In January 2002 Robin Duval answered questions online on The Guardian Talkboards

Robin Duval has been at the BBFC since January 1999, and has been responsible for introducing greater transparency in the board's operations as well as liberalising the 'R18' category, that effectively legalises hardcore pornography in Britain. In 1991, 12.4% of films shown in the UK were cut by the BBFC. Last year, that figure was only 2.8%. So is the BBFC getting it right?

Censored?

One additional question was posted but somehow never made it past the Guardian mail filters

http://www.weaselwerks.com/peebits.htm has 'a sexual excitation associated with urine or urination' Although I think the BBFC have a more specific meaning. Urination (person(s) peeing) is okay(R18 barely legal #1/2) but if the peeing is sex related, if someone touches the urine then it is defined as 'Urolagnia'. Why does 'Salo' by Pasolini have urolagnia in then? '

theTramp

To what extent do YOU believe that the pressure groups and press' opinions effectyour choices for classification? i.e. Natural Born Killers

RobinDuval

I honestly don't think by itself it affects our judgment one way or the other (though there is one film critic at least who keeps trying...and trying...). What does affect us is the public. Before we finalized our Guidelines we went through the most comprehensive public consultation exercise ever engaged in by a content regulator. Of course we also took account of the views of pressure groups - but only as one element in the total mix. We also gave a lot of attention to the views of experts (social researchers, psychologists, children's issues) and to the requirements of the law.

Your reference to Natural Born Killers may be the first urban myth of the day.The BBFC passed it 18 for film and video with no cuts. It was the distributing company that decided not to release the video.

dfic1999

Name the critic!

How can the public have an opinion on classifying films which they've yet to see (and which they may have been 'primed' by the media)? Also, do you stand by the Newsom report which (as I recall) claimed that watching violent videos was worse for kids than smoking?

RobinDuval

I'm sorry. You will have to work that out for yourself (it's not very difficult). As for the public, of course we would make sure they have seen the movie before we took their opinion on it. I am sure the Newsom Report was very valuable. For the BBFC, it could only be one element of many to consider.

WolfieK

My guess would be Chris Tookey of Daily Mail. I remember him from programme on TV when he recalled that he was despatched to screening of of "Kissed" because it might something he might like to ban.

sezzyboy

I live in Sweden and they seem to have a completely different set of criteria for classifying a film compared to the BBFC. They also don't cut nearly as much as you do (The last time they cut a film it was the notorious headvice scene from Casino, which Scorsese more or less admitted he expected every board to cut where it saw fit).

Recently, A.I. got the highest rating (15) in Sweden because they thought its portrayal of child abandonment may be alarming to children younger than that. 7 year olds, however, could have gone to see Saddam Hussein sodomising the devil in South Park if they had wished because it got a low rating.

My question(s) are this:

1. Do you ever compare your ratings/concerns with other classification boards
2. What is the justification of the 18 rating? (I find it ridiculous that someone who is legally allowed to procreate, drive and marry cannot go and see a film such as Trainspotting. It seems the government trusts a 16 year old to raise their child with good moral judgement but not to watch a film.)
3. How is the pilot of the new PG-12 certificate going?

RobinDuval

Of course different countries have different standards. Some are tougher than us here in the UK, some are more relaxed. Sweden is a good example of a country which can, according to the issue, be either more or less relaxed than us. In answer to your questions, the BBFC keeps closely in touch with many of our colleagues overseas and we regard the Statens Biografbyra Filmcensuren in Stockholm as particularly good friends. The European film regulators meet every year to compare notes. Last time we gathered in Dublin in September 2001 and agreed that we were very broadly in step with each other (with some local differences) but that the French were quite different from all of us. As for the 18 rating, that (or its equivalent) is quite common outside the UK. We asked the general public (not the government) in 1999-2000 what they thought of it. They said, very clearly, it should stay and it should continue to be mandatory. That's the way we Brits are.

How is the pilot for the new PG-12 certificate going? Too early to say I'm afraid. We have only just completed the first experimental use of it in Norwich just before Christmas. I expect we will need to pilot it in other cities in the UK (not just England) before we can be confident we know what the British public thinks about it. [For the benefit of other readers, this is an experiment to find out if the public would prefer the 12 rating to be advisory rather than, as at present, mandatory. Would parents in particular be happy for their under 12s to go to a 12 rated movie, so long as the cinema provided enough information about it for them to form a reliable judgement?]

barquing

Yours must be a pretty tough job, and I don't envy you it in the slightest, however I often find myself defending some of the BBFC's decisions against various knee-jerk reactions to a cut.

How much does it bother you that you get the blame for various cuts from films which were edited by the studios themselves before submission (or in the case of - say - A Clockwork Orange - not being submitted at all) ? By this I'm thinking about the various moans levied at Tomb Raider given the removal of a head but to ensure a lower certificate rating rather than to eradicate it from the film.

While you're at it, would you like to blast any myths regarding the "refusal" of various certificates?

