# Movies banned in the USA **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 12, 2003, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355 "2003-06-12T16:03:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/41 "2003-06-14T05:39:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jomo Mojo \* > \*\*_ **If You Love this Planet** _, a Canadian documentary of a talk by Australian antinuclear activist **Helen Caldicott** , was **actually banned** in the United States during the Reagan administration because she sharply criticized U.S. government policies. Shameful, absolutely shameful. I watched a special screening of a smuggled copy of the film at the University of Denver, I think it was in 1984, when I happened to be there. > > Helen Caldicott founded Physicians for Social Responsibility to oppose the nuclear arms buildup during the Reagan administration. It won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. Her film _If You Love this Planet_ won a 1983 Academy Award. \*\* I thought I might check up on this claim of banning, and I haven’t found any concrete proof. But from [this site](http://www.wf.net/~aardvark/ee/essays/feds_vs_heads.htm) I did find the following: > [@](#): > > … he learned that Canadian director Terre Nash’s Academy Award-winning film If You Love This Planet (a record of a lecture by antinuclear activist Dr. Helen Caldicott) might be banned in the United States. The film was eventually distributed there, though the Justice Department required U.S. distributors to label the film “political propaganda.” And on [this site](http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/032097/film1.html) was the following: > [@](#): > > Terre Nash, who was nominated for If You Love this Planet in 1983, wasn’t even sure she’d make the ceremony, but not for lack of trying. **The Reagan administration had labelled the film, which documents peacenik Dr. Helen Caldicott’s moving lecture about the effects of nuclear war, as propaganda, strictly limiting its distribution.** “The official at the border asked me if I was going to L.A. for business or pleasure,” recalls Nash, “and I said, ‘Both.’ She knew who I was and asked if my trip had anything to do with the Oscars. **‘Are you involved with this film that was banned by my president?’** ‘Well, I made it,’ I told her. ‘Well, good for you–I hope you win!’ she said, and that was it. I was across the border.” (Bolding is mine) So, yeah, it looks like a propaganda label was slapped on it, and you can argue about the legitimacy of that. But perhaps the claim that it was banned might be a little bit of self promotion? In the last quote, note how the speaker admits the distribution was limited – but apparently not squashed – yet goes along with the language and the impression that it was banned. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/42 "2003-06-15T03:37:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*And specifically how is this a “ban”? \*\* The OP asked for “movies that, legally, absolutely CANNOT be shown in the US?” The documentary _Titicut Follies_ could not be shown 1967-1992 because of a court decision that it violated the privacy of the inmates shown; _Superstar_ cannot be shown because of copyright violations. What don’t you understand? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/43 "2003-06-15T03:48:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aahala \* > **"The Salt of the Earth"(1954) was banned in the US during the McCarthy era.** This has been commonly alleged. Others claim that the U.S. government “tried” to ban it. But I have yet to find any specific information about what government body, under what legal authority, and when. Frankly, I don’t believe the hype. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/44 "2003-06-15T03:53:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KGS \* > \*\*I remember it concerned mostly ones that were “pulled from the market” due to controversy (i.e. “Manchurian Candidate”) or could not find a distributor (i.e. “Lolita”, which did show up on Showtime and did have a brief theatrical run, several years after Polanski made it. Heh, Polanski needs to keep away from those little girls…) \*\* Polanski did not make [Lolita](http://us.imdb.com/Details?0119558). ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/45 "2003-06-15T04:10:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*Unlike in fascist countries, the USA has no central censorship board for movies. Instead, this matter is left to individual communities. \*\* IANAL, but I believe that the only sense in which the “matter is left to individual communities” is that local prosecutors can charge exhibitors or video stores with obscenity. Maryland was the last state to have a Board of Censors, and it was abolished in 1981. ---
**Author:** ![Antonius\_Block](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Antonius\_Block](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antonius_Block)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/46 "2003-06-15T06:35:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*Unlike in fascist countries, the USA has no central censorship board for movies. Instead, this matter is left to individual communities. \*\* No offence intended, **Dogface** , but this comes across as a little smug. I understand that the OP is asking about nationwide US bans, so the issue of central censorship is relevant. However, the above statements of yours make it seem as though censorship is perfectly fine as long as it doesn’t originate from the Feds. As the [imdb.com](http://imdb.com) entry for [The Tin Drum](http://us.imdb.com/Trivia?0078875) indicates, > [@](#): > > (In the mid-1990’s) Police in Oklahoma City, in cooperation with a judge, began getting countless numbers of search warrants and arresting countless numbers of people who owned the film. . If I were sitting at home in Oklahoma City watching **The Tin Drum** and [armed, uniformed men came and confiscated the video from my home against my protests and without a search warrant](http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,1354,00.html), do you think my first thought would be _“Thank goodness they weren’t the Feds, just the Oklahoma City police! Oklahoma, OK!”