Wednesday 30 March 2011

Overall change in BBFC history

  • Guidelines have become specific, official and publicly available and approved
  • Age ratings for both cinematic and home entertainment have become more prolific, covering smaller age brackets
  • The BBFC has become more responsible and accountable - now rating cinematic films, home release and video games
  • The change and development through a variety of different Presidents and Directors have meant more leniency on film as an artistic expression
  • Increasing acknowledgment of the 'media sophistication' of (young) audiences allowing more films to be passed uncut as the possible effects of film are known and therefore are more sensibly treated

Wednesday 23 March 2011

History of BBFC: 2000s


Wider social/political/cultural issues:
  • Vast increase in controversal European films caused concern in BBFC - fortunate relax of attitudes towards sex
Key films and issues they raised:
  • The Idiots (von Trier, 1998) normally cut but sexual activity brief and serious intention to film
  • New policy on sex references challenged in Baise-moi (Despentes, 2001) as explicit but also contained rape scene
  • Spiderman (Raimi, 2002) decision to make it 12 was overruled by some local councils as it was a family film - led to construction of 12A rating
  • 9 Songs (Winterbottom, 2004) was criticised as 'the most sexually explicit film in British cinema', but passed '18' uncut as no discrimination of English/foreign language films and uncut European films had similar standard of controversy
  • Shortbus (Mitchell, 2006) contained explicit images of real sex and received '18' certificate. French (The Observer) commented 'brought close the abolition of censorship but not classification'

History of BBFC: 1990s

Wider social/political/cultural issues:
  • Jamie Bulger case called for stricter standards on home video
  • Rapid development in digital media (e.g. computer games becoming more realistic)
  • Emphasis changed from preventing 'unusual weapons' to easily accessible weaponry (e.g. knives)
Key films and issues they raised:
  • Natural Born Killers (Stone, 1994) provoked most controversy at time of the harm effects debates
  • Kids (Clark, 1995) described as 'child pornography' so board had to find age of actors - only minor cuts made to 'indecent' scenes of younger actors under Protection of Children Act

History of BBFC: 1980s

Wider social/political/cultural issues:
  • Development of video recorder created anxiety of home viewing (no legal classification requirement)
Key films and issues they raised:
  • The Krays (Medak, 1989) passed due to known infamy of gangland characters (actions not justified) however cuts to horrific mutilation scene
  • The Evil Dead (Raimi, 1982) had 49 seconds of cut when brought in as video nasty

History of BBFC: 1970s


Wider social/political/cultural issues:
  • Backlash against idea liberalisation went too far
Key films and issues they raised:
  • Concern over sexual violence/rape in A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, 1971)
  • The Exorcist (Friedkin, 1973) accused of blasphemy and danger of psychological damage to children
  • Trash (Warhol, 1970) was a key fight for BBFC to defend minimal cuts against anti-censorship campaigners
  • Emmanuelle (Jeackin, 1978) extra cut demanded as despite not explicit, overall film breached Obscene Publication Act in terms of corruption due to rape scene appearing just

History of BBFC: 1960s


Wider social/political/cultural issues:
  • Liberalisation - increased tolerance of explicit refences
Key films and issues they raised:
  • Peeping Tom (Powell, 1960) ignored suggested cuts due to 'morbid concentration on fear' and failed to please public
  • Alfie (Gilbert, 1966) compared to Victim (Dearden, 1961) passed uncut, contributing to the sexuality debate - increasing public tolerance
  • The Trip (Corman, 1967) reignited fears of drugs and was banned due to showing both 'delights and drawbacks' of LSD - only reclassified 18 in 2002

History of BBFC: 1950s


Wider social/political/cultural issues:
  • End of rationing
  • Emergence of 'youth' as a social group - issue of juvenile delinquency (mods/rockers)
  • Growth of television as family entertainment - eroding audience in cinema
  • Moral panic about drug taking
  • Last capital punishment (Ruth Ellis) in UK (1956)
Key films and issues they raised:
  • Rock Around the Clock (Sears, 1956) & Rebel Without A Cause (Ray, 1955) fuelled concerns over teenage criminality
  • The Wild One (Benedek, 1954) described as 'a spectacle of unbridled hooliganism' - showed biker gangs at time of Mod/Rocker riots - rejected until 1967 when dangers seen to be over
  • Devil's Weed rejected (1951) as 'evils of drug taking not made clear'
  • Yield To The Night (Thompson, 1956) had themes of death row, coinciding with Ruth Ellis therefore passed as 'X' despite tasteful presentation
  • Room at the Top (Clayton, 1958) asked to soften language after accusation of "gross suggestiveness in costuming, dialogue and situations", despite its positive reflection of the upheaval of social/class boundaries in post-war UK