RobinDuval

On your question, you have to get used in my job to being misrepresented. The press is not always very accurate. Also, the job is about taking flak from both sides most of the time: from the people who think we are too liberal, and from the people who think we are too censorious. We don't expect to win. As for all the myths...where do I start??... Next question, please.

jessfranco

Given the fact that cinema runs are seen as financially unviable without the possibility of a video release do you understand the feeling many people have that 'Baise-Moi' has been effectively banned by the back-door?

A senior member of staff at the BBFC said something along the lines of "we wanted to see how people would react to the film before granting a video certificate" - i understand that you feel the need to be responsive to the public but is this not simply playing into the hands of the tabloid press? If they can stop films from coming out by orchestrating a large enough campaign against them it makes a mockery of any concept of fair and even-handed classification.

RobinDuval

I think the idea that the absence of a video classification for Baise-Moi somehow 'bans' it is pretty fair rubbish. It is very common for films (including much less well-publicized films than B-M) to get a cinema release before they have been classified for video. The problem here appears to be that the cinema exhibitors simply don't like it. The decision to give B-M an 18 with only one cut was possibly the most difficult I have been involved in. I think it is only sensible to wait and see how people, feel about it in the cinema before making up our minds on the video. And really, I don't think the tabloid press has anything to do with this. We have never since I have been at the BBFC yielded to 'an orchestrated campaign'. Indeed I suspect the press generally has better things to do than chase after BBFC classifications. We will look at the situation as a whole, including importantly the views of ordinary people and film-goers.

dfic1999

Does the BBFC still have plans to persuade the rest of the EU to censor to British levels, as the former Home Secretary Jack Straw hoped?

RobinDuval

In short. No.

SpankTM

Are you aware of the work of The Melon Farmers, as linked to in the discussion header? Has their campaigning had any effect on the BBFC's changes in direction?

RobinDuval

(i) Yes. (ii) No.

SpankTM

Is there really still a case for the cutting or banning of videos, at a time when importing uncut material from overseas has never been easier?

RobinDuval

We have a set of guidelines, agreed with the British public (qv above). We also have laws like the Obscene Publications Acts, The Protection of Children Act, The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act which represent the public will expressed through Parliament. Ditto the Video Recordings Act and even the Human Rights Act which both put constraints on content. The vast majority of imported copies would comply with BBFC requirements anyway (though they may breach the industry's copyright). That tiny proportion which would be illegal in this country is still a very marginal activity. Crime also is a marginal activity. Does that mean society should change its rules simply because someone breaks them or seeks to undermine them? You'll be suggesting we should let all the worst criminals out of prison soon - just because some of them escape anyway.

dfic1999

So who gets the last word on the film or video? I recall a case, where Customs and Excise threatened the BBFC with prosecution for attempting to import an adult video simply in order to classify it.

RobinDuval

The BBFC has the last word on classification. Actually, it has the only word. C&E would not wish to intervene in our business any more than we would interfere with theirs. They have never threatened the BBFC with prosecution.

dfic1999

How has the move to Culture Media and Sport affected your work?

RobinDuval

Maybe it's a bit early to say, but I don't think the transfer of the government's interest in the film/video industry from the Home Office to the DCMS has affected the BBFC's business at all. I arrived at the BBFC at the end of 1998 and quite honestly neither the Home Office nor the DCMS have ever in all my time sought to influence a BBFC classification decision or the BBFC's guidelines. They both have kept us very well informed about developing legislation which might affect us - the new Communications Bill for instance - and of course they ask us for advice and information when parliamentary questions come up.

FilmFan

What's the point in releasing a heavily-cut version of 'I Spit On Your Grave' - the labelling on the video and DVD is extremely dishonest.

Regarding Baise-Moi (which I've seen), what's its current status with regard to a certificate?

RobinDuval

I think you have to ask the distributor this question. I am afraid it is not our business to refuse to classify something if the distributor wants to make money out of it in that version. Indeed it would be unlawful for us to do so. Similarly, the labelling/packaging is a matter for the industry. There are certain rules set by Parliament. If you feel you have been misled, you can of course seek retribution under the trades descriptions legislation. On Baise-Moi, the film has an 18 certificate (after one cut). The video has not yet been classified. I won't intrude on the ongoing exchange at 10-17.

loungelady 

Amores Perros, a film with a substantial amount of graphic violence towards dogs: certificate 18.

Black Hawk Down, a film with a huge, non-stop amount of graphic violence towards humans: certificate 15.

What is the criteria in use here?

RobinDuval

I have to point you to our website which should provide most of the information you need. The Guidelines for the various classifications are set out there, and you can also get information about any titles we have classified. Needless to say there is a lot more to Amores Perros than violence towards dogs (which in fact is not very graphic - definitely more to do with film illusion than actual harm). The guidelines set out all the relevant criteria very fully and I hope clearly.

joekingR18

which word is more offensive according to the BBFC, slut or animal? Answer: animal.

'sluts with nuts #3' is okay.

