You're all probably aware that I'm a sucker for film classification system.

The BBFC have actually published an article about The Dark Knight's 12A rating. This is fascinating to me, because practically the first thing I said after coming out of the cinema was that "if this is a 12 then Ed Wood deserves an Oscar", dodging a 15 but for the grace of editing. I love and trust the BBFC, so I was suprised to see them do what I regard as a mis-step.

The BBFC are governed by rules, they have to be. But it's wrong to do that at the expense of the human hunch. They say:

Though these and other scenes in which characters were held hostage or
beaten had considerable psychological impact, they contained little in terms
of strong detail – thus presenting a dilemma, should the BBFC be classifying
what is actually seen, or what is imagined by the viewer?

I understand imagination is hard to police fairly, but it has to be taken into account. Ignoring content, The Dark Knight is, well, dark in terms of tone. What the Joker does is twisted and savage, and the film does not back off from it. In my first review, I noted it's been a long time since exploding buildings, bombs on public transport, terror campaigns or hostage taking was entertainment: long gone are the days of Die Hard (15). I'd even argue that it was one of the first mainstream movies to start doing this again, yet not with gleeful abandon, but a knowing nod to the audience "he's dressed up as a bat, but don't pretend you don't knows what this feels like". They don't say anything, but it's there in the room as it's written, performed, directed, viewed. We've all seen the hostage-tapes on the news, so while the fat-batman sequence is unpleasant and scary on its own merits, it has the added horror of personal experience for every member of the audience.

I'm not criticising it, as it was tastefully, brilliantly done. Yet, see the BBFC's response:

In the case of The Dark Knight several factors were noted which supported a
‘12A’ certificate. These included the film’s comic book style, the appeal of
the work to 12 –15 year olds, the clear fantasy context and the lack of
strong detail, blood or gore.

I strongly disagree with this. What comic book style? What fantasy context? The film knowingly draws on the personal experience of the audience, and is far closer to Heat (15) than it is to Batman Forever (12). And praised as such, for its realism. Even Watchmen(18) is more clearly comic-booky, both in tone and content. Yes it was based on a comic book*, but it was as far from four-colour fantasy as it could get. Admittedly, there was very little gore at all - but that's pure artifice on behalf of the editors, and behind them the production company keen to sell lunchboxes. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Disguising the claws and shielding the teeth can't hide the dark core of a 15 rated film.

*Imdb tells me the specific comic books included "The Killing Joke". It's clear there are no Batman fans at the BBFC, because that is one sick graphic novel....

My point is, this film did not disguise it's darkness for an instant. A comparison would be Last of the Timelords, in which the Master rules Earth for a whole year. The show, quite correctly, brushes straight over it: "oh, well he was a bad guy, so he was doing bad stuff". If you pay attention to the dialogue, give it five moment's thought, and suddenly your brain goes to some unbearably dark places about what he was actually up to for that whole time. And if you think my imagination is sick, that's nothing compared to the Master's genius for inventive destruction. One word: Brigadier.

That's how you do darkness for children. Don't ignore it, but don't dwell either. Dark Knight dwells. Even if you assume that contemporary parallels will be missed by the kiddies, there's something very unrelenting and cruel at the heart of the film.

OK, that's enough on themes. What, about what we actually see. Let's talk about the knife. Here's a quote from Malcassairo, discussing one of my candidates for most shocking Doctor Who moment of all time:

The BBFC don't like it because its a household object - that much closer and
copyable. But they're also scarier to watch - because imagining a gunshot is
abstract, most of us don't have a comparable experience; but we all know what it
is to catch our finger on a knife, the flesh, the blood, the moment before the
pain hits. Now imagine that, but bigger, and you have some very graphic detail
running through the minds of the kiddies at home. Watching him prowl around Peri
and Jamie with a massive shiny blade was terribly unsettling. Stabbing Oscar may
just be the most violent piece of violence in the show ever.

You'll note, at the time, I had faith in the BBFC's avowed knife policy. Let's talk about the guy who the Joker cuts a smile for. You get to see the blade go into the mouth as he's speaking. Unlike being threatened with a gun, which mercifully few of us will ever have to go through, we know the feel of a knife blade. Couple that with scary music and that performance - well, I know that I, gleeful Tarantino fan, swore under my breath and prepared to hide behind my fingers.

