For once a government agency does something sensible.
quote:
Norfolk snubs censor's rating on Spider-ManTwo local councils re-classify superhero blockbuster to allow in under-12s
Xan Brooks
Wednesday June 12, 2002
If you're under 12 and desperate to catch the new Spider-Man movie, your best advice is to hop on a train to East Anglia... with a parent or guardian's permission, of course.Two councils in the area have bowed to pressure from a cinema owner and agreed to replace the film's 12 certifcate with a PG (parental guidance). Breckland district council and North Norfolk district council agreed with cinema owner Trevor Wicks that the official British board of film classification rating was too strict and unfairly discriminated against Spider-Man's core audience.
Wicks, who owns a chain of five cinemas across East Anglia, says the film is less violent than The Lord of the Rings, which secured a PG rating from the BBFC last year. "It's aimed at children," he argues. "They can get Spider-Man with their burgers and see Spider-Man on their cereal packets, but they can't watch the film. I believe Norfolk is the first area to re- classify the film and it could be that there will now be pressure for others to follow. I think it's a victory for common sense." It is also a victory for Wicks, who now looks set to reap the benefits of a far wider audience at his cinemas.
While the BBFC's ratings are largely taken as gospel around Britain, the certificates are advisory only. The responsibility for upholding or overturning them falls to individual local councils.
"The reason we gave the film a 12 certificate was due to its levels of strong violence," explains Sue Clark, head of communications at the BBFC. "In fact we were actually verging on making it a 15 certificate.In our opinion Spider-Man's levels of violence qualify it as a borderline 12/15, There is no way that's it would qualify as a PG certificate under our guidelines. But I can understand why cinemas are putting pressure on the local authorities to re-classify it. If it remained rated as a 12, there would be an awful lot of parents angry that they could not take their children to see the film. The final decision is always with the local authorities."
Invariably, however, the local councils adhere to the BBFC rating. "It's very rare that they change it," says Clark. "The last time it happened was with Billy Elliot, which we classified as a 15 due to its strong language. One local authority changed the rating to a 12. I believe that it then received a lot of complaints from viewers angered by the language."
I would like to hear from our UK cousins thier thoughts on this.
Dave
For example, Ninja Turtles had seconds trimmed off the running time due to the appearance of certain weapons.
;-)
The BBFC is a private company which has no legal power to determine what can and can't be shown in a cinema. The 1909 Cinematograph Act (and subsequent revisions thereof) determined that local authorities (i.e. county or city councils) must issue licences to cinemas. Without a licence, it is illegal to accept money from the public in exchange for admitting them to see a film. Ironically, the reason this law was passed in the first place was health and safety: this was before the age of sealed projection boxes and there had been some nasty nitrate fires, including one in London in 1906 which killed 30 people.
However, the law did not specify exactly what criteria a council could and could not apply when granting or refusing a licence, and so some started using the content of films as well as fire safety. There was a test case in 1911 (LCC v. Bermondsey Bioscope Co.) in which the judge decided that censorship was a legitimate criterion, which effectively passed it into law through the back door.
The film industry was alarmed at this because potentially, it introduced an element of inconsistency. Town A could ban its cinemas from showing a film (or in legal terms, rule that doing so would breach the conditions of its licence), whilst Town B might allow it. This would mean that the cinema business in Town A would be badly hit, as anyone wanting to see the film would simply get on a bus to Town B.
So in response to this the BBFC (the 'C' stood for censors in those days, being changed to 'classification' in 1985) was formed on 1 March 1913, not as a governmental organisation, but as a private company funded by the film industry. Its aim was to make censorship decisions which all local authorities would sign up to, thus ensuring that the same rules would apply nationwide. During the following decades it established a reputation for consistency and transparency - the BBFC published its assessment criteria and made all judgements according to them. It raised money (and still does) by charging studios to have their films examined. Apart from a brief period during the 1930s when the BBFC was subject to heavy political interference, it has generally been respected by the industry and by local authorities as being fair and consistent in the way it applies censorship criteria. The criteria applied for classifying films at the different levels are as open today as they were then, and can be read in full on the BBFC's website.