'Rocco: animal trainer' is changed to 'ROCCO' SEX TRAINER'

RobinDuval

Nice try. Unfortunately, it was not the BBFC that changed the title of 'Rocco: animal trainer'. Indeed it is news to me that it ever had any other name. Another urban myth?

gateroler

This question is on "wider censorship" issues

Clearly the R18 category is now more liberal than anything the UK has enjoyed in the past. However there is clear evidence that the stipulation that the supply of such material may only be made IN a licenced sex shop is discriminatory to law abiding UK business.

UK sex shops cannot operate mail order R18 sales, wheras individuals may import unclassified material via the internet etc. quite legally (provided that it is R18 compatible - which in the vast majority of cases can be taken as read - since such material is the mainstay of the porn industry).

Have the censors (as a whole)recognised this impediment and given thought to amending the rules?

Until they do the overwhelming majority of DVD and video sales of R18 type material can be expected to go overseas. As will the profits and, jobs of this legitimate trade.

These effects are, to my mind now unnaceptable since they are wholly arbitrary in their effect on UK business, and can only be seen to be the unexpected side effects of the changing world and in particular the inability of the censors to have a measurable effect on the trade in r18 type material because of its origins (i.e. overseas).

for one am in favour of the role of censors, and in particular the BBFC for at last allowing r18 material to be legally supplied. But the fact is that the rules on supply are now out of date and need a re think to fit in with the modern world.

What do you think Mr duval?

RobinDuval

This question is probably best directed at Customs & Excise or the Home Office (which still has a law enforcement responsibility). Your complaint is about the present state of legislation, not about the BBFC's role. At present also, R18 videos can only be sold through sex shops which have a local authority licence. Because some local authorities do not want such premises in their area, licences are refused which may result in members of the public turning to illegal mail order or the internet. Nevertheless, it is clear that the UK R18 business is currently thriving, so I would not shed too many tears about the supposed threat to their profits and jobs.

wendygrrl

Can you please explain why vaginal fisting is NOT permitted in R18`s, when the insertion of 8 fingers on two hands is perfectly fine.

Surely, the issue here is one of "harm", and as long as fisting is done carefully it is perfectly safe ( and enjoyable I might add :)

Isn`t the role of BBFC to use "judgement" to decide what should and shouldn`t be permitted rather than simply applying a simplistic rule ? ( Fisting = BAD, Monster Dildo = GOOD, "Hand shaped" Dildo = Err. )

RobinDuval

Dear Wendy, I do not propose to talk dirty online. All I will say is that the R18 rules were worked up with a few key principles in mind. One was that they should not infringe the Obscene Publications Acts or any other legislation. Another was that all the activity in the videos should be consensual and non-violent. A third was that the activity should not be potentially harmful. The activity you describe can (whatever you say) have a violent dimension and be harmful. It may indeed also be actionable under the OPA.

ratfink

It's good to see some old under-the-counter classics like Cannibal Ferox and I Spit On Your Grave recently getting releases. However, are there plans to give certificates to any worthwhile films for a change, such as Straw Dogs?

RobinDuval

We do not have 'plans' for certificates. It all depends on what distributors choose to submit. In any case I could not reveal to you what the future may hold: (a) because I cannot predict the outcome on a particular title until it has been properly through the examination and classification process, and (b) because the first party to get that information has to be the distributor who actually paid the BBFC for it.

dfic1999

Is there a 'class bias' in the poilicy at the BBFC where sexually-explicit 'arty' foreign-language films (Sitcom, Romance) are passed with few if any cuts, while English language and/or 'genre' material (ie porn for 'the proles') is more likely to be cut?

RobinDuval

No. I would have thought our decision on Intimacy would have laid that canard to rest. We make no classification distinction between foreign language and English language films, or between art-house and popular cinema. The trouble is of course that the most challenging material tends to be both art-house and foreign language. And I am surprised you think we cut 'porn for the proles' (your expression). I think you will find that porn appeals to all classes. You might also like to check the guidelines for R18 works.

WolfieK

One of your main reason for banning and censorship is "protection of children". Where is your proof that children are negatively affected by image of sex and violence?

RobinDuval

Where is your proof that we 'ban and censor' mainly for the protection of children? Protection of children does come into it of course and that is a common concern in most civilised countries. We would not for example think it a very good idea to show a movie to very young children which suggested that hanging was a jolly game and entirely harm-free. We know that in real life children play dangerous games with ropes with occasional tragic results. We take the same view about drug-taking or using knives to kill people. Even so we do not 'ban and censor'. We simply insist that material of that kind be classified upwards away from children. It is for adults and should be seen by adults. So far as sex goes, we know from our public consultation that the great majority of parents prefer younger children not to be exposed to the most explicit sex and that is the chief criterion. That too is available uncut, but not below the 18 rating. However, if you saw Shakespeare in Love or other 15 rated films you may be aware we do allow in the words of our guidelines for that level 'sexual activity and nudity...but without strong detail'.

WolfieK

Ultimately, best form of censorhip is in home exacted by parent. Most home now has access to internet where child have access to undesirable material. Do you think that state censorship is counter-productive to breeding responsibilty in home?

