Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Video Nasty Is A Colloquial Term Popularised
Video Nasty Is A Colloquial Term Popularised
Video Nasty Is A Colloquial Term Popularised
Video nasty is a colloquial term popularised[1] by the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association
(NVALA) in the United Kingdom to refer to a number of films, typically low-budget horror and
exploitation films, distributed on video cassette that were criticised for their violent content by the press,
social commentators and various religious organisations in the early 1980s. These video releases were not
brought before the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) due to a loophole in film classification laws
that allowed videos to bypass the review process. The resulting uncensored video releases led to public
debate concerning the availability of these films to children due to the unregulated nature of the market.[2]
Following a campaign led by Mary Whitehouse and the NVALA, prosecutions were commenced against
individuals engaged in trades exploiting allegedly obscene videos. To assist local authorities in identifying
obscene films, the Director of Public Prosecutions released a list of 72 films the office believed to violate
the Obscene Publications Act 1959. This list included films that had either been previously acquitted of
obscenity or already obtained BBFC certification. In addition, a second list was released that contained an
additional 82 titles which were not believed to lead to obscenity convictions but could nonetheless be
confiscated under the Act's forfeiture laws. The resultant confusion regarding the definition of obscene
material led to Parliament passing the Video Recordings Act 1984, which required certification of video
releases by the BBFC.[1][2]
The implementation of the Video Recording Act imposed a stricter code of censorship on videos than was
required for cinema release. Several major studio productions were banned on video, as they fell within the
scope of legislation designed to control the distribution of video nasties. In recent years, the stricter
requirements have been relaxed, as numerous films once considered video nasties have obtained
certification uncut or with minimal edits. Due to a legislative mistake discovered in August 2009, the Video
Recordings Act 1984 was repealed and re-enacted without change by the Video Recordings Act 2010.
Contents
Obscenity and video
Public concern
Effects of the Video Recordings Act 1984
Relaxation of censorship
DPP list
Section 1: Prosecuted films
Section 2: Non Prosecuted films
Section 3: Video Nasties
Films banned by the BBFC but not classed as video nasties
Other films seized by the police but not classed as video nasties
Other films
Republic of Ireland
See also
References
Sources
Further reading
External links
If the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) felt that a certain video might be in breach of the Act, then a
prosecution could be brought against the film's producers, distributors and retailers. Prosecutions had to be
fought on a case-by-case basis and a backlog of prosecutions built up. However, under the terms of the Act
the police were empowered to seize videos from retailers if they were of the opinion that the material was in
breach of the Act. In the early 1980s, in certain police constabularies, notably Greater Manchester Police
which was at that time run by devout Christian Chief Constable James Anderton, police raids on video hire
shops increased. However the choice of titles seized appeared to be completely arbitrary, one raid famously
netting a copy of the Dolly Parton musical The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas (1982) under the mistaken
belief it was pornographic.[3]
The Video Retailers Association were alarmed by the apparently random seizures and asked the DPP to
provide a guideline for the industry so that stockists could be made aware of the titles which were liable to
be confiscated. The DPP recognised that the current system, where the interpretation of obscenity was
down to individual Chief Constables, was inconsistent and decided to publish a list that contained names of
films that had already resulted in a successful prosecution or where the DPP had already filed charges
against the video's distributors. This list became known as the DPP list of "video nasties".[4]
The lack of regulation of the domestic video market was in sharp contrast to the regulation of material
intended for public screenings. The BBFC had been established in 1912, essentially as an unintended
consequence of the Cinematograph Act 1909, and it was their responsibility to pass films intended for the
cinema for certification within the United Kingdom (though local councils were the final arbiters). As part
of this process the board could recommend, or demand in the more extreme cases, that certain cuts be made
to the film in order for it to gain a particular certification. Such permission was not always granted, and in
the case of the release of The Exorcist in 1973, a number of enterprising managers of cinemas where
permission had been granted set about providing buses to transport cinema-goers from other localities
where the film could not be seen.