However, there have been serious disagreements about the criteria themselves, with conservatives complaining that they allow too much sex and violence and liberals complaining that they infringe civil liberties. The liberal argument gained ground since 1984, when the Video Recordings Act was passed. For the first time this gave the BBFC statutory legal powers. It is illegal to defy BBFC classifications in respect of videos. Whereas a cinema manager is breaking no law by admitting a five year-old to Zombie Holocaust (although he does risk losing his licence), a video store owner is committing a criminal offence punishable by up to 5 years in jail if he sells or rents that five year-old a VHS.
Whereas previously the BBFC was only really accountable to the film industry and to local government - it could duck the civil rights issue by claiming that its decisions had no status in law - it can no longer do so because civil libertarians point out, quite correctly, that if the BBFC refuses to classify a video then it is effectively making it illegal.
The last time this debate surfaced in a big way was in 1992, when two teenagers were convicted of kidnapping and murdering a baby in Manchester. At their trial it was alleged that they had seen a video of Child's Play 3 and that this had inspired them to commit the crime. Whilst detractors pointed out (and I agree with them) that anyone who is capable of commiting that sort of crime would surely have been provoked by something else had they not watched the video, there were calls by some politicians for all 15 and upwards videos to be withdrawn from sale.
So the BBFC are really caught between a rock and a hard place where controversial decisions are concerned. In recent years, most of the highly publicised ones have concerned art and rep titles, most notably, Crash, Romance, Amores Perros and Baise Moi. As they were never going to be shown in the multiplexes these debates were never wide ranging - the only thing I'd say is that the publicity probably ensured that these films got a wider audience than they otherwise would have done. But when Hollywood blockbusters get controversial, cans of worms get opened. Right-wingers mieow and hiss about how the evil film industry is corrupting our youth, the civil libertarians counter that with civil libertarian arguments, and the film industry just wants its product distributed as widely as possible. The most usual outcome in these cases is for the BBFC to request minor cuts to bring a film down (for example) from 15 to 12 or 12 to PG, thus increasing its potential market share. It's very unusual for a local council to overrule a BBFC classification, and even more unusual for it to be adjusted down.
My feeling is that the BBFC will sit up and take note, because if they lose the confidence of licensing authorities, who then regularly then start classifying films themselves, they've lost half their business and half the reason for their existence.
Definition of PG below
General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for some children
'PG' Parental Guidance
Unaccompanied children of any age may watch. A 'PG' film should not disturb a child aged around eight or older. However, parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger or more sensitive children.
Theme
More serious issues may be featured, eg crime, domestic violence, racism (providing nothing in their treatment condones them).
Language
Mild bad language only.
Nudity
Natural nudity, with no sexual context.
Sex
Sexual activity may be implied, but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sexual references and innuendo only.
Violence
Moderate violence, without detail, may be allowed - if justified by its setting (eg historic, comedy or fantasy).
Imitable techniques
No glamorisation of realistic, contemporary weapons. No detail of fighting or other dangerous techniques.
Horror
Frightening sequences should not be prolonged or intense. Fantasy settings may be a mitigating factor.
Drugs
No references to illegal drugs or drug use unless entirely innocuous.
"12" Rating defined as
No-one younger than 12 may see a '12' film in a cinema or rent or buy a '12' rated video.
Theme
Mature themes are acceptable, but their treatment must be suitable for young teenagers.
Language
The use of strong language (eg 'fuck') should be rare and must be justified by context.
Nudity
Nudity is allowed, but in a sexual context will be brief and discreet.
Sex
Sexual activity may be implied. Sexual references may reflect the familiarity of most adolescents today with sex education through school.
Violence
Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly indicated and without physical detail.
Imitable techniques
Dangerous techniques (examples include: combat, hanging, suicides) should contain no imitable detail. Realistic and contemporary weapons should not be glamorised.
Horror
Sustained threat and menace is permitted. Occasional gory moments only.
Drugs
Brief and occasional references to, and sight of, 'soft' drug-taking (eg cannabis) are allowed, but must be justified by context and should indicate the dangers. No instructional elements are permitted.
For other ratings look at http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ and click on symbols at top of page
You have to be over 18 to have a beer. Anyone under 18 is not allowed, even if they have a parent with them.
