Film Censorship in the United Kingdom

Transcription

1 1 Film Censorship in the United Kingdom Graham Hill The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is an independent non-governmental body. It has classified films for screening in public cinemas, on behalf of local authorities, since 1913; it has also classified the majority of video works offered for supply in the form of video recordings (including VHS, DVD and Blu-ray) since Every video work classified by the BBFC since 1985 has also been given a digital certificate. Since 1998, the BBFC has operated under a series of published Guidelines. These Guidelines are flexible and stress the importance of taking into consideration the context of each individual work. They are reviewed on a regular basis, which entails a period of extensive public consultation, the most recent of which took place in The history of the BBFC begins with the introduction of the Cinematograph Act The Act required local authorities to license cinemas showing films to the public in their area. Although the original intention of the Act was to cover public safety (chiefly the risk of fire from inflammable nitrate stock), it was not long before local authorities extended their licensing powers to decide what types of films could be shown in cinemas in their areas. Although this apparent extension of their powers was challenged by film exhibitors and distributors, a landmark court ruling in 1910 (the Bermondsey Bioscope decision) confirmed that local authorities were within their rights to impose conditions on what films could be shown, provided the conditions were not unreasonable. Widespread variations in local licensing practice led to a confusing situation in which exhibitors and distributors could no longer be certain which films would be acceptable to the local authorities in a particular area. Accordingly, in 1912, the film industry decided to set up the BBFC (as the British Board of Film Censors). From January 1913, the BBFC began viewing all films, except current newsreels, and deciding whether or not the films were suitable for public exhibition. If a film was considered suitable for public exhibition, the BBFC would award one of two classifications U (Universal), meaning a film was suitable for everybody, or A (Adult), meaning a film was more suitable for adult audiences. However, there was no formal age restriction on A- rated films, and unaccompanied children could attend A films. Although it was hoped that local authorities would come to accept BBFC classifications in time, they retained (as they do to this day) the right to overrule BBFC decisions in their own area.

2 2 In fact, local authorities were relatively slow to recognise BBFC classifications, and by 1915 only 35 authorities had made the exhibition of BBFC-classified films a licensing condition. Notably, some of the largest urban areas, including London and Manchester, remained outside the BBFC system. However, a favourable verdict on the BBFC s activities by the Cinema Commission of Inquiry, set up by the National Council of Public Morals in 1916, encouraged greater acceptance of BBFC decisions by local authorities from In 1921 the London County Council finally accepted BBFC classifications. In the same year, the London County Council also announced that, in future, children would not be admitted to A rated films unless they were accompanied by an adult. In spite of widespread opposition from the film industry, this condition was rapidly taken up by other local authorities and was endorsed by the Home Office in Nonetheless, the lack of a category that wholly excluded children remained a problem, particularly with the rise of horror cinema. As a result, in 1932, the BBFC introduced a new H ( Horrific ) certificate for horror films. This certificate recommended that no children under 16 be admitted to a film. However, the lack of any statutory underpinning to this level of adults only restriction, as well as the inconsistency of local authorities in enforcing the classification, meant that it was never wholly effective. The fact the H only applied to horror films was a further weakness. After the Second World War, it was noted that the majority of film stock was no longer inflammable in the way it had been in the early part of the century, and that the provisions of the 1909 Cinematograph Act, on which the whole system of cinema licensing and censorship was based, were therefore becoming redundant. The Wheare Committee was set up, in advance of the passing of a new Cinematograph Act, to investigate the whole issue of film censorship. The Committee concluded that a new adults only certificate should be introduced and that the protection of children should be a key aspect of cinema licensing and film classification. Therefore, in 1951, the BBFC introduced the new X certificate, which excluded children under 16 from films bearing that classification. Unlike the H certificate, the new X certificate was given statutory underpinning when the new Cinematograph Act 1952 removed the old clauses about fire safety as a key purpose of cinema licensing and instead made the protection of children a key responsibility of local authorities, and by extension the BBFC. Detective Story (1951), Cosh Boy (1953) and Rebel Without a Cause (1955) were among the high-profile films that received an X certificate in its first decade. The 1950s saw a gradual increase in the explicitness of films being submitted to the Board. Partly this was a result of the gradual shift away from the paternalistic attitudes that had prevailed before the war; partly it was the result of cinema responding to the threat of television by presenting

