Porn-again movie has created a reel hassle

EVER hear the one about the gardener, three nuns and a dog? It might sound like the opening line to a dodgy joke. But actually it is the teaser for a hardcore porn film which is set to be shown to the public at an Edinburgh cinema.

And it is being taken very seriously indeed by certain people in the city who are outraged that the x-rated film could be about to appear at a screen near them.

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has just given the new film a special, rare R-18 classification - the strictest rating available, reserved for adult-only films. It is the first time such a rating has been given in the UK for a cinematic film for over a decade.

Called The Good Old Naughty Days, the controversial film includes intercourse and other sex acts, and even footage involving a man, a woman and a terrier dog as well as shots of "dirty old men of the cloth" watching "nuns" indulging in sexual acts. Scottish film distributor Tartan Films says the footage is of "historical" interest and deserves to be seen in cinemas across the country.

It has been created from a recently discovered collection of the world’s oldest blue movies of the kind which were once screened at brothels in France to get punters "in the mood". Now if Edinburgh City Council’s licensing

regulatory committee grants permission, the explicit scenes will be shown at any mainstream cinema in the Capital which applies for a licence.

The Filmhouse has already said it will screen the movie if the council gives approval - to the horror of opposition politicians, church leaders and campaigners who fear it could fuel sexual abuse. So, is this simply hardcore porn masquerading as nostalgia; prurience pretending to be excused as historical interest?

Tory councillor Alastair Paisley, of Juniper Green ward, says: "I have not seen it but from what I am told it is very pornographic. There is bestiality, with people of the cloth involved in it. There is enough to say to me, ‘No we should not be allowing people to watch that’. I have had several complaints from people in my constituency.

"What you do in the privacy of your own home is up to you but I don’t think this should be shown publicly and for the council to be involved [by granting a licence] would send the wrong message. I am thinking of tabling a motion [against this]."

Scottish Women Against Pornography spokeswoman Catherine Harper says: "It would be totally unacceptable to show a film which sells pornography as entertainment in this way. It would completely contradict the council’s messages about women’s safety. How will it make any difference if it is shown late at night? The message [that porn is entertainment] will be the same.

"It makes no difference that it is old footage; it is still what it is. If it was a film of child pornography we would not say that’s OK because it’s old. There’s no difference."

Criticising The Filmhouse, she claims that showing the film will damage its business, adding: "If this is for the sake of profit I think it is very short-sighted. I don’t think a lot of people will be impressed. The Filmhouse has a reputation for really interesting films. If they screen this, that reputation will be tarnished."

Animal welfare campaigners are equally appalled by the film’s release, particularly the scene featuring the terrier in a menage a trois with the woman and man, which they warn could indirectly lead to child abuse.

Doreen Graham, of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA), says: "What is the point in showing this? It is totally inappropriate. People joke about the sexual abuse of animals but it is not funny at all. We have seen animals which have been injured through sexual abuse. And research has shown that often animals are used to coerce children into performing sex acts. I know it’s a film and it is supposed to be erotic, but it could put ideas into people’s heads. It could end up with an animal or a person being abused."

Rev John Tait of Pilrig St Paul’s Church says the film sounds "disgusting" and brands any move to show it "unacceptable". He is calling for the clergy to be involved in the decision on whether or not to screen the film, but adds: "I do not believe that it should be shown in a cinema."

Rev Elizabeth Ross of St Martin’s Church in Dalry Road agrees. "I don’t understand why they would want to show pornography. Scenes of people being degraded are not what we should be exposing people to. We should be saying that life has to be valued."

And Rev James Dewar of Juniper Green adds: "I don’t think it is good or right for people to see this kind of film . . . I should think that the Christian view in Edinburgh is that it should not be shown."

Iain Whyte, the council’s Tory leader, is less concerned. however, he warns: "It sounds like the people trying to put it on are making every attempt to shock, but I don’t think giving it publicity and attempting to ban it helps that situation; it probably just generates more interest."