----------
BTW In the US isn't Spiderman a PG-13 anyway? , not PG
quote:
It sounds like the 12 rating is very conservative, being only slightly worse than PG. Why are childred not allowed to see such a film even if they are accompanied?
Its a scale. A PG is slightly worse than a U, a 12 slightly worse than a PG, a 15 slightly worse than a 12, an 18 slightly worse than a 15.
Some recent examples
U Return to Never Land, Ice Age
PG Attack of the Clones, Snowdogs
12 Spiderman, Dragonfly,
15 Panic Room, Not Another Teen Movie, Unfaithful
18 Blade II, From Hell
Yes, Spiderman is PG-13 in the U.S., children under 13 can see it if they're with a parent.
quote:
Do all of those ratings mean that no one under the specified age can see it at all?.
Yes. In the case of videos, the retailer (or hirer) can be prosecuted, as selling (hiring) a video to someone under the required age is a criminal offence. If a cinema allows people under the specified age in then they risk losing their licence, and hence being forced to close.
John
Punching and kicking
Thats whats got the '12' rating
The BBFC never liked kung-fu. That why Rush Hour/Rush Hour 2 were rated '12'.
Come to thing off it Rush Hour had a 15 certificate for its theatrical release. And the main trailer was 15.
---------------------------------------------------
The press release from the BBFC
Spider-man is possibly the most violent film which is aimed at a young audience that the BBFC has classified. The levels of violence make the film a borderline '15' rating and most certainly not suitable for a 'PG' rating which would allow very young children to view the film. The violence is set in a modern urban setting with a clear message that the use of violence is the normal and appropriate response when challenged. The Board does not believe that this is the sort of message to be sending to young children. The BBFC carried out an extensive consultation exercise with the public and the very clear message from parents in particular was that they were very concerned about the levels of violence in films aimed at young children. The Guidelines which were used to classify Spider-man were based on the outcomes of that research.
Hollywood has carried out an aggressive world-wide marketing campaign aimed at young children when the film is not suitable for them. The film has been given a similar rating to the BBFC's '12' in the US and Europe. The difference is that in the US the PG13 rating does not prevent children under 13 from seeing the film. The '12' rating in the UK does. This is what has created the situation where local councils are coming under pressure from cinemas and parents to change the rating for the film. There are 468 local authorities in the UK and to date, according to the media, only a couple have changed the rating, which they are legally entitled to do under the 1985 Cinemas
Act.
-----------------------------------------------------
And in Norwich
------------------
Norwich has been chosen to be the first of a series of pilots for a new film classification category. The BBFC would like to know what the public thinks of changing the current '12' category, which excludes children under the age of 12 from seeing the film at the cinema, to PG-12. PG-12 would mean that parents or guardians could decide that children younger than 12 will be able to see a film with that rating.
The Norwich pilot will run from 26 October to 13 December. During this period all films which are '12' rated in the rest of the country will be rated PG-12 in all of the cinemas in Norwich and will be open to children younger than 12, but only if accompanied by a responsible adult. Children of 12 and over will still be able to go to the cinema without an adult, as usual.
During the pilot period the BBFC will be carrying out public opinion polling in and around the city's cinemas. As well as asking people whether the '12' rating should change to PG-12 they will be asked whether the rating should require an adult to accompany children under 12.
Robin Duval, Director of the BBFC said:
"Changing the mandatory '12' rating to an advisory PG-12 would be a significant step and we need to find out if the public supports it or not. Providing parents with the opportunity to try out the proposed new category should enable them to judge for us whether it would be a worthwhile change. We will be carrying out further pilots in selected towns and cities throughout the UK and only when we have the results of all the public opinion polling will we come to a decision about whether to change the '12' rating.
"The BBFC recognises that parents will need more information about the content of the films they may wish to take their children to see and I am delighted to say that the film distributors have given their full backing to the provision of 'consumer advice' on film posters. In Norwich all 'U', 'PG' and 'PG-12' film posters will carry a panel which explains what the film category is, what that means and a short sentence giving information about the content of the film.
"I would particularly like to thank Norwich City Council and the city's cinemas for their full and enthusiastic support for this exercise. Without it the pilot could not go ahead. We think it is particularly important that as many people as possible have an opportunity to take part in the decision making process."
