Censorship has always been a matter of debate in regards to whether it is needed, as well as to argue about artistic freedom at the hands of the ever-present dominant ideology. And in reference to this, whether or not they should be making decisions on our behalf.
The idea that media should be censored came about in the 19th Century, at first in response to the 'Penny Dreadfuls' that Victorian children were reading, which were said to be corrupting their minds (something that should be taken into account alongside the violence essay), and since then, censorship has followed every new form of media that arrives, be it film, TV, or latching on to the computer age.
Starting with the Victorians is always a laugh, considering their moral standpoints, before sending their children to work in coal mines. The first being the discovery of Pompeii, when they discovered the artwork in some of the buildings. Since it was seen as 'obscene' to have nudes (OK, copulation etc) covering the walls, they were kept away from public view, some even painted over. The removeable artifacts are hidden in a museum, still there to this day.
Nice to see the glory of the Roman age is being hidden away, so we aren't being told all we need to know about this culture. So what if Caecillius went to the market? We want to know about their whole society, the brothels included. It is known young boys were targets of some amorous approaches, so why try to hide this main column of civilisation?
Caecillius is the main character of GCSE Latin texts, if you really must know.
Films have always been a strong clashing point. The first film to ever be banned was Cheese Mites, and it's highly offensive content of mites that lived on a piece of stilton filmed under a microscope. Either the Victorians were the nadir of conservatism and prudishness, or the dairy board got wind of it and started bleating.
To make sure that the proposed sequel Roast Beef Mites wasn't released upon the unexpecting public, the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) was set up to combat any corrupting piece of film. The problem being that their list of rules on what should and should not be allowed seems to hark back to The Dark Ages, since taking the name of The King in vain, as well as any hint of sexual activity or swearing, were sliced and diced with the ever-reliable pair of BBFC-issue scissors. Problems arose in the 1920s when the discression of local authorities was allowed to decide what was shown. The higher up the social ladder, the less films were allowed.
Of course, films weren't the only media to suffer at this time. The release of Lady Chatterly's Lover by Penguin in 1927 caused moral outrage with it's use of profanity and sexual content, which was seen as the biggest no-no after laying into The Royal Family with a machete. The book was tried at The Old Baily under the Obscene Publication Act, where upon the jury threw thecase out as a waste of time, allowing the book to be released. Either people were becoming more liberal for the first time in British history, or the jury was male only. After seeing film reel of who was buying the book on it's release, the latter is more likely, since theonly woman in the swarm of testosterone was '...buying it for a friend', whilst not looking at the camera and speaking rather quietly.
News and controversy were not allowed to be broadcast by the BBC after it's inception. Since news was for the newspapers, BBC radio had to try their best to avoid it. Later came news summaries, but no opinion was allowed to be broadcast. That was until the General Strike, where they had to side with the Government in condemming the strike, which in turn led to more news coverage. Then along comes WWII to throw a spanner into the works, for the sake of national morale.
Briefly skipping one of the main segments of 20th Century history, we next move on to post-war films. The Dambusters was censored ever so slightly on release, mostly the footage of the Bouncing Bombs, since they were still a Government secret 10 years after the war, so shown to be a different shape. However, frequently referring to the base's dog, Nigger, seemed more than appropriate. Since then, it has been edited out of the TV showings, unless it has to be said, in which case it's 'Skipper'.
The next stop is where censorship starts getting fruitful. In the US, the made for TV movie The Killers wasn't allowed on TV, instead getting a cinematic release. This wasn't on artistic merit by any means, as with some other features, but because it was deemed too violent after the death of JFK. In all honesty, it seems exceptionally tame these days, but they were sensitive, even though TV pictures showed Kennedy's brain matter shooting out the back of his head.
In Britain, one of the most feared people in history emerged. Mary Whitehouse. She of the constant moaning against 'Til Death Do Us Part (see also 'Free Publicity') and the National Viewers and Listeners Association (NVLA). What to do if you hadn't been in the papers recently? Find a new target, moan to the BBC/ITV, and there you have it. An ego trip, on behalf of the good citizens of Great Britain.
