The first attempt at reframing was considered unacceptably crude and damaging to the film. The BBFC's legal advisers agreed that, legally, the only matter with which the BBFC needed concern itself was 'visual' indecency, rather than 'narrative' indecency (ie what was seen on screen, rather than what was being implied). The best way to do this seemed to be by 'optically reframing' the end of the scene so that what was happening would be clear, whilst leaving any indecent image just off screen. James Ferman therefore sought to alter the scene in such a way as to preserve its meaning, whilst removing any potentially 'indecent' image of a child. This posed a difficulty for the BBFC because the scene in question was pivotal to the audience's understanding of the female protagonist's shift from mere obsession to derangement. Nonetheless, he also accepted that the scene in which the young boy's penis is tugged was potentially indecent, even though nothing sexual occurred. Given the critical reputation that the film enjoyed, he therefore concluded that it was highly unlikely to be found obscene by a jury. The QC agreed with the BBFC that the overall purpose of the film was serious and that its explicit scenes were not primarily intended to titillate. Furthermore, the Act permitted a defence of artistic merit, which could allow material that would not normally be considered acceptable to be published if it was in the 'public good' to do so.
It was not sufficient to examine one scene in isolation but, rather, the overall purpose and effect of the work must be taken into account. The OPA required that, in assessing whether or not a film was obscene, the film had to be considered 'as a whole'. The QC's advice was clear on the issue of obscenity and confirmed Ferman's own opinion in 1977. The BBFC therefore sought the legal opinion of a top QC as to whether the film was likely to be considered obscene under the terms of the OPA and whether the scene that had previously been censored for club screenings was indeed likely to be legally 'indecent' under the terms of the Protection of Children Act. It was not until 1989 that the film was officially submitted to the BBFC, this time by the British Film Institute, for a limited cinema re-release.Įven in 1989, the film contained scenes of real sex that went beyond what the BBFC would normally be prepared to classify for general release. However, this release was removed from the shelves after the Video Recordings Act 1984 made classification of videos in the UK mandatory.
In 1982 the film was released on video by Virgin Video, without a BBFC certificate. In this slightly censored version, the film continued to be shown for a number of years, without a BBFC certificate, in cinema clubs. The cut was to remove a scene in which an adult woman tugs a young boy's penis, which might constitute an 'indecent' image of a child under the terms of the newly introduced Protection of Children Act 1978. Even then, one scene was edited before the film finally opened at the Gate Cinema Club in 1978, as a result of further legal advice. Under the test of common law indecency, which currently applied to films, it was likely that the film would be vulnerable to prosecution because any number of explicit scenes could be viewed out of context and prosecuted. This, he believed, would allow the film to benefit from the requirement in the OPA that publications must be judged 'as a whole' and that a defence of artistic merit was permitted. Nonetheless, Ferman suggested that the film should not be opened, even under 'club' conditions, until after the Obscene Publications Act (OPA) had been extended to include films (by the Criminal Law Act in 1977). Any such cuts were likely to be very damaging to what was already a critically acclaimed film, from an established director.įerman therefore suggested that it would be preferable to show the film, without cuts, to members of private 'cinema clubs' rather than approach the BBFC for a formal classification decision. At the time, the BBFC's Secretary, James Ferman, expressed the informal view that the film would require very heavy cuts to its more explicit sexual details before it could be awarded an X certificate for national distribution. The film was first shown here at the 1976 London Film Festival, where it won the critic's prize, before being acquired by the Gate Cinema in Notting Hill.
Nagisa Oshima's 1976 study of erotic obsession had already caused difficulties in the US (where the print was seized by Customs) and Japan (where the book of the film was prosecuted for obscenity), before it arrived in the UK.