Page 5 of 6
Re: Still moaning about Woodman....
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:29 pm
by Len801
I am only slightly familiar with mainstream British film censorship. Not what is going on presently but in the past, and the kind of cuts they demanded from US or other foreign movies. When I read the old stories I cringe at what the British filmgoing public used to be sujected to. And I though the Americans were very puritanical in the their filmic content.
Perhaps you can elucidate us on how it works in porn. I am very curious to know.
So if Rocco Siffredi comes to England and shoots porn scenes in London (as he has done in the past) those films cannot be distributed there? But if Joey Silvera shoots a movie in the US or Brazil, those movies can be distributed in the UK?
What is and what is not allowed? How is porn legally distributed in the UK?
And how does Ben Dover (who has been making movies in the UK since about 1992 or so) carry on in his business?
Re: Still moaning about Woodman....
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:34 pm
by jj
AFAIK [and I'm no expert] until the late 90s no HC could be legally purchased in
the UK [apart from 'licensed' sex shops- but I'm not sure of the strength of
the material available therein]; there was a Catch-22 where it was legal to own
HC but not to order it- although it was perfectly possible to order from abroad,
as long as one didn't mind the very occasional seizure by HM C&E.
Thereafter, HC had to be "R18" certificated, after which it could be sold in
'over-18' outlets. Certain acts [fisting, e.g.] were banned [such strictures being
broadly similar to those of the US].... at the same time it became somewhat
easier, as I recall, to order un-certed stuff from abroad.
Re: Still moaning about Woodman....
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:52 pm
by Len801
So are/were the Evil Angel movies that Rocco shot in Britain legally available in UK (certified as you say)? How does Ben Dover handle his movies in UK? are they certied for sale there?
As far as fisting is concerned, there is no legal ban that I am aware of in the US regarding this practice. It enters in the realm of what in some parts of the country such acts may be considered "obscene", and whether there have been judgments/decisions in the past (think of the problems Max Hardcore recently went through when he was arrested and convicted for distributing (in the US) material containing fisting and pissing.
Producers just tend to avoid shooting and openly distributing such scenes, as is the case with anti-clerical stuff and incest. However it is strange that many gay DVD titles have pissing and fisting scenes in them and they do not seem to be targeted. Very strange.
Re: Still moaning about Woodman....
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:10 pm
by jj
Len801 wrote:
> So are/were the Evil Angel/Dover movies that Rocco shot in Britain
> legally available in UK
Not at the time of shooting; those were the VHS/pre-R18 days.
Ben [and EA to a lesser extent] got round the distrib. problem by using Dutch
proxies [e.g. Shiva], which then despatched to the UK. Now? R18s not a
problem, but if you want the full 'Rocco pissing experience' you still have to import.
> As far as fisting is concerned, there is no legal ban
No; as you say, producers are understandably generally unwilling to contest
obscenity trials, despite the many [at least in the UK] acquittals. So they
'self-censor'. 4WIW I have seen full fisting in a couple of R18 movies, so the
guidelines are certainly not set in stone.
Re: Still moaning about Woodman....
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:24 pm
by Len801
In Commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, Australia, ecc). I believe there exists both for mainstream and visual explicit sexual material a type of Supervisory Office, which reviews and categorizes movies in accordance with contant. Without their "seal" of approval anything anything else is considered unauthorized and illegal. I believe there may be exceptions when films are exhibited during a film festival.
In Canada at one time any type of fisting or pissing was either censored or considered no-no. Later pissing was allowed but only if the person was not urinating on another person. Fisting was at first not allowed, but then they relented only if it involved vaginal fisting.
When you get to the distribution of hard-core material via cable or satellite, then other government bodies come into play and they have different rules and guidelines (same as Post Offices do). So everyone has different rules and guidelines.
The internet has only muddied the waters to a great extent, as what a government will not openly allow you to get either at a video store/sex shop, cable/satellite media, then you can get it over the web. I am sure they are well aware of that bu they still have to offer a "concerned" and "practical" front for the general population.
Re: Still moaning about Woodman....
Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:00 am
by jj
We have the
BBFC [R18 definition included in this article].
OTOH a grown-up government, beyond the protection of minors, has no business
whatever dictating what its citizens [and hence its paymasters] may or may not
watch. R18, by definition, is closed to under-18s; and therefore no restrictions
of any form should apply to material classified within that category. I think the
flawed logic annoys me even more than the hypocritical moral pretensions.
Re: Still moaning about Woodman....
Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:56 am
by Len801
Every country has some type of private or governmental control as it regards explicit sexual material. The more autocratic it is, the stricter are its controls.
In the USA right from the start of movie exhibition in the early part of the last cetury several states and several cities had censorship board, then in the mid 1930's came the famous Code. And it limped along until 1968 when the private MPPA started classifying movies for a variety of audiences.
In the older days, you could not show drug addiction, even married couple were shown sleeping in separate beds, criminal activity was frowned upon and at film's ending the criminals could not be shown profiting from their criminal conduct. Hell not until the 1960's (PSYCHO, LOLITA) could they should you a toilet bowl. So when the camera invariably filmed the interior of a bathroom, you saw a mirror, a sink, a bathtub, shower, but never a toilet bowl. People were shown to be clean and well groomed, but there were no bathroom fixtures to show you how a call of nature could be accomplished. It was a hoot to see people farting in the western comedy BLAZING SADDLES.
I think nowadays in virtually every democratic or semi-democratic country sexual material moves on two tracks. The "official" one, where everything is clearly spelled out and everything is approved (or censored, or outrightly rejected and banned) from movie posters, DVD cover, to whether you can show someonbe with 4 or 5 fingers in a vagina or rectum, whether someone is shown pissing on a straiway, someone's stomach or face, whether someone is getting paddled and whipped and subsequently fucked, etc. The internet since the 1990's has changed the terrain, but there have been worrisome developments in the last little while. Social networks and seach engines seem to be engaged in censoring certain things (all in the name of copyright infringment), politicians pressured by media multinationals to pass restrictive laws as to what you can and cannot see, what you can download or share. And in a few days we will know what is going to happen in Los Angeles when the condom law goes into effect for explicit sex scenes shot there. We are only a few days away and we are to still to hear from the prduction companies as to what they intend to do.
Re: with Angel Dark
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:12 am
by Deuce Bigolo
Re: with Angel Dark
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:28 pm
by jj
Don't care about her motives [or Woodie's self-serving bullshit]- just happy to
gaze on that killer bod : -)
Number of gals who went into porn coz they enjoy getting porked by fat, balding,
egotistical, tiny-pronged, arrogant morons= 1.4 [the 0.4 being Sandrine Marove,
possibly the tiniest non-dwarf performer in history]
Number of gals who went into the biz for the money and a brief illusion of fame
and self-validation= 6,004,057,001,235 [and counting]
Re: Jana Darling
Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:00 pm
by Deuce Bigolo