_? The ACLU had [this](http://archive.aclu.org/issues/freespeech/tindrum.html) take on the matter. And now here’s a quote from [My Cousin Vinny](http://us.imdb.com/Title?0104952): > [@](#): > > Imagine you’re a deer. You’re prancing around. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the clear water - BAM! A fuckin’ bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces. Now I ask you, do you give a fuck what kind of pants the son-of-a-bitch who shot you was wearing?! ---
**Author:** ![CelraySoda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e36b37/32.png) [@CelraySoda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelraySoda)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/47 "2003-06-15T08:01:43Z")
What about the Faces of Death series? Didn’t they try to ban that stuff before and failed? -M ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/48 "2003-06-15T08:10:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*Polanski did not make [Lolita](http://us.imdb.com/Details?0119558). \*\* :smack: Of course, you are right. It was Adrian Lyne. Easy mistake to make, though…ifyaknowhatimean. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/49 "2003-06-15T12:19:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KGS \* > \*\*:smack: Of course, you are right. It was Adrian Lyne. > > Easy mistake to make, though…ifyaknowhatimean. \*\* No, no, Lyne did a [remake](http://us.imdb.com/Title?0056193). Odd that Stanley Kubrick didn’t have near the troubles that Lyne did, considering the time period. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/50 "2003-06-15T14:40:08Z")
It was the remake I was referring to, the one that couldn’t find a distributor. I think Kubrick’s version had fewer troubles because A) Kubrick changed the story to be far less sexually explicit B) Kubrick is God. 😃 C) Whilst attitudes regarding morality, sex, violence etc. have become increasingly liberal, attitudes towards pedophilia has gone the complete opposite direction. Indeed, it seems like any movie that attempts to “humanize” pedophiles ( **L.I.E.** , **Happiness** , and the aforementioned **Lolita** ) gets an automatic NC-17. (Not that I’m defending pedophilia, mind you. I hate child molesters like everyone else. But when it becomes a total witchhunt, and anti-pedo protestors torch the office of a PAEDIATRICIAN because they thought the two words were synonymous, well…it’s hard to sit back and say nothing.) ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/51 "2003-06-15T15:50:16Z")
**Antonius** , part of the problem is the common connotation of the term “banned” – usually that there is something in the movie that some entity with power has decided is dangerous from a politico-ideological angle. And of course, the “in the USA” bit that others have addressed (though I will not join in the insinuation that any place that does it differently from us must be 'fascist"). And for _The Tin Drum_, please see **Walloon** ’s post above. **ONE** idiot DA/Police Chief team on ONE city in Oklahoma does not a pattern make, specially if the courts throw out the case. Now, I know that many will say there should not have been a case even attempted to begin with, but the US system just works reactively. BTW, AFAIK in the USA it’s indeed only legally “censorship” if it’s a public entity doing, and has the effect of making you prosecutable for publishing/viewing the material, not if it forces you to do so less profitably. So the _Tin Drum_ case would have been censorship, but the MPAA ratings are not considered so – it’s an industry cartel controlling aspects of film distribution and marketing, and can drive you out of the market, but you do NOT go to jail for showing a non-rated movie. Since the MPAA, _not being an arm of the state_, cannot have me _arrested, fined and jailed_, were I to produce, say, a version of _DeSade’s Julliette_, I’d much rather be able make it, never submit it to MPAA, and take the risk of self-distributing to the art house market or direct-video-sales channel, than be obligated to submit it to an entity with the powers of the Government behind it who will have the studio shut down and impounded. ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/52 "2003-06-15T17:05:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KGS \* > \*\*It was the remake I was referring to, the one that couldn’t find a distributor. I think Kubrick’s version had fewer troubles because > A) Kubrick changed the story to be far less sexually explicit > B) Kubrick is God. 😃 > C) Whilst attitudes regarding morality, sex, violence etc. have become increasingly liberal, attitudes towards pedophilia has gone the complete opposite direction. Indeed, it seems like any movie that attempts to “humanize” pedophiles ( **L.I.E.