History of BBFC: 1912-49


Horror/gangster films caused particular concern



Wider social/political/cultural issues:
  • Years between WW1 and WW2
Key films and issues they raised:
  • Frankenstein (1931) banned from children by London County Council and Manchester City Council despite scene of drowning girl already being cut

Monday 14 March 2011

Press Case Studies

KEY QUESTIONS:
  • Which clauses of the code are relevant to these cases?
  • Do you think that the Code of Practice was broken in any of these cases? If so, why?
  • Could a public interest justification be made in any of these examples?

1. A man vs. Northwich Guardian:
  • Newspaper linked with YouTube video of group throwing a petrol bomb on a train
  • The father of a 15 year old complained it to be invasion of privacy of a child and his face should have been pixelated
  • Related issue: (6) Children should be free to complete school without intrusion/images of his welfare
  • The code wasn't broken as video was in a public domain
  • The newspaper argued for public interest as they have a right to know of the dangerous behaviour occuring
2. A man vs. Zoo magazine:
  • Photo and comments of a 10 year old girl and her father making offensive hand gestures in the crowd of an FA Cup match (described as 'terrace bigotry')
  • The man says his daughter has been ridiculed and her face should have been pixelated (as it was in other magazines)
  • Related issue: (6) Children under 16 require adult consent of photographs used
  • The code was broken as despite being a public space, it is her father who is in the wrong, she doesn't deserve to be ridiculed. Her father also didn't give consent
  • There is only public interest on grounds of the father's picture and the abuse in football crowds
3. A man vs. The Sunday Times:
  • Journalist approached 14 year old boy with £1000 for a photo of a suspect of a fatal stabbing at his school
  • Parent claims the journalist spoke at length with their son and the boy's father has since removed him from school
  • Related issues: (6) Children must not be paid and have the right to complete school without intrusion, (15) Witness in criminal trials must not be paid
  • The code was breached however the newspaper denies what the complainent accuses, and no photos/comments of the boy were published, therefore the PCC have no obligation to uphold the complaint
  • There is no public interest in this part of the case - when someone found guilty/other features of the murder may be of importance
4. A woman vs. The Independent:
  • Article of a West End actress published about her unproffesionality in withdrawing from a play due to pregnancy, despite her not telling anyone other than partner/producer/agent
  • She has subsequently had a miscarriage and had not given her consent to the information being public
  • Relevant issue: (3) Privacy and respect of life and health
  • Code was breached as pre 3 months it is not public information as the pregnancy is less viable
  • No public interest as it is a private matter and no-one need no of her miscarriage
5. A woman vs. The Sun:
  • Published photo of woman jumping to her death before her identity had been made known
  • Friend of woman complained photo was unnessecary and distressing and the newspaper was disgusting and voyeuristic
  • Relevant issues: (5) Intrusion into grief and shock involving cases of grief/shock and excessive details of suicide, (3) Privacy and respect for life and health
  • Code was breached as the photos are insensitive at a distressing time (Sun published condolences and apologies for distressed caused), however minimal unpleasent details of death
  • No public interest as issue is private at this time
6. A woman vs. Eastbourne Gazette:
  • Family of motorcycle accident have been approached by reporter, and despite him coming out of a coma and asking to desist the journalist left a message and phoned
  • Relevant issues: (3) Privacy of health/life, (4) Harassment and no questioning when asked to desist, (8) Hospitals must obtain permission from executive before entering
  • Breach of code as victim asked to desist and journalist invaded privacy of his health and the hospital
  • No public interest angle can be claimed
7. A police officer vs. The Sunday Telegraph:
  • An officer posted on his FaceBook 'our lot have killed again, s*** happens' and was reported in a case of a policewomans husband being a nazi sympathiser
  • He accused paper of reported private comments and she accused them of taking unconsentual photos of her house
  • Relevant issues: (3) Privacy of health/life/home, (10) Clandestine devices and subterfuge
  • The code wasn't in breached on grounds of subterfuge in his case as he added the journalist as a friend, however in her case they didn't respect her private life and home
  • Public interest to know the racist views of a police officer/associated sympathies with extreme views as the BNP
8. Paul McCartney vs. Hello!:
  • Photos taken of him and his children in Paris as well as him lighting a candle/meditating for his deceased wife Linda
  • He accused them of "highly intrusive photographs of us in our most private moments at this very difficult and private in our lives"
  • Relevant issues: (3) Privacy, (5) Intrusion into grief or shock
  • Code was breached as he was going through a hard emotional time through recent death and his celebrity status should be irrelavent in his privacy at this time
  • No public interest in knowing his actions

