While many of the Video Nasties were rubbish a good deal of them were excellent movies from directors like Dario Argento and Mario Bava .
The Exorcist was never banned officially and was available on UK video quite legally for several years along with Straw Dogs.
However by 1988 all films that had ever been released on video had to be classified and any that were not had to be withdrawn.
It was simply the personal opinion of the Chief Censor James Ferman that The Exorcist would corrupt teenage girls :rolleyes:.
SO when Warner asked him about The Exorcist he told them not to waste their time so it was only because of him it was unavailable in the UK for 15 years.
As soon as he left office several films banned purely for his personal reasons were quickly classified and released.
I read about that idiot Ferman in a magazine one time. The article said that as soon as his skank arse was out the door, the guy who replaced him made his first priority something like getting the Exorcist out there to people. See idiots like Ferman they should NEVER be allowed anywhere near positions of power of any kind.
I read about that idiot Ferman in a magazine one time. The article said that as soon as his skank arse was out the door, the guy who replaced him made his first priority something like getting the Exorcist out there to people. See idiots like Ferman they should NEVER be allowed anywhere near positions of power of any kind.
Good riddance he's gone!.
Though ironically he was sacked for passing hardcore porn without telling the Home Office.
My favourite Ferman story was him apparently saying Romper Stomper was given an 18 rating by mistake due to an admin error and it should have been banned. Erm, what?
Oh and apparently he hated Michael Winner, and Winner's films were cut because it amused Ferman to send Winner a cuts list. Directors he admired, eg David Cronenberg, were never cut.
I read about that idiot Ferman in a magazine one time. The article said that as soon as his skank arse was out the door, the guy who replaced him made his first priority something like getting the Exorcist out there to people. See idiots like Ferman they should NEVER be allowed anywhere near positions of power of any kind.
Good riddance he's gone!.
His tenure was a dark time for film fans in the UK ,although he did treat cinemagoers with more respect than video fans.
Though ironically he was sacked for passing hardcore porn without telling the Home Office.
Oh and apparently he hated Michael Winner, and Winner's films were cut because it amused Ferman to send Winner a cuts list. Directors he admired, eg David Cronenberg, were never cut.
Offically Ferman was never sacked.
He did get into hot water for passing the hardcore and this lead to the legalisation of it in 2000 when another company won an appeal.
But he quietely "retired" after the ruckus.
Ferman had a low opinion of Winner because of Death Wish 2 which was ruthlessly edited by several minutes just from one scene.
Ferman does explain himself on the C4 documentary Sex and The Censors where cut scenes from DW2 play on a tv behind him while he explains how gratuitous the rape sequence is.
I believe a few seconds were cut from The Brood involving the child killers.
I'm sure these cuts are now restored though.
Cronenbergs Videodrome was slashed to bits when it came out on video , but it was precut by CIC Video running scared at the height of the video nasties troubles.
The BBFC are cutting horsefalls from very old films .
They are shown on tv uncut.
His tenure was a dark time for film fans in the UK ,although he did treat cinemagoers with more respect than video fans.
Offically Ferman was never sacked.
He did get into hot water for passing the hardcore and this lead to the legalisation of it in 2000 when another company won an appeal.
But he quietely "retired" after the ruckus.
Ferman had a low opinion of Winner because of Death Wish 2 which was ruthlessly edited by several minutes just from one scene.
Ferman does explain himself on the C4 documentary Sex and The Censors where cut scenes from DW2 play on a tv behind him while he explains how gratuitous the rape sequence is.
I believe a few seconds were cut from The Brood involving the child killers.
I'm sure these cuts are now restored though.
Cronenbergs Videodrome was slashed to bits when it came out on video , but it was precut by CIC Video running scared at the height of the video nasties troubles.
According to bbfc.co.uk there were never any bbfc cuts to The Brood or Videodrome, though I suppose they could have been cut pre submission.
SRPSKI FILM - A SERBIAN FILM is a Serbian language drama, subtitled in English. It tells the story of a retired porn star, Milos, who is lured out of retirement by an offer of money from a mysterious figure called Vukmir. Vukmir wants Milos to star in what he describes as an 'artistic' film for the foreign market but it soon becomes clear the project will require Milos' participation in various acts of sexual violence and paedophilia. The film was classified '18' for very strong sexual violence, sex and violence.