RobinDuval

I too am in favour of the exercise of parental responsibility. But parents require information and guidance. That is what the British classification system provides. Our most recent research has reinforced our understanding that parents would like more content advice from us (eg on the packaging of a video or DVD). It doesn't seem to me that censorship comes into it. The BBFC (which is in fact entirely independent of the government or the 'state' as you express it) deals with 97% of the works it receives by classifying them appropriately without any cuts at all. If we do cut, then the usual reason is that the distributor wants a lower classification to maximize his audience and so has to accept cuts to achieve that. An uncut classification is almost always available from the BBFC - if the distributing company wants it. This may be a form of self-censorship by the industry, but it is not - except in a very limited form - censorship by the BBFC.

WolfieK

If you were entirely independent of Government your organisation would have no legal enforcement.

WorldSexNews

I notice that the BBFC isn't too good at actual classification. As a parent and consumer, I want to know in more detail what to expect in a film. What DEGREES of violence, sex, drugs, profanity can be expected, but instead there are vague generalities.

Editor, www.world-sex-news.com

RobinDuval

Have you tried reading our website? You'll find some pretty detailed guidelines there. You may find the R18 guidelines the most enjoyable (and detailed) reading of all.

WorldSexNews

I'd be curious to know how many at the BBFC have had to seek counciling or psychiatric treatment, as a result of seeing so much material that can "deprave or corrupt"?

RobinDuval

Strangely, we do not see a great deal of material which is in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts (which is where you got the 'deprave and corrupt' test). Nevertheless, we do see some and we do censor it. At the same time we are very careful about the exposure of our staff. Counselling is indeed available. Also examiners are on limited contracts, partly because of our concerns about the effect that too much of this extraordinarily unpleasant material might have on them. We do take this issue very seriously.

MIGHTYJABBA

There seems to be a growing trend for certification within the actual certificates that films are awarded, recently both Lord of the Rings and Black Hawk Down have arrived with 'special warnings'. Why not give them the next certificate up if they do not fit into the guidelines provided? Why is it only films released by influential Hollywood people that seem to benefit from these 'special warnings'?

RobinDuval

Lord of the Rings and Black Hawk Down are in fact the only films in the past year to have had what we call consumer advice on them - on posters and television commercials for example. You have to go back to the Jurassic Parks 1 and 2 for similar announcements. We think nevertheless this is an important step forward and intend now to build upon it. The basic problem is that the different classifications each cover a wide range of material. People simply don't know why something has been given a 15 (for example). Is it because of drugs or violence or sex or just very strong language? We hope that the industry will provide that information and these two experiences prove that it is not so difficult to arrange it. Black Hawk Down was a fairly straightforward 15 (not more difficult that Saving Private Ryan which also got a 15 - remember that?) but we know that some people including many much older adults would find the gung-ho battle violence unwelcome. That is why we thought it helpful to alert people, possibly especially older people, to what they would be getting. PG is a particularly interesting problem. If you look at our published guidelines (on our website again) you will see that PG is stronger than U and the guidelines warn that it may disturb the youngest children (the rule of thumb age we give is below 8). We had no doubt that Lord of the Rings was a PG because it would be hugely enjoyed by children aged around 8 upwards. As indeed it has turned out to be. For them it is a thrilling ride, like being on a scarey roller coaster in a theme park. But we also knew that some very young children would find it too much.That is why we insisted upon a warning that it 'may not be suitable for under 8s'.

CherylA

Jabba> I think you'll find only LotR has an official BBFC warning - Black Hawk Down just has put it on its advertising material as a sneaky bit of sales pitch to make it look like it has.

RobinDuval

Sorry, Cheryl. MightyJabba was right. I think you have stumbled on the newest urban myth so far. We specifically asked the Black Hawk Down distributors to publicize our consumer advice, which they did verbatim on posters and TV advertisements. In other words, the situation was precisely the same as for Lord of the Rings. I was very pleased with the result (see above).

joekingR18

Could the BBFC put 'Cut by the BBFC (no of min:sec)' on the packaging of all vids/dvds so to better inform the consumer? Would 'cut by supplier to get this rating' also be useful? How much would this information cost the vendors (and classifiers)?

RobinDuval

Well, you are welcome to try and persuade the distributors, We have no legal powers to force them to include cuts information. Sometimes they will acknowledge cuts; mostly I guess they prefer to keep it quiet. It's not exactly something to boast about or likely to bump up sales. Also do bear in mind that videos often arrive with us pre-cut anyway. That may be because it was the only version the distributor could get the rights to. Having said all that, I would advise anyone who is at all interested to go into our website where you will find that any cuts made (whether for a lower rating or for any other reason) are clearly identified alongside the relevant film/video/DVD title.

joekingR18

What 'robust' research does the BBFC refer to re:male aggressiveness in the concern of sexually violent material.

What percentage of males respond aggressively to sexually violent imagery?

RobinDuval

I refer to research by amongst others Donnerstein, Malamuth, Check, Penrod and Linz. Nobody can say what percentage respond aggressively and dangerously. Some people might say that dangerous behaviour by one person as a consequence of watching certain material would be of sufficient concern. It is certainly much more than that.

joekingR18

Principles of harm. Does the BBFC use a rather subjective principle of harm (i.e. we only consider some things harmful that doctors (or rather 1 doctor) thinks might possibly be harmful in a particular context). Why isn't smoking considered 'harmful'(and therefore cut)?

