an apartment. Forcing him to have sex with her, is one
of her daily delights. When Bubby’s father makes an appearance, from the
Outside, Bubby’s world is turned upside down. Mother has taught him that no one
can breathe on the Outside, without a gas mask, due to the putrefying
atmosphere. So, when Pop (Ralph Cotterill) appears, seemingly unharmed from the
Outside, Bubby starts to think for himself.
What
makes the film so shocking for many, is the atmosphere that director De Heer
creates for the audience. One memorably shocking scene, is Bubby’s taunting and
torture of Cat – the pet cat. When Cat is covered in cling-film like an
Egyptian Mummy, and suffocates, Bubby starts to test the clingfilm on himself,
and then others, resulting in the killing of both his Mother and Father, before
he finally breaks free, and unleashes himself on the world Outside, leading to
humour and tragedy. In the Blu-ray booklet, Benito notes that at no time was
any cat actually harmed or put under duress during the film’s making, so
thankfully, audiences are assured that no torture took place. But for many
years, many audiences and film classification boards believed that a cat really
had been killed. If you didn’t know this beforehand, then seeing Bubby’s
torture of Cat makes for very harrowing viewing. Although originally cut by the
BBFC for all previous cinema and home viewing editions, BAD BOY BUBBY was
finally passed uncut in 2007. Even today, it’s still an unnerving scene to
view. (N.B. The Blu-Ray was deleted a few years back, but can still be bought online for a reasonable sum, from Amazon UK!)
5
- SALO, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM (1975, Pier Paolo Pasolini)
Pasolini
was never a man to do things by half. His works are always contentious and
challenging, forcing viewers to confront themselves and the scenes he dares to
place up on the screen. SALO was no different, but it was a film that sadly
came at an extreme personal cost. Adapting the Marquise De Sade’s magnum opus
“The 120 Days Of Sodom” for a modern-audience was never going to be an easy
task. The novels frequently repellent and graphic descriptions of forced
consumption of bodily waste, was seen as being nothing more than outright
pornography. It is still seen in this manner. Modifying the story, Pasolini
changed the setting, and reframed it, to set it in the small, Italian town of
Salo, and created a film of monstrous proportions.
Blending
in the theme of Fascism, SALO is a masterful and depressing experience. In
fact, for many, it is a work they cannot sit through. The tone is amoral, and
so unrelenting, few can stomach it for a few minutes, let alone almost two
hours! At number five in our rundown, this is a film that few will want to
stomach even now. Coprophagia, or the consumption of faeces, is not something
many of us would choose to indulge in, let alone be a witness too. As a form of
torture, it would be considered one of the most nauseating. Combine this with
scenes of naked teenagers, bound, gagged and being treated like dogs would be
seen as going overboard. But this is Pasolini, and this is SALO. When a set of
Libertines meet-up in Salo, in order to indulge in a week-long session of
excess, little do their teenage prisoners know what is in store. Captured,
tortured, stripped naked and dehumanised, they are forced to indulge in some of
the sickest punishments possible. Sex with the libertines. Sex with each other.
And then the Torture. Eating faeces, and/or faeces with nails hidden inside it,
are scenes that – for most – go too far. Originally banned by the BBFC, but
shown uncut in 1977, in numerous of London’s “Club” cinemas, the film was
finally passed uncut for the masses, thanks to the British Film Institute, in
2000. Whether cut or uncut, the film’s notorious scenes of defilement are tough
for any adult to sit through. Can you?
4
– IRREVERSIBLE (2002, Gaspar Noe)
Gaspar
Noe was always a controversial director. From his early film CARNE (1991)
through SEUL CONTRE TOUS (aka I STAND ALONE) in 1998, Noe’s films are
frequently violent, frequently unsettling, and frequently disturbing. His use
of flash photography, and speeded-up scenes that are borderline hyperkinetic
cause many audiences to suffer. IRREVERSIBLE was going to test even those with
cast-iron stomachs. Monica Belluci and Vincent Cassel are happily married
couple (off-screen and on) Alex and Marcus. One night, their world is shattered
forever more, when Alex is brutally raped.
The
film, told entirely backwards, starts off with the film’s end-credits, and ends
with its opening titles. Rape has been explored in many films, in titles such
as THE ACCUSED (1988) with Jodie Foster, through to notorious exploitational
shockers like Zeir Marchi’s original Video Nasty, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (1980).