BBFC and PCC seminars

Why were they useful?
  • Put the PCC into context seeing the offices where they work
  • Meeting acutual examiners/employees of the companies open me to see the offices on a day-to-day basis
  • A chance to ask relevant, up to date questions to the representatives from the PCC and the BBFC
What have you learnt?
  • The BBFC have to watch and report on 5hr41mins of footage each day
  • There is debate in both offices over what decisions should be made - not as clear cut as I thought
  • Other information largely re-affirming revision of what we've learnt so far
Anything unexpected/surprising?
  • Surprising how much influence the PCC has in preventing harassment, even prior to publication of information
  • The Dark Knight and King's Speech were both initially15 rated before being lowered on grounds of context

Tuesday 8 March 2011

PCC Code of Practice

16 clauses of code of practice:

ClauseDetails
Accuracy
  • Publishing inaccurate, misleading or distorted information/pictures
  • Must distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact
Opportunity to reply
  • Fair opportunity to reply to inaccuracies
* Privacy
  • Respect for private/family life, home, health and correspondence (inc. digital communication)
  • Unacceptable to photograph individual in private place without consent
* Harassment
  • Engaging in intimidation, harassment & persistent pursuit
  • No questioning/photography when asked to desist
Intrusion into grief/shock
  • Cases involving personal grief/shock must have sympathy approach with suitable discretion
  • Avoid excessive detail about method used in suicide
* Children
  • Young people should be free to complete school without intrusion
  • Under 16s need adult consent to do interviews/photographs when involving issues of their/another child's welfare
  • Minors must not be paid
  • Fame/notoriety/position of parent doesn't justify publishing details of child's private life
* Children in sex cases
  • No identification of victims of sex offences under 16
  • The word 'incest' can't be used where child may be identified
  • No implications the child is responsible
* Hospitals
  • Obtain permission from executive before entering non-public areas of hospital (or equivalent)
* Reporting of crime
  • Relatives/friends of convicts should not be identified without consent unless relevant to story
  • Particular regard to vulnerability of children who are witnesses/victims
* Clandestine devices and subterfuge
  • Must not seek to obtain/publish material acquired via hidden cameras, clandestine listening devices, intercepting phone calls
  • No accessing unauthorised digitally-held private information without consent
  • Engaging in misrepresentation/subterfuge (inc. by agents or intermediaries) can only be justified in public interest
Victims of sexual assault
  • Press not likely to publish identites of victims or material likely to contribute to identification
Discrimination
  • Avoid prejudicial reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical/mental illness or disability
  • Irrelavent details to be avoided
Financial journalism
  • Must not use financial info they recieve in advance of general publication for own profit
  • No writing about shares/securities in whose performance they know without disclosing interest to the (financial) editor
  • Must not buy/sell shares or securities which they have recently written about or intend to
Confidential sources
  • Moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information
Witness payments in criminal trials
  • No payment/offer to a witness in any case once proceeding are active
  • Contempt of Court Act 1981
  • Any payment/offer made even if prior to start of court proceedings must by disclosed to prosecution and defence
  • Witness must be advised on their requirements
* Payment to criminals
  • No direct payment (or via agents) of material which seeks to glorify crime in general or exploit a particular crime
  • No payments to convicts, confessed criminals or their associates
  • Editors must demonstrate reasonable public benefit for publishing material under this issue 


The public interest:
  • May be exception to clauses marked with *
  • Detection/exposure of crime or serious impropriety
  • Protecting public health and safety
  • Preventing public from being misled by action/statement of an individual or organisation
  • Freedom of expression
  • When public interest invoked, editors required to defend why they think public interest was served
  • PCC considers extent material is already in public domain/will become so
  • When involvement of under 16s, exceptional public interest must be demonstrated to over-ride normally paramount interest of the child