Chair of Norwich City Council Regulatory Committee, Councillor Brenda Ferris said:
"The City Council is very pleased that Norwich has been chosen as the country's first city to pilot a scheme for an advisory 12 certificate. This not only reflects the importance of our city as a cultural centre but also provides an opportunity for Norwich movie goers to take part in this important research".
Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. This signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for pre-teens. Parents should be especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent violence is absent; sexually-oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of drug use may be seen; one use of the harsher sexually derived words may be heard. From ( www.filmratings.com )
------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.
Here in The Bahamas the ratings are administered by a government agency and it is against the law to countermand them.
A - All ages admitted
B - Under 18 with parent/guardian
T - Under 15 not admitted*
C - Under 18 not admitted
D - Banned**
*Note that the T Rating does not allow parents to decide if their kid can see the film with (or without) them. The T rating is what we call "the kiss of death." Adults won't see it because they think it's for teenagers and pre-teens (usually the target audience) don't get see it because they're not old enough. The rating was created in 1984 when "Gremlins" and "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" were released. These days it gets applied quite randomly.
**The general public is largely unaware of the D rating. Anywhere from 3 to 5 movies get banned in a year. Recent victims of censorship: "Jay & Silent Bob" and the "South Park" movie.
We have also had some movies pass with a C rating if certain scenes were removed. In order for "Scary Movie" to pass we had to get rid of the shots containing Ms. Mann's testicles, the dick-through-the-ear and also the explosive orgasm. Much as I hated to make those edits I don't think they harmed the overall movie.
But I'm sure you could easily see how this practice could wreak havoc with the narrative structure of a film. Such was the case with Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket." A suicide scene was deleted. Everyone wondered where that guy went! It totally ruined the rest of the movie because they were all trying to figure out what happened to him!
Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
As the father of a sensible and intelligent 7 year old who a) sees all the coverage of this topic on the TV news and b) is a huge Spidey fan it is still very difficult trying to explain to him why I won't drive him 70 miles to see the film in a different city. I haven't had the chance to see the film myself but a number of friends whose views I trust have seen it and reinforce the BBFC's view that 12 is appropriate in this case.
Down to a PG
I believe we are the ONLY cinema in Scotland showing Spidey with a PG rating
Given that this is my first post here I'll try not to dive in with both feet...but this is my pet topic, so I hope I don't speak out of turn!
The US isn't so free either. A few points to ponder:
The US has an obscenity law. Government CAN intervene if it so chooses. The law when used is applied very locally, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
The MPAA probably forces more cuts on movies these days than the BBFC does (though it's nice to see more theatres showing unrated movies...). Worse still, it exterts a pernicious conservatising influence on the production/distribution process that simply doesn't exist here. It'll be a cold day in hell before the MPAA rates Pasolini's Salo without cuts - the BBFC did just that. Actually, getting back to the obscenity point, Salo was seized by the police at a screening at the University of Texas film society back in about 1988 - so much for freedom. Folks' main gripe with the BBFC these days is that (as with Spiderman) they sometimes rate things higher than a distributor would like. Having not seen Spiderman I can't say whether there's any justification for the higher rating.
You'll likely see more extreme stuff in a big mainstream theater here in the UK than you will in the US. Many city centre multiplexes are showing Baise Moi - and let's get the cuts in context: it's 2 seconds to a closeup penetration shot. 'Audition' got quite a big release, without cuts and some really quite (erm) toe-curling violence. Smaller independents in the US have the edge those here when it comes to weirder material, but that's more to do with the size of the US market than censorship issues. That said, the best place I've visited for cinematic extremes is probably Montreal.
Theaters here CAN and do show unrated movies. (Salo and Ai No Corrida played unrated at art houses for years here befored the BBFC felt able to grant them certificates). In general though, very few films are refused a rating altogether and distros won't usually bother supplying unrated prints for a movie that has a certificate - certainly not if the cuts are minimal. Last House on the Left has not been rated here as yet - mainly because the distro is holding out for an 18 rating with no cuts on the longer version. It HAS been shown at a few cinemas though, but on a small scale since the distro is gunning for the video market and has no interest in a major cinema release.
