- 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
Showing posts with label evaluation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evaluation. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Overall change in BBFC history
Labels:
BBFC,
evaluation,
film,
homework
Monday, 28 February 2011
Current Classification System
| Pros :) | Cons :( |
|---|---|
| Protection of children is a priority | Applying guidelines is a subjective process |
| Provides information for parents | Impossible to predict harm/upset of sensitive viewers |
| Helps audiences make informed decisions | Implies age brackets key feature in determining response |
| Society needs some form of rules | Sees children as having only uninformed emotional responses to what they see |
| Cross section of examiners representing a diverse society | Suggests children are passive victims of media |
| Guidelines are relatively robust and clear | Films forced to take role of moral guidance |
| Examiners take work very seriously | Encourages parents to relinquish role and rely on 'nanny state' to control |
| Uses public research and current affairs when redefining guidelines every 4 years | Only 60% of households have children but all films are regulated |
| Enforces that some issues are negative and unacceptable in our society | Discourages production of challenging, alternative children's films |
| Provides protection for children with irresponsible parents | Realism in films is problematic and subjective |
| Enforced by governmental guidelines and laws | Internet is unsupervised and unregulated |
| Independent and has the films best interests - wants to promote the industry | Little 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 child | No representation of children/teen age group in examiners |
| Employs the 'Just In Case' method to protect the vulnerable from possible reactions to a film | Audiences 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
- 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
Labels:
BBFC,
evaluation,
film,
homework
Monday, 7 February 2011
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)
- 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)
Labels:
evaluation,
film,
homework
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)