The subject matter alone can repel an audience, before it even sees a single
frame, and many people would prefer film never show scenes of rape at all, as
they feel it is insensitive and exploitational, as well as deeply disrespectful
for real-world victims of rape, who suffer from the emotional and physical
trauma and scars that it can leave. Noe pushed the boundaries, and caused a
stir at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival with IRREVERSIBLE, when for nine whole
minutes, we see Alex’s rape in a Parisian underpass. The scene is unrelenting,
and audiences have walked out in disgust as well as anger, at being a witness
to the seemingly-unending sequence. The film’s rape scene became notorious
around the globe after Cannes, and when it came to the film being submitted by
UK arthouse company Metro Tartan Distribution in September of the same year,
caused the BBFC many problems. Could they pass the scene intact? Was it
exploitational? Was it obscene? Was it just grossly offensive?
On
top of this, the film contained a second, equally notorious and uncomfortable
sequence, in which a man in a nightclub has his head bashed-in to a bloody
pulp, with a fire extinguisher. During screenings at the BBFC, several
examiners saw the film, alongside the then Director, Robin Duval and even the
BBFC Presidents. The BBFC stated:
“There
was strong support for passing the work uncut at 18, despite many examiners
declaring the film to be both challenging and gruelling.”
Yet, it was the
two scenes of violence that caused them to think long and hard whether UK
audiences would concur, that adults should be allowed to see such a film in
their local cinema.
According
to the BBFC:
“The Board considered the
(nightclub) scene justifiable in the context of the narrative as a whole, and
that there were no convincing grounds for intervention at 18. The film did not
glamorise or promote such violence, nor was there any attempt to encourage
audience complicity. Cutting the scene to reduce the number of blows or gory
detail would have served no useful purpose regarding the impact of the scene on
the audience. The bloody violence... is unusually explicit, with an almost
seamless use of CGI effects and props to depict a man being battered repeatedly
in the face with a fire extinguisher, over 20 times. Many, if not all, of the
blows are fully visible and foregrounded, with his face eventually collapsing
as the blows continue, accompanied by wince-inducing, loud sound effects, and
bones and bloody flesh flying off under the impact.”
After
much discussion, including interviewing a leading clinical forensic
psychologist as to whether the film’s scene would be likely to be harmful,
under the Obscene Publications Act and the BBFC’s own guidelines on the
portrayal of sexual violence at the time. The psychologist agreed that whilst
the rape scene was incredibly brutal and raw to view, at no point was Alex nor
the rape endorsed, nor was it portrayed to be titillating in any form. As such,
the BBFC were happy to pass the film completely uncut. However, Metro Tartan
themselves also recommended that cinemas showing the film, warn their patrons
that the film contained material that many “were likely to find disturbing or
offensive”, due to the extreme content it housed.
Thankfully,
despite protestations from the Tabloid press, the film was seen and generally
endorsed by many as being a harrowing and raw experience, and one that
demonstrated that rape was never a pleasant or nice event. In fact, many male
as well as female audience-members couldn’t stomach the rape scene. Was this a
good thing? Maybe the BBFC were right, and having a film that portrayed rape in
such a clinical, cold, unfiltered and unflinching manner, was actually a stark
warning to men, not to go out and rape women. Whatever your view of such a
scene being included, the film is unrepentant, brutalising and very difficult
to stomach. At home, even in its uncut format however, some of the film’s power
is removed, as you can skip the rape sequence, if you should chose to do so.
This is one film where being confined to the dark realms of a cinema, actually
enhances the film’s authenticity.
3
- PINK FLAMINGOS (1972, John Waters)
The
heroine (or should that be hero) of our film, is the bitchy, snidey, and
foul-mouthed Divine in the role of Babs Johnson, who wishes to attain the title
of the Filthiest Person Alive. That, is no mean feat, especially when your
arch-nemesis is the deliciously disgusting Connie and Raymond Marbles, (Mink
Stole and David Lochary respectively), who will do anything to remain top of
the filth-heap, including but not limited to the kidnapping of women, forcibly
inseminating them and then selling off the babies to lesbian couples; funding
porno stores and getting schoolkids hooked on heroin. Throughout the films
92-or-so minutes duration, we see a boy having sex with a chicken then killing
it; syringe semen injection into a woman’s vagina, and a singing anal passage.
This film is definitely not for those with delicate sensibilities. But nothing,
and I do mean nothing, comes close to the film’s shocking climax – a feat that
no one has yet come close too – when Babs follows a dog-walker around town,
sees the dog evacuate its bowels, and she then picks-up and consumes the bowel
movement, in two tasty, chomping consumptions! No cuts, no edits, all in one
single disgusting take. Divine really does eat shit! It’s briefness is the only
reason it’s not at the top of this list. If you haven’t seen this film, there’s
a reason why its notoriety still exists. The BBFC would have passed this uncut
in 2008, however the UK Distributor decided to withdraw the film from
submission at the time, and it has never been resubmitted since.
