[Film Review] Sundance Film Festival 2021 - Censor

The debate surrounding censorship has been prominent, relevant and frankly always notoriously difficult, especially when looking at censorship through the lens of the horror film. With graphic violence, excessive sexual material and enough blood and guts to make even the most seasoned viewers feel nauseated, certain horror films have been chastised not only by the public for their depiction of nasty, but in particular by the censors who truly believe these films to be harmful to the viewer. Which is why during the video nasty era the censorship was aplenty, stopping the 80s audience from truly enjoying the depraved entertainment from films such as Joe Amato’s The Driller Killer to Ruggero Deodato’s Cannibal Holocaust to Dario Argento’s Tenebrae. These depictions of gore, violence and nudity were particularly condemned by the BBFC in the UK, with Mary Whitehouse becoming notoriously known for her harsh cuts and outright rejections of films which ultimately led to them being completely banned in the country. 

Prano Bailey-Bond clearly has an explicit interest and love for films of the video nasty era, otherwise she would not have gone on to create Censor (2021). The film follows Enid who works for a regulatory body which considering they are British, we can presume is representative of the BBFC. Day after day Enid finds herself enslaved to a darkened room in which she watches these films, either requiring scenes of eye gouging to be completely stripped from the film or slamming the film as too gratuitous and nasty to even be allowed to be seen by anyone. During the film, herself and her colleagues bring to light some of the very real issues that the BBFC were worried about during the 80s; they talk about if a child were to accidentally watch the film, the influence the violence could have on vulnerable people and they even come up against a case in which they allege a horror film called Deranged has caused a man to murder his family. As she watches more and more depictions of horror on screen, Enid becomes more obsessed with what happened to her younger sister Nina, and starts to believe that a particular film which has come into her possession might be leading her to the answers she seeks. 

The first third of the film felt like it had been created for the horror fans that remember first hand the video nasty era, or for those with a love for the nastier, gorier films, like myself. It felt like everything about censorship had been highlighted and was leading the audience down a path of prominence, one that intelligently spoke about the damages of censorship and how it is still a relevant and pressing topic even today. The aesthetics of the film have precisely captured the nostalgic look of the 80s movies, with their gritty feel, unclean takes and the ability to smell the cigarettes through the screen. Capturing the essence of the time on film feels very important when telling a tale about a particular moment that has such a rich history within not only the horror industry, but the film industry as a whole. 

With this said it came as a disappointment to see the path in which Censor decided to wander down unattended. The film itself feels like it has been intentionally censored; when one character is brutally killed through accident, instead of gazing on the gore and giving the audience a first hand view of the gruesome death, the camera instead shies away from showing this and only allows us a glimpse at the aftermath. Perhaps Bailey-Bond has the intention to serve us with a commentary on censorship, and how the audience do not always need to see the horrific details, however, for a film talking about censorship it felt like it was erring on the side of caution rather than showing us the gore. Instead of proving a point regarding censorship, it was within scenes like this one and similar, that it feels as if those involved were too worried to put something bold and brave on screen. 

Without any sense of violence or gore that the video nasties became so notoriously famous for, Censor becomes a film about censorship but with no statement to actually pin against it. The film creeps into familiar territory towards the end, with a woman deluded in her own obsessions and becoming the bad guy due to her inability to process the grief she feels for her sister. Impressive in pacing and style, yet lacking in anything substantial and connected to the beginning of the film. Censor feels like it was censored halfway through, which in itself could be the point, but to watch such a disjointed and meandering story felt tiresome and somewhat pointless. 

There are many elements of Censor that feel important regarding the conversation around censorship, providing the audience with a snapshot into the mindsets of the press, the public and particularly the BBFC when on-screen violence was deemed as harmful for viewers to see in all its glory. For that reason it is certainly worth a watch, but be warned: don’t go into this one expecting to witness a proverbial middle finger to censorship.

RELATED ARTICLES

---

---

EXPLORE

---

MORE ARTICLES

---

---