The BBFC's Guidelines state that 'In line with the consistent findings of the BBFC's public consultations and the Human Rights Act 1998, at '18' the BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the principle that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment. Exceptions are most likely [...] where material or treatment appears to the BBFC to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society - for example, any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts [...] which may cause harm to public health or morals. This may include portrayals of sexual or sexualised violence which might, for example, eroticise or endorse sexual assault'. More generally, the Guidelines state that 'A strict policy on sexual violence and rape is applied. Content which might eroticise or endorse sexual violence may require cuts at any classification level' and that intervention, even at the adult level, is more likely with 'sexual violence or sexualised violence which endorses or eroticises the behaviour' and with 'portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context'.
Before awarding an '18' classification to SRPSKI FILM - A SERBIAN FILM, the BBFC required forty-nine individual cuts, across eleven scenes. A number of cuts were required to remove elements of sexual violence that tend to eroticise or endorse sexual violence. Further cuts were required to scenes in which images of children are intercut with images of adult sexual activity and sexual violence. It is important to stress that the film makers took precautions to avoid the exposure of the young actors to the film's most disturbing scenes and that, in the BBFC's view, no scene is in clear breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
Even after cuts, the film's scenes of very strong sexual violence remain potentially shocking, distressing or offensive to some adult viewers, but are also likely to be found repugnant and to be aversive. They are not credibly likely to encourage imitation. In some scenes Milos witnesses, or is forced to witness, acts of sexual violence, including the suggestion that a new born baby is being raped. In the cut version, the rape of the baby occurs entirely offscreen, implied only by the sounds of the baby crying and by the reactions of the onlooking Milos and Vukmir. Although all clear shots of the baby being raped have been cut by the BBFC, it is worth noting that the film makers used a prosthetic model during the filming of this scene and that no real baby was harmed. Later in the film, when Milos refuses to participate in the acts required of him by Vukmir, he is drugged and forced to continue filming against his will. As Milos regains consciousness, he begins to remember what he has been compelled to do, including decapitating a restrained woman during sex and raping his unconscious wife and son. He also recalls, with the assistance of video recordings, some of the acts perpetrated against himself and others during his period of unconsciousness. This includes one of his female friends being suffocated with a man's penis, after her teeth have been extracted, and Milos himself being raped. Once again, the cuts required by the BBFC have removed the more explicit moments from these scenes and much of the action is now brief or implied rather than explicitly depicted. Nonetheless, the scenes remain potentially distressing and offensive, even in their cut versions. Cuts were also required to remove shots which imply that children are witnessing sexual violence, sometimes enthusiastically, or where images of children are intercut with images of sexual activity and sexual violence. This includes a scene in which images of a young girl sucking a lolly are intercut with a scene of fellatio, a scene in which the same young girl appears to lean forward excitedly as she witnesses a scene of violent fellatio, and a scene in which Milos' brother is fellated by a woman whilst watching a family video, featuring his young nephew. All such intercutting has been removed from these scenes. In another scene, Vukmir attempts to persuade Milos to have a sex with an underaged girl. Although Milos refuses, cuts were required to remove shots in which the young girl appears to be encouraging Milos to have sex with her. In spite of the fact that care was taken by the film makers to avoid exposing any of the young actors to anything disturbing, violent or sexual, this juxtaposition of images of children with sexual and sexually violent material is a breach of BBFC policy and Guidelines.
The film contains a number of scenes of very strong bloody violence, including sight of a man's head being repeatedly smashed with a heavy object until his skull caves in, a man's throat being torn out in close up, and a man being killed by having a prosthetic erect penis forced into his empty eye socket. These scenes considerably exceed the terms of the '15' Guidelines where 'Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable. Strong sadistic or sexualised violence is also unlikely to be acceptable'. SRPSKI FILM - A SERBIAN FILM also contains a number of scenes of strong sex. This includes sight of masturbation, oral sex, group sex, and sexual thrusting, as well as simulated ejaculation onto a woman's face. These scenes significantly exceed the terms of the '15' Guidelines where 'Sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail'.
SRPSKI FILM - A SERBIAN FILM also includes very strong visual and verbal sex references, including to bestiality and paedophilia, very strong language, strong language, and strong nudity, including sight of prosthetic erections.
you lot are talking like it was the BBFCs choice to cut the film in the UK. LEGALLY they have to cut the scenes they did because a couple of years ago the government passed a law that means a film can't show children in a scene that involves sexuality.
so there you go. don't blame the BBFC, blame the government. although why any of you would want to see the cut scenes, you should question yourself!
