 Due to stupidity on my part in assuming a start time which was in fact
half an hour late, we missed the first 20 minutes of the proceedings.
However the BBFC were kind enough to send me out details of the films shown
and a transcript of Robin Duval's presentation.
Participants were checked for tickets on entry to the building, asked their
names for checking against a list, and handed a tag supported by a safety
pin. 2.5 inch height. 3 inch width. Black lettering on white with "BBFC
Roadshow". No attempt was made to recover these on exit. They also handed
out a pack containing a summary of the proposed new guidelines for each film
classification, a summary of the relevant legal issues, a slip on which to
submit questions, and a paper version of the
questionnaire available at the BBFC website (www.bbfc.co.uk)
The hall was a standard lecture theatre. Mr Duval was talking from a podium
on stage while a screen was used to illustrate the talk with short movie
clips. There were perhaps something over 200 people present.
From notes sent to me by the BBFC concerning the first 20 minutes we missed:
There was a short history of how the BBFC originated and the later extension
of its powers to video recordings and computer games.
Duval lamented that the postbag of the BBFC is rather small and this sadly
makes it harder for them to track public opinion.
They have access to the Broadcasting Standards Commission's research on
which expletives are most and least offensive to the general public and this
informs their own guidelines. An extract from "ET" was used to demonstrate
mild expletive use in a U classified film.
The opening sequence of "Four Weddings and a Funeral" was shown. This
contained "F" word expletives which are permitted to some extent in a movie
classified at 15.
Next he moved to sexual portrayal which is the first clip we saw. This was
the artist painting a nude in "Titanic". This was passed as a "12" because
they thought it deserved the larger audience though the Q&A session later
indicated that this scene drew complaints about "explicit" sex (nude female
breasts were seen).
Next was the balcony scene from "Shakespeare in Love". I haven't seen the
film and it didn't make much sense to me but basically a heterosexual couple
were portrayed as having sex (the context presumably being within a
relationship) though bare chests were essentially the limit on what was
actually shown. This had been given a 15 classification because of this even
though they thought that it might have had educational value for those under
15.
"Diamonds Are Forever" followed with Sean Connery's Bond using a woman's bra
as a ligature to torture her for information. Duval commented that this had
been acceptable at the time of release but such violence against women
wouldn't be acceptable now.
One odd comment that Duval offered to accompany this clip was that in a
recent poll, over 50% of young British males had stated that rape of a woman
was OK in some circumstances [does anyone have details of this poll?]
This struck me as odd since he couldn't possibly be suggesting that this is
a result of the BBFC having allowed a flood of rape scenes in the recent
past. Also having stated that they were trying to track public opinion on
these issues then surely such a statistic would indicate that this scene
could remain uncut. I confess to bafflement by the conjunction of that clip
and the stated statistic.
Following this was a scene from "Perdita Durango". A couple were being held
against their will. The young man was chained to a wall and was raped by a
female captor who taunted him. Meanwhile, in the next room a woman was being
roughly stripped and raped by a male captor. The female captor released the
male to watch his (partner?) be raped. The scene lasted quite some time.
Duval said that they'd asked for several seconds to be cut in order for an
18 rating to be given because of worries that the female victim may have
been portrayed as ultimately enjoying the experience.
No R18 examples were shown.
This last served as an introduction to the issue of violence and a longish
clip from Tom and Jerry was displayed to show that even fairly extreme
violence was accepted in some contexts for a U rating.
Next was a hanging scene from the modern release of "The Mummy". The
protagonist(?) was being hanged while a female accomplice bargained for his
life. He was ultimately cut down apparently unharmed by the experience. The
BBFC had asked for some cuts here, through worries that children might
imitate the scene, and the film was awarded a 12 rating. Duval commented
that "surprisingly" [to whom exactly?] we were the only country to cut this
scene.
Next a protracted fight scene from "True Lies" was shown. This featured
Arnie's character fighting several attackers in a Gents toilet, including
him ripping a hot air drier from the wall and hitting one attacker in the
head with it. Some cuts had been requested to gain a 15 rating.
Next part of the beach landing scene from the start of "Saving Private Ryan"
was shown. This was fairly graphic violence including one man having his arm
severed picking it up with his remaining hand. The BBFC had apparently
relaxed the rules to award this a 15 rating due to its instructive portrayal
of the violence inherent in war.