The notions that the BBFC is composed of folks who gleefully go about cutting films or that they are some kind of government overseer are both myths (witness if you will the continual consternation of our totalitarian minded government in the face of controversial BBFC decisions!).
I hope that's not too much of a tirade for a first post!
David
quote:
The US has an obscenity law. Government CAN intervene if it so chooses. The law when used is applied very locally, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
So do we, in the form of the Obscene Publications Act. One of the most frequently cited reasons by the BBFC for refusing to classify films at all (usually hard-core porn which would get an 18R certificate if anything) is its judgement that the content of a film or video might contravene the act, and thus that to certificate it would effectively be condoning a criminal act.
If memory serves me correctly, this was the reason given for refusing to classify Salo for video release for many years.
Or... maybe you are there and your perceptions of America were acquired in much the same way that my perception of England was obtained. So... let me offer a few comments about my perceptions of the cultural differences (which are expressed in a lot of movies). I'll offer these simply to give you insight... not because I'm saying that these observations are absolute fact but that they are perceptions which many share. So... if I write something ridiculous you are invited to laugh about it and then (gently) tell me that people who think these things are mis-informed.
1) The people of the U.K. and Western Europe seem to think that Americans are barbaric... that our culture is merely a modern adaptation of wild west shoot-em-up movies. That's why our schools are absolutely full of gun-toting teenagers and we still practice the inexcusable barbarism of capitol punishment. The current President is a cowboy.
2) When it comes to violence, Americans cannot understand why their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic are so prone to riotous behavior. As we understand it, all fans of "soccer" are out-of-control hooligans who enjoy getting drunk and brawling more than watching the game. If you want to come home alive, never actually go to one of these games because you never know when you'll get crushed to death.
3) The British are extremely liberal about sex and nudity. Nudity is all over the TV and newspapers and children are therefor exposed to sexual ideas all the time. To Americans, violence can often be an appropriate and "moral" way to stop our enemies. Sexual immorality is, simply, not "moral" and those who expose children to it are ruining the civilized world.
4) The British believe that Americans are entirely too uptight about sex and nudity. Because Americans have an unrealistic view of sex, when American couples finally spend time alone what happens in the bedroom must be horrifying.
5) Religion is an important part of American life. The noble cause of Freedom of Religion is the only reason our forefathers came to these shores anyway. We can often turn our backs on the exact commandments contained in the Judeo-Christian tradition... until a time of national crisis when we all remind each other that "In God We Trust." Meanwhile, religion in England has always been corrupt and/or a tool of royalty. That's why nobody in England believes in God anymore.
6) Americans believe that free speech reigns supreme in the U.S.A. That's why we let Nazis march in suburban Chicago. And "we" invented the Internet, after all, which brings free speech to the entire world! But the thought police are slowly removing free thought from the U.K.
Now... can you see how these things affect the way that American films are accepted (or not) by the people of the U.K. and vice versa? For the most part, I don't worry about how American films are received in the U.K., but every now and then I hear what sounds like a really crazy story. For example, the movie Attack of the Clones contains fighting and kicking and clawing and decapitation... but the powers-that-be in England demanded that a head-butt be cut from the movie. What? Didn't they see the kid getting his arm sliced off (by a Brit)? Or how about the cut which was demanded in The Abyss because of cruelty to rats? We just shake our heads and say, "Whatever." We don't complain nearly as much when we hear screwy stories about the MPAA... because they're Americans after all and we understand where they're coming from. But we don't like to hear "foreigners" making fun of "our" MPAA, no matter how screwy it is.
And I still don't like the way we're calling all of this "censorship." When a filmmaker decides he wants a certain rating from a controling authority, then the filmmaker must play by the rules of that controling authority. Otherwise, you just accept the more restrictive rating and be true to your "artistic" choice. We're really not talking about hard-core porn when we're talking about Spider-man and Star Wars after all.