From what I've read about this movie, the actual uncut version would likely beat least legally dubious to watch in this country.
There was a cinema screening of the uncut version in London, with the print supplied by the bbfc, and it didn't get raided, though it wasn't public, it was by invite only, and Westminster council had the power to veto any names on the invite list.
The key nasty bit is done with piss poor CGI, and has been done deliberately to look like piss poor CGI, making it sound worse written down than it actually is, though as I've said, if you stuck it in front of a jury I'd still suspect they'd find it obscene.
I still havent decided whether I like films that are obviously out for the shock factor. It just puts me off, like they are using us, Enter the void is mind blowing! The best cinematography (if thats how you spell it) ive ever seen!! Wow.
But the cheap shock factors take away the heart of the film.
Who cares what the reasons are for cutting the film?
I prefer to make my own decisions on what I watch so I will bypass the state appointed censor and buy the uncut version once its available just as I will do with the Bluray releases of I Spit On Your Grave.
Both the original and the remake are cut in the UK but both will be uncut on US Bluray
Funny that a 'grahamcrowden' posts here; the acting in A Serbian Film did remind me of Crowden's performance in Doctor Who: The Horns of Nimon. The Nimon be praised!
Funny that a 'grahamcrowden' posts here; the acting in A Serbian Film did remind me of Crowden's performance in Doctor Who: The Horns of Nimon. The Nimon be praised!
Never seen that one .
Very poor era of Dr Who.
Sadly GC died earlier this year (or was it last year)
It's fair enough they have cut it to be honest, people don't need to or want to see what it shows and I think the director saying it's an allegory for the political powers in Serbia is partly bull-shit. It might be why he set about making the film, but he could have done it in a much more 'easy on the eyes' way, it is just a gratuitous escapade into rape.
You can read what my partner in bloggery thinks here in a double review also including Enter The Void http://wp.me/p1bC6w-1x
although why any of you would want to see the cut scenes, you should question yourself!
Couldn't agree more. I questioned why anyone would want to watch the Human Centipede on another thread and got a response along the lines of "if you think that's bad, go and watch A Serbian Film".
I looked at the synopsis. That was enough.
Why anyone would want to produce/direct/"star" in/watch something like this concerns me.
It's fair enough they have cut it to be honest, people don't need to or want to see what it shows and I think the director saying it's an allegory for the political powers in Serbia is partly bull-shit. It might be why he set about making the film, but he could have done it in a much more 'easy on the eyes' way, it is just a gratuitous escapade into rape.
You can read what my partner in bloggery thinks here in a double review also including Enter The Void http://wp.me/p1bC6w-1x
Who's to say that I don't "Need to or want to see" ? To be fair though,censorship means precisely nothing any more because the uncut versions of all these types of film are readily available on millions of pages all over the internet.
I just have to say that there is absolutely no political allegory in this film. It has been made to try and shock and gain infamy but it's just a horribly rubbish film.
Couldn't agree more. I questioned why anyone would want to watch the Human Centipede on another thread and got a response along the lines of "if you think that's bad, go and watch A Serbian Film".
I looked at the synopsis. That was enough.
Why anyone would want to produce/direct/"star" in/watch something like this concerns me.
There are some weird individuals out there.
I agree.
Especially those who watch crap like Coronation Street ,Eastenders and other mind numbing junk.
The ones who should be locked up are those who confront or attack the stars in real life and are unable to separate fantasy and reality.
Couldn't agree more. I questioned why anyone would want to watch the Human Centipede on another thread and got a response along the lines of "if you think that's bad, go and watch A Serbian Film".
I looked at the synopsis. That was enough.
Why anyone would want to produce/direct/"star" in/watch something like this concerns me.
There are some weird individuals out there.
Lol. The Human Centipede is more funny than it is horrifying, and the actual centipede scenes are nowhere near as graphic as your mind will be imagining it to be. The violence pales in comparison to other more mainstream films. You'd know that if you actually watched it rather than being like a typical Daily Mail reader who judges something by a synopsis...
I also resent being called "weird" just because i like to watch boundary pushing horror films, i'm a perfectly normal member of society, with plenty of friends and family, and not a weird little recluse like you seem to be implying. I'm sure that the other people in this thread who have watched it are perfectly normal people too.
