As part of its Focus section (multiple themes retrospectives revolving around certain topics or filmmakers), the International Film Festival Rotterdam, whose 2025 edition ran from January 30 to February 9, devoted part of its program to the various facets of the VHS era. This included a theatrical screening of the Irish horror comedy series Video Nasty, a recent BBC production that derives its title from one of the most notorious episodes of film censorship in the United Kingdom, well known to fans of the horror genre.
For context, when a movie is released in the UK, it needs to be assessed by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification, although the C initially stood for “censors”), and is assigned an age rating with a system similar to the American one: U (Universal), PG (Parental Guidance), 12A (viewers under 12 require a parent or guardian), 15 and 18 (a separate R18 classification exists for pornography). Prior to 1984, however, this requirement existed only for cinema releases, while home video was largely unregulated (except for erotic content, which fell under the purview of the Obscene Publications Act).
Because of this loophole, and because major distributors were initially reluctant to release their films on the video market, VHS was essentially the territory of low-budget horror movies, many of which had been denied a certificate for cinemas and could now be freely seen at home. Some distributors used the controversial nature of their output, such as the infamous Italian film Cannibal Holocaust, to give those titles a publicity boost. It was a short-lived triumph, though, as these films quickly gained the attention of authorities and became known as “video nasties” after being referred to as such by Mary Whitehouse, a teacher and conservative activist.
Because the tapes were technically accessible to anyone, it dawned on UK legislators that something needed to be done, which ultimately led to the passing of the Video Recordings Act in 1984, granting the BBFC authority to rate video releases as well. In the interim, the so-called “video nasties” were prosecuted on obscenity charges, with 39 of them successfully banned as a result.
The new law also came with a few additional restrictions: some films that had been passed uncut for cinemas required edits for the video market, or were effectively outlawed because the distributor refused to resubmit them for VHS classification (this was the case of The Exorcist, which was not formally released on video in the UK until 1999, when censorship became more relaxed). In a curious non-horror example, both of Tim Burton’s Batman movies were rated 15 for the home market, although they were given a 12 for cinemas, because the latter rating hadn’t been ratified for video releases at the time; they’re still classed as 15 on DVD and Blu-ray because Warner Bros. would have to formally resubmit them for a new assessment.
Other European countries had similar reactions to certain films: in my native Finland, the first Evil Dead was originally banned and remained unseen until 2003, when it received a theatrical release owing to the success of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man the year before. Germany still censors violent horror movies on a regular basis (the uncut version of Hostel: Part II was banned until 2022), with distributors occasionally sidestepping the law by limiting the release of the unedited copies to neighboring markets like Austria or Switzerland.
As for the UK, most of the “video nasties” were successfully re-assessed and cleared for release starting in the late ‘90s, usually with no cuts required. Two majors areas of contention remained for some titles: sexual violence (particularly scenes that appeared to glamorize it) and animal cruelty.
Both were at play when the aforementioned Cannibal Holocaust was formally submitted to the BBFC in 2001: almost six minutes of cuts were requested, due to rape scenes and the unsimulated killing of animals. Ten years later, for the Blu-ray release, the Board watched the film again, and came to the conclusion that most of the cuts could be waived. A single scene of animal cruelty remains censored, due to its protracted depiction of the act. The BBFC even conceded, in its detailed case study on the movie, that the 2001 decision had more to do with the title’s reputation than the actual content. It was nasty by name, but not necessarily that nasty on screen.
