1. Contemporary Media Regulation Critical Perspectives In Media - Section B UNIT: G325

2. THE BRITISH BOARD OF FILM CLASSIFICATION Self Regulated Body – Non-Governmental Organisation Funded by the film industry RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND CENSORSHIP OF FILMS RELEASED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Will not classify material which it believes to be in breach of criminal law.

3. Proactive Organisation Has statutory requirements to regulate DVD’s, video’s, and some computer games. Distributes age certificates and consumer advice on the age suitability of the film. Also responds to any complaints made about films. ‘Organisations/Bodies’ NOT COMPANIES (They do not make a profit)

4. Universal

5. Parental Guidance

6. 12 Years & Over

7. 15 Years & Over

8. Adults Only

9. HISTORY – BBFC 0 The BBFC was first established in 1912, when it was called the ‘British Board of film censors’. Local authorities were given the power to impose their own varying censorship standards. 0 In 1982 - PG, 15, 18 and R18 classifications were introduced instead of the U and A certificates. This was due to the content of films becoming more complex. 0 In 1984, parliament passed ‘The Video Recordings Act’ stating video recordings offered for sale or hire in the UK must be classified by an authority designed by the secretary state. 0 Also in 1984 the organisation became the British Board of Film CLASSIFICATION. The term ‘censor’ was seen as too restricting, and instead classification was a more practical way of communicating the content of films to specific audiences. 0 In 2010 the Digital Economy Act was introduced. The act regulates digital media and online copyright. The system of law aims to increase online tracking and suing of persistent infringers. 0 The BBFC are currently evolving with the changes in society, regularly updating their guidelines from audience feedback. In example is the introduction of the first 12A (The Bourne Identity 2002) giving power back to parents. 0 Due to desensitisation, the BBFC have relaxed classifications – in particularly The Kings Speech (12A originally a 15) due to the context of the bad language within the film. 0 The BBFC were originally in charge of the classification of games (Grand Theft Auto 3 being one of the first games to receive a classification) but now due to the ever expanding industry, they have required their own independent regulator in the form of PEGI (Pan European Game Info) established in 2003

10. From Censorship to Classification:  Adults should be free to chose their own entertainment – and express themselves  Works should reach the widest audience  Context is central to a work’s acceptability  Decisions are based on published and regularly updated guidelines The Changing Role of the BBFC 1975: 30% of all films submitted cut, mostly at ‘X’ 1985: 18% of all submitted films, mostly at ’18’ 1995: only 6.6% of films cut, almost all ‘category cuts’ at PG, 12 and 15 2011: just 1% of films cut, all for category Over same period, almost all DVD cuts were for adult ‘Sex Works’

11. Columbine Massacre, linked to Grand Theft Auto (1999) Irreversible (2002) The Bunny Game (2010) The Kings Speech (2010) The Dark Knight (2008) Human Centipede 1 (2010) Human Centipede 2 (2011) Percy Jackson The Lightning Theft (2010) A Serbian Film (2010) Woman in Black (2012)

12. Possible Issues: ViolenceLanguageSex Sex References Sexual Violence Drugs Criminal Activity WeaponsHorrorThemeDiscriminationGambling Other Considerations: The work – its story, style, treatment The audience – address, appeal & expectations The moral framework Artistic or educational merit Precedent Potential level of offensiveness

13. CUTTING What is cut? Category cuts (Most common) These are made by film distributors who want a lower category. ‘Compulsory cuts (Less common) Footage must be removed or no age certificate can be given.

14. 2012 851 Films 9,454 DVDs 1,609 Trailers NO REJECTIONS

15. Why did the BBFC have to get involved? What action did the body take? Was this Good or Bad Regulation? Film: The Human Centipede 2 Year: 2011 Director: Tom Six

16.  RELEASED or BANNED: BANNED  RATING: UNCLASSIFIED  CONCERNS: EXPLOITATION OF THE HUMAN BODY. SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE AND TORTURE. BBFC ACTION: Sequel submitted 2011: a vulnerable, disturbed individual, obsessed with the first sequence, makes own 'human centipede‘ ‘Harm’ & OPA risks: focus is sexual arousal of character at idea (& sight) of total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, rape & murder of naked victims. Victims are objects to be brutalised & degraded for the amusement & arousal of main character & the pleasure of the viewer Work REJECTED, as BBFC did not feel they could cut it appropriately. Company appeal decision & suggest cut versions during appeal preparation. Passed Oct 11 with 32 individual cuts to sexual and sexualised violence, sadistic violence & humiliation, & child presented in abusive & violent context.

17. Why did the BBFC have to get involved? What action did the body take? Was this Good or Bad Regulation? Film: A Serbian Film Year: 2010 Director: Srdjan Spasojevic

18.  RELEASED or BANNED: BANNED  RATING: UNCLASSIFIED  CONCERNS: SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE AND TORTURE. INCLUDING PORNOGRAPHY AND PEDOPHILIA BBFC ACTION: A Serbian Film had created a negative reputation even before being presented to the BBFC. It was banned upon the BBFC screening. It was concluded that numerous cuts would be required before the film could be classified at 18. The main issues for the BBFC were scenes of sexual and sexualised violence and scenes juxtaposing images of sex and sexual violence with images of children. The film makers had offered to show the BBFC evidence of the dummy props used in the film's most difficult scenes, but the BBFC's Guidelines nonetheless caution that 'portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context' may require compulsory cuts. On 25 August, the BBFC presented the film's distributor with a cuts list. In total, 49 individual cuts were required, across 11 scenes. It was estimated that around three minutes 48 seconds would need to be removed.

19. Why did the BBFC have to get involved? What action did the body take? Was this Good or Bad Regulation? Film: The Woman in Black Year: 2012 Director: James Watkins

20. Why did the BBFC have to get involved? What action did the body take? Was this Good or Bad Regulation? Film: The Simpsons Movie Year: 2007 Director: David Silverman

21. Nudity (of a ten-year-old boy) Children smokingsmoking Sex references / Violence BUT cartoon, known quantity, comic and ultimately passed at…

22. Why did the BBFC have to get involved? What action did the body take? Was this Good or Bad Regulation? Film: The Kings Speech Year: 2010 Director: Tom Hooper

23. Infrequent strong language? Originally passed Reconsideration Mitigations? No aggression V. specific context: speech therapy, broad appeal, tone, 12A ‘feel’

24. Why did the BBFC have to get involved? What action did the body take? Was this Good or Bad Regulation? Film: Grotesque Year: 2009 Director: Koji Shiraishi

25.  RELEASED or BANNED: BANNED  RATING: UNCLASSIFIED  CONCERNS: GRAPHIC SEXUAL VIOLENCE WITH NO CARE FOR THE HUMAN BODY. NOT ARTISTIC IN PRESENTATION. BBFC ACTION: Grotesque was billed as 'the film that could make even the most extreme splatter horror fan vomit'. A man kidnaps a couple on their first date and subjects them to various acts of sexual violence and extreme torture, while demanding that they 'excite' him sexually and prove their love for each other through death. Grotesque is also markedly different to the Saw and Hostel ‘torture porn’ series, in that those films contain a more developed narrative and there is therefore more contextual justification for the strongest scenes. The film was submitted for video classification in July 2009 and viewed by several Examiners and the two Senior Examiners. It was then referred upwards to the Head of Policy, the Director and the Presidential tier (consisting of the President and two Vice Presidents) for further viewing and consideration, as is the case with controversial works. After much debate and deliberation, and with various opinions expressed, the film was finally rejected in August 2009. This means that it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK.