As the authority designated by Parliament with the responsibility for classifying videos under the Video Recordings Act 1984, the Board must determine whether or not a video is suitable for a classification certificate to be issued to it, with special regard to the likelihood of video works being viewed in the home. In making this decision, the Board must also have special regard, amongst other relevant factors, to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society because of the manner in which the work deals with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violence, horror or sex.
The Board carefully considered this video in the light of these tests. The main consideration for the Board was the question of harm referred to above. In short, does the work have the potential for anti- social influence?
In the Board's view it does. It is a compilation of scenes of extremely violent death, injury and mutilation, many of which are repeated in slow-motion. The commentary draws attention to the grislier aspects and in effect invites enjoyment at human suffering. The inclusion also of sex scenes reinforces the impression that the purpose of the video is to provide entertainment. There is no attempt to justify the images by placing the incidents in any other journalistic or educational context. Whatever current relevance the images might have had when they were originally photographed has been lost in the general compilation of horrors. The Board is conscious that a particular genre that has always been identified as entirely unacceptable is that of so-called 'snuff movies'. Their main identifying feature is that at least one of the participants is actually killed. BANNED FROM TELEVISION is only different in that, instead of a death being created for the work, actual death and injury is collated from a wide range of pre-existing sources to create the work.
The Board has concluded that the video is potentially harmful because of the influence it may have on the attitudes and behaviour of a significant proportion of likely viewers. The instinct of concern and compassion for the suffering of others is a basic social necessity. So is respect for the dignity of real human life. By presenting actual human death and mutilation as entertainment, the work, in the Board's view, has the potential to erode these instincts. There is a danger of it falling into the hands of young and impressionable persons (whatever its classification) and of some significant brutalising effect on their attitude to human life and pain.
The Board has considered the possibility of cuts as a remedy for these difficulties. It has concluded, however, that they would be unlikely to modify the tone and effect of the work acceptably.
The Board carefully considered this low-budget Italian horror video in the light of the usual tests. It has over the years, in this context, expressed concern about images which bring sex and violence together. The BBFC Draft Guidelines for Classifying Films and Videos (published in July 1998 in the BBFC's last Annual Report) identify sexually violent material as potentially harmful. The Guidelines explain that the Board is stricter with scenes of sexual violence on video than film, because of their potential to be played over and over at home. Sexual violence may only be shown providing the scenes do not offer sexual thrills.
A CAT IN THE BRAIN contains many sequences involving gross violence committed against women, often in a context with clear sexual overtones. It invites the viewer to relish the detail of the violence and killings. Women are even presented as enjoying the violence visited on them. The work switches between the three levels of "actual" film-making, the "Director's" own nightmares and the murderous attacks of the villain. However, the Board found that the main effect of this device was to enable the frequent portrayal of brutal and detailed violence, particularly towards women.
The Board concluded that the video was potentially harmful because of the influence it may have on the attitudes and behaviour of a significant proportion of its likely viewers, whatever classification it was given. The Board considered the possibility of cuts as an acceptable remedy. It concluded, however, that the sheer quantity of the violence rendered such an approach ultimately fruitless since it would be unlikely to change the general tone or approach of the work.
Andreas Whittam Smith - President
Robin Duval - Director