Public concern
Public awareness of the availability of these videos began in early 1982, when Vipco (Video Instant Picture
Company), the UK distributors of The Driller Killer, a 1979 splatter film, took out full-page advertisements
in a number of specialist video magazines, depicting the video's explicit cover; an action which resulted in a
large number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Agency.[5] A few months later Go Video, the
distributors of the already-controversial 1980 Italian film Cannibal Holocaust, in an effort to boost publicity
and generate sales that ultimately backfired, wrote anonymously to Mary Whitehouse of the National
Viewers' and Listeners' Association complaining about their own film. Whitehouse sparked off a public
campaign and coined the term "video nasty". Amid the growing concern, The Sunday Times brought the
issue to a wider audience in May 1982 with an article entitled "How High Street Horror is Invading the
Home". Soon the Daily Mail began their own campaign against the distribution of these films. The
exposure of "nasties" to children began to be blamed for the increase in violent crime amongst youths. The
growing media frenzy only served to increase the demand for such material among adolescents. At the
suggestion of the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, the Conservative MP Graham Bright
introduced a Private Member's Bill to the House of Commons in 1983. This was passed as the Video
Recordings Act 1984 which came into effect on 1 September 1985.
The supply of unclassified videos became a criminal offence, as did supplying 15 and 18 certificate videos
to under-aged people. As well as the low-budget horror films the Act was originally intended to curb, a
number of high-profile films which had passed cinema certification fell foul of the Act. In particular, The
Exorcist, which was made available by Warner Home Video in December 1981, was not submitted for
video certification by the BBFC and was withdrawn from shelves in 1986. Similarly Straw Dogs was
denied video certification and removed from video stores. Popular culture backlash against the Video
Recordings Act included the May 1984 release of "Nasty" by the punk-goth outfit The Damned, who
celebrated the condemned genre with the lyrics "I fell in love with a video nasty".[7]
Relaxation of censorship
With the passing of the Video Recordings Act, the films on the list could be prosecuted for both obscenity
and not being classified. As well as not passing any film liable to be found obscene, the BBFC imposed
additional bans and cuts on films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Claims, since proven at best to
be speculative, at worst outright media fabrication,[8] relating to the Hungerford massacre and the murder of
James Bulger (where the 1991 film Child's Play 3 was erroneously held up as influencing the perpetrators,
possibly prompting the 1992 film Mikey to be prohibited in the UK), provided an additional impetus to
restrict films and as late as December 1997, the board claimed it "has never relaxed its guidelines on video
violence, which remain the strictest in the world". However, the board did loosen its standards, especially at
the 18 level, in response to public consultation in 2000. The departure of James Ferman from the BBFC
may also have allowed some long-proscribed films to be re-appraised around this time. The Exorcist was
granted an uncut 18 video certificate on 25 February 1999, followed by The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in
August, and several official "nasties" were passed in the early 2000s either uncut or with cuts restricted to
sexual violence or actual animals being harmed. A list of these is given below. Among modern films, many,
such as the Hostel and Saw series, contain brutal, graphic violence but have passed through uncut.
In 2008, there was another brief media frenzy over such films that had years earlier been approved for
release by the BBFC, in particular SS Experiment Camp.[9][10] This coincided with an attempt by MPs
Julian Brazier and Keith Vaz to pass a law allowing MPs greater powers to tighten BBFC guidelines or
force an appeal of a release.[11][12] The bill failed to pass.[13]
However, the UK Government passed a law criminalising possession of "extreme pornography". Whilst
BBFC-rated films are exempt from the legislation, screenshots from these same BBFC-rated movies are
not,[14] and would also apply to unrated films. Hostel: Part II was cited in the House of Commons as an
example of a film where screenshots could become illegal to possess.[15]
DPP list
The DPP list of "video nasties" was first made public in June 1983. The list was modified monthly as
prosecutions failed or were dropped. In total, 72 separate films appeared on the list at one time or another.
39 films were successfully prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act but some of these films have
been subsequently cut and then approved for release by the BBFC. The remaining 33 were either not
prosecuted or had unsuccessful prosecutions. 10 films remain banned in the UK because they have not yet
been resubmitted for classification by any distributors or have been rejected for classification.
A number of films spent a short time on this list because their prosecutions failed shortly after publication or
because it was decided that prosecution was not worth pursuing. Ultimately, the list became obsolete when
the Video Recordings Act came into force, and since 2001, several of the films have been released uncut.
