After a tipoff from Friend 4, I'm happily wasting the evening on one of my favouite hobbies - the British Board of Film Classifcation. They've just changed their guidelines, and as a geek, this makes me very happy. Little upset that I missed their polls, but then again they probably want unbiased votes from random suckers on the street, not opinionated geeks.
> Uc has been got rid of as a catagory
I don't think anyone will miss it aside from me - I'm fairly sure most people didn't know it existed. I rather liked having it about, but its absence won't make any impact.
> "The introduction of ‘discrimination’ as a key classification issue in each of the categories covering race, gender, religion, disability or sexuality."
"spaz", for example, is going to be treated like a proper swear word. I don't think anyone can argue with this, at least in principle.
>"74 per cent or respondents understood that the ‘12A’ category means that the film is not generally suitable for under 12s."
I'm getting increasingly weary with 12A as a catagory. If 12A probably means that the film is not suitable for under 12s, then why not get rid of it entirely? I've advocated before that 15A would be a more helpful catagory. There's less change in your teenage years (15-18) than in the transition from childhood to teenager-ness (10-14). I remember being 15 when I was itching to watch Reservoir Dogs and The Good the Bad and the Ugly.
>"Clearer and more detailed information about what the Board takes into account when classifying works and when interventions (such as cuts) will be made and on what grounds"
This makes me very happy, but mostly from a geeky perspective. I've often been frustrated when looking up their database of classifications at the lack of detail given. Purely because I want to nerd over the BBFC decision-making process, but it's still a development I'm really looking forward to. Pity they probably won't retro-update it. I'm dying to know who thought Attack of the Cybermen was a U rated episode...
(IMO there was a single moment I felt it was pushing 12, so was very shocked to discover it wasn't even a PG. Now, you could accuse me of just being very sensitive - it was mostly surprise at its level of violence being NOT AT ALL being what I expected from 80s Who. But then, isn't that what this system is about? Classifying things so they are in line with expectation.)
>"Clearer and more detailed information about how the tone and impact of a film is taken into account, as opposed to simply considering what is actually shown on screen"
Brilliant, fascinating development! This fine tunes the blunt instrument which is the classification system. One of the examples given is The Others, rated 12, which they claim would have been considered for a higher rating. Very scary film, but completely lacking in naughty bits.I've no idea how they'll police this, as it depends so much on instinct, but this is definitely a great step forward. And indeed...
>"At the ‘12A’/’12’ category a tightening of the horror criteria. This is in line with the introduction of tone and impact."
Oh, I'm so happy about the new guidelines! I was losing my faith in the system, until now. Job with the BBFC is basically my number one dream, if you discount unlikely things.
>"At ‘U’, the relaxation of the Guideline on references to drugs to allow for references which are both infrequent and innocuous. Under the old Guidelines a documentary which mentioned the Opium Wars between Britain and China had to be passed at ‘PG’ for this single reference alone"
A.K.A. Don't follow the rules just beacause there are rules. It's nice to have to have "don't be stupid" enshrined in the Guidelines.
>"At ‘12A’/’12’ there will be a presumption against the passing of frequent crude sexual references. This is in response to concerns expressed by the public about films such as Date Movie, Meet the Spartans and Norbit"
I express concern about the existance of Meet the Spartans full stop.
>"At ‘15’, solvent abuse is now specifically mentioned as a classification issue and depictions are unlikely to be passed. This is in response, not only to public concern, but expert opinion"
Interesting. I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie with solvent abuse in it, so it's not something I've ever considered. Nice to see the experts getting a look in. The BBFC blames its haphazard governing of video games to a lack of expert opinion on how harmful they are. I'm looking forward to a proper study on that too.
>"Trailers and advertisements which are on the borderline between two categories be given the more restrictive rating because of the fact that the public has not chosen which trailers and advertisements to watch and because the BBFC has no control over which trailers or advertisements are shown before a particular film (eg a horror trailer before a ‘rom-com’). The exception will be public information films and charity advertisements where stronger material is acceptable to the public when there is a ‘public good’ justification."
Again, it's marvellous they're thinking about this. It's an area I only ever considered "in the moment".
>" At ‘18’ the Board will continue to maintain the right of adults to choose their own entertainment unless material is in breach of the criminal law; or the treatment appears to the BBFC to risk harm to individuals or through their behaviour, to society; or where there are more explicit images of sexual activity which cannot be justified by context. As part of the research, respondents were specifically asked about explicit images of real sex in main stream films like 9 Songs and the clear message was that these images were acceptable at ‘18’ because of the context in which they appeared.