The fact the film cuts away to a falling body means nothing, because the audience know, see, feel exactly what happened. The BBFC, ironically, compare it to the Reservoir Dogs (18) ear slicing, at which I say EXACTLY. It's been noted before that not-seeing is often worse than seeing, and a majority of people remember the ear coming off - when in actual fact, the camera coldly averts it's gaze to a different part of the room. Any horror fan can tell you that the quantity of gore means nothing when it comes to the disturbing quality of a film. Things get in you brain and they stay there. What shocked me about the Doctor Who episode above is the moment Shockeye whacks the Doctor in the leg with a huge meat cleaver. It didn't matter that the BBC restrained themselves from soaking the set with an anatomically correct anime-spurt. Because I knew it was there.

They then drop the ball again for claiming "There are many examples of films at ‘12A’ which contain scenes which imply violence far stronger than seen onscreen (such as the torture scene in Casino Royale)". Casino Royale is the only other film on which I've ever strongly disagreed with the BBFC rating. Just because there is a precedent, it doesn't mean the precedent can't be fundimentally flawed.

So to recap, The Dark Knight is a film based on 9/11, in the style of Heat, with elements of Reservoir Dogs. Any other influences a concerned parent should be aware of? Yes. Saw (18). The Joker's nasty little traps, the Boat Scene, or giving Batman the choice between saving Harvey or Rachel. Or the mobile phone being sewn inside someone's stomach.

I went to a great talk by one of their film reviewers, and she said she could usually just feel what a rating is, even before noting down reasons. There's a reason I haven't compared The Dark Knight to a low rated movie yet. The first 12A movie was Spiderman, and it was introduced more or less because the company would have been in trouble if it didn't appeal to the kid audience. Even if you compare cute Peter Parker with his Mary Jane, to psychologically screwed up Bruce Wayne, everything from imagery to tone screams that these are two different animals.

It's about brand awareness. I knew, as did all the movie-buffs, that this was going to be dark. Can yout trust the average parent to not think "comic book movie!". This is why I got so cross about Casino Royale, because for many parents Bond means Roger Moore dashing about. Even the Pierce Brosnan Bond was basically light hearted. Casino Royale was a major departure for the series, just as Batman Begins was a departure for the super hero genre. They say:

The BBFC was also careful to ensure that additional advice was available to
parents and other moviegoers through the websites pbbfc and bbfc.co.uk. Both
sites included extended information about the film detailing how and why it was
classified ‘12A’ and urging parents to think carefully before taking youngsters
to see it.

This trusts your average parent to understand the system, to know 12A involves a choice, and do their own research. I saw no such urging, and as a censorship nut I would have noticed instantly. Your average parent thought "golly gazooks Batman", saw the number "12" and shrugged. 12A is a loophole, which allows kids of any age to get in, and is a betrayal of the BBFC's role. Their job is to make the decision. They freely acnowledge that the catagory is misunderstood by parents, so why is it still there?

Furthermore, this leaves the film languishing as a 12 for DVD release.

If anything, the rating to change is 18. When I was 12, I did not constantly gripe about not being able to watch high rated movies. But from 15 onwards, my life was a constant torment of 18-ratings I was mature enough to appreciate. Teens do have that right, that tension where some age quicker than others. There should be a leap between 12 and 15 rated films. One is for old kids, the other young adults. Between that there is the border between "child" and "adult", and thus suggesting it is by far the wrong floodgate to open. One final quote from the BBFC:

But it is important to set the complaints in the context of the number of people
who saw the film. In the case of The Dark Knight the 200 plus complaints
are a tiny proportion of the five million people plus who saw it in the
first two weeks after it opened.

Incorrect. 200 people actually wrote in. What of the others, who couldn't be bothered, who
forgot, who just aren't the writing in type? I almost wrote in. Batman Begins I will admit deserves its 12A rating. But The Dark Knight? That was not a film for 10 year olds. Any 10 year olds. I'm suprised it wasn't pushing 18.

Also, it's bloody brilliant and I need to see it again. Soon.