It may well seem like a new dawn for transparency and freedom of artistic expression, but recent decisions by the BBFC and published documents relating to the body have got many film fans worried that we are actually in a very troubling situation in the UK. Following the difficulties surrounding the classification of A Serbian Film and the rejection of films such as The Human Centipede II and The Bunny Game it is clear that the BBFC have an issue with a perceived new wave of films dealing with sexual violence.
The terminology surrounding these high profile cases has made its way into many classifications though, with explanations including phrases such as “Contains no material likely to offend or harm” (The Spirit of ’45 – classified U) appearing in films in the lower categories. What do the BBFC mean by harm and how do they know what will or won’t cause offence? These are the kind of questions that I would like answered by a compulsory classification board that charges distributors and controls the way in which we see films in the UK.
There have been inroads into better understanding the way in which the BBFC make decisions and what research they use. The most recent and high profile piece of research commissioned by the BBFC led to a great deal of criticism though – I wrote a lengthy piece on the research here – and has done more to concern those keeping a close eye on the BBFC than put their minds at ease.
This research is part of a larger effort on the part of the BBFC to assess their recent classifications and make decisions regarding future policies. One of my biggest criticisms of the recent research – there are many – was that the sample size was very small, something that the BBFC have stressed is related to that research being a qualitative study, but the BBFC are now conducting another study that aims to poll the opinions of a much greater number of people. You can head here and fill out the survey, if you haven’t done so already.
Please do, I think it’s very important.
Done it? Good. One issue that you may have noticed with the survey, and it’s something that I have seen many complaints about on Twitter, is that it leaves very little room to offer your opinion about the same things that were asked of the smaller group, or indeed any other comments that you may have. Dependant on the answers given you may have seen a box that gave you room to write in a longer response to one of the questions or you may have just had boxes to tick. If you’ve got anything else to say there’s no option for further comments, something that is a standard on most surveys of this type.
So, we at HeyUGuys would like to offer you our comments section to write what you didn’t have the opportunity to say in the survey. We will then be passing on your comments to the BBFC. These comments have the potential to influence the way in which the BBFC make decisions and we will be providing the BBFC some space here to reply to your comments should they so desire.
I hand it over to you…
I’ve had a problem with the BBFC ever since I was a kid, when I felt my rights were being infringed by certain material being legally unavailable to me, unlike in the States, where the ratings board is not mandated by statute and the most common adult rating requires an adult guardian for under 17s rather than simply banning younger viewers. Age restrictions seemed to me arbitrary, as opposed to, say, maturity ratings.
Over the years I’ve developed more problems with the BBFC, such as their feeble assertion that they’re an independent, non-governmental body (they’re actually a quango with the force of law), their problematic decision-making and levels of transparency, their flippant laughing off of previous draconian decisions, and, as Craig Skinner has rightly pointed out in this and other articles, their vague and unsubstantiated notion of “harm.”
Anyway, yesterday was Skinner’s 31st birthday, and I joked that I was going to honour him by spending the day emailing awkward questions to the BBFC. And then I thought – why not? So here are 31 questions I harassed the BBFC with yesterday, some serious, some obviously designed to highlight the absurdity of the board, but all deserving an answer at one level or another:
1. In your recent reports and literature, you make frequent reference to the idea of “harm.” What do you mean by “harm,” and is there any empirical data suggesting that people can be caused “harm” by visual media?
2. Films that are classified 12A in the cinema are often classified as 12 for home viewing, meaning that persons of any age can view material in public that it’s an offence for them to purchase or rent. Isn’t this an implicit infringement of the rights of children?
3. Your recent consultation of viewers indicated that a small number of people were offended by THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II. Is it fair to extrapolate anything from this data, which is essentially the uninformed conjecture of a tiny sample of people?
4. You frequently change certificates over time. For example, the once-banned ISLAND OF LOST SOULS now has a PG cerificate! Does the BBFC’s role as a barometer of social norms and taboos not make it fundamentally reactionary and anti-art?
5. The BBFC frequently claims to be a non-governmental body and yet under the Video Recordings Act all films supplied on DVD in UK stores must have a BBFC classification. You have the force of law, yet respond to criticism of government censorship with the “non-governmental body” argument. Isn’t this a case of having your cake and eating it?
6. Why were AA films suitable for 14-year-olds while now the young-adult certificate is 15? Was there specific research done to indicate a significant developmental difference between 14 and 15, or did you simply think 15 was a nice, decimally normative number?
7. The BBFC website often indicates that films have been cut but doesn’t always detail specific cuts. I realise your archives are vast, but shouldn’t making this historical information available to consumers be a priority?
8. Is there any empirical data to suggest that witnessing onscreen violence, sex or strong language can be developmentally detrimental to young people?
9. By the BBFC’s own admission, nudity and violence in historical contexts receive more classification leniency than the same in contemporary films. Why is ‘historical’ nudity and violence perceived to be more acceptable for younger viewers by the BBFC?