Press Complaints Commission


What the PCC does:
  • Independent body
  • Deals with complaints about editorial content of magazines/newspapers and their websites
  • 16 clause Code of Practice to which editors/journalists must adhere
  • Investigates complaints from people with belief code has been breached
  • Acts as mediator between editor and complainant to find resolution (e.g. apology, public correction, clarification), seeking 'sufficient remedial action'
  • If case isn't resolved simply, PCC assesses evidence in an adjudication, reasoning whether to uphold or reject complaint
How the system works:
  • Not legal or government run
  • Voluntary agreement of newspaper/magazine to be regulated by independent body
  • Code of Practice drawn up by editors
  • Commission run by majority public ('lay') members (10/17 including chairman)
Code of practices:
  • Covers 4 main areas - accuracy, privacy, news gathering & protecting the vulnerable
  • Editor expected to take responsibility for stories/photographs complying with the code
  • Editor can defend publication and its behaviour as 'in public interest'
  • Doesn't cover issues of taste/decency as in democracy publications should be free to choose style
  • Understands individuals choose to look at a newspaper and can make their own decisions
  • Contrasts to more public mediums (e.g. billboards) may be ruled inappropriate on taste
Funding:
  • Through body called 'Press Standards Board of Finance' (PressBof) who are responsible for collecting money from newspapers/magazines in UK
  • Press agreed to pay amount in proportion to no. of readers in circulation
  • No public/government funding
History:
  • Set up in 1991, replacing Press Council
  • In 1980s, a small no. of publications failed to observe basic ethics of journalism leading to MPs loss in confidence in Press Council
  • Government then appointed Calcutt to consider "measures needed to give protection to individual privacy...improving recourse of press for citizens"
  • House of Commons Culture, Media & Sport select committee concluded "non-statutory regulation can work effectively"
  • Belief employed that self regulation prevents authoritarianism and undermining democracy
Who complains to the PCC and why:
  • Anyone who believes an article involving them breaches the Code
  • 1.5% came from those in public eye, 95.8% from general public (2007)
  • Special protection to vulnerable groups (e.g. children, hospital patients)
  • Majority of complaints about regional newspapers
Importance of the PCC:
  • In a democracy the press shouldn't be stringently controlled by law/government
  • Maintains democracy as it is independent and voluntary
  • Doesn't allow free from accountability - wrongs must be righted
  • PCC committed to protecting public by ensuring broken rules are resolved asap
  • Fast - deals with complaints in average of 35 days
  • Free - costs nothing to use service
  • Fair - independent from industry it was set up to regulate

Monday 28 February 2011

Current Classification System

Pros :) Cons :(
Protection of children is a priorityApplying guidelines is a subjective process
Provides information for parentsImpossible to predict harm/upset of sensitive viewers
Helps audiences make informed decisionsImplies age brackets key feature in determining response
Society needs some form of rulesSees children as having only uninformed emotional responses to what they see
Cross section of examiners representing a diverse societySuggests children are passive victims of media
Guidelines are relatively robust and clearFilms forced to take role of moral guidance
Examiners take work very seriouslyEncourages parents to relinquish role and rely on 'nanny state' to control
Uses public research and current affairs when redefining guidelines every 4 yearsOnly 60% of households have children but all films are regulated
Enforces that some issues are negative and unacceptable in our societyDiscourages production of challenging, alternative children's films
Provides protection for children with irresponsible parentsRealism in films is problematic and subjective
Enforced by governmental guidelines and lawsInternet is unsupervised and unregulated
Independent and has the films best interests - wants to promote the industryLittle or no evidence to support age ratings actually work
Local councils have the final say over the BBFC (e.g. Spiderman)Scapegoat film industry - why not classify plays/books?
It means parents do not have to view a film prior to showing it to their childNo representation of children/teen age group in examiners
Employs the 'Just In Case' method to protect the vulnerable from possible reactions to a filmAudiences mostly unaware of info on BBFC website, including parents and those responsible
Masks the real problem within society (perhaps of poor parenting) as classifications give people false ideas children are protected