3 3 material that would not be permissible on the new family medium television, particularly films for teenagers. As cinema attempted to cater for more specialist audiences, the BBFC struggled to keep up with changes in public and local authority attitudes. One of the key battlegrounds in the 1950s was the issue of nudity, which the BBFC had almost completely prohibited prior to the introduction of the X certificate, and which since then had only permitted occasionally and fleetingly in films with perceived artistic merit. The BBFC was therefore taken by surprise when a naturist film, Garden of Eden (1954), which it had refused to classify for public exhibition, was found acceptable by the majority of local authorities, who overruled the BBFC. There was, of course, no point in the BBFC refusing to classify a film that the majority of local authorities were prepared to accept, as this could call into doubt the whole point of the BBFC. Therefore, the BBFC moved towards a more accepting position on nudity, whilst taking steps to ensure that it would not be caught too far behind public and local authority opinion again. The rapid social and cultural changes of the 1960s meant the BBFC had to perform a careful balancing act between not moving too far in advance of public opinion and not moving too slowly and getting caught out, as had happened with the naturist films of the 1950s. The BBFC chose to negotiate this path, particularly in the second half of the decade, by actively encouraging more liberal local authorities to permit films the BBFC felt unable to classify, and then to judge reaction to the film from critics, the press and the public. This way, the BBFC could test wider opinion before deciding whether to classify the film for national release. In this manner, a number of taboos about nudity, sex and sexuality were broken down in the 1960s, in films such as Blow-up (1966), The Killing of Sister George (1968) and Women in Love (1969). Developments outside Britain in the latter half of the 1960s, including the abolition of adult censorship in several countries and the introduction of a new ratings system in the US (with a new X certificate that distributors could self-apply, without pre-vetting), led to a rapid increase in the level of explicitness being seen by the BBFC. In response, in 1970, the BBFC revised its category system by raising the age bar for X films from 16 to 18, and by introducing a new teen category, the AA, meaning no admission to under 14s. Unfortunately, this further liberalisation of the category system, combined with the increasingly explicit nature of films in general, coincided with a public and political backlash against the permissiveness of the 1960s. Whereas the BBFC had found itself behind local authority opinion in the 1950s, and had then used local authorities as a means of testing out public opinion in the 1960s, it now found a number of local authorities responding to the new mood of conservatism by prohibiting in their areas a number of films the BBFC had passed. In addition, an attempt was made by a private individual to prosecute a BBFC-classified film Ultimo tango a Parigi (Last

4 4 Tango in Paris, 1972) for obscenity. Although the outcome of that case was a ruling that the Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964 did not apply to films shown in public cinemas, the court also ruled that the far stricter test of common law indecency did apply to the public exhibition of films. This raised the possibility that, unlike with an obscenity prosecution, individual scenes or shots from a film could be taken out of context and prosecuted for indecency. It did not take long before a film that had been rejected by the BBFC, but classified by the Greater London Council for screening in London, was found guilty. Against this background, the BBFC decided that it needed to address the twin problems of the loss of faith in the BBFC s decisions by some local authorities and the potential vulnerability of some films under the common law test of indecency. In order to regain local authority trust, the BBFC started to produce a monthly bulletin for local authorities, explaining in detail every decision the BBFC made. The monthly bulletins set out the nature and content of each film, any cuts that had been made, and any legal issues raised by the film. In terms of the potential legal vulnerability of films, the BBFC campaigned for cinema films to be brought within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act rather than the vaguer test of common law indecency. This would mean that films would have to be considered as a whole, rather than having certain moments taken out of context, and that any artistic or other merits could be taken into account. This change was brought into effect by the Criminal Law Act During the late 1970s, it became clear that a loophole whereby private members clubs did not require either BBFC classification or local authority licensing had resulted in a situation in which a number of clubs, particularly in London s Soho district, were exhibiting porn films that featured elements of violence and rape rather than merely more explicit sex. Increasing concern about the activity of some club cinemas led to a change in the legislation in 1982, whereby in future all club cinemas would have to show films approved for club exhibition by the BBFC, or show films that had been vetted for club exhibition by their local authority. In response to the bringing of clubs within the licensing system, the BBFC introduced the new R18 (Restricted 18) classification, for films only to be shown in licensed clubs. At the same time as the introduction of the R18, the BBFC took the opportunity to revise its category system from the existing U, A, AA, X to the first version of the modern classification system that is still in place today U, PG (replacing A and meaning Parental Guidance ), 15 (replacing AA and meaning no admission to persons under 15) and 18 (replacing X and meaning no admission to persons under 18). The early 1980s also saw home video technology taking off in the UK (it had been introduced in 1978). Unlike cinemas, there was no formal requirement for video cassettes to be classified;