** , **Happiness** , and the aforementioned **Lolita** ) gets an automatic NC-17. \*\* Is this the version starring Jeremy Irons? If so, I remember the controversy. There wasn’t an effort to outlaw it, per se, but because of the theme, the film couldn’t find a major studio to release it. This was during a period when little boys were being suspended from school for kissing little girls – there was a bit of hysteria about anything that could be remotely classified as sexual harassment. I don’t think the movie would have as much of a problem today now that cooler heads have prevailed. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/53 "2003-06-15T20:09:44Z")
KGS writes: \> Indeed, it seems like any movie that attempts to “humanize” \> pedophiles (L.I.E., Happiness, and the aforementioned Lolita) \> gets an automatic NC-17. _Lolita_ was rated R. L.I.E. was rated NC-17, but there’s a video version rated R. I don’t know what changes were made to reduce the film to an R, but it’s unlikely to be that they changed the fact that the film was about a pedophile. That would essentially require throwing out the film and starting over. It’s more likely that there was some language and some explicit sex cut out. _Happiness_ apparently only has a NC-17 version. ---
**Author:** ![occ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8c91f0/32.png) [@occ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/occ)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/54 "2003-06-15T21:17:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious \* > \*\* > So, yeah, it looks like a propaganda label was slapped on it, and you can argue about the legitimacy of that. But perhaps the claim that it was banned might be a little bit of self promotion? In the last quote, note how the speaker admits the distribution was limited – but apparently not squashed – yet goes along with the language and the impression that it was banned. \*\* (Talking about Helen Caldicott) Can someone provide a better cite? I have a hard time believing “the Justice Department” would “restrict distribution” of a movie. For one, even if the government did engage in such practices, why would the Justice Department be the one to do it? Secondly, is there such a thing as the government officially labelling something “propeganda”? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Thirdly, how could the government limit the distribution of a film? What, are they threatening video stores that attempt to sell or rent the film? Finally, this reeks of “My words are dangerous to the government! They’re repressing me!”, a position which almost invariably turns out to be bogus. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/55 "2003-06-15T22:29:12Z")
Motion pictures, like other media, that are imported to the United States are subject to tariffs, depending on the nation of origin and the content of the media. Exemptions are made for media content that is educational in nature, and news media. When the documentary feature _Eight Minutes to Midnight: A Portrait of Dr. Helen Caldicott_ was imported from Canada, the U.S. Customs Service was of the opinion that it was more an advocacy work than educational (although arguably it is both), and said that it was subject to import tarrifs. From this dispute was born the claim by the filmmakers that _Eight Minutes to Minute_ was the film the Reagan administration tried to prevent you from seeing. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/56 "2003-06-15T23:28:13Z")
There’s a third class of films which are (in effect) banned in the U.S. They are films (or photos) depicting a woman in sexual bondage while being vaginally, anally or orally penetrated by a man. Sounds extremely narrow, and it is, WEIRDLY narrow, but outside one exception – Larry Flynt’s Taboo Magazine and online site – you can’t find any imagery like that in the U.S. (though I think there are some European and Asian sources). Now you can have images of women bound and ahving sex with men that are not explicit. YOu can have explicit images of women bound and being penetrated by toys. You can have explicit images of women bound and having sex with one another. You can have explicit images of men bound and penetrated by women (dunno about men/men images, I suspect not). Consensuality is not an issue here. A totally consensual portrayal of sexual bondage is just as illegal as a portrayal of rape. The Taboo exception is because Larry Flynt has the money, lawyers and guts to be willing to be taken to trial over his content. So far, no one is taking him up on it, largely I suspect because the general consensus in the U.S. is that consensual bondage is OK. In the 70s and early 80s some of the early XXX film contained explicit XXX maletyingupfemaleand having explicit sex with her scenes, but these were subsequently edited out of the films. Some old copies still exist, though. BTW, the implication in an earlier post was that Traci Lords wasn’t required to provide proof of age when she did porn, which was how she managed to do it underaged. As I understand it, she provided fake documents proving her age to be over 18. The industry did panic and pull all her films from the shelves when she admitted to having been underage when she did porn, but as there were some DAs looking at the possibility of taking people to trial for it, they had good reason to panic. I dont’ think anyone was convicted or even taken to trial, as they did have Lords’ fake documents on hand. ---