Is film regulation sensible, useful to society, achieving its aim of protecting the vulnerable and upholding the law?
  • Film regulation is sensible as it seeks to protect the vulnerable, however, it does mask the problem of why these children apparently do not know right from wrong and prevents helping the situation (e.g. the importance of helping parents socialise children)
  • It is useful for society in that it maintains and upholds values and moralities within society, enforcing what is acceptable
  • Within exhibition in cinemas i believe it is achieving its aim of protecting the vulnerable, however, because of Internet streaming and accessibility of DVDs/Blu-ray etc. at home most children have seen a film beyond their age bracket
  • Because of classification, parents do not feel responsible to watch a film first and generally don't know of the BBFC website, so a child could see a film upsetting for that individual (e.g. a child of recently divorced parents may be more upset by a 12A with those themes than another)
  • The guidelines are very successful in upholding the law as they follow what/what isn't illegal and maintain legal principles
Improving the system?
  • Perhaps encourage information over classification. E.g. label a film 'horror' or 'bad language' so parents can prevent their child from seeing if they know they are particularly vulnerable
  • Promote the BBFC website to show parents the vast amounts of info available to prevent children seeing unsuitable films (especially 12As) and then complaining to the councils/BBFC
  • Increase teenage/child representation in the examiners or at least amount of consultations with them to improve sceptical views on the majority of children's maturity levels
  • Encourage people to think carefully for themselves when seeing a film or letting an underage see it to put the power back into the responsible parent's hands over the film makers/industry

18 > R18

R18 allows:
  • 'Sex works' - material seeking to sexually arose/stimulate
  • Moderate, non-abusive inflictions of pain within consensual sexual activity
  • Explicit sexual imagery

15 > 18

  • 18 is no longer governed by guidelines on principle adults should be free to choose their own entertainment
  • Still prevention of criminal offences, sexual violence and works seeking to sexually arouse

12A > 15

15 accepts:
  • Drug taking without promoting misuse
  • Strong threat/menace unless sadistic/sexualised
  • Frequent use of strong language and infrequent of strongest
  • Nudity in sexual context without strong detail
  • Strong reference/portrayal to sexual behaviour without strong detail
  • All themes
  • Strong violence not dwelling on infliction, pain or injury

PG > 12A

12A accepts:
  • Discriminatory language/behaviour with readily identifiable character
  • Infrequent drug misuse
  • Moderate physical/psychological threat
  • Weapons if not easily accessible
  • Infrequent strong language
  • Sex references suitable for young teens
  • Mature themes
  • Sexual violence with contextual justification

U > PG

PG accepts:
  • Themes can be more acceptable
  • Sex/relationships can be joked about with discreet reference
  • Violence/threat can be a little strong
  • Horror can be scary but not prolonged
  • Discrimination allowed with educational/historical context

Friday 18 February 2011

R18

R18 (Restricted 18) - Only shown/supplied in specially licensed cinemas/sex shops and to adults over 18

Overview:
  • Legally restricted classification primarily for explicit works of consenting sex/strong fetish material involving adults
  • May not be supplied by mail order
  • Guidelines applied regardless of sexual orientation
Unacceptable content:
  • Material in breach of criminal law
  • Material judged as obscene under Obscene Publications Act (1959)
  • Encouraging material (including dialogue) of sexually abusive activity (e.g. paedophilia, incest, rape) include adult role-play as non-adult
  • Non-consensual (even simulated) sexual activity
  • Physical constraints preventing indication of withdrawal of consent
  • Infliction of pain or lasting physical harm (real/simulated) - allowance made for moderate consensual activity
  • Penetration by object associated with violence/likely to cause physical harm
  • Sexual threats, humiliation or abuse outside of consensual role playing game
  • Strong physical/verbal abuse even if consensual

18

18 - Suitable only for adults

Overview:
  • No-one younger than 18 may see in cinema or rent/buy video work
  • In line with public consultation and Human Rights Act (1998) as the BBFC will not normally override principle adults free to choose their entertainment
Exceptions:
  • Material in breach of criminal law or made through commission of criminal offence
  • Appears to risk harm to individuals/society through their behaviour
  • Explicit imagery of sexual activity contextually unjustified (if considered a sex work maybe R18)
  • Sex material allowed when seeking to inform/educate (e.g. in maters of sexuality, safer sex/health)

15

15 - Suitable for 15 years and over

Overview:
  • No one younger than 15 may seethe film in the cinema
  • No one younger than 15 may buy/rent the video work



Issues:

DiscriminationNo endorsement of discriminatory language/behaviour
DrugsMay be shown without encouragement of misuse. Misuse of accessible dangerous substances (e.g. aerosols/solvents) unlikely to be accepted
HorrorThreat/menace permitted unless sadistic/sexualised
Imitable behaviourNo dwelling/glamorisation of accessible weapons/dangerous behaviour (e.g. hanging, suicide, self harm)
LanguageFrequent strong language permitted and strongest (e.g. cunt) if justified in context and not repetitive/aggressive
NudityAllowed in sexual context without strong detail
SexBehaviour/language allowed with no strong detail. Primary purpose of sexual arousal likely to be unacceptable 
ThemeNo prohibition if age appropriate
ViolenceMay be strong with no dwelling on infliction/pain/injury. Strong sadistic/sexualised violence unacceptable. Sexual violence allowed when discreet and with strong contextual justification

