“What was the effect of the DPP list?”
By Oliver Hunt
Introduction
‘What was the effect of the DPP list?’ The DPP list is a list made by the BBFC and consisted of seventy four films which in the late seventies and early eighties where deemed too dangerous to be shown across the UK. Several films where added and taken off at one point or another and the list was first made public in June 1983.
It is unclear where the term Video Nasty came from however most people believe it first started in a British newspaper.
Some of the most popular and well known are Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead [Item 2] and Wes Craven’s Last House on the Left [Item 1] however other slightly well know films such as Cannibal Holocaust, are well known between horror fans.
Video Nasties that never made the DPP list
There also where some films on the DPP list which where never caught up in the ‘Video Nasty’ scare.
The more notable films where The Exorcist and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I believe that because The Exorcist was nominated for ten Academy Awards in 1973 it was not counted as a ‘Video Nasties’ because they had a reputation for being low-budget horror and with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre it’s hard to speculate. [Item 20]
Both however have been released on DVD uncut in the past decade almost thirty years after their release.
Who are the BBFC?
The BBFC are the British Board of Film Certification and have been running since 1912 as an “Independent body to bring a degree of uniformity to the classification of film”.
The BBFC classify every film that comes into the UK. A film needs a certificate by the BBFC otherwise it can not be distributed legally.
The Obscene Publications Act, 1959 and 1964
Then the Obscene Publications Act, 1959 and 1964 (OPA) made it illegal to publish any work which is obscene. In the late seventies early eighties, if a video managed to ‘deprave and corrupt’ an audience then it is deemed obscene. [Item 14]
For a film to ‘deprave and corrupt’ an audience it means that a film must be morally bad. For a film to be uncertificated by the BBFC because of the OPA, the film must be taken as a whole and not to be judged based on one or two scenes. [Item 16]
My focus Nasties
For my study on what the effect of the DPP list was, I looked at three well known video nasties. Wes Craven’s The Last House on the Left, Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead and Meir Zachi‘s I Spit on Your Grave. Each film, like so many other video nasties have only recently been released on DVD and uncut DVD’s in the UK.
Controversially behind The Last House on the Left
The Last House on the Left has had the most coverage because of persistent fans wanting the film to be released uncut. The film was first rejected for a certificate by the BBFC in July 1974 because of it’s extreme images of rape and murder.
In 2000 the film was represented to the BBFC but was turned down once again. Then in 2002 the distributors: Blue Underground Limited, made an appeal with the Video Appeals Committee so they could get the BBFC to give the film a certificate. They lost in the appeal because the BBFC wanted them to cut a total of sixteen seconds of sexual and violent images so the film could receive an 18 certificate which they weren’t prepared to do. So they brought in film critic Mark Kermode (who I will be mentioning through out because of his knowledge of video nasties) as a horror expert to produce a report on the films historical importance. After the BBFC read the report they changed the cuts from sixteen seconds up to thirty one. [Item 13, Item 20]
The cuts where made and the film was given the 18 certificate allowing it to be released. In July 2002, twenty eight years after it was first rejected, the film was finally released on DVD. It wasn’t until March 2008 when the film was first released uncut by the BBFC.
Controversially behind the other Nasties
With The Evil Dead and I Spit on your Grave the story of their releases where less complicated.
For The Evil Dead the BBFC insisted on cutting a long list of things. One scene involved a pencil being stabbed into a young woman’s ankle and twisted which the BBFC had cut down. [SHOW CLIP – THE EVIL DEAD - PENCIL SCENE] [Item 12]
With The Evil Dead the board of the BBFC at the time where split on whether the film was ‘over the top’ or ‘nauseating’. I think that The Evil Dead is a prime example that most (if not all) ‘Video Nasties’ are over the top. [Item 18]
For I Spit of your Grave the BBFC wanted to cut seven minutes of rape scenes watch became just 41 seconds of the heroine being raped over a rock. [Item 12]
Was the BBFC biased against The Last House on the Left?
In an article with Sight & Sound magazine, Mark Kermode argued that maybe the BBFC where more strict on English speaking films and The Last House on the Left in particular. He stated that with foreign films such a Saló and Baise-moi which involved more scenes that could ‘deprave and corrupt’ it’s audiences, but they where given a certificate by the BBFC. Because of this many people believe that the BBFC where biased against Last House on the Left. This isn’t hard to believe because of the amount of times the film got rejected. [Item 15]
Is there any point of a remake?