This is the chief reason why I love the BBFC. They have a heroic commitment to this principle, and are unwilling to ban things without a very good reason - when they do, it's for a very good reason. Usually, the big censorship hammer comes smacking down on nasty hardcore torture-porn, or weird stuff like real execution videos, or instructions for growing your own drugs. Now when art is involved, I am always on the side of the artist. To an extent that sometimes disturbs even me - my normal concepts of morality, justice and compassion tend to shoot straight out of the window. I'll be the first to admit I get it wrong when it comes to getting that balance right - have I told you the story about the dog? I'm not typing it up in a public place if not.
The BBFC do get it right, however, balancing concerns for safety with a determined respect for the artist's right to depict whatever he likes. Additionally, they follow up any apparent instances of child exploitation or animal cruelty, and insist on cuts if they don't like what they find. Unlike the American equivalent, the BBFC has its priorities correct. Or to put it a little more kindly, the BBFC is in sync with what the British believe to be acceptable, as the MPAA reflects the concerns of America. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong, of course - in general, American ratings are far stricter on nudity and sex than on violence. Incorrect in principle if nothing else - one of those activities is natural and positive, the other is, well, tragically just as natural. But it's obvious which of sex or violence is the lesser crime, because one of them isn't actually a crime at all. Several works rated 15 here for violence got away with PG-13s across the pond, which worries me. But then, it's all about judging films for this country, so my criticism isn't really fair. America is far stronger in religious faith, and far more open to ideas like gun posession. Nevertheless, the MPAA is far more of a blunt instrument than the BBFC - for example, nudity is allowed at U over here so long as it is in a non-sexual context, yet is almost instantly hammered over there. Similarly, the BBFC is committed to not noticing the difference between heterosexual and homosexual behavior - a kiss is just a kiss, no matter who is doing the kissing. Unsurprisingly, the MPAA tend to rate one higher than the other. Again, this does reflect the social beliefs in the country which it protects so I have a certain degree of sympathy. But in the long run, these things have to change. Read the wikipedia page for more controversy.
All in all, these guidelines enshrine the future of a great, great institution which, unfortunately, won't hold CVs. Additionally:
"Unfortunately, we are unable to offer any work experience or work placement schemes, despite popular demand. This is because of the amount of highly sensitive, unclassified and age restricted material found lurking in the building at any one time! Staff at the BBFC undergo extensive training to deal with such material, and are all over 18."
This is accompanied by an image of "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" on the typewriter. Emphasise that everyone who works there is crazy, or something. How DO you get a job there, then? It's only a life aim of mine, and yet it seems to be virtually impossible. Ugh. Maybe my constant bleetings on the topic will attract someone's attention? I sometimes wonder whether I'm maybe too sensitive for it, and yet sitting in a room all day and getting knotty about the correct ratings is - well, I already do that.
Finally, I'm happy to see they're getting some heat for Dark Knight. This local report reveals a fact I did not know: they were close to giving it a 15. When they submitted it to their internal review panel, their board was healthily split. They get quite defensive in their 2008 report:
"As with recent years, there was one stand-out decision which generated the most number of complaints. Our decision to rate The Dark Knight ‘12A’ caused considerable media and public interest. Indeed, the two appeared to be very much entwined. We received 364 complaints about the rating for The Dark Knight, representing 42 per cent of all complaints received. The Dark Knight continued the trend for darker and grittier superhero movies, and dealt with themes such as vigilantism, summary justice and the compromise of civil liberties within its ‘comic book’ conventions. A number of viewers found this darker tone in sharp contrast to their previous experiences of the Batman franchise. However, the critical issue for many was that the weapon of choice for The Joker was the knife. Teenage knife crime was very much headline news throughout the year, and remains a strong public concern. The worry expressed by many of the complaints was that the ‘12A’ allowed very young children to watch this film, as long as they were accompanied by an adult. A few believed the film should have been an ‘18’; one or two wanted the film banned. The BBFC is always sensitive to concerns surrounding knife crime and youth violence, but it was clear that The Dark Knight did not condone or was likely to encourage violence or knife crime. In addition, many seem to have forgotten that ‘12A’ indicates that a film is suitable for those aged 12 and over. Parents or supervising adults minded to take under 12s to see The Dark Knight were directed to our robust Consumer Advice and Extended Classification Information for the film before doing so. The coverage of this decision gave considerable publicity for our content advice services. A later analysis of the public response to The Dark Knight revealed that less than 10 per cent of those who complained about the film's unsuitability for children actually accompanied children to screenings of the film. It was also clear from a number of letters and emails that the complainants were responding to press coverage of the decision and had not seen the film themselves. It may not be coincidental that most of the complaints were received in the same week that The Daily Mail ran their three day ‘campaign’ against the decision. Once media interest ceased, the complaints significantly declined although the film continued to be screened nationwide."