BBFC in the last 10 years have not used obscenity as an 'excuse' to deny classification in my opinion. Citing it as a valid reason given social conditions, maybe. Here's an interesting aside: I imported an uncut videotape of Salo about 10 years back. Concerned that I might be prosecuted by customs, I called the BBFC for advice and had a very pleasant and informed discussion with someone there (who I won't name here). Even back then the attitude was that the BBFC would have liked to grant the film a certificate uncut, but that the public wasn't ready for it. The person I spoke to was actually quite a fan of the film and I ended up having a lengthy chat about Pasolini in general and other censorship issues. I think that sums the situation up nicely - people's readiness to listen to tabloid nonsense and the likes of Mary Whitehouse and her cronies meant that the climate wasn't suitable for releasing such material, even though internally the BBFC was open to it. If they had done, there would have been an enormous tabloid backlash (being before homosexuality was accepted so openly), probably followed by hastily drafted legislation to introduce governmental control into the BBFC decision making process and we'd be in a far worse situation now (the gvt attempted to gain executive powers over BBFC decisions about 2 years ago too - I forget the reason now - but they failed). Anyway, the unnamed person in question advised me to have a letter put in the package explaining that I'd spoken to the BBFC and for customs to contact them with any queries. Hardly the act of a bunch of rabid conservative moral crusaders In general I think the BBFC - far from being terrible censors - are on the whole a pretty progressive lot. I'd always prefer to see the complete version of a film but given the tightrope the BBFC must walk, I think it balances pretty well. Sometimes cuts can actually be arguably positive - as in the case of the very real (and pointless) animal cruelty in Cannibal Holocaust...I have an uncut DVD, but I really wish that animal stuff wasn't there!
Trying to stay coherent here...am I succeeding?!
David
Children understands completely, when John Wayne shoots the bad guy and he remains dead on the ground. That's logic for kids, but they don't get that your scull gets seriously injured after a close encounter with a baseball bat.
------------------
Cheers, Thomas www.in70mm.com
I'd guess that this was what your contact referred to when (s)he said that the BBFC was not, at that time, willing to classify Salo on the grounds of medium to long-term public opinion: is it worth putting an important safeguard (i.e. that the film industry decides what is and isn't shown in Britain's cinemas, not the government) on the line just for one notorious example? Once you get a body with statutory powers and regulation, you effectively have a situation whereby he who shouts loudest gets his way, especially around election time. Long-term continuity and consistency would be lost, because in this situation the agenda would be dictated by extremists like Mary Whitehouse.
Going back to the Obscene Publications Act, there are several specific, err shall we say 'procedures' in porn videos (a subject which was raised at that interview, but which is not suitable for describing on a public website) which, in the BBFC's judgement, would contravene that act if published (i.e. given a certificate and sold). If they are present in a video submitted to the board, they must either be cut or the video won't be classified. You're right - it hardly ever happens - but there is a line beyond which the BBFC must not step if it is to preserve the integrity of an independent system of regulation.
Greg: I agree, if the point of making a film is to get it seen by as many different people in a specific age range, you tailor it to meet local sensibilities. Distinguishing between what people can see aged 15 and at age 12 is not, IMHO, an issue of artistic integrity, because the film-maker can always have his or her production passed uncut if (s)he is willing to accept a slight drop in profits.
Moving on to some of Greg's points...
quote:
That's why our schools are absolutely full of gun-toting teenagers and we still practice the inexcusable barbarism of capitol punishment. The current President is a cowboy.
There is certainly a culture gap here. No Western European countries practice capital punishment, and ownership of most types of firearm by private individuals is illegal in most of them. In the UK, even the Police do not carry guns (except for a small number of specially trained officers, who are used only in a response to a threat from armed criminals and do not undertake routine duties). I must admit, I even feel uneasy visiting France and seeing police officers with handguns on the beat.
Heavily publicised shooting incidents in recent years, e.g. the Dunblane school shooting in 1995 and a similar incident in Germany earlier this year, seemed to have strenghtened public opinion in favour of resticting the ownership and use of firearms. However, I get the impression that the opposite holds true in the US - whenever such an incident happens, people like Charlton Heston and the NRA make public speeches to the effect that people are the problem, not guns, and that it is legitimate and necessary for law-abiding private individuals to have the right to carry firearms. Why this is I'm not entirely sure.
quote:
As we understand it, all fans of "soccer" are out-of-control hooligans who enjoy getting drunk and brawling more than watching the game. If you want to come home alive, never actually go to one of these games because you never know when you'll get crushed to death.
