http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/walkabout-film
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkabout_(film)#Legality
At last, someone in a censors office uses their common sense!
But I just don’t think it would have been practical, with all those copies already out there, to cut the film for those reasons stated in the wiki link.
It would have criminalised everyone that had a copy!
For those of you not in the UK has this film faced problems where you are?
The BBFC never actually seriously considered retrospectively censoring this film. They were simply obliged (under the terms of their remit and policy) to look at the content again for a newly submitted Bluray edition.
They would have made laughing stocks of themselves if they had had attempted to re-edit this title, forty-five years after passing it uncut. The critical renown in which Walkabout has been held for more than four decades would have resulted in every film critic, cineaste and advocate for freedom of artistic expression leaping to the film's defence if the BBFC had attempted to tamper with even a single frame.
The BBFC's standards are often very variable, as they attempt to judge each title as presented to them on a case by case basis. As appreciative cineastes (or so they would wish to be regarded) they have at least always recognised Roeg's movie as a serious work of art; not exploitative or gratutitous in its presentation of nudity and emergent teenage coming-of-age desires. These aspects of the film are simply presented as facts of life, and shown within the wider context of the film's themes and narrative. There is nothing for the BBFC (even with their post-2003 guidelines) to object to here.
At the other end of the problematic spectrum, the BBFC in 2004 rejected outright the trashy Jess Franco exploitation film Women in Cellblock 9 (1977) because one of the three female leads was allegedly underage at the time of filming. People who have actually sat through this astonishingly tedious and inept film readily admit that it is far more likely to induce chronic boredom and narcolepsy than sexual arousal. However, the BBFC claim that the sight of a nude teenager within this trash-aesthetic context will deprave and corrupt anyone who sees it. This title remains technically illegal to sell/distribute in the UK.
The problem for the BBFC was and remains that of judging context, artistic validity, and directorial intent. If a scene is judged to be gratuitous and/or exploitative; if the nudity of an underage actor is being presented for the purposes of titillation (for the sexual gratification of a morally dubious, usually male audience) rather than for necessary artistic narrative purposes, then that scene is more likely to be censored, or the title itself rejected outright for a legal certificate in the UK.
I'm not sure if the BBFC makes films legal/illegal to own. Actually I believe the Police did once seize stuff with 18R certificates on it.
I'm not sure if the stuff in wikipedia #legality section is legally accurate. For the film to be illegal, it would have to be proved indecent in a court of law, not just say that it had failed to be certificated due to a scene they were worried about
No it's not the BBFC who make things illegal to own in the home. That's down to the DPP and Trading Standards who enforce it. The BBFC follow the law, they don't make it themselves.
However, all commercially released titles intended for home viewing have to be submitted for BBFC certification under UK law under the terms of the Video Recordings Act. If a certificate is denied for a certain title under the 'test of harm' principle (ie: if it is judged to be in contravention of a UK law such as The Protection of Children Act 2003), then it becomes illegal to sell and distribute that title within the UK.
This was never going to happen with Walkabout, despite silly scare stories about this case making the news in 2015. The BBFC were simply obliged under the terms of their remit to retrospectively look at this 1971 title again. This was because the current distributors were submitting a new Bluray edition, and the content had to be looked at afresh for the new high definition format, even though it already been granted a certificate for cinema, video and DVD in its uncut form.
The BBFC judged it once again to be harmless and non-sexualised in its presentation of adolescent nudity within the narrative context and themes of the film as a whole. The 12 certificate it already had for DVD was confirmed for Bluray release. End of story.
What is interesting (and frankly a little disturbing) in terms of social history is the fact that some people out there can watch this title four and half decades on from its original release and apparently see something dirty, smutty and even harmful in it. Nobody at the time did. That's more of a judgement on our own era than it is of the era in which Walkabout was produced.