kind of surprising really as it merely highlights the pointlessness of their being and makes a mockery of their r18 classification.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/e8ea0df3a881175480256d58003cb570/fa2784be3600eade802571a1004b789c?OpenDocument
do the world a favour and sign my petition to get rid of the bbfc in its current form
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/SelfClassification/
While I don't trust the BBFC as far as I can throw them my attitude towards them has softened of late. It's always been my belief that we need some independent body to classify films for certificates up to 15 but this body should leave 18 certificate films uncut (unless there are scenes of animal cruelty or child abuse which would make the film illegal in the UK anyway). The BBFC seem to finally be doing this (they'll probably make a decision tomorrow to prove me wrong but I'll risk it).
In my opinion R18 is purely for porn and should stay. I read that porn producers in the USA subverted the X certificate resulting in non-porn X certificate films being tarred with the porn brush. I'd hate to see our 18 certificate subverted by porn in the same way. I haven't seen "Destricted" yet so I can't comment on whether this is art or porn (I know, it's subjective) but the other 18 certificate films featuring "real sex" aren't porn in my eyes therefore their uncut 18 certificate is justified.
Just my tuppence worth.
[deleted]
Yeah, there really needs to be a porno-only category. In the USA, almost anything that gets "NC-17"(adults only) gets cut down to R(under 17s must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian). Theatres refuse to play NC-17s, major video stores refuse to stock them, ext. So really violent stuff often gets cut in theatres here.
These cartoons make DESTRICTED look like a sunday picnic!
http://www.lungsfilms.cjb.net/
[deleted]
The British model is still more successful than the American one cause in America there is no workable adult rating. If a movie gets an NC-17 rating, like "The Dreamers," a number of cinemas will not show it and a number of video-rental chains, like Blockbuster, will not sell it. So a lot of movies have to be trimmed to be permitted an R-rating; if a director accepts the NC-17, he is keeping the integrity of the movie but at the cost of allowing far fewer people to see it. With the 18 certificate, we have something for adults that does not have the connotations or restrictions of the NC-17.
Furthermore there are fewer and fewer movies getting the 18 certificate; there's rarely more than one at the cinema at any given time. However this could have something to do with American movies pandering to the demands of the MPAA.
Our (British) system is far from perfect - "Sweet Sixteen" receiving an 18 certificate was a disgrace - but if you think it's bad, wait til you see "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," the doc. about the MPAA.
This is just not quite true. DOn't get me wrong, I think that applying ratings to any artistic and non-pornographic film is an utter waste of time. You are also right about the problems with the NC-17 rating preventing a film form getting mainstream theatrical release. Where the US system is marginally more forgiving, however, is that even if a film is cut for its theatrical release, it will almost always be restored and play uncut on DVD. In the UK it seems that the BBFC's video nasties list actually bans some films from release even on video. That is a pretty sucky system if you ask me
shareI think your demand is ill-thought out.
As it stands, an official body of classification is the better of two evils. In the past year or so I have seen, passed as 18s, Battle In Heaven (which opens and closes with two scenes of fellatio), 9 songs (documenting a couple's sexual relationship over the course of some gigs) and Raspberry Reich (hardcore homosexual satire).
Of these films, none could really be classified as 'pornography', although it is possible to be aroused by them. Although they are explicit, the sex in 90% of the cases is tied intimately to the narrative/theme of the film. Pornography is designed specifically to arouse, provide material for masturbation etc.
In claiming that the classification of these films, 'uncut', makes a mockery of the BBFC, you are missing a very clear point.
An official body of classification - not censorship because these films can still be seen without classification in certain venues - is a positive thing as it does help provide guidelines for potential audiences, and parents alike.
The BBFC provides protection for the films you wish to see (the art films, the ones with hard *beep* the one's with morally-uncertain attitudes to paedophilia et al) by providing a visible level of seeming discretion.
Without the BBFC, films would essentially be subject to 'mob law'. For example, look at the theatre and the recent removal of a play in Birmingham (UK) that was seemingly offensive to Muslims, or the controversy of Jerry Springer the musical. The classification, that is to say endorsement, by the BBFC allows for a less pernicious and more tangible level of censorship.
The peer pressure of anti-homosexual/racist/Christian/right-wing/Muslim/repressed and oppressive organisation is a greater form of censorship which is, in practice and theory, abated by the presence of the BBFC.