RobinDuval

We take advice from psychologists, doctors, child specialists, media effects researchers and a wide range of specialists and experts in harm issues. For example, a recent documentary about sadomasochism was viewed by three leading clinical specialists in the field and they concluded that vulnerable viewers (perhaps those individuals most likely to want to watch this work) might well be stimulated by it to cause actual harm to themselves. In terms of the requirements of the Video Recordings Act (which directs us to take action against any harm that may be caused to potential viewers), it was clear that cuts were required. Smoking, unlike SM, is unfortunately a fact of everyday life and we have to use commonsense. Nevertheless we do of course recognize that smoking is harmful. We would for example not allow direct encouragement to smoking at the most junior classification levels. At the adult levels, there is rather less point in attempting to intervene and I am quite clear that the British public would not expect the same kind of intervention as they would in relation to extreme violence, say, or incitement to illegal drug-taking.

dfic1999

For example, a recent documentary about sadomasochism was viewed by three leading clinical specialists in the field and they concluded that vulnerable viewers (perhaps those individuals most likely to want to watch this work) might well be stimulated by it to cause actual harm to themselves.

Eh? Are you suggesting that: (a) the clinical specialists knew how the 'client group' (for want of a better term) would respond? (b) that they didn't ask 'those individuals'? (c) that certain people ought to be protected from themselves? (d) 'Monkey See, Monkey Do'? There's a whole series of assumptions here that recall the argument about 'bad behaviour' in movies being imitated by the so-called feeble-minded - or have I missed something?

RobinDuval

In answer to your questions: (a) certainly they do. (b) they have direct professional experience of dealing with them - sufficient to predict their future behaviour. (c) I am afraid so. (d) not everyone is as mentally or psychologically healthy as you. We do have a duty to protect the weak and vulnerable in society.

Kittt

CONSUMER ADVICE and VIDEO LABELLING

I notice that a single line of consumer advice is now provided with film certificates. On the back of DVD boxes we get the certicate logo in a big white box with "Suitable only for persons of (eg) 15 years and over."

This seems a statement of the obvious and rather useless as a guideline to the film's content, so has the BBFC any plans to replace this with a line of consumer advice?

I imagine the content of the white box is mandated by the Video Recordings Act and any change would require a change in law, but surely the BBFC liases with the DCMS on the matter of amendments to the law? Or does the BBFC take a politically neutral stance, with all changes in the law coming from government proposals?

RobinDuval

Yes we do have plans to develop our consumer advice. The content of the white box is not in fact a legal requirement, and progress on this front depends on the willingness of the industry. It also depends upon the BBFC providing useful information in a form that can be accommodated on videos, DVDs etc - which is not as straightforward as it sounds. There are an awful lot of competing pressures on the limited space available.But we are working on it. Like most useful developments this must depend upon the goodwill of the industry involved. I see no point in threatening anyone with more laws. I think it is worth doing and I believe the industry is coming round to that view too. Indeed, important parts of the industry already take that view.

joekingR18

How many dildos can a woman put into her vagina/anus/mouth before it will be cut by the BBFC?

RobinDuval

What a lot of questions you are getting...no, this is not one I will be answering.

joekingR18

'In 1991, 12.4% of films shown in the UK were cut by the BBFC. Last year, that figure was only 2.8%. '

12.4% (good, bad or alot or ?)

2.8% (good, bad or alot or ?)

Please tell us what this is supposed to mean. Do you cut less? Or do the suppliers cut more? Is is good to cut 2.8% of the titles? Are you more liberal if you seemingly cut less?

6% of R18 titles are cut (calculating from august 2000) is that good, bad or something else?

RobinDuval

Briefly, the figures mean that we cut proportionately much less than we used to do, However, our workload has doubled since 1991, and so the actual number of works cut has not declined to the same extent. The majority of the cuts are at the request of distributors in order to achieve a lower classification and appeal to a younger audience. It is also worth mentioning that distributors now (since 1998) have our published guidelines to assist them and these may encourage them to get the classification right in the first place, without having to lose valuable time going through a cuts process with the BBFC. But the extent of that is very hard to quantify. In the case of non-British movies I doubt if it is a factor at all (or very limited indeed).

MIGHTYJABBA

Do you regret the introduction of the '12' certificate, especially given the amount of films that now remove scenes to get this audience friendly rating?

RobinDuval

No. The public clearly finds the 12 a helpful point between PG and 15. If we abandoned it, a 14 year old would only be able to see a PG or U rated movie and be deprived of a huge amount of enjoyable material. Don't forget the USA has a 12 equivalent (called PG13) which means that a great number of films come out of Hollywood specifically targeted at the early teens audience. If we lost 12 entirely, the need to cut for PG would create severe difficulties.

ratfink

I seem to recall that Dazed and Confused unfairly received an 18 certificate because of its proliferation of dope-smoking. With this funky new liberalism concerning weed, is there any chance DAC's certificate will be lowered [as, for instance, was The Terminator]? In fact, are there any plans to lower certificates on any other films [a huge list of potential candidates is forming in my head as I type], and what is the reasoning behind such a decision?