Oh, so the complaints weren't the BBFC's fault at all. It was the fault of people not understanding the BBFC catagories. And the rest - well, they were all reactionary Mail readers. I'd also challenge the piece I highlighted, that the film doesn't condone the Joker's behavior. It's the Mr Blonde factor - the Joker may be a baddie, but he's still cool. See those wearing T-Shirts with his face all over the place.
I'm gonna attempt to shut up about The Dark Knight now, because I sound like a record on repeat and because forgiveness is a gift and a virtue. They've got one wrong, time for me to move on. And plus, I do still adore the BBFC as an institution.
Reading the annual report is one of the little highlights of my year. It's always informative, witty, and has a tendency to belittle those who complain:
"An angry historian requested that we penalise films which were historically inaccurate by awarding a higher category. An amateur pornographer sought legal, practical and casting advice."
This also made me laugh:
"Almost every time Dame Judi swears in a film, regardless of its category, we can expect a number of complaints."
Aside from the fact any criticism is swiftly followed up by an excuse that the criticiser didn't actually see the film, is recieving medication, or simply didn't count, it's a good read, and I recommend you look it up on the SBBFC website if you have any interest in my pet subject. It contains details and justifications for their contested decisions and cuts. Where else could you learn that the Little Mermaid game once contained the line "I look like a spastic piece of kelp"? It offers an insight into the humanity of the reviewers too, when they point out that "bloody" harrumphed by an innocent old man in U-rated Dean Spanley is OK.
But oh, how do I get my dream job?
Interesting things to say about Strange Days. Remind me to say them. It's getting late, and the Flame is beginning to eat my brain again.
> Uc has been got rid of as a catagory
I don't think anyone will miss it aside from me - I'm fairly sure most people didn't know it existed. I rather liked having it about, but its absence won't make any impact.
> "The introduction of ‘discrimination’ as a key classification issue in each of the categories covering race, gender, religion, disability or sexuality."
"spaz", for example, is going to be treated like a proper swear word. I don't think anyone can argue with this, at least in principle.
>"74 per cent or respondents understood that the ‘12A’ category means that the film is not generally suitable for under 12s."
I'm getting increasingly weary with 12A as a catagory. If 12A probably means that the film is not suitable for under 12s, then why not get rid of it entirely? I've advocated before that 15A would be a more helpful catagory. There's less change in your teenage years (15-18) than in the transition from childhood to teenager-ness (10-14). I remember being 15 when I was itching to watch Reservoir Dogs and The Good the Bad and the Ugly.
>"Clearer and more detailed information about what the Board takes into account when classifying works and when interventions (such as cuts) will be made and on what grounds"
This makes me very happy, but mostly from a geeky perspective. I've often been frustrated when looking up their database of classifications at the lack of detail given. Purely because I want to nerd over the BBFC decision-making process, but it's still a development I'm really looking forward to. Pity they probably won't retro-update it. I'm dying to know who thought Attack of the Cybermen was a U rated episode...
(IMO there was a single moment I felt it was pushing 12, so was very shocked to discover it wasn't even a PG. Now, you could accuse me of just being very sensitive - it was mostly surprise at its level of violence being NOT AT ALL being what I expected from 80s Who. But then, isn't that what this system is about? Classifying things so they are in line with expectation.)
>"Clearer and more detailed information about how the tone and impact of a film is taken into account, as opposed to simply considering what is actually shown on screen"
Brilliant, fascinating development! This fine tunes the blunt instrument which is the classification system. One of the examples given is The Others, rated 12, which they claim would have been considered for a higher rating. Very scary film, but completely lacking in naughty bits.I've no idea how they'll police this, as it depends so much on instinct, but this is definitely a great step forward. And indeed...