Finally a scene from a movie "History X in America" was shown. A skinhead
with swastika tattoos held a black man at gunpoint as a result of an
attempted car theft. He forced him to open his mouth on the edge of a kerb
and then stamped on the back of his head, though the camera cut away at this
point. I'd have to say that we were both quite shocked by this and it's
certainly something I'd personally rather not have seen - the memory of the
scene remained with me as I was trying to sleep later. Duval stated that
they'd left this in the 18 rated film both because the actual killing blow
wasn't shown and it was crucial to set the scene for the resultant narrative
and repentance in the movie. The audience of course were robbed of this
context for the clip, perhaps deliberately.
At the end of each clip Duval explained the context of the rules and why
they had, or had not, relaxed the rules in that case. He also tended to end
with the question as to whether they were correct. This theme of them being
there to consult the public remained throughout the evening.
What followed was a short break in which snacks and wine were served outside
the auditorium. Duval and Whittam-Smith were circulating and apparently
quite available for personal discussion.
Our packs contained slips of paper for questions. These requested name,
organisation, area of concern, and the question. These were then sorted by
the BBFC. I put in a question asking if the BBFC would stand by the VAC
decision concerning the Sheptonhurst appeal regarding 7 soft porn movies. On
reflection this was a tactical error because the questions could clearly be
sorted in order of preference of the BBFC and inconvenient questions could
obviously be relegated low enough in the pile that time wouldn't allow their
receiving an airing.
We returned to the theatre. As a tactical point I'd suggest that determined
questioners at this point ensure a seat away from any aisles (for reasons
which will become clear). Whittam-Smith took the podium while Duval joined
two Classifiers, one male, Gianni Zamo and one female, Rosalind Bates, at a
desk at the other side of the stage.
Whittam-Smith had the pile of audience questions sorted in his hand and
proceeded to ask them, naming the questioners. Where two had asked
essentially the same question, both were named. The protocol at this point
was that a microphone was carried round to the questioner, and held for
them. Where the questioner was too far from an aisle, it was passed to them
to repeat their question. Where there were two questioners, the microphone
was taken to both. Some questioners couldn't remember their wording and
Whittam Smith reread their questions. Perhaps I'm impatient but this seemed
to waste more time than was really necessary.
The questions which had been sorted to the top consisted essentially of "Who
exactly are you guys?" with hints of "who the hell are you guys to tell us
what we can watch?". They were asked whether they appreciated what real life
was like and "just five minutes from here I could show you violence worse
than any in any clip except Private Ryan...". Essentially they were asked to
justify class, education level, gender balance and as above, life
experience.
I had the impression that this gave them a chance to say what they wanted
to. Mr Zamo had been born "up north" with a career in the military. He'd
showed film on bases. He'd worked with troubled teenagers. He'd applied for
a job with the BBFC never thinking he'd get it...
Mrs Bates had been a teacher and a mother and had applied for a job with the
BBFC thinking there was no chance... The group of Classifiers contained both
men and women, they had people from various ethnic origins, it was a hard
job sometimes watching six dire episodes of Rosie & Jim...
The main informational content was that they did seek out people who had
experience in several areas, experience with children being specifically
stated. Selection was of course by interview.
I got an impression that a certain level of educational attainment would be
pretty much mandatory (implied by the questioner on class). I also had the
impression that right wing control freaks, and Libertarians of any streak,
need not apply. It's certainly possible to avoid specific bias (though I do
wonder about whether they have openly homosexual Classifiers) while still
selecting to maintain a cosy kind of corporate consensus.
We both felt that Mr Zamo tended towards the liberal. My partner thought by
the end of the night that Mrs Bates seemed like a mini Mary Whitehouse
whereas I though she only evinced tendencies in that direction.
Needless to say this took up a fair amount of time and they clearly had
quite strong control of things with Whittam-Smith moving on to the next
fairly similar question rather than allowing indulgence in any real debate.
At one point only did he ask if the questioner was satisfied with the answer
(on class and classifiers).
The next question concerned the equation of sex with violence with
"Shakespeare In Love" and "Saving Private Ryan" being awarded the same
rating. Surely they didn't think half a view of a couple making love and
twenty minutes of sheer violent mayhem were on a par? Perhaps luckily, my
partner Lucy was the second such questioner, and our position in the middle
of the row meant she had the microphone in her possession.