2
– ANTICHRIST (2009, Lars Von Trier)
Another
Cannes film that caused a stir, and again, further accusations of misogyny of
its director. This time, Danish director Lars Von Trier was the man at the
centre of the storm, and just as IRREVERSIBLE before it, ANTICHRIST was going
to divide everyone who came into contact with it.
Von
Trier was no stranger to controversy. His earlier film, THE IDIOTS (aka
IDIOTERNE) (1998) had also been provocative and inflammatory at Cannes, when it
featured a storyline featuring “normal” people pretending to “spaz” out, or
acting like people with severe physical, emotional and/or mental disabilities.
Once more, the BBFC took advice as to whether the film could be passed uncut in
the UK, as not only the subject matter was of concern, but also the film’s
brief, explicit, but unsimulated shot of sexual penetration was problematic.
Again, the BBFC agreed to release the film uncut with a warning to cinemas and
cinemagoer’s about the film’s challenging themes. (On VHS and DVD, the film was
initially cut, and then passed uncut a few years after.)
In
this angst-ridden, but taboo-busting film about recovery, Willem Defoe and
Charlotte Gainsbourg, as He and She. When their young son is killed in an
accident, She goes into a psychological meltdown. He is forced to use his
skills as a therapist to try and help her recover, but all is not what it
seems, and they retreat into a remote cabin in the woods to confront the deadly
and unseen forces at work. Both lauded and derided by critics at the 2009
Cannes Film Festival, Von Trier was never going to be a director to make a film
that would sit comfortably with audiences or journalists, and this film was no
different. What caused the uproar, was not the film’s theme, but the appearance
of deep-rooted misogyny that seems to percolate throughout the entire 108-minute
duration. The film’s climax, with She taking revenge on He, is where the film
really caused major uproar. In it, and the reason this film is at Number 2 on
our list, are two scenes of genital mutilation that go beyond what anyone
thought would ever be considered appropriate to include in any film. As She
descends ever more into her psychological and mental breakdown, She knocks out
He. She then proceeds to mutilate him, by drilling a hole through his leg and
attaching a heavy grindstone weight, to immobilise him. She also breaks his
penis, and he ejaculates blood within his semen. Shocked enough? When She hits
rock bottom, she mutilates herself, by – and I apologise to our more sensitive
readers – snipping off her clitoris, with a pair of rusty scissors!
Now,
such scenes were faked – using prosthetics and body-doubles – but for many,
these two scenes were two scenes too far! When premiered at Cannes, festival
attendees walked out in disgust, and they were alleged fainting from some
viewers. When the film gained heavy press coverage, UK film fans were wondering
whether Von Trier really did show this “money shot” or whether this was simply
the tabloid press getting into a hysterical fit, like it usually does (cue a
lengthy diatribe from Daily Mail scribe Christopher Tookey, who penned an
article about this sickening film, which was followed by numerous piss-taking
from film fans and film viewers across the globe, destroying every part of his
article)!
At
the BBFC, they were acutely aware, that if Von Trier’s film really did feature
the material it claimed to do, then there could well be problems. After viewing
the film, the BBFC decided that these shocking scenes neither breached their
guidelines, nor that of English Law, and whilst likely to upset or offend many,
were “exceptionally justified by the context”. The film was duly passed uncut
and uncensored on 12th June 2009 for cinema viewing, and again, on
13th May 2010 for home viewing. To be fair, without the media
attention, the film would still have gained some notoriety, but not nearly half
as much as it did. As such, the Tabloid Press did more to help the film, than
to decry it. Still, the scenes are taboo-busting in every sense of the word,
and as such, they are definitely not what many would want to view. But they
aren’t the worst offenders to have passed the BBFC uncut. That position is
relayed for our Number One movie. A film so graphic and repugnant, that it was
banned for many, many years by many countries, and kick-started the
film-within-a-film genre...
1
– CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1979, Ruggero Deodato)
This
film is the number one most grotesque film that is legally available, A film
that contains so many shocking scenes, that it wasn’t technically passed for
legal home viewing, until May 2011, and even then, it still has 15 seconds of
cuts remaining. This is the granddaddy of all horror films. The one that no
self-respecting horror movie buff should not own or have seen at least once in
their lifetime. It is a film that will guarantee to disturb, upset and offend,
and that’s even if many of you will sit through the entire 92-minutes of it...
which many can’t!
In
1979, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST was released onto an unsuspecting world. An
Italian-American horror flick, that was neither the first nor last, of the
cannibal/third-world-savage genre that was popular at the time, and a staple
diet of the Italian and American film industry too. A group of American film
students from New York travel to the fabled Green Inferno, near the Amazon
river, to discover whether cannibalism still exists, and to document it. When
they arrive, their methods of filming leave a lot to be desired, and when the
local natives are pushed too far by the students’ antics, they rebel in the most
violent and angry manner.