>"At the ‘12A’/’12’ category a tightening of the horror criteria. This is in line with the introduction of tone and impact."
Oh, I'm so happy about the new guidelines! I was losing my faith in the system, until now. Job with the BBFC is basically my number one dream, if you discount unlikely things.
>"At ‘U’, the relaxation of the Guideline on references to drugs to allow for references which are both infrequent and innocuous. Under the old Guidelines a documentary which mentioned the Opium Wars between Britain and China had to be passed at ‘PG’ for this single reference alone"
A.K.A. Don't follow the rules just beacause there are rules. It's nice to have to have "don't be stupid" enshrined in the Guidelines.
>"At ‘12A’/’12’ there will be a presumption against the passing of frequent crude sexual references. This is in response to concerns expressed by the public about films such as Date Movie, Meet the Spartans and Norbit"
I express concern about the existance of Meet the Spartans full stop.
>"At ‘15’, solvent abuse is now specifically mentioned as a classification issue and depictions are unlikely to be passed. This is in response, not only to public concern, but expert opinion"
Interesting. I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie with solvent abuse in it, so it's not something I've ever considered. Nice to see the experts getting a look in. The BBFC blames its haphazard governing of video games to a lack of expert opinion on how harmful they are. I'm looking forward to a proper study on that too.
>"Trailers and advertisements which are on the borderline between two categories be given the more restrictive rating because of the fact that the public has not chosen which trailers and advertisements to watch and because the BBFC has no control over which trailers or advertisements are shown before a particular film (eg a horror trailer before a ‘rom-com’). The exception will be public information films and charity advertisements where stronger material is acceptable to the public when there is a ‘public good’ justification."
Again, it's marvellous they're thinking about this. It's an area I only ever considered "in the moment".
>" At ‘18’ the Board will continue to maintain the right of adults to choose their own entertainment unless material is in breach of the criminal law; or the treatment appears to the BBFC to risk harm to individuals or through their behaviour, to society; or where there are more explicit images of sexual activity which cannot be justified by context. As part of the research, respondents were specifically asked about explicit images of real sex in main stream films like 9 Songs and the clear message was that these images were acceptable at ‘18’ because of the context in which they appeared.
This is the chief reason why I love the BBFC. They have a heroic commitment to this principle, and are unwilling to ban things without a very good reason - when they do, it's for a very good reason. Usually, the big censorship hammer comes smacking down on nasty hardcore torture-porn, or weird stuff like real execution videos, or instructions for growing your own drugs. Now when art is involved, I am always on the side of the artist. To an extent that sometimes disturbs even me - my normal concepts of morality, justice and compassion tend to shoot straight out of the window. I'll be the first to admit I get it wrong when it comes to getting that balance right - have I told you the story about the dog? I'm not typing it up in a public place if not.
The BBFC do get it right, however, balancing concerns for safety with a determined respect for the artist's right to depict whatever he likes. Additionally, they follow up any apparent instances of child exploitation or animal cruelty, and insist on cuts if they don't like what they find. Unlike the American equivalent, the BBFC has its priorities correct. Or to put it a little more kindly, the BBFC is in sync with what the British believe to be acceptable, as the MPAA reflects the concerns of America. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong, of course - in general, American ratings are far stricter on nudity and sex than on violence. Incorrect in principle if nothing else - one of those activities is natural and positive, the other is, well, tragically just as natural. But it's obvious which of sex or violence is the lesser crime, because one of them isn't actually a crime at all. Several works rated 15 here for violence got away with PG-13s across the pond, which worries me. But then, it's all about judging films for this country, so my criticism isn't really fair. America is far stronger in religious faith, and far more open to ideas like gun posession. Nevertheless, the MPAA is far more of a blunt instrument than the BBFC - for example, nudity is allowed at U over here so long as it is in a non-sexual context, yet is almost instantly hammered over there. Similarly, the BBFC is committed to not noticing the difference between heterosexual and homosexual behavior - a kiss is just a kiss, no matter who is doing the kissing. Unsurprisingly, the MPAA tend to rate one higher than the other. Again, this does reflect the social beliefs in the country which it protects so I have a certain degree of sympathy. But in the long run, these things have to change. Read the wikipedia page for more controversy.
