In February 1973, a 2094.43-meter (76:20) print of LOVE CAMP 7 was banned because of 'indecency and excessive violence'.
A reconstructed version was passed with an R-rating in July 1974. This was only after a further 59.13-meters (02:09) was removed from the 2630.40 meter (95:53) print. The reason for these extra cuts was given as indecency.
Regent Trading Enterprises was the applicant.
It is unclear why the original submission was so short. It is possible that this was a transcription error by the Censorship Board.
In April 1974, the Chief Censor, Richard Prowse, discussed in an interview how a film such as LOVE CAMP 7 would have been rated.
An Interview with the Chief Censor, Mr Prowse: The Censor
Cinema Papers issue 2, April 1974
CP: Can we just go through the procedures that a Film must pass after it arrives at Customs?
PROWSE: Well usually they go into bond. When the importer wants a
particular film he puts in an application for registration. The film comes
out of bond and comes here where it goes through the screening process. Once
we give the decision the film goes back into bond where it is held until
such time as the importer wants to release it. He will then pay the customs
duty on jt and get it out of bond and go ahead with his release.
With the regular importers we programme screenings from them months ahead, so many days, according to the volume of their business.
CP: Right. How does it actually pass through your department?
PROWSE: Through the censorship?
CP: Yes. How is a film viewed?
PROWSE: The film is screened before a board of one, two, three or up to nine. We have now nine members. A possibly controversial film of any integrity or merit would, if it is at all possible, be seen by the whole board before a decision is made. Each individual board member has the same power in its vote and if we get a split decision a majority rules, the Chief Censor has no over-riding vote.
CP: Now say you have got a group of three people watching the film. How are the cuts arrived at if say they all agree that it is an R film with eliminations. Does each person list what they consider should be eliminated?
PROWSE: If there is only a board of three looking at an R film, it would have to be a unanimous decision that eliminations were required, because even if only one person out of a board of three said R uncut or M uncut or anything uncut, I would put two or three more board members on it to get a wider range of opinions. Obviously if one out of three says that a thing is O.K. for R uncut, an enlarged board might swing the vote to R uncut and we, contrary to popular opinion, don’t like making cuts in film.
CP: You said that if one person out of the three thought a film as, say M uncut and you put on more board members, the chances of inconsistency must be lessened?
PROWSE: Well, we think so. I mean if we had time I think the ideal situation would be to put the nine member board on every film. It is obviously just not necessary always because some of the films go through with just one board member when we know there are no problems or we suspect there are no problems.
CP: Once a film has been passed with a certain classification is there any way the board can reclassify that film?
PROWSE: Well, if we put say an R or an M on a film and an importer disagrees with this and asks could he come and discuss it, we will meet the importer. Now they can put up an argument and in the discussions convince us that maybe we are too lenient or even too tough, whatever they are contesting. We then may agree with them and agree to a rescreen, but if we think that they have no case for reclassification, they still have the avenue of the Board of Review.
CP: Can you give a brief rundown of the things that at the present time worry you most in films.
PROWSE: There’s the hard drug problem, incitement to crime, gross and explicit depiction of sexual activities, and extreme utter sadistic violence. This last is of course a problem because when does violence become extreme and excessive. Our yardstick in regard to violence is when it becomes obscene. We don’t believe that obscenity only relates to sexual matters.
CP: How much does what you hear from overseas about a film influence you? Would it influence the way you select the board?
PROWSE: No. No. Because the Board is on a rotation system they don’t even know what they are going to see until the morning of the day before. We find a lot of material we get from Overseas is misleading.
Two particular cases that we found misleading, and we couldn’t understand the furore about, were CLOCKWORK ORANGE and the other one you mentioned earlier STRAW DOGS.
In 1974, the Queensland Government established their own Films Board of Review. An article in a 1976 issue of Cinema Papers magazine covered the workings of this overly repressive group. It includes the following quote from Errol Heath, the managing director of Regent Trading.
"Love Camp 7 was shown to the board privately prior to any theatrical release being set for the film in Queensland. We were subsequently advised that although the board would not officially ban the film, they would go ahead and do so if we attempted to release it in Queensland."
In the early 80s, LOVE CAMP 7 was released on tape by Starbase Video with a running time of 83:13.
A re-release in the late 80s/early 90s appeared on a No Name Label. It appears to be taken from the same print as the Starbase Video release as it also runs 83:13. The cover gives the film the title NAZI LOVE CAMP 7.
Both of these Australian tape releases were missing over eight minutes of footage.