I agree the certifications that the BBFC use are far better than our American cousins, but what I object to is the actual censorship we put up with; i.e. the James Ferman (the idiot who refused to release the Exorcist) days when any film featuring nunchuks were immediately cut (a prime casualty of the ruling were the Teenage Mutant Turtles films which were aggressively pruned) or more recently with head-butts being cut out of Star Wars and James Bond in order to secure a 12 rating. We need guidelines not stupid Big-Brother Nanny state decisions which defy logic; I mean what is the problem with a twelve year old seeing a head-butt? Believe me this just scratches the surface on some of their “decisions” which is why I buy most of my DVD’s region one import from the US.
shareI agree the certifications that the BBFC use are far better than our American cousins, but what I object to is the actual censorship we put up with; i.e. the James Ferman (the idiot who refused to release the Exorcist) days when any film featuring nunchuks were immediately cut (a prime casualty of the ruling were the Teenage Mutant Turtles films which were aggressively pruned) or more recently with head-butts being cut out of Star Wars and James Bond in order to secure a 12 rating. We need guidelines not stupid Big-Brother Nanny state decisions which defy logic; I mean what is the problem with a twelve year old seeing a head-butt? Believe me this just scratches the surface on some of their “decisions” which is why I buy most of my DVD’s region one import from the US.Home Office were the ones that banned the footage of nunchakus following a growing popularity of the weapon in youth cultures in 1979. By 1999, when a weapons rethink happened, the nunchaku was no longer as popular with gangs (partly because you need training with it to avoid hitting yourself with it, and gang-members these days just want something you can pick up and use without time-consuming training, such as a gun or a knife).
The 18 version of Raspberry Reich is less graphic than the R18 version (both made by the director). As you will notice, there are hilarious messages often streaming across the erect cocks. In the R18 I think they're not as intrusive, and I think there's a lot more bumsex. :-))
I thought it was a hilarious film. And despite being a straight guy, I even found it quite erotic. Go figure. :-))
'do the world a favour'?
shareThe major problem with certification is that we are stuck with an idiot generation!
What happens when you remove all modes of punishment in the home and in school? You raise a generation of 12 year old adults. One side effect of this - aside from killing people and getting away with it - is that they start to believe they are adults. Trouble is they can't drive, drink, smoke, have sex, vote, work, pay taxes and blah blah blah all the other crap that comes with being an "actual" adult. So how does a 12 year old be an adult?
Easy - He/She does the two things that adults do that they can also do, buy music and go to the cinema. And so we have charts full of *beep* songs and cinemas full of *beep* films.
The Music/Film industry aren't morons and they are milking this sacred cow for all it is worth - hence the ammount of PG13 and 12 cert films being made. It stinks. The fact that Video outlets and cinemas will refuse to show and NC17 is stupid. And there in is the real reason they end up an R!
The BBFC have always been and will always be a middle class English waste of Tax Payers money - they have pissed me off since I was I was a kid watching horror in the 80's - lap dogs to Thatcherism and it's dupe the people into voting for us despite failing the country. Video Nasty seems finally to have vanished from the vocab of most Sun readers.
At the end of the day DVD and region encoding killed censorship - as another post stated - anything in film that is illegal is already illegal - kiddy porn - animal cruelty and the rest - so the only need for the BBFC is to slap the corect cert on a film - we don't want under 18's watching nography!
There should be no need for anything above or additional to an 18 cert - I mean if you are going home to have sex after you go to the cinema then why exactly is "real sex" in a film shocking or corrupting?
And I saw more than my share of Porn as a school kid to know full well is does sod all to you mentally - so using "kids might see it" as an argument is a waste of time.
BBFC should give Certs - buts not censor!
BBFC pass a film for viewing for anyone over the age of 18 that has a high sexual content and don't use their own R18 certificate reserved for porn on grounds that it's art, does beg the question who makes the distinction between art and porn and how?
More importantly though,, why in a country where the legal age of consent is 16 years old do we prevent 16 year olds from seeing scenes of a "strong sexual nature" when they can, and often will, have seen and been involved in the acts depicted in the far more graphic detail that is reality?
The idea that there should be age restrictions on who sees a film seems sensible enough but surely it should be done in line with the laws and culture of the land. Bracketing sex which is a perfectly natural part of everyday life that the vast majority of us indulge in as being on a par with extreme violence that understandably we may wish to prevent people being exposed to until they are deemed to be "adults" by our culture, is in my opinion completely incorrect.
Maybe much to the studios' chagrain(due to potential lost revenue) the 15 certificate should be changed to a 16 certificate and all the current guidelines should be kept in place with the exception that all films with sexual content no matter how graphic should be legally viewable to people that have attained the age of consent in the eyes of the law.
[deleted]