RobinDuval

We have no plans to lower (or vary) any certificates we have previously given. We will treat each submission on its merits. What arrives at the BBFC depends entirely upon the distributors. We have no power to call anything in.

dfic1999

Do you feel you have any pet hates as Chief Censor that might affect your decision to cut or classify a film?

RobinDuval

Only people who leave their mobiles on in cinemas and theatres and concert venues.

SpankTM

What was the first X certificate film you saw? And how old were you when you saw it?

RobinDuval

Dieu Crea La Femme. I was probably 17 or 18.

moto748

What was wrong with the old A, U, and X ratings? In other words, if, as a parent, I can be bothered to get out of the house and take my children to the cinema, why can't I be the judge of what's suitable for them to see? Especially considering that in France, most films seem to be "12" certificate.

RobinDuval

Thanks for joining in! The present ratings reflect what the public now requires. We asked them 18 months or so ago and got a strong vote in support. These days people do expect greater clarity. The old ratings were pretty vague and unsupported by public classification guidelines. Using age ratings rather than letters of the alphabet clearly helps people understand what it's all about. The public also requires that the higher levels be mandatory. We are in the process of examining, through a series of pilot exercises in different cities, whether the public might prefer the lowest age rating (ie 12) to be made advisory rather than mandatary. But I am sure that, if the public does agree that proposition, they will need rather more information about content than they get at present. The recent experiences with the Lord of the Rings and Black Hawk Down show how we are working on providing that information - hopefully at all levels.

DaveXXX

Given that the majority of mainstream films are now being passed supposedly uncut (especially the "18"-rated ones) is it now the case that the BBFC are looking to justify their position by finding something else more "censor-worthy" i.e. porn ? The cuts made to R18s mostly seem ridiculous, especially now that obtaining such material uncut from other countries is virtually effortless.

There is also the issue of cost - R18s are restricted to "specialist" shops thereby keeping prices way above acceptable levels and forcing customers to again look abroad, defeating the whole purpose - or does the BBFC get some revenue from this ?

I would guess most people aren't aware that they can buy such material !

RobinDuval

Hello! The BBFC is not basically a censorship organization. Over 97% of our work is simply classifying material with no cuts of any kind. And certainly we do not need to look for more work. We now deal with more films/videos/DVDs than ever before in our 89 year history. R18s are a very small proportion of that. I would not be worried if it were even smaller.

WolfieK

Why do you censor man pleasuring woman but not killing other human being?

RobinDuval

If a film appeared before us which showed in graphic detail someone really killing another human being - and that was for entertainment - then you bet we'd censor it. Do bear in mind that violence in movies is all pretend (you did realise that?) but that explicit sex in porn movies is actually real. Since our public consultation in 1999-2000, we have relaxed our 'sex' guidelines and tightened up our violence guidelines in line with what the public now requires.

WolfieK

Cop out reply, I am afraid, Mr Duval. Surely your job is concerned entirely with material's effect on its audience, not its mean of production. Real shagging looks real. Fake death can look real. If you had two shagging scene, which look at exactly same, but one is real and other is fake, are you saying they might be catergorised differently even though their audience effect would be same?

RobinDuval

Wolfie, if you can't tell if the sex is explicit because nothing explicit is shown, then you treat as non-explicit.

wendygrrl

If Video/DVD classification is removed from the BBFC and becomes the responsibility of OFCOM, as many believe it will be, what do you think will be the likely effect ?

RobinDuval

There is no longer any suggestion that the video/DVD responsibility will be removed from the BBFC. One thing less to worry about.

GasparN

Do you think that eventually, UK censorship will be reduced to European levels?

In France the legal age to buy hardcore is 16 and very few people view this as a problem. After all, the idea that you have to be older to VIEW sex than to partake in it is laughable, right ? ( unless you`re british, of course .. )

Finally, Robin, Do you have any advice for guys suffering from "Penis Envy", as you know, this can be a terribly debilitating condition and often isn`t treated with the seriousness it deserves to be.

Bonjour, Gaspar Noé

RobinDuval

Bonjour Gaspar!

UK regulation is in fact broadly in line with Euro levels. It is the ever-independent French, I am afraid, who are often out of line with the rest of us (and why not?). Incidentally you are also out-of-date on the French regulatory system. There is now an 18 level, a bit like the UK and that is where Baise-Moi was recently placed.

But I am truly sorry to hear about your condition. I cannot really help you myself as I regret I have no direct experience of it. But I might be able to recommend a sensitive British marriage counsellor who could assist you. You may wish to write to me privately.

joekingR18

The New York Ripper (18) 'To obtain this category cuts of 0m 22s were required. Cuts required to detailed, close up sight of a woman's stomach, breast and nipple being cut with a razor blade,...'