12A/12

12A/12 - Suitable for 12 years and over

Overview:
  • Works may upset children under 12
  • May contain material which many parents will find unsuitable for under 12s
  • 12A only for cinema and 12 for video works

Issues:

DiscriminationLanguage/behaviour mustn't be endorsed. Aggressive/discriminatory unacceptable unless clearly condemned
DrugsInfrequent misuse with no glamorisation or instructional detail
HorrorInfrequent, sustained and moderate physical/psychological threat permitted
Imitable behaviourDangerous behaviour (e.g. hanging, suicide, self harm) should not dwell or appear pain/harm free. Easily accessible weapons not to be glamorised
LanguageInfrequent strong language (e.g. 'fuck')
NuditySexual context allowed if brief/discreet
SexBrief/discreet with no frequent crude reference
ThemeMature themes acceptable but suitable for young teens
ViolenceNo dwelling on detail/injuries/blood unless contextually just. Sexual violence only implied with strong contextual justification

PG

PG (Parental Guidance) - General viewing but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children

Overview:
  • Unaccompanied children of any age may watch
  • Should not disturb a child aged around 8 or older
  • Parents advised to consider whether content may upset younger/more sensitive children
Issues:

DiscriminationLanguage/behaviour unlikely to be acceptable unless educational/historical context
DrugsIllegal drugs/misuse must be innocuous or carry anti-drug message
HorrorFrightening sequences can't be prolonged/intense (fantasy setting may mitigate)
Imitable behaviourNo detail of potentially dangerous behaviour which could be copied. No glamourisation of realistic/accessible weapons
LanguageMild bad language (e.g. ‘shit’ or ‘son of a bitch’) but the context and delivery are always important.
NudityNatural nudity, no sexual context
SexActivity/references may be implied but discreet/infrequent
ThemeMore serious issues (e.g. domestic violence) should condone unacceptable behaviour
ViolenceModerate without detail violence thats justified in context (e.g. history, comedy, fantasy)

U

U (Universal) - Suitable for all.
Overview:
  • Should be suitable for audiences aged 4 and over
  • Set within positive moral framework
  • Offers reassuring counterbalances to any violence, threat or horror
  • Could say in consumer advice when film particularly suitable for pre-school child to view alone
Issues:

DiscriminationNo discrimatory language unless clearly disapproved of
DrugsNo reference to illegal drugs/misuse unless infrequent or a clear anti-drug educational message
HorrorScary sequences should be mild, breif and unlikely to cause anxiety
Imitable behaviourNo potentially dangerous behaviour that young children are likely to copy or emphasis on realistic/easily accessible weapons
LanguageInfrequent use of mild bad language (eg ‘damn’ and ‘hell’). Occasionally, bad language such as ‘bloody’ or ‘bugger’ may be included, where justified by the context.
NudityOccasional natural nudity with no sexual context
SexMild sexual reference (e.g. 'making love') or behaviour (e.g. kissing)
ThemeProblematic themes must have sensitive treatment
ViolenceOccasional mild violence/threat/menace only

Wednesday 16 February 2011

Overview of BBFC Guidelines

The 13 issues are as follows:

1. Discrimination
2. Drugs
3. Horror
4. Imitable behaviour
5. Criminal behaviour
6. Weapons
7. Language
8. Nudity
9. Sexual references
10. Sex
11. Theme
12. Violence
13 Sexualised violence


*4.5.6 are combined under imitable behaviour
*12.13 are combined under violence

Thursday 10 February 2011

Video Games

Video games classified under same categories/guidelines as 'linear' works

Considerations:
  • Ability of a player complicit in behaviour involving sex, drugs, violence
  • Level of detail shown
  • Frequency is difficult to quantity due to repetition of levels
However there is limited research into whether interactivity increases potential harm so BBFC take a more cautious approach

Trailers/Advertisements

Audience choose to see full length feature based on given classification of trailer
  • Audiences have no choice over tone/content of trailers shown before a film
  • Borderline material is less likely to be justified on grounds of context
  • Advertisements may be more strongly restrictive (e.g. strong language not allowed below 15)
  • Advertisements for alcohol allowed at any category (unless associated with sexual prowess/glamorous lifestyles)
  • Advertisements for tobacco are prohibited by law
  • Charitable advertisements generally have less restrictive categories

