The Truth Behind the UK’s Video Nasty Panic: A Satirical Take

by Haley January 9, 2025

In the early 1980s, the UK was gripped by a moral panic surrounding unregulated VHS horror movies. Dubbed “video nasties,” these films were accused of corrupting the minds of young people and driving them to acts of violence. The press and parliamentary campaigns against them were hysterical, with claims that even dogs were being affected. A controversial report published in 1983 claimed that children as young as five were routinely watching extreme horror films, leading to calls for a ban. However, it later emerged that the report’s research was flawed and the conclusions were politically motivated.

The Truth Behind the UK’s Video Nasty Panic: A Satirical Take

– “Video Nasty” is a horror-infused and satirical show that comments on the real events of the 1980s video nasty moral panic in the UK.
– The show highlights the hysteria and unfounded claims made by the press and campaigners against unregulated VHS horror movies, blaming them for corrupting the minds of young people and even pets.
– The sensationalized report published by the Parliamentary Group Video Enquiry, which claimed children as young as five were watching extreme horror films, was later criticized for being insubstantial and poorly researched.

Written by Hugh Travers and directed by Christopher Smith and Megan K. Fox, Video Nasty is an entertaining and thought-provoking horror-infused romp that cleverly satirizes the real events of the 1980s video nasty moral panic in the UK. The show not only provides thrills and chills but also takes a critical look at the lies and hypocrisy perpetuated by those in power during this time.

During the early 1980s, unregulated VHS horror movies came under fire from the press and parliamentary campaigns, resulting in a moral panic. These films, known as video nasties, were blamed for corrupting the minds of young people and inciting violence. Sensationalist newspaper articles, such as The Daily Mail’s “Ban the Sadist Videos” series, perpetuated the idea that these films were turning children into monsters. The panic even extended to claims that these movies were harmful to dogs, as stated by Graham Bright MP, the man responsible for the Bright Bill and the subsequent Video Recordings Act of 1984.

To support their claims, a report titled “Video Violence and Children” was published in November 1983 by the Parliamentary Group Video Enquiry in association with a unit at Oxford Polytechnic. The report claimed that the influence of video nasties was widespread, with young children as young as five routinely watching extreme horror films at home and schoolchildren pooling their money to rent out violent films. The media sensationalized these findings, further fueling the moral panic and strengthening the call to seize and destroy these videos in order to protect children.

However, what was conveniently left out of the report was the fact that the research’s framework and conclusions had been repudiated by the Oxford Polytechnic unit led by Brian Brown. The research was criticized for its lack of substance, untrustworthiness, and poor gathering of data. The sample sizes were deemed unrepresentative, and the questionnaires given to young children lacked follow-up and were designed in a way that only allowed them to select movies from a given list. As reported by The Guardian, the conclusions were more akin to opinions rather than solid research. It became evident that the report had been rushed and its findings manipulated to support a political agenda.

In Video Nasty, the satire lies in exposing the hypocrisy and lies perpetuated by those in power during the video nasty moral panic. The show serves as a reminder that, despite the panic and hysteria, the truth often gets distorted for personal and political gain. It highlights the dangers of basing decisions on false information and the importance of questioning the motives behind such campaigns.

Video Nasty is a brilliant and thought-provoking portrayal of the 1980s video nasty moral panic in the UK. Through its horror-infused storyline, it sheds light on the lies and hypocrisy that fueled the panic, emphasizing the need to critically analyze information and be aware of the agendas behind sensationalist campaigns. By examining the real events of the time, the show serves as a cautionary tale and a reminder of the consequences that arise when fear and misinformation guide decision-making processes.