Also in Britain, the darkest days of censorship took hold. Whilst the world was getting liberal, the BBFC were hiring James Firman, The Killer Cutter, to quote The Last Broadcast. Firman decided to take his own agenda on board and dictate what people should see on screen, and get liberal with the scissors. The problem being that he didn't have a clue what he was doing for the next 30 years until the glorious day he finally retired. The main contribution he made was changing the name to the British Board of Film Classification, sort of like Maggie Thatcher changing Windscale to Sellafield.
One of the earlier films submitted for due censorship was Rosemary's baby, which promptly fell into the main problem with Firman's regime. The scene where Satan rapes Rosemary was edited in such a way that it seemed worse than in the original cut. Admittedly it could have been worse. Don't bother going to see a film in Egypt, they only just got their first glimpse of a nipple on celluloid with American Beauty.
Firman didn't stop with the bad cutting there. Women in Love also fell victim to this. The nude fighting scene was completely cut, so promptly became the infamous 'Buggery Scene', since that was all that could be gleaned from what you saw: Two men undress, then lying breathless and covered in sweat on the floor, what else would you think it was?
Other Firman nonos incuded nunchuka, so Enter the Dragon made no sense ever since, and still that scene is unavailable in the UK, breaking necks occasionally got cut, and he had a vendetta against The Exorcist, stating that it would never be released in the UK when he was in charge. When it did get a release, everyone wondered what all the fuss was about.
Films being banned outright also has a lot to do with censorship, and how pointless it is. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was banned on video from until last year, for no reason. Rather than the expected mass dismemberment by chain saw that the title conjurs up, the horror is mostly psychological, but on a lesser level to that of, say, The Exorcist. This being one of the big names of the Video Nasties scare of the 1980s, and nothing else.
A whole scare, brought on by Mary Whitehouse's mob and the tabloids desperate for a story, decided to make a thing out of the new video market, and how it was possible for children (as always) to see graphic scenes of horror when unsupervised. This meaning that they would instantly grab a copy of TCM when parents weren't looking, rather than the latest Transformers video? Come on...
One of the real victims managed a video release-The Evil Dead. So bad was the moral panic at this point that some retailers were prosicuted for selling it, even though there was no reason to, since it had been passed. So the scissors took out a minute, and in 1990 it was resubmitted, taking a few more chunks with it. Mostly the girl being raped by a tree, which is available on the US version, as is the rest.
The problem with the Video nasties scare is it was more a symbol of the attitude towards horror films bby the general public. Horror films have always been looked down upon by those in the know, and are a source of all of society's evils. So whilst a war film could feature gore splattering the walls, it would be proclaimed as 'gritty'. If a horror film did the same, it would be seen as 'bad'. That is why the Banned List was horror films only, as well as A Clockwork Orange at Kubrick's request. And all the mondo films everyone claims to own, Faces of Death, The Killing of America and the rest.
So bad is the attitude to horror that the Italian giallo maestros Dario Argento and Lucio Fulchi have never had a film passed in the UK uncut until the recent re-releases of Argento's Susperia and Fulchi's The Beyond. However, laserdisk versions have been uncut for donkey's years, and once more in the US, making them high-priced collectables in that arena until recently. The only slip up was the BBFC forgetting to cut Argento's The Stendahl Syndrome at first chance of asking, although it was recalled and the usual few seconds were cut. OK, mostly it's the explicit gore that gets chopped out, but more mainstream films still contain it.
Other problems concern the moral issues. Mostly concerning drug use. In typical fashion, American Beauty received it's '18' certificate not because of the nudity, but because pot smoking was shown without showing all the bad things that happen when you smoke it. That is because there isn't one that I've found, and I'm sure millions of other will agree with me. Right, Mr. Clinton? The reaction is typical for people out of touch.
Why did I make that statement? Because those that make decisions about what we watch are usually old men in the higher echilons of society with little of no experience of anything that is deemed 'devient'. Isn't it comforting to know what we watch is being dictated by a group of people more suited to sit in the House of Lords. Ok, they aren't that old, but you get the point.
But if film censorship was bad over here, there is worse to come, step forward the Independent Television Commission (ITC).
Yes, this lot make the Firman-era BBFC seem almost liberal in comparison. The main policy that they hold is 'If in doubt, cut'. What does this tell you? TV is in the hands of morons, that's what. Films getting sliced and diced, TV shows getting small edits that are painfully obvious, and contradictions left, right and centre.