Photo/Pattern/Motion sickness/Low frequency sound sensitivites

Protection against viewers who are sensitive against flashing/flickering light causing seizures/sickness
  • Film maker responsible for ensuring appropriate warnings are given
  • Not normally taken into account in the BBFC's classification

Titles

Changes required to a title of a film concerning:
  • Inciting hatred on the grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation
  • Incites criminal behaviour
  • Encourages an interest in abusive/illegal sexual activity
Distributor is advised to consider effects of displaying such titles in public places
  • Perhaps obscure certain works
  • Advice not given to R18 works

Violence

Always a feature of entertainment for children and adults, classification looks at the degree and nature of violence

More restrictive features:
  • Violence as normal solution to problem
  • 
    Despite breaching many violent regulations, Casino Royale rated 12A
    
  • Heroes who inflict pain/injury
  • Callousness towards victims
  • Encouragement of aggressive attitudes
  • Characters taking pleasure in pain/humiliation
  • Sexualised/glorified/glamorised violence may even be cut
  • Strict policy on sexual violence/rape is applied (eroticised/endorsed may be cut) - more likely with video films due to potential of scene replaying out of context
  • Any association of sex with non-consentual restraint, pain or humiliation may be cut


Theme

Account for the treatment of the overall theme, espicially the sensitivity of its presentation
  • Problematic themes (e.g. drug abuse, sexual violence, paedophilia) unlikely to be appropriate at junior levels
  • In principle, no reason why a theme, however difficult, could not recieve a 15/18 rating

Sex

Portrayal of sexual activity ranges from kissing and verbal references (e.g. making love) to detail of real sex
    R18 films only shown in specially licensed cinemas
  • Sex works (primary purpose is to create sexual arousal/stimulation) are only likely to be passed in adult categories
  • Clear images of real sex/strong fetish material, explicit animated images etc. are likely to be confined to R18
  • Guidelines the same regardless of sexual orientation

Nudity

  • Natural nudity (no sexual context) acceptable in all classification levels (not usually occuring in U category)
  • Sexual context recieves restrictive classification
  • Strong detail only passed in adult categories

Language

Offense caused by bad language/rude gestures with, e.g. sexual/religious/racial associations
  • Extent of offense varies according to age, race, gender, background
  • Affected by beliefs/expectations of work and context
  • Impossible to set out a comprehensive list of words/gestures which are acceptable in each age category
  • Use public consultation to find levels of acceptability

Imitable Behaviour

Detailed portrayal of criminal/violent techniques and glamorisation of easily accessible weapons (e.g. knives)
In Disney's Tangled, attack with easily accessible frying pan

  • Anti-social behaviour (e.g. bullying) likely to receive more restrictive ratings
  • Active promote of illegal behaviour will, on the whole, be cut/rejected
  • Potentially dangerous behaviour (e.g. hanging, self-harm, suicide) which children can copy will need restrictive classification



Horror

The use of frightening elements which may scare or unsettle and audience.

Rated 12A despite prolonged themes of horror

Traditional feature of film making/story telling, but there are factors to consider:
  • For younger audiences: frequency, length and detail of scary scenes
  • Horror effects (e.g. music/sound)
  • Swift and reassuring outcome
  • Protecting the young and vulnerable from too intense and experience


Drugs

No work as a whole may promote the misuse of drugs and glamorisation of drug misuse is likely to be cut

Factors to consider:
  • Works that show drug misuse while emphasising the dangers
  • Target Audience of film - extensive drug misuse in child's film

Discrimination

Potentially offensive content relating to race, gender, religion, disability, sexuality etc.

BBFC accounts for:
  • Strength/impact of its inclusion
  • Context
  • Discriminatory language/behaviour being explicitly criticised
  • Work as a whole seeking to educate/challenge such attitudes
  • Work being obviously outdated

Monday 7 February 2011

Overarching Factors

Certain factors override decisions when classifying films. These are particularly important when a work lies on the borderline between two categories.