5 5 furthermore, because many of the major companies were suspicious of video due to its potential effect on box-office takings, the early video market tended to be flooded with cheap porn and horror titles. Some of these titles were far more extreme and explicit than anything the BBFC would allow for cinema release, and were theoretically also available to children, since there was no effective classification system. Initially, the stronger horror titles (colloquially known as video nasties ) were prosecuted using the Obscene Publications Act. However, the varying success of such prosecutions, with the same title being found guilty in one area and not guilty in another, led to a high degree of confusion for distributors and retailers. As had happened with cinema in the 1910s, distributors and retailers could not be sure which titles they could and could not release. In an attempt to end the confusion, Parliament passed the Video Recordings Act 1984, which required that the majority of video works be vetted by the BBFC prior to release. This gave the BBFC at that point renamed the British Board of Film Classification the power to refuse to classify potentially harmful works and to place acceptable works into its normal classifications of U, PG, 15, 18 and R18 (the latter meaning a video could be supplied only in licensed sex shops). A 12 rating was subsequently introduced in 1989, for cinemas (with Batman [1989] its first recipient), and in 1994, for videos. In 1998 the BBFC published its classification Guidelines for the first time, making it clear to the public and to distributors what standards would be applied. There then followed a major public consultation process, as a result of which revised Guidelines were issued in The BBFC undertakes these consultation exercises about every four or five years and classification Guidelines have been subsequently issued in 2005, 2009 and In 2002, the new 12A rating replaced the 12 rating for film only; it allows children under 12 to see a 12A film, provided that they are accompanied throughout by an adult. The decision to introduce this new rating was taken after a pilot scheme, in which public reaction was assessed. The new rating was also conditional on the provision and publication of Consumer Advice (now known as BBFCinsight) for 12A films. The BBFC considers 12A films to be suitable for audiences of 12 years and over, but acknowledges that parents know best whether their children younger than 12 can cope with a particular film. While the BBFC had been producing Consumer Advice since the 1990s, it was the introduction of the 12A rating that saw its widespread appearance on film posters, on TV advertisements and in cinema listings for 12A films. A single line of information about the film s content indicated what viewers could expect to encounter in the film and therefore why it was given its rating. This was particularly helpful for parents deciding what films are suitable for their children, and in particular whether to take children younger than 12 to a 12A film. In 2004, the majority of film distributors

6 6 agreed to include the Consumer Advice in publicity for all films. Consumer Advice was further developed to include detailed paragraphs about the content of films in terms of issues, to provide viewers with detailed information on what to expect. Works distributed online are not subject to the Video Recordings Act but in 2008 the UK video industry wanted to extend the use of the BBFC s trusted content information into the new nonstatutory space. As a result the BBFC set up a licensing scheme to allow these services to display BBFC age ratings and other labelling information, and in 2011 every VHS, DVD and Blu-ray title classified by the BBFC since 1985 was given a digital BBFC certificate. By giving over 200,000 titles a digital classification, the BBFC has provided consumers with access to labelling and content information for a massive back catalogue of films and television programmes which are available through video on demand, digital rental/sell-through, streaming, mobile platforms and connected TV. For material that is going straight to online distribution the BBFC offers a classification service known as Watch and Rate, which provides digital e-tailers and platforms with a robust labelling and child-protection system. In 2013 the BBFC developed, with the Dutch regulator NICAM, an international tool to enable rating of User Generated Content (UGC). At the time of writing it is being trialled in Italy. The same year, Mobile Network Operators in the UK began to use a Classification Framework designed by the BBFC to filter video and website content available via mobile networks. The Classification Framework defines content that is unsuitable for customers under the age of 18 and is based on the BBFC s Classification Guidelines for film and video. The BBFC publishes quarterly reports that outline the appeals and complaints that have been brought to the attention of the BBFC, along with the outcomes of those cases. Also in 2013 the UK Government decided to review the terms under which certain videos (such as documentaries, sports, religious and music works) could be considered exempt from BBFC classification. The nature of works that qualified for exemption has changed beyond recognition since the Video Recordings Act was passed in 1984, meaning that inappropriate and potentially harmful content in all but the most extreme cases could be legally supplied to children. The Statutory Instrument that amended the Video Recordings Act came into force on 1 October 2014 and ensures that video content such as drug misuse, strong violence, racist language, and certain sexual content falling short of actual sex will no longer be legally able to be freely supplied to children. This amendment means that distributors that could previously claim exemption for certain works will now be required to seek a BBFC classification if those works contain material which

7 7 could be potentially harmful or otherwise unsuitable for children and, as with video games, works will have to be classified if they contain material which would be rated 12 and above. With the support of the UK Government, in October 2014 the BBFC, with the UK music industry body, BPI, along with three major record labels and Vevo and YouTube, launched a pilot project for the age rating of certain online music videos with content that is unsuitable for younger children, for example drug misuse, violence and self-harm. This pilot will be evaluated in early 2015, with input from the public. Bibliography Barber, Sian, Censoring the 1970s: The BBFC and the Decade that Taste Forgot (Newcastle-upon- Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011). Lamberti, Edward, editor, Behind the Scenes at the BBFC: Film Classification from the Silver Screen to the Digital Age (London: BFI Publishing/Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). March Hunnings, Neville, Film Censors and the Law (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1967). Petley, Julian, Film and Video Censorship in Modern Britain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011). Phelps, Guy, Film Censorship (London: Victor Gollancz, 1975). Robertson, James C., The British Board of Film Censors: Film Censorship in Britain, (London: Croom Helm, 1985). Robertson, James C., The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action (London: Routledge, 1989). Trevelyan, John, What the Censor Saw (London: Michael Joseph, 1973). BBFC resources The British Board of Film Classification archive is available to visit in person. To book go to BBFC Guidelines - BBFC-commissioned research work - BBFC annual reports, from 1988 on - case studies of selected films classified by the BBFC. Graham Hill is Policy & Public Affairs Officer at BBFC.