In the majority of cases below where cuts were made, they were scenes of real-life animal cruelty and/or
excessive violence to women, both of which are still regarded with some degree of severity by the BBFC.
A large number of these movies caused additional controversy with the cover art of the original big box
releases seen in the video shops of the early 1980s. Unless noted otherwise, all films that have been
released have been rated 18.
The DPP list is divided into two sections: Section 2 and Section 3. Any title seized under Section 2 would
make the dealer or distributor liable to prosecution for disseminating obscene materials. Dealers could be
fined or jailed and the film itself would be declared obscene if the prosecution was successful, meaning it
could not be distributed or sold in the UK until the obscenity was quashed. 39 of the Section 2 films were
successfully prosecuted and remained banned. 33 of the Section 2 films had unsuccessful prosecutions and
were subsequently dropped from the list and placed onto Section 3.[4]
Section 3 titles were liable to be confiscated under a "less obscene" charge, which allowed the police to
seize a film they considered obscene and as long as the dealer cooperated, they legally admit that the
articles are obscene and therefore escape any personal prosecution. The 33 films that couldn't be prosecuted
under Section 2 automatically became Section 3 titles and were still seized by the police. The main
difference between Section 2 and 3 is that video dealers or distributors could be personally prosecuted in
court for holding the film under Section 2 but not under Section 3, where the obscenity is admitted through
forfeiting the material.
A supplementary list was issued along with the official list which featured a list of so-called "Section 3
Video Nasties". Titles on the Section 3 list could not be prosecuted for obscenity but were liable to seizure
and confiscation under a "less obscene" charge. Tapes seized under Section 3 could be destroyed after
distributors or merchants forfeited them.
Other films seized by the police but not classed as video nasties
Basket Case - Seized for similarity to other slasher films. Originally passed with cuts for
cinema. Passed with an additional 35s of cuts in 1987. Released uncut in 1999.
Blood for Dracula - Seized for association with and similarity to Flesh for Frankenstein.
Originally passed with cuts for cinema. Released uncut in 1995.
City of the Living Dead - Another horror film by Lucio Fulci, who had multiple films on the
DPP list. Originally passed with cuts for cinema. Passed with 2m 21s of cuts in 1987.
Released uncut in 2001.
Macabre - Seized due to the cover art which displayed a severed head inside a refrigerator.
Released uncut in 1987.
Madman - Seized for similarity to other slasher films. Originally passed uncut for cinema.
Released uncut in 2002.
Night of the Seagulls - Seized for similarity to other zombie films and the explicit cover
imagery. An alternative title to the film was Don't Go Out at Night, which may have been
linked to the multiple Don't titles on the DPP list. Passed with 1m 6s of cuts in 1987.
Released uncut in 2005.
Terror Express - Seized for similarity to Night Train Murders. No UK re-release.
Other films
A Clockwork Orange – Sometimes mistakenly believed to have been banned by the BBFC,
it was actually Stanley Kubrick himself who withdrew the film from exhibition in the UK in
1973 on police advice after receiving death threats toward himself and his family, as well as
disliking reports found in the British Press that the film was responsible for copycat violence.
Quoting Kubrick, "To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me
to put the case the wrong way around. Art consists of reshaping life but it does not create life,
nor cause life. Furthermore, to attribute powerful suggestive qualities to a film is at odds with
the scientifically accepted view that, even after deep hypnosis, in a posthypnotic state,
people cannot be made to do things which are at odds with their natures."[21] After Kubrick's
death, the film was re-released uncut at cinemas in the UK in 2000, and thereafter on both
VHS and DVD.
Child's Play 3 – The film became notorious in the United Kingdom when it was suggested it
might have inspired the real-life murder of British child James Bulger (a suggestion rejected
by officers investigating the case) and the murder of Suzanne Capper.
