Films have been banned for many reasons: extreme violence, sexual content, political criticism, racial depictions, religious offense, public order concerns, or because a government simply wanted to control ideas. Bans can be temporary or permanent, national or local, official (by a censorship board or court) or unofficial (theaters pressured to stop screenings). Below I present an extensive, plain-language, easy-to-understand account of notable films that were banned or heavily suppressed for being too controversial, organized by the primary reason for their censorship and illustrated with key examples, the grounds given at the time, and the later fate or reevaluation of each work.
Political and ideological bans
– The Battle over ideas
Governments commonly ban films that criticize the ruling regime, question dominant ideologies, or depict revolutions and dissent in ways the authorities find dangerous. These bans are often enforced by state censorship boards, courts, or simply by making distribution and exhibition impossible.
– The Hurt Locker and modern military controversies
Films that portray modern military action in an unflattering or ambiguous light sometimes face political resistance, official warnings, or restricted releases in countries sensitive to the portrayal of their armed forces. Even when not formally banned, such films can face distribution barriers and political pressure.
– The Killing Fields (1984) and films about atrocities
Films that expose recent atrocities, crimes against humanity, or state-sponsored violence can be banned by governments that feel implicated, or by states fearing unrest. Authorities may argue the films will disturb public order or damage national dignity. Some of these films are later embraced internationally as important historical records, even if banned in their own country.
– The Battle of Algiers (1966)
The Battle of Algiers, which portrays urban guerrilla warfare against colonial rule, was banned in France after its release because authorities feared it could inspire unrest and sympathies for insurgent tactics. The film has since been widely studied and used as a teaching tool for counterinsurgency and revolutionary strategy, illustrating how a film’s political content can make it both dangerous to some and essential to others.
– Banned for political criticism in authoritarian states
Many films critical of authoritarian governments are never shown publicly in their country of origin. Filmmakers rely on international festivals and foreign releases instead. Some pay a heavy price at home—legal harassment, exile, or blacklisting.
Religious and moral offense
– The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
Martin Scorsese’s film adapts a novel imagining an alternate human life for Jesus. Many religious groups protested vigorously, arguing the film showed sacrilegious content. Several countries restricted or banned it at various times; protests, boycotts, and vandalism accompanied screenings in some places. Authorities justified restrictions on grounds of blasphemy or to prevent public disorder. Over time the film has been reappraised by many critics and film historians for its artistic intent, though it remains controversial in some communities.
– Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)
Monty Python’s satirical tale about a man who is mistaken for the Messiah drew accusations of blasphemy. Local councils and some national authorities banned the film in several places shortly after release, citing offense to religious sensibilities and risk to public order. The film’s defenders pointed to its satirical target—organized religion and religious zealotry—rather than a direct attack on faith itself. Many of the early bans were lifted over time.
Sex, nudity, and obscenity
– I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967)
This Swedish film, which mixed political discussion with explicit sexual content, was seized by customs in the United States and faced obscenity prosecutions. U.S. courts ultimately ruled on whether its sexual content merited an obscenity ban, and the film’s fate became a legal touchstone in debates about artistic merit versus prurience. The controversy showed how sexual frankness combined with political themes could provoke both moral panic and legal battles over censorship.
– Last Tango in Paris (1972)
Bernardo Bertolucci’s explicit treatment of sex and relationships caused bans and legal action in several countries. Some courts and censor boards demanded cuts or blocked release, citing obscenity and public morality. Decades later the film’s reputation remains contested: praised for performances and direction by some, condemned by others for exploitative elements.
– Films classified as obscene and “video nasties”
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the United Kingdom experienced a moral panic over violent and sexualized horror films distributed on home video. A list of so-called “video nasties” was compiled and many titles were prosecuted, seized, or banned, often without formal ratings in the early days of home video law. The campaign showed how evolving media formats can trigger new waves of censorship and how moral concern sometimes outpaces legal clarity.
Graphic violence and horror
– The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
Tobe Hooper’s film used suggestion, sound, and editing more than explicit gore to deliver a terrifying experience. Nonetheless, it was banned or cut in several countries at first because authorities feared its violent atmosphere and the public reaction to it. Over decades the film was reassessed by many critics and preserved as culturally important in some jurisdictions, even while some countries had initially suppressed it on grounds of violence and moral harm.
– The Exorcist (1973)
When The Exorcist opened it provoked strong public reaction: fainting, vomiting, protests, and claims of moral corruption. Some local authorities removed it from cinemas temporarily, and certain countries demanded cuts or banned it outright because of its disturbing imagery and apparent challenge to religious sanctities.
– Cannibal films and extreme exploitation
A subgenre of exploitation cinema, sometimes presented as “shock” or “true” footage, ran into bans because of explicit gore, scenes of animal cruelty, or alleged real acts of violence. Governments and courts frequently banned titles that crossed lines of graphic injury, sexual violence, or cruelty to animals. These ban decisions sometimes referenced obscenity, public safety, or specific statutes against cruelty.
Race, ethnicity, and depiction bans
– Films promoting racial hatred or colonial narratives
States and censorship authorities have sometimes banned films that either promote racial hatred or depict people in ways considered inflammatory within a given national context. Conversely, anti-colonial films critical of imperial powers have sometimes been banned by the colonizing power.
– Countries banning foreign films for cultural reasons
At times bans have come not because of the film itself but because of the nationality, ethnicity, or political alignment of actors or filmmakers, or because of diplomatic tensions. Examples include films banned because they featured Israeli actors or were judged to insult national heroes.
Legal and technical reasons
– Copyright, licensing, or contractual disputes
Occasionally a film is withdrawn or effectively banned in a market because of legal disputes over rights, unpaid licensing fees, or court injunctions. These are not censorship in the moral sense, but they can make a film effectively unavailable.
– Safety and public order
Authorities sometimes cite risk to public order when banning films. If screenings provoke large protests, clashes, or threats, a local or national government may prohibit exhibition to prevent violence. This reasoning was invoked in several high-profile religious or political contests.
Notorious case