LOVE CAMP 7 was part of a package of fifteen tapes that were seized by the Australian Customs Service in October 1991. They were forwarded to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) who found them to be:
"…prohibited pursuant to Regulation 4A(1A)(a)(iii) of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations"
Siren Visual Entertainment gave LOVE CAMP 7 an Australian DVD release in October 2005. This NTSC print ran 95:37 and was fully uncut.
This film has never had problems with the Australian censors. It is included because we suspect the distributor censored it prior to submission to the Classification Board.
The Classification Board awarded LOVE DOLL an R18+ (High level animated sex scenes) rating in September 2007. It was released as part of Siren Visual's Hentai Collection in December 2007.
Review by Geoff W.
LOVE DOLL was released as part of Siren's Hentai collection. I have not seen the uncut version, and am basing these observations on the end credits which contain footage not in the preceding episode, and on on-line reviews.
Having watched it I can confirm that it has been censored. this should be a four part OVA, however Siren have simply removed episode one altogether, and have included only episodes two to four. To cover their tracks these have been renamed these as episodes one to three. Confused yet! Let me explain.
Missing first Episode (Originally Episode 1)
A synopsis of the missing episode one goes something like this.
Rachel grows up in a convent following the death of her mother. During her time there she is used as a sex slave by the nuns and the bishop, and is bullied and tortured by a girl called Marcia. The episode reputedly includes a scat scene involving the Bishop, and Rachel being raped by a vase with roses in it. Siren obviously felt that that it was not worth attempting to make any cuts, and removed it altogether.
Episode 1 (22:29) (Originally Episode 2)
From 32s-37s there is a brief flashback to a scene which I can only assume comes from the missing episode 1.
At least three scenes are definitely censored in this episode.
Between 06:30 to 07:07 a masturbating Rachel is whipped around the face, and told not to enjoy herself so much. This ends with two naked men walking in with erections and leaning over her. The scene ends at 07:07. The end credits reveal that it should have continued. From 19:43 to 19:56 the credits show four shots that were removed.
Shot 1 - Rachel's face with sperm on it.
Shot 2 - A bowl of what I originally thought looked like dog food. However on-line reviews mention a brief scat scene which makes me suspect this is the result!
Shot 3 - Rachel on all fours in front of Duke Dusse?
Shot 4 - Rachel laying on floor and looking back over her shoulder.
Rachel is shown sleeping as the shadows of four men gather over her. At 11:20 the screen fades to black, before coming back with the four men having sex with her. The end credits reveal that the 11:20 fade-out removed the start of the scene. It was no doubt taken out to make it look less like a rape. The missing shots turn up between 20:04 and 20:10 in the end credits.
Shot 1- Rachel having her top torn off, revealing her breasts.
Shot 2 - The face of the four men are shown looking menacingly down at her and laughing.
Shot 3 - Close up of Rachel's eyes.
The following happens between 19:10 and 19:13. Rachel walks back to the castle, opens the door, and says "Alsid" A voice says "I've been waiting for you" Again the end credits reveal that the scene should have continued on from 19:13 From 20:56 to 21:07 the credits show four shots that were removed.
Shot 1 - A shot of Duke Dusse, George, the female assistant, and two
Shot 2 - Duke Dusse shouting in anger.
Shot 3 - Rachel cowering in the doorway
Shot 4 - The exterior of the castle with the moon in the background.
An online-line review mentions implied bestiality with the Dobermans becoming aroused as they move towards Rachel. It is shots like this that make you understand the reasons for Siren's censorship.
Episode 2 (27:36s) (Originally Episode 3)
It's unclear if this episode has been censored, as the end credits do not seem to reveal any missing footage. However between 23:30 and 24:07 the following takes place. Rachel is chained up, and Duke Dusse picks up a whip. He then says "I'm going to make you keep your promise Rachel" At 24:07 the end credits begin. Directly after the end credits between 26:03 and 26:25 we are shown a beaten Rachel laying on the floor as Duke Dusse asks her if it hurt. It is unclear if this scene has been censored as at no time are we shown the beating.
Episode 3 (28:28) (Originally Episode 4)
This episode does not look obviously cut. For the first time we are introduced to the character of Marcia who bullied Rachel in the (original) episode 1. However because that episode is missing from the Siren disc we know nothing of their relationship.
Extras on the DVD include trailers for MAPLE COLORS, CLASSES IN SEDUCTION, and SEX WARD. There is also an Art Gallery consisting of ten images. Several of these are from scenes censored in Episode 1 ((Originally Episode 2).
In February 1974, a 2517.00-meter (91:45) print of LOVE IN 3D was banned because of 'indecency'. D. Gettlieb was the applicant.