The Exorcist – Although never officially cut or banned in the UK, several attempts to release
the film on video were thwarted by BBFC censor James Ferman, who cited both the age of
the possessed girl (as she was under 12, the film might have had significant appeal to
underaged viewers) and reports of incidents of hysteria involving young women (leading to
concerns that the film might cause severe emotional problems for those who believed in
demonic possession) as obstacles to a home release. Following a successful theatrical re-
release in 1998 and Ferman's retirement as censor in January 1999, the film was submitted
for home video release for the first time in February 1999, and was passed uncut with an
"18" certificate. The film had previously been released on video in 1981, uncertificated, by
Warner Home Video.[22]
Last House on Dead End Street – Also known as The Fun House, this film may have been
the intended target when the BBFC added The Funhouse to the list. Passed uncut with an
"18" certificate in 2006.[23]
Scum – The original TV film was made by the BBC, but they later decided not to broadcast it
owing to the violence and suicides in the film. It was quickly remade by most of the original
production team and released in cinemas, and was released on VHS at the height of the
Video Nasties controversy, quickly becoming associated with them in the media.
Mikey – The film was withdrawn from release in the United Kingdom following the James
Bulger murder in Liverpool in 1993. The decision was made by the BBFC which refused to
issue it with a UK release certificate in 1996. It remains prohibited in the UK.[24]
Republic of Ireland
The moral concern extended to the Republic of Ireland.[25] In 1986, the Dáil Select Committee on Criminal
Lawlessness and Vandalism issued a report "Controls on video nasties" recommending that the powers of
the film censor's office be extended to videos.[25] This was implemented by the Video Recordings Act,
1989.[26][27]
See also
Film censorship in the United Kingdom
References
1. "Video Nasties" (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/education-resources/education-news/video-nasties).
BBFC. 5 October 2011. Retrieved 9 December 2014.
2. "Cannibal Holocaust" (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/cannibal-holocaust). BBFC. 5
October 2011. Retrieved 9 December 2014.
3. "7 Facts About 'The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas' " (https://classiccountrymusic.com/7-fa
cts-about-the-best-little-whorehouse-in-texas/). Classic Country Music. Retrieved 13 June
2021.
4. Petley, Julian (2011). Film and Video Censorship in Modern Britain. Edinburgh University
Press. p. 213. doi:10.3366/edinburgh/9780748625383.001.0001 (https://doi.org/10.3366%2
Fedinburgh%2F9780748625383.001.0001). ISBN 978-0748625383.
5. Nick Johnstone (1999). Abel Ferrara: The King of New York. Omnibus Press: 13
6. Petley, Julian (2012-06-30). " "Are We Insane ?". The "Video Nasty" Moral Panic" (http://jour
nals.openedition.org/rsa/839). Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques. 43 (43–1):
35–57. doi:10.4000/rsa.839 (https://doi.org/10.4000%2Frsa.839). ISSN 1782-1592 (https://w
ww.worldcat.org/issn/1782-1592).
7. "Breaking Down All 72 Video Nasties!" (https://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3476400/br
eaking-72-video-nasties/). Bloody Disgusting!. 2018-01-29. Retrieved 2021-09-02.
8. Kerekes, David; Slater, David (2000). See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy.
Manchester: Critical Vision. ISBN 978-1-900486-10-1.
9. Stop this debasing film -Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_art
icle/article3257073.ece) (subscription required)
10. Murray, James (27 January 2008). "Outrage at Sick Nazi DVDs for Sale | UK | News | Daily
Express" (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/32920/Outrage-at-sick-Nazi-DVDs-for-sale).
Express. Retrieved 9 December 2014.
11. Siegert, Paul (22 February 2008). "BBC News | Programmes | Politics Show | Dismember of
Parliament" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/politics_show/7254808.stm). BBC
News. Retrieved 9 December 2014.
12. MPs press for ban on SS camp ‘video nasty’ (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_
and_entertainment/film/article3257530.ece)(subscription required)
13. "MP's Film Censorship Bid Defeated : ePolitix.com" (http://centrallobby.politicshome.com/lat
estnews/article-detail/newsarticle/mps-film-censorship-bid-defeated/). PoliticsHome. 29
February 2008. Retrieved 9 December 2014.
14. Fisher, Frank (6 July 2007). "Get Your Tanks Off Our Porn! | Comment Is Free | The
Guardian"
(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jul/06/getyourtanksoffourporn). The
Guardian. Retrieved 9 December 2014.
15. "Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill: 8 Oct 2007: House of Commons Debates –
TheyWorkForYou" (https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-10-08b.59.1).