Deodato’s
tale was a riposte to all of the television news stories of the time, that
packaged-up tales of war and death, to make them tolerable for tea-time
audiences, whilst simultaneously decrying the abominable footage they were
airing. Trying to explain to his son, what the news was showing proved hard for
Deodato, and hence, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST was born.
Until
2011, this film was effectively banned within the UK, though easily importable
from the US and easily available legally in many other countries. Bizarrely, in
Australia, it’s been legally available for many years uncut, yet Australia has
one of the toughest (and oddest) film classification boards of its kind. (A
film can be classified as legal one minute, then have that classification
rescinded the next, and suddenly that film can instantly become illegal to
own!) But for UK horror fans, bootlegged VHS tapes and discs found their way
into the UK, often from the Netherlands, the US and across the waters in France.
So why is this film at the Number One spot?! Simply put, this film breaches so
many taboos, its notoriety so infamous, its content so extreme, you have to
wonder how this could be passed at all.
The
combination of violence, gore, real-animal slaughter (performed on-screen, and
in unrelenting close-up), plus some odious sexual violence, and scenes of rape,
has pretty much guaranteed this film its notoriety forever. Anyone who has sat
through this film, or attempted too, will tell you that CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST is not
for the faint-hearted or the squeamish. Even hardcore horror film fans, such as
myself, consider this film to be the strongest, legal horror film available on
our shores. Yet, for me, what makes this film so brilliant, is that it does
horrify you. It forces you to endure the graphic and unpleasant imagery
on-screen. It says to you, “I am a horror film that will utterly horrify and
repel you, because you’ve chosen to watch a horror film to be scared”. And
isn’t that the point of any good horror film? Shouldn’t action films be
thrilling? Shouldn’t comedies make us laugh? If they don’t, then they aren’t
doing their jobs, are they?
Well
this one, will horrify you, and sicken you, and that’s even – as I said earlier
– if you can stomach it. If you are easily offended, then you may not wish to
read on. There are around five scenes of animal cruelty in the film: the first
being the killing of a Coatimundi, a muskrat-type creature, that is killed, by
having a flick-knife blade put through its stomach, and sliced open. As the
actor undertaking this does so, the poor creature screams in agony, until it
dies, where it is then torn open and its inside ripped out. A Sea-Turtle is
dragged out of a river, turned upside down onto its back, where it flails
around, only for one of the cast to behead it, hack off one of its legs, and
then rip the shell from its belly, and play around with its internal organs. A
monkey is decapitated, and its brains removed and eaten – for real. A piglet is
kicked, then killed with a shotgun, at point blank range. A snake is
chopped-up, and a tarantula mashed with a machete. On top of this, there are
two scenes of graphic rape, and the first is probably the most troubling. A
native woman is caught, and viewers are told she probably breached a native or
cultural law, by sleeping with a tribesman. The woman is raped, and then a
small ball of mud is formed, with large wooden spikes in it. This torture is
designed as a punishment, we are told. The ball is repeatedly jammed into her
vaginal area. Then, the poor woman has her head smashed in with a rock, and she
is left on the riverbank to die. (All of this is simulated, but it’s deeply
uncomforting to watch.) Lastly, we see what happens to another woman, where –
again with clever camera trickery and crude special effects – we see a woman
impaled on a six-foot-high wooden pole. The pole enters her backside, and exits
through her mouth. (In fact, the actress concerned, simply sat on a partial
wooden pole, with a bicycle seat on it, then placed, a balsa-wood replica of
the top, spiked part of the pole, in her mouth.) The effect is shocking
nonetheless.
With
the exception of the Coatimundi killing, all the other scenes were passed at
18, by the BBFC. They said that all the animal killings were clean, and would
have caused minimum distress to the animals concerned. The additional fact that
the killings were considered culturally normal for the locales the film was
produced in, also allowed the BBFC to pass these scenes uncut, as the killings
would have taken place anyway, irrespective of whether the cameras were there
to film or not.
Even
then, the animal killings are scenes that most people cannot and will not
stomach. In screenings in the USA, people have walked out. The combination of
fictional slaughter and real-life slaughter, were often too much to deal with
psychologically. In fact, that is why this film is so great. You can be angry
at the way it gives you its message, but the message is still pertinent –
namely that violence should be shocking, and that White Westerners should not
impose their ideology onto other countries and customs, just because we feel we
are morally superior. We are just as savage to natives people, such as the
three tribes depicted in CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, as they appear savage to our
Western eyes.
With
that all said and done, though, this film still retains the power to shock
anyone who dares to watch it. It’s extremely brutal stuff, but still worth
viewing. In my eyes, it’s probably the finest horror film ever made. And that
is why it gains the top spot in my chart of Ten Extremely Disturbing Movie
Moments That Got Past The British Censors!