A 2258-meter (82:18) ‘reconstructed version’ was censored by a further 14.93-meters (00:32) for an R-rating in June 1974. The cuts were made to remove 'indecency'. In this case, Columbia Pictures was the applicant.
In May 1983, a 2413.00-meter (87:57) 'pre-censor cut version' of LOVE IN 3D was passed with an R-rating.
It was awarded for sex, which was described as:
Greg Lynch Film Distributors was the applicant.
In November 1979, a 56-minute videotape of LOVE IN HOT PANTS was banned because of 'indecency'.
C.Morley was the applicant.
In June 1980, a 2430.50-meter (88:36) print of LOVE LETTERS OF A PORTUGUESE NUN was banned because of 'sexual violence involving a minor'.
In September 1980, a 2352.68-meters (85:45) 'reconstructed version' was
censored by a further 11.6 meters (00:25) before being awarded an R-rating.
The extra cuts were made to remove 'sexual violence', while the R-rating was
award for sex, which was said to be:
Although Blake Films submitted it under the German title, DIE LIEBESBRIEFE EINER PROTUGIESCHEN NONNE, it was released theatrically as LOVE LETTERS OF A PORTUGUESE NUN.
The Swiss label VIP released LOVE LETTERS OF A PORTUGUESE NUN on DVD in 2002.
We have one report of customs in Melbourne confiscating a copy of this particular DVD release in 2004. The reason given was:
"Were seized under the following provisions of the Customs act 1901
on the following grounds:
under subsection 203B(2), being goods suspected on reasonable grounds to be special forfeited goods."
"material of this nature is deemed to be fall within the scope of of Regulation 4A(1A)(a) of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and therefore subject to the seizure provisions of Section 203 of the Customs Act 1901."
Image courtesy of moviemem.com
In July 1981, a 2112.06-meter (76:59) 'pre-censor cut version of LOVE,
LUST AND ECSTASY was passed with an R-rating. It was awarded for sex, which
was said to be:
A.Z. Associated Film Distributors was the applicant.
Video Classics released LOVE, LUST AND ECSTASY in the early 1980s. This 80-minute tape was confirmed with an R-rating in February 1984.
It was reissued in the mid-1980s by Palace Vibrant Video.
In February 1980, Esquire Films had a 2095.50-meter (76:23) print of LOVE, LUST AND VIOLENCE banned because of:
The 76:23 running time indicates that this had already been pre-cut before submission.
In March 1983, 14th Mandolin had an 823.00-meter (75:00) 16mm 'pre-censor cut version' passed with an R-rating. It was awarded for sex, which was described as being:
In the mid-80s, a videotape of LOVE, LUST AND VIOLENCE was released as MAFIA GIRLS by Rodox. The X-rating was introduced in February 1984, but there does not appear to be any record of it being classified.
MAFIA GIRLS could have achieved an X-rating in early 1984; however, the guidelines were continually tightened during that year. This may explain how in September 1985, the Victorian Police came to submit an 89m tape for classification, and why the Censorship Board banned it for 'gratuitous sexual violence'.
Three more submissions followed, one by the NSW Police in November 1985, and two by the Victorian Police in March and August 1986. They were banned because of 'gratuitous sexual violence'. All ran 89m, apart from the final submission that was 91m.
Review by Simon
Something Weird’s tape of LOVE, LUST AND VIOLENCE runs 90:16. The actual run time should be slightly shorter, as a couple of scenes are shown twice.
The 'gratuitous sexual violence' consists of a two-minute sequence of Roger’s Wife (played by Serena) being raped by one of the gangsters. The scene is intercut with Roger being beaten by the other gangster.
Surprisingly, the film does not consist of non-stop hardcore sex, and has a relatively ambitious plot. This may explain how 14th Mandolin managed to get it R-rated with only around 15m removed.
In August 1972, a 2541.12-meter (92:37) print of THE LOVE MANIACS was censored by 89.30-meters (03:15) for an R-rating. The cuts were made to remove 'indecency and incitement to drug abuse'.
Lyra Films were the applicant.
In May 1982, a 2382.03-meter (86:49) print of LOVE NEST was censored by
4-meters (00:09) for an R-rating. Before the cuts, the sex was labelled as:
In the censored version, the sex was found to be:
This would appear to have been the softcore version of the film. A hardcore version was also produced with less plot development, and different actors in the more explicit sex scenes.
Image courtesy of moviemem.com
In April 1975, an 1886.20-meter (68:45) print of LOVE SECRETS OF THE KAMASUTRA was banned because of 'indecency'.