They answered the question in a roundabout way saying that they felt they
had to protect children from sexual material. Lucy then referred them to
their comment on hanging in "The Mummy" where she wondered if there had in
fact been a spate of child hangings in Europe as those in countries
unprotected by the BBFC were subject to copycat behaviour.
Mr Zamo stated, to some snorted disbelief, that they wouldn't have heard
about it if there had been and that anyway, he'd have been mortified if
they'd let it go through and even one child had been harmed as a result. He
opined that if they'd saved just one child, it would be worthwhile.
Duval stated that other countries in Europe weren't nearly as liberal as
many thought. In Norway apparently, one woman owns a large cinema chain and
if she refuses to show a film then it doesn't get shown in Norway. [That's
her personal choice with her own property which oughtn't to be confused with
choices being mandated by law] and that the Germans famously categorised all
violent films as 18 equivalent.
Whittam-Smith asked the audience for a show of hands as to whether they'd
been correct about cutting the hanging scene in "The Mummy". About a third
abstained and it probably went slightly towards their view amongst the
others, though I was too near the front to do any sort of accurate count.
They then asked for the views of the dissenters and I managed to suggest
sans microphone that their job was to classify films and then let parents
decide for themselves what their children should see based on that advice
and that perhaps they were taking too much upon themselves to try to act as
parents to all the nation's children. This elicited a small cheer from the
audience.
Lucy passed the microphone to someone near us with his hand up and he asked
about purely adult movies. Mrs Bates reiterated that they had to protect
children and then stated that they had to worry that if they classified such
movies, thus having them in their possession, then it would be a tragedy for
them to be raided by Customs and Excise or the Police under the Obscene
Publications Act. She said that "A tendency to Deprave and Corrupt" was
famously ill-defined. Lucy obtained the microphone and pointing out that
they'd claimed at least six Classifiers then surely if none were corrupted
it would be safe to assume the material did not tend to deprave and corrupt.
This produced quite a cheer.
They stated that they had to worry about adult movies being left around the
house where children might view them while their parents were out and thus
come to harm.
Mrs Bates also stated that the Law was most unclear and that unfortunately
whenever a sex shop was raided, the owners preferred to let the Courts
decide to destroy the stock, because they could simply obtain more, rather
than worry about a Court appearance with attendant legal risk and cost.
I asked whether this meant that they'd soon be challenging the Obscene
Publications Act in Court in order to clarify things. Mrs Bates stated that
this unfortunately wasn't their job whereupon I suggested that perhaps they
needed a volunteer from the public for a test case and they might see me
afterwards with a view to my helping them in this regard.
It was clear that the BBFC are very much constrained by the legal issues
surrounding adult sex films but that they did appear to overemphasise the
need to protect children even when discussing films to be seen only by
adults. They seemed keen to see themselves as acting in loco parentis rather
than merely advising on the content of movies. They seemed quite reluctant
to discuss issues pertaining to films available purely to adults in terms of
the issues surrounding adults rather than children.
It seems to me that they're so dedicated to rating films for children that
it may simply be the case that they're not in fact a suitable body to rate
films suitable for adults and that they do in fact seem to recognise this
themselves.
The questions that followed involved what is apparently called "slippage".
Someone asked if the panel felt that TV sometimes undermined their work,
Brookside being named. Mrs Bates felt that this was indeed the case and had
seen things that she'd certainly never have permitted before the watershed.
Duval opined that in fact the broadcasting companies stuck very rigorously
to BBFC ratings and the accepted rules concerning time of broadcast. They
were asked about slippage over time with scenes becoming acceptable now that
wouldn't be accepted years ago and they concurred that this was the case and
said that they must track public opinion and that they were in fact present
to do just that.
Further questions on slippage involved re-rating between cinema and video
release where they stated that two concerns were the repeated viewing of a
scene to possible harmful effect and the fact that children might be able to
view material while their parents were out. Another related to actual
re-rating of films on cinema release, "Mrs Doubtfire" having been re-rated
from "12" to "PG". This questioner did seem pro-censorship since he also
mentioned "The Excorcist" and wondered when we'd have to worry about seeing
"A Clockwork Orange". "As soon as possible" quipped a nearby member of the
audience to some laughter.
