It was a beautiful evening this evening as I took myself into Leicester Square to see Video Nasties: Draconian Days at the Prince Charles cinema. There was such a crowd outside that I wondered whether I'd be able to get in - turned out they were eavesdropping on an interview being conducted with someone I think was associated with the film - I'm not an expert. Anyway, I bypassed the excitement and queued for a ticket - it always takes forever here. Made my way downstairs and chose a seat. This was very well attended - turned out it was the world premiere, and several rows were reserved for guests. I squeezed into a seat. Unfortunately, I then had to get up lots of times, because the rows are quite tight here and people haven't a hope of squeezing past you unless you stand. And even then, you'd better be comfortable with close physical contact.
Anyway, this is a documentary about when various films, considered exceptionally gory, violent, sexually explicit, or all of the above, were heavily censored or outright banned, and classified as "video nasties". The censorship was stricter on videos, which could be watched at home, than on cinema releases - it was felt that it was easier, in a cinema, to control who saw a film, but that at home there was the danger that children could see something inappropriate. I remember all this from when I was growing up, and the ensuing furore - in particular, how such films were blamed for inciting the boys that killed Jamie Bolger, something that's highlighted in this film.
It was obvious, of course, which side this audience were on. Much derision greeted any clips of interviews with the censors - at least at the start, although as the other side of the argument was shown, the audience calmed down a bit. Some offending clips were shown - and you could see what was objectionable about them. Much was made of how the United Kingdom had "the most repressive censorship regime in Western Europe". Eh, excuse me, Ireland had the same! To be fair, the hysteria was imported from the UK, I think.
So, following the timeline demonstrated by the film: prior to the Jamie Bolger case, it was kind of academic - but after the murder, people developed a hysteria about such films, the term "video nasty" was coined, and video stores were seen to burn copies of these films. Someone in this film rightly compared that to the book-burning carried out under the Nazi regime. Various titles were banned outright. There's a very funny clip from a tv interview where the panel included a horror film director, who was the only calm and rational one there. The myth of "snuff films" arose, with people as notable as Charlie Sheen saying that what they had seen on screen must have been real, with people really dying. As one of the interviewed filmmakers remarked, to come out with such a comment, you'd really have to know very little about what special effects could do. Or just be very stupid.
The next part of the film is the bit I found most interesting, after all the enthusiasts of this kind of film had to go underground. So they produced cheap magazines at home, distributed them among like-minded people, met at trade fairs. They had to smuggle titles in from abroad, feeling, as one described it, like drug smugglers. There were all-night horror marathons at various venues in the UK, where they would meet to view banned films. There was a great sense of camaraderie, and of showing two fingers to the powers-that-be: although the threat of prosecution always loomed over them.
Finally, the censor who'd held sway for so many years found himself unable to battle both porn and violence - so he decided to concentrate on the violent films, which he considered more dangerous. However, he unilaterally decided, overnight, to legalise all forms of pornography. Without a by or leave, as they say. And found himself facing an irate public. He resigned soon after - and was replaced by someone who promptly legalised everything.
There is an argument that banning something makes it more attractive. I've always found that to be the case. Some films you wouldn't believe could have been banned, and I'm very glad, for instance, that the ban was lifted on The Exorcist - one of my favourite films. It seems so ridiculous now to hear that their objection wasn't so much specifically what happened in it, as that it was happening to a 12-year-old girl, so other 12-year-olds would be likely to see it. You what..?!
Anyway, afterwards, I'd had enough of people talking about it, so I skipped the star-studded Q+A and made for the Tube instead. Where I found myself right behind an enormous group of what looked like Japanese schoolkids. That wasn't the end of it though.. as I entered the station, the police were deploying themselves frantically to the lower levels. I soon saw why - I have never seen the Tube so crowded. They let us go down no-entry corridors to relieve the crush. Luckily, most seemed to be going Eastwards. I moved right up the platform and got on at the front of the train, to avoid the worst of it. Even got a seat. I was to be glad I got on at that station though - the crowd at the next station, Piccadilly Circus, was much worse..
Well, I'll be braving the increased security checks at Heathrow tomorrow, to head back to Ireland. And we're booked to go to Knee Deep, an acrobatics show, at Glór in Ennis on Saturday.
No comments:
Post a Comment