This year The Last House on the Left was remade by director Dennis Iliadis who is fresh into the business and with Wes Craven as the producer. This isn’t surprising seeing how he also produced the remake of his second film The Hills Have Eyes back in 2006. [SHOW CLIPS - The Last House on the Left (1972) - Trailer and The Last House on the Left (2009) - OFFICIAL TV SPOT 1]
The 1974 original was really a test on how far the horror genre and cinema can be taken. The film was made in response to the images coming out of Vietnam and Wes Craven himself walked out of the Reservoir Dogs premiere because he said it was just violence for entertainment but after this remake of one of cinema’s grittiest films, it seems like either he’s gone back on his words or is cashing in. [Item 11, Item 13]
I think that the remake doesn’t have any meaning or themes behind it (even if Dennis Iliadis has some war experiences). The original film is even a remake of a 1960 Swedish film called Virgin Springs.
I feel that this film was made for nothing more then for money. The original was banned because of it extreme nature and this remake is trying to ride on the films reputation.
In the Empire Magazine review for the remake; Kim Newson commented that original horror remakes are necessary but I think that simply can’t be the case with The Last House on the Left because the film was so horrible and grotesque that it shouldn’t be repeated. [Item 11]
Did the Video Nasties have an effect?
Now on too what was the effect of ‘Video Nasties’ on society. If films that where banned under the Obscene Publication’s Act where banned because they would ‘corrupt & deprave’ audiences then it must have some effect on it’s audiences? [Item 6]
In 1998 two months before the Columbine High School Massacre there was another high school shootings. According to newspapers the two teenage killers where addicted to ‘pizza and Video Nasties’ and that it was in fact the Video Nasties which led them to kill five people. [Item 9]
However this wouldn’t be the first time in the past decade that Video Nasties could have corrupted young minds. A few years back and a little closer to home; the James Bulger killing was reported in mainly newspapers to have ‘Chilling Connections’ between the murder act and the movie Child’s Play 3 (which was called a Video Nasty even though it was released in 1991). It was said that the killers mimicked what they saw in the film. [Item 4]
This leads to what Karen Newson said in her report; THE NEWSON REPORT: A case study in ‘common sense’. She said that maybe the killers from the High School massacre and even James Bulger’s child killers, emotionally connected to not the protagonist but the antagonist, in this case Chucky. [Item 4]
But is the DPP list something to point blame at? What about the families they came from? Or what their mental state was at the time? And how about the music they where listening to? I think it’s unfair to say that films on the DPP list are manufacturing killers. I even think that it’s not the fault of the movies because thousands of horror fans and non-horror fans watch ‘Video Nasties’ and do not go out a kill people. I believe it is their mental state which had ‘depraved & corrupted’ them from regular social behaviour.
Modern Video Nasties
After researching why some of the films where banned I began to look at films that would today be branded ‘Video Nasties’.
The first films I’m going to mention is David Cronenberg’s Crash which came out in 1996. When the film came out it was badly received and banned because of it’s controversial subject matter and was argued in a British newspaper, that is was morally bad.
More films which people will recognise are the Saw and Hostel franchises, which feel a lot like ‘Video Nasties’ and possible even Se7en.
The film I feel is most like a Video Nasty and likely to ‘deprave & corrupt’ is Lars von Trier’s Antichrist which has been released uncut in the UK. [Item 17]
In a video blog, Mark Kermode commented on what a newspaper said about Antichrist, the newspaper said: “Antichrist ticks off every box for it to be obscene with real sex scenes and genital mutilation and should be seen as morally repugnant.”
What his argument was, was that a film shouldn’t be judged as obscene because of what it does to it’s audiences but what it did to the production team.
I agree with his statement because how can the BBFC say what effect it will have on audiences. He even mentioned that Antichrist and The Evil Dead are similar in that they “both are set in a cabin in the woods, they are both about evil and they are both spam in a cabin horror movies” which also is a fair comment.
Conclusion
So to sum up everything and what I feel the effect of the DPP list was. I believe that a lot of the films from the DPP where graphic and disturbing, which possible led troubled and unsafe minds to commit murderous acts. However I believe it wasn’t just cinema alone which ‘depraves & corrupted’ them. I think that it was their own sanity which did it and films from the DPP list where an easy target for newspapers to point blame at. I also agree with Mark Kermode’s statement that a film shouldn’t be judged on a whether it will ‘deprave & corrupt’ audiences but if it had any effect on the production team. I Think the BBFC can’t say what effect art will have on it’s audiences. [Item 13]
I think that remakes of classic Video Nasties are only being produced because of the controversy and popularity that surrounds them whilst also believing that stories about rape, murdered and other gruesome acts shouldn’t constitute for a remake.
Really modern horror cinema has been formed out of the films from the DDP list. Films like Saw might not have come about if films like Driller Killer hadn’t be made or shocked audiences and modem horror films have a lot to thank for those films which where demeaned to ‘deprave & corrupt’ audiences. [Item 19]
Oliver Hunt