Shouldn't that be fake cut with razor blade? Are you saying she was really cut with a razor blade?

RobinDuval

What do you think?

jessfranco

Do you feel that the law preventing you from passing any film that might be considered blasphemous is anachronistic?

RobinDuval

In fact there is no such law. You may be referring to the common law of blasphemy but the test would be much more rigorous than you suggest and these days unlikely to be applied. But yes (like some common law) it probably needs bringing into the 21st century and, if it is to continue, should be sensitive to the needs of other religions as well as Christianity.

dfic1999

I know it was before your time at the BBFC, but do you recall the Visions of Ecstacy case?

RobinDuval

Certainly.

jessfranco

Wingrove v UK (1995) made it quite clear that the blasphemy law was to be upheld and would not be regarded as a breach of the freedom of expression article in the ECHR.

if your legal advisors are telling you that the common law blasphemy rules probably wouldn't apply any more then would you be open to passing 'Visions Of Ecstasy'?

RobinDuval

Our legal advisors are not telling me that the common law blasphemy rules no longer apply. They apply until Parliament decides otherwise.

jessfranco

Can you clarify your position on the 'Bridget Jones' Diary' DVD, please? I have heard on numerous occasions that the BBFC demanded that it be recalled because swearing in the director's commentary made it unsuitable for a 15 certificate. If so, can this be justified when other 15-rated films like 'Memento' and 'Election' contain the same abusive term?

RobinDuval

By agreement with the original distributor, a particularly offensive expression was dubbed over in order for the film to get a 15 (rather than an uncut 18). This in turn was accepted by the video/DVD distributor. Unfortunately, however, the DVD was distributed to the public with two versions on it: the dubbed version and also the undubbed version. The latter version of course had not been classified by the BBFC and so, in the terms of the Video Recordings Act, was illegal. To make things worse, there was a director's commentary with it in which Sharon Maguire drew specific attention to the offensive expression. So we did indeed point out to the distributor that they were in breach of the law and would have to replace the illegal copies with legal ones. There is incidentally no absolute ban on the use of this expression or indeed any other language, even at 15. But the most offensive usages of it will always get a minimum 18 rating.

DrSim

Can you please explain why vaginal & anal fisting along with urolagnia are NOT acceptable under the current R18 guidelines, even though none of the above are illegal to practice in the UK. Due to your refusal to classify R18 such material, HM customs & excise will seize material containing the above activities and the importer will face a "serious arrestable offence" (according to a recent Homeoffice memo sent to HM Customs & Excise) However Homosexual group sex is still a sexual offence in England and Wales (A clear case of discrimination against gay people)But is classifiable by the BBFC if filmed outside England & Wales and therefore, is not an arrestable offence if imported. So how is it you can pass material that if done for real in England & Wales would technically be in breach of the sexual offences act and yet refuse to classify material that is not. You state in the BBFC R18 guidelines that you will not pass material likely to cause actual harm. Consensual Fisting is not harmful if it's done properly & carefully. You also state in the BBFC R18 guidelines that you will not pass material degrading or dehumanising. Is consensual urolagnia degrading or dehumanising???, that's a very subjective argument Mr Duval, one things for sure, It's not harmful. You may state that it breaches the obscene publications act, again that's very subjective It's high time that UK censorship be as liberal as other European countries, after all, we are in Europe arn't we. Any restriction should only be restricted to illegal acts.(except gay group sex)

RobinDuval

This is mostly covered in my reply to Wendygirl (#21). I might just add here that these activities can still be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act and so long as juries continue to find against them, the BBFC is bound to do so as well. That actually is why Customs & Excise take action against such material. I'm glad that they find the BBFC guidelines useful, but that is because they can be confident (I certainly hope so) that they reflect the legal reality. The law on group gay sex does not apply to activities conducted outside the UK - that is why we can pass such material (but not UK-shot material). I agree with you that the law at present potentially discriminates against gay people. But the BBFC cannot pass illegal material. Of course one of the purposes of the new Human Rights Act is to remove legal discrimination which is prohibited by one of articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. It will be interesting to see how things develop on that one

joekingR18

What is the difference between a guideline and a rule?

RobinDuval

This is an interestingly philosophical enquiry. But I do not know why you think it is relevant to the BBFC. We issue 'guidelines'. I think I am right in saying that you will not find the word 'rule' anywhere there. So from my point of view the question is fairly academic. Perhaps it would help if I said that we regard the guidelines as binding in the sense that they express what the public expects at each different classification level, and we have an obligation not to break faith with that understanding. But of course guidelines often have to be interpreted according to the particular context within which an issue arises. So very little is absolute and cast in immutable stone. To that extent they are probably not 'rules'. But the difference in regulatory practice is probably not significant.

pwoods99

Last night Channel 4 showed "Raw Deal: A Question of Consent" which contained explicit unsimulated scenes of a woman being raped (allegedly).

Clearly, the BBFC would have little choice but to allow a video certificate if the film was submitted, since millions of people could already have made copies of it. Indeed, there may be some sick individuals out there who have edited the footage together and are watching it repeatedly right now.

