This point came to me while I was watching Cannibal Ferox with friends the other night. While we watched the movie it came to a point where the captives are about to be eaten by the cannibal tribe -at least i think thats what happened, i wouldnt know, as that scene was cut out, making the rest of the film make no sense. We had no clue what had happened to the captives, all we knew is it wasnt pretty -and we’d missed it in all of its gruesome glory, courtesy of the bbfc.
Do moves really need to be censored to protect us? 25 years on watching these movies we have to wonder why these movies were taken as serious threats to society. Would the impact have been so great on society had we had been allowed to see these movies?
The video nasty act wasnt the ‘greatest attack on free speech ever,’ but one of ‘the greatest publicity events of the 80s’. The movies live on through being banned; they obtain legendary status because they were banned, making people only want to get hold of them all the more. The horror films that are now being made -the Saw’s and Hostel’s arent any different from what we’re seeing back in the 80s with Cannibal Holocaust and Zombie Flesh eaters? So called ‘Uncut’ versions of the films which are released on dvd are more of a marketing ploy rather than general censorship.
The wii game ‘Manhunt 2’ was banned last year until game developer Rockstar toned down the killings, but after 5 minutes of going through the death sequences, your left with a game that has poor controls and little replay value.
Censorship is supposed to ‘protect’ the public from devient artists -but shouldnt we have the choice over whether to view said entertainment for ourselves? Rather than cutting films to the point of being left with a unitelligible film because of the cuts. To take a quote from the marketing campaign of banned film ‘Last house on the left’: ‘Its only a movie’.