It's a FILM, it's not REAL. The film doesn't hurt anyone, it is all clearly faked, and i didn't "get off" or anything suspicious like that while watching it. It disturbed me, which is what it was supposed to do. I accept that A Serbian Film is a particularly extreme example of the horror genre and that only a small subsection of horror fans will watch it, but horror films should attempt to horrify the viewer, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The film is obviously not for you, but that doesn't mean that other people are "wrong" or "weird" because they want to watch it.
Couldn't agree more. I questioned why anyone would want to watch the Human Centipede on another thread and got a response along the lines of "if you think that's bad, go and watch A Serbian Film".
I looked at the synopsis. That was enough.
Why anyone would want to produce/direct/"star" in/watch something like this concerns me.
There are some weird individuals out there.
Don't you know faked scenes of babies being raped are a fundamental of freedom of speech? I'm sure there is a paragraph about it in Magna Carta.
Anyway the main issue with the film, as several have mentioned here, is they're selling it like some important work of art, like it's Bicycle Thieves or something, when in reality it's got all the artistic merit of a bad Saw or Hostel sequel.
Don't you know faked scenes of babies being raped are a fundamental of freedom of speech? I'm sure there is a paragraph about it in Magna Carta.
Anyway the main issue with the film, as several have mentioned here, is they're selling it like some important work of art, like it's Bicycle Thieves or something, when in reality it's got all the artistic merit of a bad Saw or Hostel sequel.
I totally disagree with you that they are selling this movie as a piece of art. The pornographer in the film was trying to portray his work as a piece of art. Once again it is shocking but nevertheless a powerful and provocative film and anyone who thinks this type of porn at it's lowest form dos'nt happen in the real world is naive.
...It is important to stress that the film makers took precautions to avoid the exposure of the young actors to the film's most disturbing scenes and that, in the BBFC's view, no scene is in clear breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978...
...it is worth noting that the film makers used a prosthetic model during the filming of this scene and that no real baby was harmed...
...In spite of the fact that care was taken by the film makers to avoid exposing any of the young actors to anything disturbing, violent or sexual...
Now, I'm not angry that I have been denied the right to see a baby being raped (far from it), but I am angry that the BBFC went ahead with their cuts when the above facts were taken into consideration. If children were really exploited in this film I could understand, but they weren't, and so I see no other legal reason for the BBFC to cut these scenes. All I see is "BBFC Guidelines", "BBFC Guidelines" and "BBFC Guidelines".
The BBFC need to realise that the majority of us normal people who see this film are not going to be inspired to go out and rape a baby afterwards. (Or, for that matter, go out and do anything else depicted).
Comments
I read about that idiot Ferman in a magazine one time. The article said that as soon as his skank arse was out the door, the guy who replaced him made his first priority something like getting the Exorcist out there to people. See idiots like Ferman they should NEVER be allowed anywhere near positions of power of any kind.
Good riddance he's gone!.
Though ironically he was sacked for passing hardcore porn without telling the Home Office.
My favourite Ferman story was him apparently saying Romper Stomper was given an 18 rating by mistake due to an admin error and it should have been banned. Erm, what?
Oh and apparently he hated Michael Winner, and Winner's films were cut because it amused Ferman to send Winner a cuts list. Directors he admired, eg David Cronenberg, were never cut.
Idiot. Serves him right.
The BBFC are cutting horsefalls from very old films .
They are shown on tv uncut.
His tenure was a dark time for film fans in the UK ,although he did treat cinemagoers with more respect than video fans.
Offically Ferman was never sacked.
He did get into hot water for passing the hardcore and this lead to the legalisation of it in 2000 when another company won an appeal.
But he quietely "retired" after the ruckus.
Ferman had a low opinion of Winner because of Death Wish 2 which was ruthlessly edited by several minutes just from one scene.
Ferman does explain himself on the C4 documentary Sex and The Censors where cut scenes from DW2 play on a tv behind him while he explains how gratuitous the rape sequence is.
I believe a few seconds were cut from The Brood involving the child killers.
I'm sure these cuts are now restored though.
Cronenbergs Videodrome was slashed to bits when it came out on video , but it was precut by CIC Video running scared at the height of the video nasties troubles.
According to bbfc.co.uk there were never any bbfc cuts to The Brood or Videodrome, though I suppose they could have been cut pre submission.
I think it highlighted the dangers of pornography in the extreme and for anyone who thinks that this dos'nt exist in the real world would be naive.