This is a belief that people in many European countries hold about English soccer as well. Ten years ago I'd say that there was a very strong element of truth about it. But there has been a very strong crackdown against organised hooliganism in recent years, and the increasing commercialisation of soccer has resulted in most people never actually going to one of these games becuase they cannot afford to. It costs a bare minimum of £25 to attend premier league matches (the big, well-known teams, e.g. Manchester United and Arsenal), with the result that now, only people who have that sort of money - i.e. white collar professionals, mainly - actually go to the matches themselves. Violence and yobbish behaviour is still, IMHO, a major problem around the pubs and bars where these matches are screened on video projectors, though. After England's first qualifying match there were 30 arrests in York city centre for drunk and disorderly behaviour. As one anonymous quote puts it: rugby is a game designed for yobs but played by gentlemen, whilst football is a game designed for gentlemen but played by yobs.
quote:
The British believe that Americans are entirely too uptight about sex and nudity.
Actually, I'd say exactly the opposite, especially of America's film industy. Watch two or three typical Hollywood melodramas or a TV show such as Sex and the City and you'd come away with the impression that the Americans do nothing but. Given that films and TV are the main way in which British people are exposed to American culture, I'd say that was quite a widely held preconception.
quote:
Meanwhile, religion in England has always been corrupt and/or a tool of royalty. That's why nobody in England believes in God anymore.
Here here! The Church of England is about the most corrupt, dishonest, hypocritical and basically unchristian organisation I think I've ever come across, and the fact that my taxes go to pay the salaries of a bunch of second-rate politicians and fraudsters masquerading as ministers of religion really sticks in my throat.
That having been said, I'm afraid that the popular British impression of American religion consists mainly of millionaire television evangelists (e.g. Jimmy Swaggart) and paedophile priests...
quote:
To Americans, violence can often be an appropriate and "moral" way to stop our enemies.
To the British (and to a far greater extent, to the French and Germans), the Americans are partisan and inconsistent over their definition of friends and enemies, e.g. they oppose Palestinian terrorists but support the IRA, or they preach the need for free trade but then impose steel import tariffs on Europe (whilst continuing to take advantage Europe's relatively liberal import regimes for commodities such as films and wine).
I saw Spiderman about a week ago.
I didn't think it was all that bad.
It had punching and kicking (about the same as a 'Rush Hour' movie)
There were a few jump sequences.
There was no gore.
I'm currently faling to see what all the fuss is about.
I thought The Time Machine (UK PG) was worse.
We now have no ratings which require a child to be accompanied. At one time we had an 'A' rating, to which children under a certain age, could only be admitted if accompanied by an adult. I believe that at least part of the reason for abolishing it was the fear that 'undesirable' adults could hang around near cinemas, offering to take children in to see 'A' films.
We also used to have an 'X' certificate which was, If I remember correctly, for 16+. This was replaced by the '15' and '18' certificates, so the most restrictive certificate became even more so at that time. We also had a 'AA' certificate for a while, I think that was for 14+; someone please correct me if I have that age wrong. The '12' rating is relativly recent, and at first applied only to cinema ratings; not to home viewing, to which it was applied later.
To give some impression of the BBFC ratings, those for the DVDs which I have on my shelf at the moment are:
Exempt:
Variuus music videos, documentaries etc. Not feature films.
'U'
A Laurel & Hardy compilation disc.
Genevieve.
The 3 'Wallace & Gromit films.
'PG'
The Best of Monty Python's Flying Circus Volume 1.
Amadeus.
Vertigo.
Spartacus.
West Side Story.
A Night to Remember.
The Third Man.
'12'
Titanic.
Topsy-Turvy.
'15'
Brassed Off.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Monty Python's The Meaning of Life.
'18'
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
A Clockwork Orange.
Obviously, this is only a very small sample, I must buy some more DVDs, but I hope it gives some impression.
I do not own any 'Uc' or 'R18' titles, so I cannot give any examples.