However, the Filmhouse maintains that the outrage is an "overreaction" and remains keen to screen the film for "sociological reasons".

Rod White, cinema programmes director, who has watched the film, says: "We will certainly show it if we are allowed to. We will be asking the council if that is something they are happy with us doing and if they are we will be showing it. They appear to be quite positive about it at the moment.

"This ‘outrage’ is an overreaction. I am not going to particularly defend the film but it is historically quite interesting and we would be showing it for sociological reasons - it is a look at a snapshot of an earlier time and perhaps something that not too many people know used to go on in those days."

Referring to the film itself he adds: "It is quite boring actually, although it is quite explicit. It is a sequence of short films and they tend to get a bit repetitive, although they have tried to bring in a dog, and then some nuns, to make it more interesting." Commenting on concern for the animal’s welfare he is quick to claim that the animal is not being abused, adding: "It is not forced to do anything. It appears to be a willing partner."

The Good Old Naughty Days is a compilation put together by film maker Michel Reilhac from 300 "one-reelers" which were made during the silent film era in the early 1900s and were recently discovered in the attic of a "very respectable family".

It features a dozen hardcore shorts made between 1905 and 1930 which Reilhac says show that the modern porn industry "did not invent anything - everything had already been filmed by our great-grandparents".

They feature prostitutes who made the films with technicians from mainstream films, often borrowing costumes and sets. Tartan Films claims the film should be seen by a wider audience and admits that they are pornographic, but claims they are also educational and entertaining.

A company spokeswoman says: "We released it to take it to a wider audience. It is historically interesting, and it is also quite good cheeky fun and quite enlightening."

In reference to bestiality concerns, she adds: "Nothing is being done to the dog, the dog is involved [in sexual activity] but what is happening is not illegal."

Hamish McAlpine, owner of Tartan Films, says: "These films were made 99 years ago. I don’t think it is going to threaten society as we know it. The whole message of the film is that sex is fun."

Explaining the R-18 classification, a BBFC spokeswoman says: "The point about an R-18 is that it is pornography. There is no storyline in this film. In an 18 there may be explicit sex scenes, but there is a plot as well.

"We give a film a classification, but it is up to local authorities whether they allow cinemas to screen a film. They are the licensing authority and they can change the classification if they choose to."

But as far as Catherine Harper is concerned: "The material is unacceptable."

How they get away with it

THE Good Old Naughty Days is the first cinematic film in over a decade to be hit with an R-18 classification from the BBFC.

The strict R-18 category was introduced in 1982 as a special and legally restricted classification primarily for explicit videos of consenting sex between adults sold at licensed sex shops.

It also applied to explicit films which used to be screened at sex cinemas. But the advent of video virtually wiped out the sex cinema industry as most people chose to watch such films in their own homes. As a result, while hundreds of videos are classified R-18s every year, the last time a cinematic film was given the strict classification was in 1992.

Under R-18 criteria a film cannot feature illegal sex acts or any material "likely to encourage an interest in sex abuse". It also cannot show portrayal of any sexual activity, real or simulated, involving lack of consent.

Although the BBFC sets the category, it is up to individual councils - as the bodies responsible for licensing films - to decide whether to adopt that classification and whether or not to allow cinemas to screen a film.

Over the years, a range of sexually explicit and violent films have been banned by councils across the UK which overturned the BBFC’s classification decisions, including The Devils in 1970, Last Tango in Paris in 1972 and The Exorcist in 1974. Monty Python’s comedy Life of Brian was also banned because it was thought to be offensive to religious people.

Edinburgh City Council says it has not banned a film in the last ten years. If the council’s licensing committee upholds the R-18 classification for The Good Old Naughty Days, city cinemas must apply to the council committee for what would effectively be a temporary sex cinema licence.

Conditions would include requiring customers to sign up - bringing proof of age - to become members of the "sex cinema" 24 hours before the screening, which would have to be held at a time and venue which the council approved. It would be likely to be late at night.