Duval said that they had to listen to the public outcry concerning "Mrs
Doubtfire" and stated that public concern did inform decisions. Mrs Bates
said they'd had a huge mailbag about the "extreme sex" scene in Titanic and
that they had to take some account of outraged parents. Someone asked how
they dealt with any conflicts between outraged parents and their duty to
protect children but the answer was unclear except in that it involved, as
so much of their work, striking a balance.
The last few questions were thrown open. It wasn't clear whether Whittam-Smith
had taken note of awkward customers or may simply have been trying to be
fair as regards those who'd already had their say. I put up my own hand to
ask about the VAC ruling but wasn't selected.
I saw that Duval had been assidious in taking copious notes during this
session. However Lucy caught a view of his notes afterwards and noticed them
covered in doodles.
Afterwards Duval and the Classifiers made themselves available for those
remaining to chat. I heard Mrs Bates asked directly about what she thought
the audience were telling them and she opined that Edinburgh was
surprisingly liberal [fair enough, it surprised me a little too].
I stood in a short queue to speak to Robin Duval. I overheard him reply to
someone asking whether they were subject to political pressure, his answer
being "loads".
I asked him about the VAC ruling and whether they would stand by this. He
said no, and that they would go to Court. I asked whether this meant that
only agreeable rulings by the VAC counted and he explained that this was all
a legal process and that the VAC were merely a part of this. I asked on what
grounds they would contest the ruling and he said that they would be seeking
to clarify their duty of protection to children under the Video Recording
Act. I offered that they'd been overruled on precisely this point by the VAC
and he stated that harm to children had been accepted, and that he had
evidence of such, but that a majority of the VAC had decided that such risk
of harm wasn't sufficient to outweigh the harm to adult freedom.
He thought that an important issue was actual evidence of harm and I said
that I was heartened to hear this. Finally I pointed out that many children
drowned each year in garden ponds and it therefore seemed at odds with this
view that adults were still somehow free to keep garden ponds. He appeared
to concede the point but noted that they weren't a Board of Garden Ponds.
Moving on I said that while I accepted that classification was useful,
perhaps it should merely be advisory and that there needn't only be one
classification body - for example fundamentalist Christians might prefer
classification by Family Values Viewing while others might prefer those by
XXXTV. He said that while there were statutory results and requirements of
classification this was impossible and I conceded this.
I then offered that they'd said themselves that decisions were often of
necessity clumsy, balancing sex scenes against violence and educational
value and that perhaps it would be simpler to put a certain number of bums
on the back of the box beside a certain number of knives [and thinking about
it now, probably a certain number of soap bars to indicate incidence of
profanity] enabling viewers to better decide what would in fact shock them.
He didn't rule this out but said that there would still remain difficult
decisions and that such change wouldn't be easy.
The dicussion then moved on to someone else's concerns about "Mrs Doubtfire".
I didn't get a clear idea where he was coming from except that he lamented
that there were few films which adults could attend with children. One point
which did come up was how the law surounding the BBFC could be changed. I
offered "Jack Straw" and Duval was very emphatic in saying "not Jack Straw".
I asked whether they came under the Home Office and he repeated "not Jack
Straw". I'm unaware what this, or the emphasis meant and wish I could be
more specific about the precise wording of the question at that point.
Finally on leaving I said that I'd seen their questionaire on the web site
but that while I would agree that many classifications were sensible, there
was no real way to then register dissent that such classifications were not
merely advisory. He said that there were other means of communication and
that since I was obviously quite capable of forcefully putting my point of
view, perhaps a letter would suffice. I quipped that a certain member of the
Net fraternity frequently sent them letters and he said that they didn't
read the letters from such a "silly man".
I congratulated him on a good and clear exposition and he said that he
thought this might be the compliment that it was. I have to say that Duval
was apparently respectful of other viewpoints, clearly listened, and was
quite forthright about his own position. I caught no sense of the
evasiveness of a politician about him. My instinct is that he's a serious,
reasonable, and even likeable man and that there could be worse people in
that position from the point of view of those espousing change. I'm not
utterly convinced that he has the agenda commonly attributed to him.
|