Context:
  • Refers to the central issue of the film (sex, language, violence etc.)
  • Account for the expectations of the general public as well as the target audience
  • Genre (e.g. realistic/contemporary approach may intensify effect, fantasy may soften it)
  • The manner of presentation (e.g. aggressive vs. comic language)
  • Intentions of film maker (e.g. educational)
  • Original production dates (e.g. outdated attitudes may be treated more leniantly in an obviously outdated work)
  • Special merits of the work
Tone and Impact:
  • More restrictive classification given if the tone is dark/unsettling
  • In junior categories important to consider degree of fantasy/connection with real world
  • Presentation of desparing view on world/moral perspectives
Release Format:
  • Stricter on video works over film - increased possibility of under-age viewing

Legal Considerations

Human Rights Act (1998)
  • Respect for private and family life
  • Permits restrictions on freedom of expression for the necessities of democracy (e.g. protection of reputations, prevention of disorder/crime)
Licensing Act (2003)
  • Cinemas require a license from the local authority
  • Condition included to restrict films from children in accordance with recommendations of the BBFC or licensing authority
  • Aim to achieve public safety via prevention of crime/disorder/public nuisance and protect children from harm
Video Recordings Act (1984)
  • Video works which are capable of being stored electronically (disc, tape etc.) must be classified by the BBFC
  • Regard to the likeliness of the works being viewed at home and the potential harm from that
  • Works including: criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent/horrific behaviour or incident and human sexual activity
Obscene Publications Act (1959 & 1964)
  • Illegal to publish an 'obscene' work
  • Obscene = tendencies to deprave/corrupt those likely to see it
  • Publication is justified as publicly goods on the ground of interests and learning in science,art, literature and general concern
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008)
  • Illegal to be in possession of extreme pornographic imagery
  • Offensive imagery in an explicit and realistic way
Protection of Children Act (1978)
  • Illegal to make, distribute, show or possess indecent (pseudo)photographs of a child
  • Child = someone under 18
Public Order Act (1986)
  • Illegal to make, distribute, or show images which are threatening, abusive or insulting with intention to stir racial/sexual orientation/religious hatred
Cinematography Films Act (1937)
  • Illegal to show scenes that involve actual cruelty to animals
  • Animals = vertebrates that are domesticated or under human control
Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act (2002)
  • Illegal to publish a tobacco advertisement

General Principles

2 key guiding principles:
  • Works should be allowed to reach the widest audience that is appropriate for their theme and treatment
  • Adults should, as far as possible, be free to choose what they see, provided that it remains within the law and is not potentially harmful
3 main qualifications:
  • Whether the material is in conflict with the law or has been created via commission of criminality
  • If it may cause harm at the category concerned - result of viewer behaviour, moral harm (e.g. desensitization/eroding sense of moral responsibility
  • The availability of the material is clearly unacceptable to broad public opinion beyond age group concerned

Who are the BBFC?


 
  • The BBFC are the British Board of Film Classification
  • Independent, non-governmental organisation
  • Funded by the fees it charges those who submit their films/video works for classification
  • Responsibility of what the guidelines are rest with the BBFC - subject to normal considerations or fairness and reasonableness
  • Provide interpretation of guidelines on request
  • Parents are advised to consider classification/consumer advice before allowing a child to view a work
Classification categories:
  • Carry out work through classification categories in order to protect children from harm
  • The BBFC may cut/reject a work deemed unacceptable in any category in the 'Intervention' section of the guidelines
  • There is a need to keep criteria clear under the Human Rights Act (1998)
  • Categories are a product of public consultation with children and adults, research and the many years worth of accumulated experience at the BBFC
  • Regard change in public taste/attitudes/concerns, changes in law, new evidence from research/expert resources
  • Categories are reviewed periodically (around every 5 years)
  • Categories NOT a legal document - they cannot be a comprehensive account of everything and should be interpreted in spirit and letter
Their work includes:
  • Films on behalf of local authorities who license cinemas under the Licensing Act (2003)
  • Video recordings (DVD, VHS, Blu-ray etc.) under the Video Recordings Act (1984)
  • Distribution of video works (e.g. downloading/streaming on Internet) under a voluntary scheme called BBFC.online
  • Will not classify material believed to be in breach of criminal law

Introduction to Film Classification


Reflections on the first lessons:
  • Introduction to the key institutions involved in the film classification process (BBFC, CBBFC, government and audience)
Particular points of interest:
  • The level to which the film makers are held 'responsible' for teaching the young in society right from wrong
  • The focal concerns of the censorship organisations (e.g. in Britain being violence and in U.S. being swearing)
  • Clauses which can be used to lower rating to widen the potential market of a film (e.g. using prosthetics in scenes of a sexual nature)