An appeal was made to the Films Board of Review, and in July 1975, they made the decision to:
"Register film for restricted Exhibition subject to eliminations of 166-meters being made"
The censored version, missing 166-meters (06:03), was released theatrically by Lyra Films.
Image courtesy of moviemem.com
In March 1981, a 606.60-meter (55:16) 16mm print of LOVE'S VICIOUS CIRCLE
was banned because of sex, which was said to be:
A 548.50-meter (49:59) 'reconstructed version' was passed with an
R-rating in July 1981. The sex was now:
14th Mandolin released it theatrically, and on their King of Video label.
In December 1984, a 48-minute videotape of LOVE'S VICIOUS CIRCLE was
passed with an R-rating. The sex was once more described as:
The applicant was again 14th Mandolin. They may have released it on one their adult labels such as Pink Video or Blue Angel.
In April 1975, a 2275.40-meter (82:56) print of LOVE, SWEDISH STYLE was censored by 18.20-meters (00:40) for an R-rating. The cuts were made to remove 'indecency'.
Natan Scheinwald Productions was the applicant.
In December 1973, a 969.00-meter (88:18) 16mm print of LOVE, YOLANDA was banned because of 'indecency'.
A censored 847.00-meter print (77:11) lost a further 49.98-meters (04:33) before being awarded an R-rating in July 1974. The cuts were again made to remove 'indecency'. This submission was described as a 'second reconstructed version'.
Garron International was the applicant.
The following text is taken from an admat that ran in The Age newspaper in June 1976. After talking up the how explicit the film was, it undermines it all by admitting that it had been banned by the Australian Censorship Board, and was therefore censored.
LEARNING TO LOVE (197?), the other film that the admat mentions, was another Garron International release that was initially banned. A censored version passed with an R-rating in February 1976.
The Roughest Hottest movie to hit this town. Word of mouth on a picture like this spreads like wildfire - get in and see it now before the house full signs start to go up. This picture was made by the same guy who made "LEARNING TO LOVE" (Barrell) and if you tried to see that picture and kept finding a "HOUSE FULL" sign up - you'll know why this picture went to a larger theatre and you’ll know why we still expect "HOUSE FULL signs. "LEARNING TO LOVE" is an almost hard core "HOT" smash hit movie and tens of thousands of Melbournites agree as they flocked to see it. But "LOVE YOLANDA" is something else again. The film was originally shot as a hard core sex feature and is by far a Rougher Hotter film and we expect this town will literally buzz with the word of mouth it generates - if you see it and don't talk about it, it's very possible you’ve been left speechless - some people could be shocked or offended by scenes from this film. Please understand this fact before attending a screening - if in doubt, please do not attend. If you liked "LEARNING TO LOVE" you’ll 'LOVE YOLANDA'
"LOVE YOLANDA" is the grand-daddy of all erotic cinema. Produced in 1971 and released in San Francisco and New York. It took on tremendous proportions and at year-end was No 324 on "VARIETY’S" list of top grossing films for the whole of the United States, all this from just two city releases.
Shortly after this the film’s producer and director was arrested on charges of obscenity connected with the film. The San Franciscan district attorney alleged the film was pornographic but the local juries took a lot of convincing and on both times that the case was heard (the second was a retrial) the juries were undecided and "HUNG".
During all the legal process that want on the film was withdrawn from the screen but because of the lack of court success the district attorney informed the producers that there would be no further harassment, the film then went on to financial success after success (e.g. the film ran 26 weeks at the 55th St Playhouse in New York). It became one of the most successful "SKIN FLICKS" ever to be made in "BEAVER VALLEY" San Francisco and was perhaps THE most successful until the release of "DEEP THROAT".
The Australian censor banned "LOVE YOLANDA" in 1973 because of alleged hard core pornography in sections of the film – the uncut version is still banned.
In October 1972, a 2645.00-meter (96:25) print of LOVING AND LAUGHING was banned because of 'indecency'. A 2562.76-meter (93:25) 'reconstructed version' lost a further 10.36-meter (00:23) before being awarded an R-rating in June 1973.
Filmways Australasia was the applicant.
A 95m tape of LOVING AND LAUGHING was again passed with an
R-rating in July 1988. It was awarded for 'drug abuse', and also for sex, which was
identified as being:
Roadshow Home Video was the applicant.
In February 2009, Paul Harris interviewed Antony I. Ginnane at the launch of the NOT QUITE HOLLYWOOD (2008) DVD. The discussion touched on the Australian box-office success of films like LOVING AND LAUGHING.
