Sunday, 25 October 2009

FM3 Film Blog Catalogue complete

Focus Films

Item 1: Focus Film - Last House on the Left (1972) Wes Craven - I picked this film because it is and will all ways be the definitive Video Nasty. It’s the most well known film from the DPP list (along side The Evil Dead) and includes the majority of things I talk about; rape-revenge, gore, recent remake.

Item 2: The Evil Dead (1982) Sam Raimi - The Evil Dead is second on my list of films is because it was one of the most well known video nasties thus it has a big fan base which might help support some of my evidence. It’s a good film to have because it shows how video nasties are just horror goofy amateur films and not necessarily to be taken seriously.

Item 3: I Spit on Your Grave (or Day of the Woman, 1978) Meir Zachi – I added this last film because it shows how a lot of films from the DPP list where misogynistic. It also connects with Last House on the Left because they’re both rape-revenge films.

Books

Item 4 : THE NEWSON REPORT: A case study in ‘common sense’ – Martin Barker (Ill Effects: The Media/Violence debate – Second edition, published by Routledge, edited Martin Barker and Julian Petley, 2001) – an interesting article in which Newson puts forward the idea that the audience (James Burlger’s killiers) related with the killer in Child’s Play 3: Chucky. The media said there was a ‘chilling connection’ between the film and the killers.

Item 5: I WAS A TEEN HORROR FAN – Or, ‘How I learned to stop worrying and love’ – Mark Kermode, page 131 - (Ill Effects: The Media/Violence debate – Second edition, published by Routledge, edited Martin Barker and Julian Petley, 2001) - I found a great article about what The Evil Dead meant to fans. And as Mark Kermode has said in the past; there is a fine line between us and them when it comes to horror (the ‘us’ being horror fans, myself included and the ‘them’ being everyone else).

Item 6: Media and Violence by Karen Boyle, 5 - 6 (Ill Effects: The Media/Violence debate – Second edition, published by Routledge, edited Martin Barker and Julian Petley, 2001) This article which I titled ‘Do Video Nasties cause High School shootings’ on my blog talks about a report in a case where it was said that the two teenage killers at a high school massacre where both video nasties fans. And hints to point the finger at the films.

Item 7: ‘LOOKS LIKE IT HURTS’ Women’s responses to chocking entertainment by Annette Hill 146 (Ill Effects: The Media/Violence debate – Second edition, published by Routledge, edited Martin Barker and Julian Petley, 2001) – this chapter talks about it’s not only men who like the ultra violence of films from the early 90s and even through it doesn’t speak of and video nasties I believe that same principles are the same.

Item 8: Rape and Revenge, page 136 – 140 (MEDIA AND VIOLENCE, published by SAGE Publications, by Karen Boyle, 2005) – This book was great because it has a section on rape revenge movies and talks specifically about I Spit on your Grave. It also has some interesting quotes from one of America’s top movie critics; Rodger Ebert.

Item 9: The effects of violence on the media, pages 2 – 5 (MEDIA AND VIOLENCE, published by SAGE Publications, by Karen Boyle, 2005) – this talks about how teenage killers identify themselves with the killers in the films. And in a High School massacre case the two killers watched Video Nasties which desensitised them into killing.

Journals

Item 10: Sight & Sound magazine - July 09 – Last House on the Left remake review – This supports why the original was so gritty because with the remake it’s saying there’s more polish in it.

Item 11: Empire Magazine - July 09 - Last House on the Left remake review – A second review for the 2009 remake of Last House on the Left which argues that this version is a more polished one but still a nasty film because it’s central theme is “violence begets violence.”

Item 12: The Independent – Tue 27th Sep 05 - Night Of The Living Video Nasties – This is a great section from the newspaper The Independent about the Video Nasties. I’m going to use this in my presentation to show all the major Video Nasties. It also has the plot, what the critics and what was cut section for all the films.

Internet

Item 13:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2009/03/last_house_but_one.html - The Last House on the Left but one, in this Mark Kermode talks about why there shouldn’t be a remake and how it was done fore the money.

Item 14:
http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/criminal_law - The Obscene Publications Act 1959 and 1964 - This site shows what the Obscene Publication’s Act was in a detailed way. With this and Mark Kermode’s blog it will help when talking about how my focus films and over video nasties where banned in shops.

Item 15:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/404 - Sight & Sound article -‘Left on the Shelf’- Mark Kermode questions the BBFC's 'new openness', this article talks about talks about other film like Romance, Ai no Corrida, Saló and Baise-moi and how there subject matter was delt by the BBFC in comparison to Last House on the Left. Also what Mark Kermode was trying to get at was; is the BBFC biased against not only English speaking films but more importantly The Last House on the Left?

Item 16:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2009/07/opa_280709.html - Obscene Publication’s Act - This Mark Kermode Uncut Film Blog is all about the Obscene Publication’s Act because of the recent controversial film Lar’s von Trier’s Antichrist. He talks about how the film Antichrist ticked off all the stuff which make it morally repugnant which technically makes it fall under the OBA.

Item 17:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jun/15/lars-von-trier-antichrist-uncut - Antichrist to be released uncut in the UK- This article from The Guardian newspaper talks about how the BBFC didn’t cut anything from Antichrist (example the self genital mutilation) because they said it wasn’t harmful for adults. And talks about how the tolerance the BBFC has gone down over the years.

