In Extremis: Happy Birthday to Me and Seizure of Horror Films

Disclaimer: Nobody knows where my Johnny has gone, he’s hungry for shish kebab. Too Gory for the U.K., and Thatcher Rallied the Mob.
Read my Article, but you should seek advice first, independent advice first, get legal advice first, an opinion too, or it’ll happen to you!

As time ticks on and I feel the weight of its sands slowly crushing my insides, I reflect on another year past, staring into the void of my television screen and reviewing horror movies instead of becoming a doctor/lawyer/paleontologist/cyborg like my mother always wanted--all of that is to say I had a birthday!

Birthdays are a time for reflection and so I reflect on one of several horror films with “Birthday” in the title. Happy Birthday to Me (1981) is a slasher film about a young woman with a british authorial name--Virginia Wainwright played by Melissa Sue Anderson of Little House on the Prairie (1974-1981) fame. As the film opens, Virginia returns to a private school after an accident that left her needing regenerative brain surgery. Nothing ominous there. She is a member of the ‘Top Ten’--a group of partying students.  But to the surprise of no one, her friends are killed off one by one in gruesome fashion. A mystery ensues as to who has been snuffing out her friends’ candles.

The film was directed by J. Lee Thompson, director of the Academy Award Nominated the Guns of Navarone (1961), as well as the original Cape Fear (1962). Despite the high pedigree of his filmography, Happy Birthday to Me managed to fall under an interesting intersection between the law and moral panic: the U.K. Video Nasties.

So what pray tell is a video nasty? Pursuant to the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 (“OPA”),(1) material that is obscene and may be prosecuted for a £100 fine on summary conviction (misdemeanor) or an indictable offence of up to 3 years (felony). The test is:

(1) For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect...if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

That is pretty vague - but it comes from a much worse test developed by Cockburn CJ in the 1860s case, Regina v Hicklin:(2)

“... whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscen(e) is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fail.”

At least the OPA allowed for review of the entire piece of media as a whole, whereas this earlier test often resulted in “obscene” or “disgusting” scenes like a book using the word FUCK when describing sexual acts (see "Lady Chatterley’s Lover").(3) The OPA also uses the word “persons” implying an individual's shock does not obscenity make and added a defence if the work was in the public good (section 4); in other words, whether it had artistic merit.

By the late 1970s and early 80s video recorders had made it to the U.K and with their release another round of panic. Major distributors sent their films for rating with the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), but there were no laws governing home videos. Small studios releasing low budget films like pornography and horror films were able to seize the market, releasing potentially obscene material to hypothetically any person of any age. The media latched onto these facts and began writing stories about the dangers of domestic video, and published false statistics like four of ten children over the age of six had seen a “video nasty”.(5)

 - Snuff

By 1982 films such as Snuff (1975), The Driller Killer (1979), and Cannibal Holocaust (1979) had been released and the public were demanding prosecutions. The Department of Public Prosecutions published a list of films that they considered obscene which became known as the “video nasties” list. Unfortunately for prosecutors,  the OPA had two requirements that made it difficult to prosecute:

1. The film had to be released to prosecute so tapes were already in wide circulation; and
2. Cases were heard by individual magistrates and would not be precedent setting--meaning one court’s nasty film is another court’s not bad enough to convict.

The list consisted of 72 films of which 39 were successfully prosecuted. However, many other films were not prosecuted, but were instead seized and destroyed.

Section 3 of the OBA specifically allows a warrant to seize obscene material and if a justice of the peace is satisfied the article can be forfeited--in those cases they were often destroyed. Happy Birthday to Me was one such film that was put on the section 3 list and subject to seizure and forfeiture. As previously highlighted the ability to prosecute a film like Happy Birthday to Me, is that some judges or justices of the peace would not order forfeiture. So in 1984 (a fact too absurd to believe), the U.K. created the Video Recordings Act, a massive overstep in censorship as all distributed recordings had to be reviewed by the BBFC prior to release--with the final deadline being September 1, 1988 or they could be pulled from the shelves(6). Frank Sharman in a legislative review noted that the bill was structured in an arcane manner that is not reader friendly. Mr. Sharman noted that the legislation allows, “‘complete prohibition on all videos particularly disliked by the BBFC or the Home Secretary is far cry from the originally stated aim of the campaign which was to protect sweet and innocent children from vicious filmmakers.”(7)

Happy Birthday to Me was passed by the BBFC uncut for cinema, but took until 1986 to be passed for video. In 2004, Happy Birthday to Me was downgraded in rating to an uncut 15 certificate meaning a 15 year old could watch it--and honestly with its giallo style violence I believe your average 10 year old Call of Duty fan can handle it.

Overall, Happy Birthday to Me is a mystery horror with some fun intrigue and a good build to a ridiculous outcome. It definitely did not deserve to be destroyed as it is very tame even by the standards of the 1980s. It is a favourite of mine and worth a watch with some friends despite its longer run time (111 Minutes). Pair it with Night of the Demon (1980) or if you are feeling nasty Anthropophagous: The Beast (1980) for a lovely birthday celebration. Maybe wait until later to eat your cake.

7/10 Film; 3/10 legal realism. Apparently no one investigates missing students except the head mistress.

1. Obscene Publications Act 1959, c. 66 (Regnal. 7_and_8_Eliz_2), www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66. Accessed 4/25/21.
2. Regina v Hicklin, (1867-68) L.R. 3 Q.B. 360.
3. Kayman, Martin A. (2016). "‘The Law Is a Ass’: Obscenity, Blasphemy and Other Literary Offences after Lady Chatterley." Literary Trials: and Theories of Literature in Court. Ed. Ralf Grüttemeier. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. 191–216. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 23 Apr. 2021.
4. Video Recordings Act 1984, c. 39, www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/39/contents. Accessed 4/25/21.
5. Petley, J. (2012). “Are We Insane ?”. The “Video Nasty” Moral Panic. Open Edition Journal, 43(1), 35–37. doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.839, at 28. Accessed 4/25/21.
6. British Board of Film Certification. (2020, July 27). The Video Recordings Act. Home. www.bbfc.co.uk/education/university-students/legislation/the-video-recordings-act. Accessed 4/25/21.
7. Sharman, Frank. “The Video Recordings Act, 1984” Yearbook of Law, Computers and Technology, Volume Two, no. 1 (1986) 112-118. DOI: 10.1080/13600869.1986.9966235, at 114; Barber, S. (2016). Power struggles, regulation and responsibility. Reappraising the Video Recordings Act. Media History, 24(1), 1-16. doi.org/10.1080/13688804.2016.1229122. Accessed 4/25/21.