Film Buffs Forecast
14 February 2009, rrr.org.au
ANTONY I. GINNANE: Once the R-certificate came out, it gave a great stimulus to a certain sort of Australian genre production, whether it was ALVIN PURPLE or whether it was FANTASM. We were riffling on things like LOVING AND LAUGHING and BEDROOM MAZURKA.
PAUL HARRIS: The Danish churned out sex comedies, I think it was a French-Canadian film LOVING AND LAUGHING, companies like Cinepix churned them out as well. When the producers looked at these films, because they sold around the world and were very successful, they must have looked at the Australian returns, and said to themselves, this is funny. This film has sold around the world and has done very well, played for a month here and there, but in Australia these films played for over a year each.
ANTONY I. GINNANE: Indeed, but of course the theory there, and probably what upset Cinepix or some of the other people, was that they sold them flat to Australia. Filmways bought LOVING AND LAUGHING, and a number of those pictures of the time for probably $10,000 a pop which they were very pleased to get at the time because there were not a lot of Quebec. French-Canadian pictures into Australia.
Image courtesy of moviemem.com
There is one report from 1998 of customs confiscating a VHS of LUCKER THE NECROPAHGOUS.
The necrophilia theme was no doubt the reason that the tape was seized.
In July 1976, a 2114.70-meter (77:05) print of LUST was banned because of 'indecency'. The following month, an appeal to the Films Board of Review failed.
In May 1977, a 1854.60-meter (67:36) 'reconstructed version' was also banned because of 'indecency'.
Roadshow Distributors were the applicant in all cases.
In August 1987, an 89m videotape of LUST FOR FREEDOM was banned because of 'gratuitous sexual violence'. Roadshow Home Video was the applicant.
A censored 86:18 (PAL) tape was passed with an R18+ rating in May 1989.
It was awarded for 'very frequent violence and adult concepts'. The violence
was described as being:
Roadshow released the tape on their Applause Video label.
Review by Simon
I have never viewed the Applause Video release of LUST FOR FREEDOM, but identified two scenes in Troma’s uncut (92:27-NTSC) US DVD that I believe the censor would have considered to be 'gratuitous sexual violence'.
One runs from 38:40 to 43:00, and consists of a back and forth between three scenes linked by Gillian looking through her cell door. The first has a female prisoner being told to strip by Pete; she refuses, until he aims a crossbow and rapes her. The second has a naked prisoner being whipped by a warden. The third has a soft-core lesbian sex scene that partly plays out over the screams of the other women. I believe that the rape scene would have had to be censored.
The other runs from 74:50 to 76:40, and shows Jud cutting off Sharon’s clothes and raping her with Pete looking on.
Two other scenes are minor impact, so I doubt they would have been removed. These are Jud unbuttoning the shorts of a drugged Gillian, and running his hands over her stomach (23:00), and Warden Maxwell and Pete filming a snuff movie with a man shooting (off-screen) a drugged girl in the head (52:30).
In November 1985, Joe Sui International Film Co received an R-rating for this Shaw Brothers feature. When submitted, LUST FOR LOVE OF A CHINESE COURTESAN ran 2694.00-meters (98:28), but lost 40-meters (87s) at the hands of the Censorship Board. The reason given for the deletions were 'gratuitous sexual violence'.
The censored version was rated R due to sex, which was described as
The cut version went on to play in Chinese Language cinemas.
Twenty years later, in August 2005, LUST FOR LOVE OF A CHINESE COURTESAN was back before the Australian censors. This time the uncut version received an R18+ (High level sexual violence, High level sex scenes) rating.
Siren Visual Entertainment released the film on DVD in February 2006.
Review by Matt
The 01:37 of 'gratuitous sexual violence' that was censored in 1985 would have come from the scene where Madam Chun puts Ai Nu to work at her Merryland brothel.
She introduces four men to Ai Nu, who is shown bound and struggling on a bed. At 20:30 the men jump on the bed, and one begins to rape her. She breaks free, but is caught and raped again. Blood is shown several times on her clothes and the bed sheets.
The scene ends at 22:10 after Ai Nu cries, "You are not human beings. You’re bloody beasts! I’ll kill you"
The Hong Kong Celestial DVD runs 88:13.
In January 1972, an 8360-foot (93:08) print of THE LUSTFUL VICAR was banned because of 'indecency'. In February, Blake Films appealed to the Film Board of Review, but this failed, and the ban remained.
In March 1974, a 2479.80-meters (90:38) of THE LUSTFUL VICAR was passed with an R-rating. This cut version was described by the Censorship Board as an 'English dubbed version'. This submission and eventual theatrical release was made by Filmways.
Daybill image courtesy of moviemem.com