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/57 "2003-06-16T00:55:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wendell Wagner \* > \*\*_Lolita_ was rated R. L.I.E. was rated NC-17, but there’s a video version rated R. I don’t know what changes were made to reduce the film to an R, but it’s unlikely to be that they changed the fact that the film was about a pedophile. That would essentially require throwing out the film and starting over. It’s more likely that there was some language and some explicit sex cut out. _Happiness_ apparently only has a NC-17 version. \*\* Well, at [http://www.lot47.com](http://www.lot47.com) – the film studio that produced **L.I.E.** , but the link doesn’t work at the moment – they represented Lyne’s version of **Lolita** as rated NC-17, so maybe they lied. As for L.I.E., I’ve only seen it once in the theater and a couple times on IFC, which labeled it as NC-17 each time. I can’t imagine what they cut to reduce the rating to R, since the violence and language (aside from a few f-words) were barely PG-13 material, and there were NO sex scenes between the boy and the pedophile Marine, not even implied. **Happiness** had so many disgusting scenes (the obscene phone caller squirting his semen onto the wall, for example) that it likely would have received an NC-17 anyway, even with the pedophile father parts removed. (Or should that be, “remove pedophile father’s parts?” Sounds logical to me…) ---
**Author:** ![Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Satisfying\_Andy\_Licious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satisfying_Andy_Licious)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/58 "2003-06-16T01:20:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*Motion pictures, like other media, that are imported to the United States are subject to tariffs, depending on the nation of origin and the content of the media. Exemptions are made for media content that is educational in nature, and news media. When the documentary feature _Eight Minutes to Midnight: A Portrait of Dr. Helen Caldicott_ was imported from Canada, the U.S. Customs Service was of the opinion that it was more an advocacy work than educational (although arguably it is both), and said that it was subject to import tarrifs. > > From this dispute was born the claim by the filmmakers that _Eight Minutes to Minute_ was the film the Reagan administration tried to prevent you from seeing. \*\* I suspected it was something of this nature. I didn’t want to call their claim that they were banned outright B.S., but it didn’t make much sense to me, given U.S law. I don’t know much about Caldicott, but if this represents her approach to the truth, I’d be very wary of anything else she has to say. If they can turn a different import tax into a claim they were being banned, they are not on good terms with the truth. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/59 "2003-06-16T01:43:37Z")
**Evil Captor** , the key to what you mention about hardcore bondage is that parenthetical _“(in effect)”_: it is STILL a " local community" issue, but these depictions become “banned in effect” because there have been enough cases in enough places where this depiction has been found “obscene”, to make it unworthwhile for anyone to produce them… except Flynt, known for testing the boundaries of “obscenity” law, and even he will not ship _Taboo_ to some locations where he knows it’s already settled. There’s no specific statute outlawing bound-woman hardcore, or hardcore depictions of simulated rape, or of fisting. Just too many communities where those are considered obscene. As for Traci Lords: her agent and two porn producers were indicted. They _were_ allowed to argue her false ID as a defense, but eventually they plea-bargained for lesser charges. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355/60 "2003-06-16T02:24:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Satisfying Andy Licious \* > \*\*Is this the version starring Jeremy Irons? If so, I remember the controversy. There wasn’t an effort to outlaw it, per se, but because of the theme, the film couldn’t find a major studio to release it. This was during a period when little boys were being suspended from school for kissing little girls – there was a bit of hysteria about anything that could be remotely classified as sexual harassment. I don’t think the movie would have as much of a problem today now that cooler heads have prevailed. \*\* Yeah, it’s the Irons version. I remember reading an article discussing the making of the film, and describing the problems the filmmakers had during the production of the film, and comparing them to the problems that Kubrick had (namely that Nabokov’s original script would have come in at 7 hours long). The article was updated and discussed how it would have been _impossible_ to shoot Lyne’s version after the “Child Protection Act” (or whatever it was called) was passed (and then overturned by SCOTUS). The one thing I remember from the article was it saying that during the scenes where Lolita was bouncing up and down on Irons lap, he had to have a board between him and her, so that there could be no physical contact between his crotch and hers. One of the members of the cast (not Irons) stated, that the actress who played Lolita had read the book before she read the script and was rather blase about the whole thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/movies-banned-in-the-usa/181355.md?page=4)