Item 18:
http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/The_Evil_Dead - this is great because it has a section about how the board of the BBFC where divided over where the with was ‘over the top’ or ‘nauseating’.

Item 19:
http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/issues/horror - in this is talks about how Saw and Hostel (also Antichrist) and how they set the new bar for modern horror (and ‘torture porn movies’). This shows that along with Antichrist they could be seen as the new video nasties.
Item 20: http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/The_Last_House_On_The_Left - Details on The Last House on the Left and the controversy surrounding it. It also details the release details and the fight with the BBFC.
Catalogue completed 11th October 09.
Material Not Selected

I didn’t use was ‘I WAS A TEEN HORROR FAN – Or, How I learned to stop worrying and love’ (Item 5) because Mark Kermode picked up on some interesting points on the divide between horror fans and non-horror fans however I felt it wasn’t necessary in the piece because that divide is made apparent several times. I read a great article called ‘LOOKS LIKE IT HURTS’ Women’s responses to chocking entertainment’ (Item 7) about how women enjoy violent entertainment as much as men, however because it talked mainly about violent movies in the early 90s instead of violent horrors (and more specifically ‘Video Nasties’). The Sight and Sound review for Last House on the Left (remake, Item 10) was good to read but I felt wasn’t necessary to add it in.
Matrial Not Salected added 4th November 09

Friday, 2 October 2009

The BBFC on Antichrist: The Modern Video Nasty

If the film wasn’t shocking enough, what the BBFC said about Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist could have been even more shocking. however not for the same reasons. I saw Antichrist recently and it is the most shocking films I have ever seen (however I enjoyed it a hell of a lot) but something hit me. I was wondering why the BBFC hadn’t cut any of the ultra graphic scenes, for example the real sex scene or the self female genital mutilation. What is this? If something this disturbing has been approved for just an 18 certificate without any of it being cut then why did they single out Video Nasties in the late 70s.

Have they just given up with arguing with controversial directors? It took Last House on the Left about twenty years for it to get a release but a film this graphic can be shown. Even if the sauce of all this is from The Sun (probably the worst tabloid out there) it has a detailed what the BBFC said about the film and why it wasn’t banned. I believe that the film Antichrist is a modern Video Nasty but even though it’s as shocking as it’s basterd grandparents, it was let fly uncut. Amazing…

“BBFC director David Cooke said: (about Antichrist) “The film does not contain material which breaches the law or poses a significant harm risk to adults. The sexual imagery, while strong, is relatively brief, and since 1990 the Board has passed a number of works containing such images. “This reflects the principle, strongly endorsed in a number of public consultations, that adults should be free to decide for themselves what to watch or what not to watch, provided it is neither illegal nor harmful.” The sex in Antichrist is certainly too unpleasant to gratify most normal people. But the popularity of “torture porn” films such as Hostel and Saw suggests the BBFC are wrong. Even Von Trier admits that Antichrist — out here on July 24 — might be porn and that his “perversions” are reflected in the film. The Sneak is against banning films, but the BBFC has definitely become more liberal over the past couple of decades. Films that would have been rated 18 in the past are now 15 or 12A.”

Source

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 and 1964

I got this bit from the SBBFC site and added it because it shows what the Obscene Publication’s Act was in a detailed way. With this and Mark Kermode’s blog it will help when talking about how my focus films and over video nasties where banned in shops.

“It is illegal to publish a work which is obscene. The Obscene Publications Act (OPA) was extended to include films and videos in 1977. Prior to that the only legal test applied to films was the much vaguer test of common law indecency. Under the OPA a film may be deemed obscene when, taken as a whole, the work has a tendency to 'deprave and corrupt' ‘(ie make morally bad) in parentheses a significant proportion of those likely to see it. It is important to note that a film must be considered as a whole and that individual scenes must not be judged out of the wider context of the complete work. Even a film that would normally be considered obscene can be shown if 'it is in the interests of science, art, literature, or learning or of other objects of general concern'.”

Source

Thursday, 1 October 2009

I Was a Teenage Horror Fan...

I found a great article about what The Evil Dead meant to fans. And as Mark Kermode has said in the past; there is a fine line between us and them when it comes to horror (the ‘us’ being horror fans, myself included and the ‘them’ being everyone else). But what this also does is sort of justify what die hard fans see in video nasties (the majority and of course ruling out rape revenge films) and why we keep seeing more and more of these low budget films.

Item: I Was a Teenage Horror Fan or, ‘How I learned to stop worrying and love Linda Blair’ by Mark Kermode (age 36) – (Ill Effects: The Media/Violence debate – Second edition, edited Martin Barker and Julian Petley, 2001, page 131-132)

“The truth is simply that the experience horror fan understands the on-screen action in terms of a heritage of genre knowledge which absolutely precludes the possibility of sadistic titillation. Nowhere in The Evil Dead does the horror fan see the actual torture, mutilation or violence of the human form (as they would do in a John McNaughton’s solidly unfunny Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer). What they see is the playful trashing of a tradition of special effects work, in which the refining of various latex additives has opened up vistas of possibilities for enthusiastic armature film-makers everywhere. To the horroe fans, The Evil Dead is about as threatening as a pop group smashing up their guitars on stage – it’s stupid, but it’s huge fun none the less.”