All in all, these guidelines enshrine the future of a great, great institution which, unfortunately, won't hold CVs. Additionally:
"Unfortunately, we are unable to offer any work experience or work placement schemes, despite popular demand. This is because of the amount of highly sensitive, unclassified and age restricted material found lurking in the building at any one time! Staff at the BBFC undergo extensive training to deal with such material, and are all over 18."
This is accompanied by an image of "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" on the typewriter. Emphasise that everyone who works there is crazy, or something. How DO you get a job there, then? It's only a life aim of mine, and yet it seems to be virtually impossible. Ugh. Maybe my constant bleetings on the topic will attract someone's attention? I sometimes wonder whether I'm maybe too sensitive for it, and yet sitting in a room all day and getting knotty about the correct ratings is - well, I already do that.
Finally, I'm happy to see they're getting some heat for Dark Knight. This local report reveals a fact I did not know: they were close to giving it a 15. When they submitted it to their internal review panel, their board was healthily split. They get quite defensive in their 2008 report:
"As with recent years, there was one stand-out decision which generated the most number of complaints. Our decision to rate The Dark Knight ‘12A’ caused considerable media and public interest. Indeed, the two appeared to be very much entwined. We received 364 complaints about the rating for The Dark Knight, representing 42 per cent of all complaints received. The Dark Knight continued the trend for darker and grittier superhero movies, and dealt with themes such as vigilantism, summary justice and the compromise of civil liberties within its ‘comic book’ conventions. A number of viewers found this darker tone in sharp contrast to their previous experiences of the Batman franchise. However, the critical issue for many was that the weapon of choice for The Joker was the knife. Teenage knife crime was very much headline news throughout the year, and remains a strong public concern. The worry expressed by many of the complaints was that the ‘12A’ allowed very young children to watch this film, as long as they were accompanied by an adult. A few believed the film should have been an ‘18’; one or two wanted the film banned. The BBFC is always sensitive to concerns surrounding knife crime and youth violence, but it was clear that The Dark Knight did not condone or was likely to encourage violence or knife crime. In addition, many seem to have forgotten that ‘12A’ indicates that a film is suitable for those aged 12 and over. Parents or supervising adults minded to take under 12s to see The Dark Knight were directed to our robust Consumer Advice and Extended Classification Information for the film before doing so. The coverage of this decision gave considerable publicity for our content advice services. A later analysis of the public response to The Dark Knight revealed that less than 10 per cent of those who complained about the film's unsuitability for children actually accompanied children to screenings of the film. It was also clear from a number of letters and emails that the complainants were responding to press coverage of the decision and had not seen the film themselves. It may not be coincidental that most of the complaints were received in the same week that The Daily Mail ran their three day ‘campaign’ against the decision. Once media interest ceased, the complaints significantly declined although the film continued to be screened nationwide."
Oh, so the complaints weren't the BBFC's fault at all. It was the fault of people not understanding the BBFC catagories. And the rest - well, they were all reactionary Mail readers. I'd also challenge the piece I highlighted, that the film doesn't condone the Joker's behavior. It's the Mr Blonde factor - the Joker may be a baddie, but he's still cool. See those wearing T-Shirts with his face all over the place.
I'm gonna attempt to shut up about The Dark Knight now, because I sound like a record on repeat and because forgiveness is a gift and a virtue. They've got one wrong, time for me to move on. And plus, I do still adore the BBFC as an institution.
Reading the annual report is one of the little highlights of my year. It's always informative, witty, and has a tendency to belittle those who complain:
"An angry historian requested that we penalise films which were historically inaccurate by awarding a higher category. An amateur pornographer sought legal, practical and casting advice."
This also made me laugh:
"Almost every time Dame Judi swears in a film, regardless of its category, we can expect a number of complaints."
Aside from the fact any criticism is swiftly followed up by an excuse that the criticiser didn't actually see the film, is recieving medication, or simply didn't count, it's a good read, and I recommend you look it up on the SBBFC website if you have any interest in my pet subject. It contains details and justifications for their contested decisions and cuts. Where else could you learn that the Little Mermaid game once contained the line "I look like a spastic piece of kelp"? It offers an insight into the humanity of the reviewers too, when they point out that "bloody" harrumphed by an innocent old man in U-rated Dean Spanley is OK.
But oh, how do I get my dream job?
Interesting things to say about Strange Days. Remind me to say them. It's getting late, and the Flame is beginning to eat my brain again.
Comments (0)