Strangely enough this movie is the misogynistic opposite.
SRPSKI FILM - A SERBIAN FILM is a Serbian language drama, subtitled in English. It tells the story of a retired porn star, Milos, who is lured out of retirement by an offer of money from a mysterious figure called Vukmir. Vukmir wants Milos to star in what he describes as an 'artistic' film for the foreign market but it soon becomes clear the project will require Milos' participation in various acts of sexual violence and paedophilia. The film was classified '18' for very strong sexual violence, sex and violence.
The BBFC's Guidelines state that 'In line with the consistent findings of the BBFC's public consultations and the Human Rights Act 1998, at '18' the BBFC's guideline concerns will not normally override the principle that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment. Exceptions are most likely [...] where material or treatment appears to the BBFC to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society - for example, any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts [...] which may cause harm to public health or morals. This may include portrayals of sexual or sexualised violence which might, for example, eroticise or endorse sexual assault'. More generally, the Guidelines state that 'A strict policy on sexual violence and rape is applied. Content which might eroticise or endorse sexual violence may require cuts at any classification level' and that intervention, even at the adult level, is more likely with 'sexual violence or sexualised violence which endorses or eroticises the behaviour' and with 'portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context'.
Before awarding an '18' classification to SRPSKI FILM - A SERBIAN FILM, the BBFC required forty-nine individual cuts, across eleven scenes. A number of cuts were required to remove elements of sexual violence that tend to eroticise or endorse sexual violence. Further cuts were required to scenes in which images of children are intercut with images of adult sexual activity and sexual violence. It is important to stress that the film makers took precautions to avoid the exposure of the young actors to the film's most disturbing scenes and that, in the BBFC's view, no scene is in clear breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
Even after cuts, the film's scenes of very strong sexual violence remain potentially shocking, distressing or offensive to some adult viewers, but are also likely to be found repugnant and to be aversive. They are not credibly likely to encourage imitation. In some scenes Milos witnesses, or is forced to witness, acts of sexual violence, including the suggestion that a new born baby is being raped. In the cut version, the rape of the baby occurs entirely offscreen, implied only by the sounds of the baby crying and by the reactions of the onlooking Milos and Vukmir. Although all clear shots of the baby being raped have been cut by the BBFC, it is worth noting that the film makers used a prosthetic model during the filming of this scene and that no real baby was harmed. Later in the film, when Milos refuses to participate in the acts required of him by Vukmir, he is drugged and forced to continue filming against his will. As Milos regains consciousness, he begins to remember what he has been compelled to do, including decapitating a restrained woman during sex and raping his unconscious wife and son. He also recalls, with the assistance of video recordings, some of the acts perpetrated against himself and others during his period of unconsciousness. This includes one of his female friends being suffocated with a man's penis, after her teeth have been extracted, and Milos himself being raped. Once again, the cuts required by the BBFC have removed the more explicit moments from these scenes and much of the action is now brief or implied rather than explicitly depicted. Nonetheless, the scenes remain potentially distressing and offensive, even in their cut versions. Cuts were also required to remove shots which imply that children are witnessing sexual violence, sometimes enthusiastically, or where images of children are intercut with images of sexual activity and sexual violence. This includes a scene in which images of a young girl sucking a lolly are intercut with a scene of fellatio, a scene in which the same young girl appears to lean forward excitedly as she witnesses a scene of violent fellatio, and a scene in which Milos' brother is fellated by a woman whilst watching a family video, featuring his young nephew. All such intercutting has been removed from these scenes. In another scene, Vukmir attempts to persuade Milos to have a sex with an underaged girl. Although Milos refuses, cuts were required to remove shots in which the young girl appears to be encouraging Milos to have sex with her. In spite of the fact that care was taken by the film makers to avoid exposing any of the young actors to anything disturbing, violent or sexual, this juxtaposition of images of children with sexual and sexually violent material is a breach of BBFC policy and Guidelines.
The film contains a number of scenes of very strong bloody violence, including sight of a man's head being repeatedly smashed with a heavy object until his skull caves in, a man's throat being torn out in close up, and a man being killed by having a prosthetic erect penis forced into his empty eye socket. These scenes considerably exceed the terms of the '15' Guidelines where 'Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable. Strong sadistic or sexualised violence is also unlikely to be acceptable'. SRPSKI FILM - A SERBIAN FILM also contains a number of scenes of strong sex. This includes sight of masturbation, oral sex, group sex, and sexual thrusting, as well as simulated ejaculation onto a woman's face. These scenes significantly exceed the terms of the '15' Guidelines where 'Sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail'.
