| |
G4EBT > FILMS 13.01.08 22:54l 141 Lines 4903 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 6E7602G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re:BBFC + G4EBT (G0TEZ)
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0IUZ<DB0OVN<DB0GOS<ON0AR<F4BWT<DK0WUE<
GB7FCR
Sent: 080113/2102Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:58066 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:6E7602G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : FILMS@WW
Ian, G0TEZ wrote:-
>As for the banning of films containing scenes of people using CB.
>I was very active on CB from the late 70s to the late 80s.
So you engaged in unlawful activities which -
pre-1981, were contrary to the WT Act 1949?
>I started clubs and tried to get the law changed.
>We had our sources and there were reports on TV.
>Everyone knows they would never lie.
Of course not - all fine upstanding citizens.
So who banned the films?
Certainly not the British Board of Film Classification.
>The fact that Convoy and The Dukes of Hazard were banned from 1979
>on, especially just before elections, was mentioned on the TV news.
If you say so Ian, but I repeat, banned by whom, and why?
I'm only asking.
The Dukes of Hazard wasn't even a film - it was a TV series imported from
the US, which ran from 1979-1985. (But it was made as a film in 2005)
Quite why Convoy - a novelty film based on a novelty record should be
banned eludes me. I took my kids (aged 10 and 14 at the time) to see it.
It was trivial, banal and innocuous kid's stuff - just like CB.
I can't imagine why it would be banned.
And why would it, or Dukes of Hazard be an election issue?
When Convoy was submitted to the BBFC, Warner wanted an "A" certificate
for the film, which would allow children to see it, provided that they
were accompanied by an adult. A "family movie" in other words.
If there were, say, explicit sex scenes, it would have had an X rating -
Adults only, which would severely restricted the box office takings.
Cuts were made to enable the film to be passed with an "A" certificate.
The cut might have only have been something such as a hand on an inner
bare thigh above the knee. Back in the 1970s that's all it would take to
cut to move a film down from Cert X to Cert A.
I've no idea what cuts were actually made to get the A certificate.
Here's what the BBFC says about Convoy in all its formats.
Quote:
BBFC reference AFF023431
CONVOY Feature Film
Classified 06 July, 1978. Run Time 110m 17s
Consumer Advice: No consumer advice is available for this work
This work was cut. To obtain this category ["A" rating]
cuts were required but details are not available.
Directed by Sam Peckinpah.
The cast for this work includes: Kris Kristofferson, Ali MacGraw,
Ernest Borgnine, Burt Young, Madge Sinclair, Seymour Cassel.
When submitted to the BBFC the work had a running time of an unknown
duration. The running time of this film was calculated from the measured
length of 9926 ( feet + frames ).
This work was submitted to the BBFC by Columbia-Emi-Warner Dists Ltd.
A film or video, together with associated trailers may exist in
several versions and all versions known to the BBFC are listed
below.
Cat'gy Type Date Company Run Time Cut
A Film 06/07/1978 Columbia-Emi-Warner Dists Ltd 110m 17s Yes
15 Video 21/08/1987 Weintraub Entertainment Limited 105m 30s -
12 Video 12/09/2001 Warner Home Video Ltd 106m 6s -
12 Video Trailer 15/08/2006 Optimum Releasing 3m 35s -
12 Video 30/08/2006 Optimum Releasing 103m 40s -
When a film is transferred to video the running time will be shorter
by approximately 4% due to the differing number of frames per second.
This does not mean that the video version has been cut or re-edited.
This entry was last updated 10/08/2006.
End quote.
British Board of Film Classification searchable database:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/
> About the only thing that upsets me is being
> called a liar or suffering from self-delusion.
As I'm not a doctor I'm not qualified to comment
on your propensity or otherwise to self-delusion.
But I can comment on the term "liar" - a much misunderstood term which
needs to be used with caution. Many people say things which are untrue,
but which they believe to be true at the time.
That doesn't make them liars, it simply means they were
mistaken as they weren't in possession of all the facts.
A liar is someone who knows the truth but knowingly and deliberately
speaks untruthfully with intent to mislead or deceive, to convey a
false impression or practise a deception.
An example of a liar would be Lord (Jeffrey) Archer, who committed
perjury, was found out and sent to prison for it for four years. He's
still as brass necked as ever, sitting in the House of Lords, but that's
politics for you.
So if - as you seem to infer, that you think I was imputing
that you are a liar, I hope that puts your mind at rest.
I'm happy for you to continue to believe that it is a fact that
both films are banned. I hope that lifts your spirits a little.
Best wishes
David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 20:15 on 2008-Jan-13
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