How then, can the BBFC justify the continued refusal of an uncut video release of Straw Dogs ? That film includes a rape scene that was deliberately ambiguous and was intended to provoke a debate over society's attitude towards rape. Do you not agree that the censorship of material which some may find objectionable can have the effect of suppressing a rational discussion of the underlying issues ?

RobinDuval

Hello Peter! No public exchange would be complete without your presence. I did not see last night's C4 programme. But it is important to bear in mind that the ITC rules governing sex on C4 are generally tougher than the BBFC Guidelines. So it is quite likely that anything acceptable on C4 would be acceptable (at least at '18') to the BBFC as well. That aside, our test of acceptability can only be our Guidelines. It certainly cannot be what may or may not have been shown (legitimately or illegitimately) on a tv channel. So I do not think this bears at all on any decision we may make on Straw Dogs in the future. As for rational discussion of the Sraw Dogs situation, there seems to have been plenty enough of that, and I am sure will continue to be.

MattDP

I've always felt that as adults we should choose whether or not we want to witness potentially disturbing scenes in a film. Do you feel there is any case for releasing a film uncut with some sort of "18+" certificate to indicate extremely dodgy scenes, if that's what the director/studio wants?

RobinDuval

We very rarely cut films at '18' - only once in the last 12-18 months. If we do so it is because there is a very severe problem indeed. So I'm sure we would not want that to go out at '18+' if such a thing existed.

theTramp

You see plenty of films in your line of work. On Filmunlimited we have had some discussions regarding the worst film of 2001. What would you say was the worst film you saw in 2001? And why did you dislike it so much?

RobinDuval

I am sworn to professional silence...

hanifbarik

Has the recent terrorist attacks affected the way in which the BBFC certifies films and games with a war theme? If so, can you give an example of a before and after Sept 11 scenario where films have been certified differently due to these attacks?

RobinDuval

No.

melonf

Is it possible that R18 censorship could become voluntary. The vast majority of R18s dont require cutting and it is obvious to distributors that they are standard fare. The BBFC could still maintain the rules/guidelines and accept submissions where the guidelines are neared eg for Rocco videos

RobinDuval

A very hypothetical question. I suspect that all other classification categories will have become voluntary long before R18 does. And that may not happen until many years after I am gone.

AmbroseBierce

Do you not think that the high cost of having a film certificated R18, and the limited number of outlets for this product in the UK, leads to more people simply buying cheaper and more plentiful sexually explicit material from abroad by mail order? And does the widespread use of these foreign mail order companies not make the BBFC's work in this area somewhat meaningless?

RobinDuval

I think you will find this has been answered at questions 7 and 20.

pwoods99

I have another question. Do you think that the MPAA NC-17 classification is a failed experiment ? Much as though I (and others) are quick to criticise the BBFC, at least 18 films are acceptable and are rarely cut (in the cinema), whereas an NC-17 film in the States is likely to fail miserably, with the effect that studios avoid them like the plague.

RobinDuval

Peter, this is a very boring question. But I do agree that the NC-17 clearly is not working. In 2000 I believe only one film was classified NC-17 by the MPAA.

nina793

Dear Robin, What films have caused most dispute between you and your colleagues?

RobinDuval

Ahh... that would be telling.

FilmEditor

Have you found that your own moral compass have shifted during your (three?) years in the job? Have you grown more conservative? More liberal? Or are you the same as you ever were?

Chris Jeffrey, London

RobinDuval

That is a very difficult question. I do not believe that my personal views have shifted significantly since 1998. But I have to acknowledge that I have learnt more about issues such as possible harm and about the nature of public concern.

Tonyhares

Do you believe in censoring theatre, or literature? If not, why not?

RobinDuval

No I do not believe in the censorship of theatre or literature. A difference between these genres and film/DVD/video is that the classification system we offer would be quite inappropriate. But another crucial difference is that neither genre presents "real life" imagery in the way that film can. There are constraints as you probably know on real sex in the theatre, and violence with the same kind of verisimilitude provided by the cinema cannot be achieved in theatre or literature.

AmbroseBierce

you're right that my query is partially answered by question 20, but you haven't addressed the issue of the high cost of certification. I'm assuming that the BBFC sets its own rates for certificating films (I apologise if this assumption is incorrect) but the point I'm interested in addressing is that the prohibitive cost of submitting a film for an R18 certificate - coupled with the limited points of sale - reduces the number of films that are submitted, and thus the choice for the consumer. As a result, the consumer buys from abroad, thus making a mockery of the whole certification process in the first place. Surely it would make more sense, if the object is to stop the UK being flooded with unregulated material, to reduce the cost of certification and thus encourage manufacturers to sell within the UK, rather than from one of the many foreign companies?

RobinDuval

No. The BBFC's video classification fees are set by the DCMS and our cinema fees are in line with those. Far from the cost of classifying an R18 being prohibitive, I think you will find that the major part of the R18 market is very highly profitable. As I have explained in my earlier answers it is simply not the case that the UK is being flooded with unregulated material.

RobinDuval

I'm off to do some real work now... That's all folks.