SRPSKI FILM - A SERBIAN FILM also includes very strong visual and verbal sex references, including to bestiality and paedophilia, very strong language, strong language, and strong nudity, including sight of prosthetic erections.
I wouldn't even waste £10 on this cut to shreds mess!.
Movies don't make people violent, the BBFC makes people violent! :mad:
so there you go. don't blame the BBFC, blame the government. although why any of you would want to see the cut scenes, you should question yourself!
There was a cinema screening of the uncut version in London, with the print supplied by the bbfc, and it didn't get raided, though it wasn't public, it was by invite only, and Westminster council had the power to veto any names on the invite list.
The key nasty bit is done with piss poor CGI, and has been done deliberately to look like piss poor CGI, making it sound worse written down than it actually is, though as I've said, if you stuck it in front of a jury I'd still suspect they'd find it obscene.
But the cheap shock factors take away the heart of the film.
I prefer to make my own decisions on what I watch so I will bypass the state appointed censor and buy the uncut version once its available just as I will do with the Bluray releases of I Spit On Your Grave.
Both the original and the remake are cut in the UK but both will be uncut on US Bluray
Never seen that one .
Very poor era of Dr Who.
Sadly GC died earlier this year (or was it last year)
You can read what my partner in bloggery thinks here in a double review also including Enter The Void http://wp.me/p1bC6w-1x
Couldn't agree more. I questioned why anyone would want to watch the Human Centipede on another thread and got a response along the lines of "if you think that's bad, go and watch A Serbian Film".
I looked at the synopsis. That was enough.
Why anyone would want to produce/direct/"star" in/watch something like this concerns me.
There are some weird individuals out there.
Who's to say that I don't "Need to or want to see" ? To be fair though,censorship means precisely nothing any more because the uncut versions of all these types of film are readily available on millions of pages all over the internet.
Especially those who watch crap like Coronation Street ,Eastenders and other mind numbing junk.
The ones who should be locked up are those who confront or attack the stars in real life and are unable to separate fantasy and reality.
Lol. The Human Centipede is more funny than it is horrifying, and the actual centipede scenes are nowhere near as graphic as your mind will be imagining it to be. The violence pales in comparison to other more mainstream films. You'd know that if you actually watched it rather than being like a typical Daily Mail reader who judges something by a synopsis...
I also resent being called "weird" just because i like to watch boundary pushing horror films, i'm a perfectly normal member of society, with plenty of friends and family, and not a weird little recluse like you seem to be implying. I'm sure that the other people in this thread who have watched it are perfectly normal people too.
It's a FILM, it's not REAL. The film doesn't hurt anyone, it is all clearly faked, and i didn't "get off" or anything suspicious like that while watching it. It disturbed me, which is what it was supposed to do. I accept that A Serbian Film is a particularly extreme example of the horror genre and that only a small subsection of horror fans will watch it, but horror films should attempt to horrify the viewer, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The film is obviously not for you, but that doesn't mean that other people are "wrong" or "weird" because they want to watch it.
Don't you know faked scenes of babies being raped are a fundamental of freedom of speech? I'm sure there is a paragraph about it in Magna Carta.
Anyway the main issue with the film, as several have mentioned here, is they're selling it like some important work of art, like it's Bicycle Thieves or something, when in reality it's got all the artistic merit of a bad Saw or Hostel sequel.
I totally disagree with you that they are selling this movie as a piece of art. The pornographer in the film was trying to portray his work as a piece of art. Once again it is shocking but nevertheless a powerful and provocative film and anyone who thinks this type of porn at it's lowest form dos'nt happen in the real world is naive.
Now, I'm not angry that I have been denied the right to see a baby being raped (far from it), but I am angry that the BBFC went ahead with their cuts when the above facts were taken into consideration. If children were really exploited in this film I could understand, but they weren't, and so I see no other legal reason for the BBFC to cut these scenes. All I see is "BBFC Guidelines", "BBFC Guidelines" and "BBFC Guidelines".
The BBFC need to realise that the majority of us normal people who see this film are not going to be inspired to go out and rape a baby afterwards. (Or, for that matter, go out and do anything else depicted).