10. The BBFC claims to be a classification rather than censorship body. Is requiring cuts for films not censorship? Is the name-change not fundamentally cosmetic?
11. Is the BBFC podcast a wise use of the BBFC’s budget? Was it devised in response to any particular public demand? Do you feel that it sufficiently addresses public interest in the activities of the BBFC?
12. With the Internet making it abundantly clear that there are engaged, articulate young people with an interest in film, TV and games, have you ever thought about convening a youth panel to comment on the work of the BBFC? And if so, how would you ensure that the deck of such a panel would not be stacked in favour of young people more likely to be lenient on the BBFC’s activities? (eg – young people who don’t stand their ground and acquiesce to whatever answers are given)
13. Can you provide examples of specific instances in which you have taken on board the concerns of fans of the horror film genre, in particular their concern that horror receives unfair treatment from the BBFC?
14. Do you feel that your fees are fair to small distributors?
15. What justification do you have for the fact that films must be reclassified for home viewing after distributors have already paid for their releases to obtain cinema certificates? (nb, I’m not referring to DVD extras, but to films themselves)
16. Your examiners are mostly former social workers. Is this really a fair representation of society, given the controversial nature of the job (some see it as a rather lightweight profession)? What are you doing to solicit the views of filmmakers, critics, fans, businesspeople, etc?
17. Certain films were classified as 15 on video after being 12 in the cinema due to the non-existence of a 12 certificate on video between 1989 and 1994. What do you think of the idea that the BBFC should waive classification fees if and when these works are resubmitted? The existence of a 12 on video now seems a de facto admission that certain films were classified unfairly, and their audience was restricted even within BBFC guidelines of suitability.
18. Is the BBFC’s classification leniency for historical films not inconsistent at best, discriminatory against genre fiction and a reactionary defence of established institutions at worst? Why does the extreme violence of Michael Mann’s LAST OF THE MOHICANS get a 12 certificate and Ken Russell’s THE DEVILS get an 18?
19. Does the fact that the BBFC frequently reclassifies films from previous generations not indicate that it is likely to keep making equivalent mistakes in this and subsequent generations?
20. Why did William Lustig’s 1980 horror classic MANIAC never receive a cinema certificate? Was it submitted?
(I just wanted to know this, to be fair – but I suspect the answer is that it was refused, which seems absurd given that it got a video certificate, and is still affecting cinemas to this day. The Prince Charles wanted to show MANIAC recently but couldn’t, as it has no cinema cert)
21. E.T. contains several uses of the word “shit” but is a U-certificate film. I’ve previously asked the BBFC if any other U-certs contain this word and was told that the organisation wasn’t sure. As such details are so important to your work, what efforts are being made to digitise and cross-reference records, and make such details easily accessible?
22. The BBFC has asserted that “harm” may be inflicted on young viewers who are exposed to violence, sex, nudity and taboo language in visual media. Do you concede the possibility that harm could come from young people NOT being able to access such material, inasmuch as they may remain ignorant and intellectually undeveloped?
23. Would you ever consider classifying a film on the basis or logical or historical inaccuracy, on the basis that a young person might be educationally misinformed and thus intellectually harmed by such material?
24. Due to increased social concerns about smoking and drinking, do you think it is likely that CASABLANCA would receive a higher classification than U if it were to be submitted to the BBFC today?
25. How wide does the BBFC’s remit to provide parental advice extend? If blasphemy receives attention, is it fair to expect warnings for specialist groups such as Christian Scientists if medicine is dispensed in a film?
26. Why is the input of the public at large into the BBFC limited to a “guideline survey?” By asking what films should fit which classifications, aren’t you allowing yourselves to claim public consultation while avoiding public input on such questions as what the classification categories should be, and whether the BBFC’s right to exist is valid in the first place?
27. Why did it take so much public pressure for you to admit publicly that you worked with the distributor of DIE HARD 5 to secure a 12A rating? Are there other instances where this has happened that are not mentioned on your website and that the public may not be aware of?
28. Would you be likely to object to or take legal action if a new advisory body emerged as a rival to the BBFC, and petitioned for statutory recognition?
29. What is particular to visual media such as films and games that they should require legally mandated classification, when such media as books and music do not?
30. As the BBFC has no power over television or VOD, more distributors of visual media may opt to bypass theatrical and physical-media releases as the margins of entertainment economics get tighter, in order to avoid your costs. Do you feel any sense of responsibility for your power over the distribution landscape?
31. What do you think of the irony that it’s legal for a 15 year old to buy a new DVD of a film such as THE SHINING but illegal for the same person to buy an older copy of the exact same movie, due to the different copies carrying different certificates?
Of course, I forgot to ask them the most important question of all: If it’s possible for films to “harm” adult viewers and therefore require banning, how can BBFC examiners be exempt from possible harm? What makes them better, psychologically stronger, than the rest of us? Roll on email #32…