TheyWorkForYou.com. Retrieved 9 December 2014.
16. "Cannibal Holocaust" (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/GVV102579/). British Board of Film
Classification.
17. "Driller Killer-Uncut (1979)" (https://archive.org/details/DrillerKillerUncut1979). Internet
Archive. 1979. Retrieved 29 June 2012.
18. "Drive In Classics" (http://www.desertislandfilms.com/public-domain/drive-in-classics).
desertislandfilms.com. Retrieved 29 June 2012.
19. "Love Camp 7" (https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/love-camp-7-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc0ynzy3nd
m). British Board of Film Classification.
20. "Alternate versions" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082812/alternateversions). Internet Movie
Database. Retrieved 29 June 2012.
21. Paul Duncan, Stanley Kubrick: The Complete Films, page 136 (Taschen GmbH, 2003)
ISBN 3-8228-1592-6
22. "The Exorcist" (https://www.bbfc.co.uk/education/case-studies/exorcist). 3 August 2020.
23. "Last House on Dead End Street" (https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/last-house-on-dead-end-st
reet-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc0yotixnzu). British Board of Film Classification.
24. "Mikey" (https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/mikey-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc0yodm1njc). British
Board of Film Classification.
25. Dáil Select Committee on Criminal Lawlessness and Vandalism (1986). "Report No. 10 -
Controls on video nasties" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120501082631/http://193.178.2.8
4/test/R/1986/REPORT_25061986_1.html). Oireachtas. Archived from the original (http://19
3.178.2.84/test/R/1986/REPORT_25061986_1.html) on 1 May 2012. Retrieved
11 December 2011.
26. "Video Recordings Act, 1989" (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0022/index.ht
ml). Irish Statute Book. Attorney General. 1989. Retrieved 11 December 2011.
27. Collins, Gerry (10 November 1988). "Video Recordings Bill, 1987 [Seanad]: Second Stage
(Resumed)" (http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1988/11/10/00019.asp#N44). Dáil debates.
Oireachtas. pp. Vol.384 No.1 p.19 c.202. Retrieved 11 December 2011. "The tenth report of
that committee, dealing with controls on video nasties, provided some very important
information, comment and proposals."
Sources
Martin, John (1983). Seduction of the Gullible: The Truth Behind the Video Nasty Scandal.
Kerekes, David (2000). See No Evil.
Morris, Marc; Fenton, Harvey; Brewster, Francis (2005). Shock! Horror! Astounding Artwork
from the Video Nasty Era.
Morris, Marc; Wingrove, Nigel (1998). The Art of the Nasty.
Ban the Sadist Videos Pt 1 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480344/combined) (documentary)
Ban the Sadist Videos Pt 2 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962751/combined) (documentary)
(https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1740712/combined)Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship &
Videotape (documentary)
Video Nasties: Draconian Days (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3562516/combined)
(documentary)
Further reading
Barker, Martin (1984). The Video Nasties: Freedom and Censorship in the Media. Pluto
Press. ISBN 978-0-8610-4667-6.
Egan, Kate (2007). "The Celebration of a 'Proper Product': Exploring the Residual
Collectible through the 'Video Nasty' ". In Arcland, R. (ed.). Residual Media. University of
Minnesota Press. pp. 200–222. ISBN 978-0-8166-4471-1.
Egan, Kate (2007). Trash or Treasure? The Changing Meaning of the Video Nasties.
Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7233-8.
"Something Nasty This Way Comes...". The Dark Side. Stray Cat Publishing Ltd (20): 13–32.
May 1992.
Martin, John (July 1996). "The Official 'Video Nasties' and How They Got That Way...". The
Dark Side. Stray Cat Publishing Ltd (58): 48–62.
External links
Overview of all video nasties (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/nasties.htm)
History of video nasties (http://www.hysteria-lives.co.uk/hysterialives/nasties/nastiesmain1.ht
m)
Complete video nasties analysis from Critical-Film.com (https://archive.today/201301020925
22/http://www.critical-film.com/essays/Nasties/Nasties1.html) at archive.today (archived
January 2, 2013)
UK Pre Certification video database with additional information (http://pre-cert.co.uk/search.
php?t=Category&c=UK&id=1)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.