Some BBFC ratings do seem somewhat odd. '15' for 'Brassed Off', and the somewhat similar The 'Full Monty', and 'Billy Elliot', does seem rather high. All of these films contain some swearing, but probably no more than you would hear in a primary school (age 7-11) playground. There is also some violence in these films, but quite mild, I would have thought a '12' rating rould have been more appropriate.
'Topsy Turvy' is rated '12'. It contains one 'F' word, and a brief shot of two topless women, but no violence that I can remember.
The two '18' films are both quite violent, but I would have thought that 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' could have been given a '15'.
'A Clockwork Orange', is difficult. Many younger teenagers may not fully understand the film, but would it actually do them any harm? Some people mature much faster than others, I know children of pre-teen age, who I think could watch this film, without being harmed, or disturbed by it, others, several years older, could not.
I remember once projecting a print of 'Carmen', which had some quite gorey bull-fighting scenes at the beginning. This was rated 'PG', which I thought rather low. This was quite an old film, so the '12' certificate may not have been available at the time, and '15' would probably not be justified.
The BBFC seem to be quite concerned about violence, espceially anything which has a cult status among the young, e.g. kung fu, and anything where a person is seen getting some sort of sexual gratification from violent acts.
The 'PG' rating for 'The Third Man' would not have applied to the original film, it did not exist at that time. I am not sure of the original rating for this film, but I suspect that it was something more restrictive.
My laserdisc of 'Schlindles's List' is rated '15', I think the cinema release was the same. This film is as violent, and possibly more disturbing than the two '18' discs which I have, when I saw it at the cinema it was too much for several people who had to leave the auditorium, yet it gets a lower rating. Some films do seem to be regarded by the BBFC as having a greater artistic merit than others, and this does seem to earn a lower rating.
I have just three American DVDs, 'Romeo and Juliet', the Zeffirelli version' is a 'PG', 'Forbidden Plannet' and 'To Kill a Mockingbird', (in my opinion one of the best American films ever produced), are both unrated. Since I bought 'Mockingbird', a british version of the disc has become available, rated '12', but IMDb lists the film as 'PG'. I think that the '12' is probably right on this one. I obviously need a much larger sample than just one rated film to be able to compare British ratings with American ones, but it would be interesting.
quote:
Coun Smith said: "I am not a killjoy. I believe there are parts of the film which would frighten younger children."These days the censors are said to be slacker in any case than they used to be and I think it is right to be careful."
Cineworld manager Carl Walmsley said a number of other councils had changed the rating and Bradford had made a mistake.
He said: "I think they are killjoys but also too sensitive and maybe with the Capital of Culture bid they don't want to do anything which might upset anyone."
I'm in agreement. Although I don't believe that it is as violent as many people are making out, I think it's suited to the '12' certificate. Just.
I won't bother discussing my DVD collection as it's tiny and none of them are rated!
David
My big problem with it was the attempted rape scene, which, IMHO, made a very clear causal link between sexual attraction and violent assault. Furthermore it was totally unnecessary in the context of the story - the scene would have worked perfectly well as an attempted mugging or robbery without any sexual element.
BTW, talk about context being everything - when I saw the 'wet t-shirt' shot discussed in another thread on Spiderman, my initial thought was 'what is all the fuss about?', but the fact that it is shown as part of an attempted rape scene changes things entirely.
The sex/violence idea was also followed up in the final fight scene in the disused church, in which Green Goblin describes how he intends to dispose of Kirsten Dunst (complete with phallic imagery on the screen, e.g. metal spikes).
For me to be comfortable letting a 12 year-old see this, I would want those scenes either completely cut or reshot to eliminate the sexual element. Hopefully these scenes would go over the head of a well bought-up 12 year old, but one from a troubled family background or who had perhaps witnessed domestic violence might take them in a very different way, and not be able to differentiate between the 'good' violence of Spiderman and the 'bad' violence of Green Goblin - an understanding which (s)he would need to take in the dialogue in order to get. When the BBFC makes these decisions it has to take into account all 12 year-olds, not just the sensible ones. I now understand why they were talking in terms of a 12/15 borderline, and would personally come down on the other side of that fence.
The fighting/kung fu scenes in themselves didn't worry me that much - as far as that goes, kids really are exposed to much worse on the telly.
Another amazing thing that a Spider-Man can do.