1.The BBFC is a grand-daddy
among moving picture regulators. We were set up in 1912, by the cinema
industry, to provide a centralized and consistent ratings service in the UK.
2. The industry trade body which set up the BBFC in 1912 ceased to exist
after the 1940’s and the BBFC became a wholly independent, private,
non-profit organisation. We are funded entirely by the fees we charge by
classifying movies. In 1985, the BBFC took the additional responsibility of
classifying all video, later also DVD’s of course, and the more violent
video games. We remain independent of the industry and of government.
3. Last year we classified 10 000 videos or DVD’s and nearly 600 cinema
films, plus around 900 cinema advertisements and trailers. This year the
total number of works classified by the BBFC is likely to exceed 13 000. To
process all this we have a staff of just over 60, of whom 20 or so are the
examiners whose full time job it is to classify all the works submitted to
us.
4. Also the nature of what we do has changed. We put more and more
emphasis on providing public information. Every video or DVD sleeve now
carries a box explaining the classification. Was it for strong violence,
sex, language, drug taking? The advertising for cinema films, particularly
for children has to carry a line of useful information. Here is a very short
film which has been shown in every cinema in the United Kingdom this year.
5.This is 21 st century regulation. Certainly I hope so.
6. The greatest professional challenge today is to achieve consistency.
So we base all our judgements on our published classification guidelines and
the practical criteria they express.
BBFC GUIDELINES
7. The BBFC Classification guidelines are to an important extent about
harm.
8. Harm to children from premature exposure to certain kinds of images
and experiences. And harm to society through the promotion of violent or
dangerous activity. The trouble with harm, however, is that it is part of a
wider and extremely complex media effects argument that I will talk about
later. Our guidelines, which apply equally to video and film also reflect
what the law requires.
9. The laws we have to take into account are, in particular, to do with
obsenity, the indecent portrayal of children, cruelty to animals, public
order including racial abuse (essentially harm-based laws, incidentally). We
must also take into account the European Convention on Human rights and the
law ther relating to fair procedures, privacy, discrimination and especially
freedom of expression. But the credibility of our classification criteria,
and of the BBFC as regulator, depends upon public consent and regulatory
transparency.
10. What the public expects and requires shifts over time which is why 3
years ago we embarked upon what we believe may be the most comprehensive
exercise in public consultation and opinion research undertaken by any
content regulator. That included extensive focus groups, a major public
survey, and targeted questionnaire based research; plus consultation with
local authorities, the industry, broadcasters and other affected sectors.
All the evidence and views were finally weighed together and a final version
of the guidelines produced.
11. The guidelines cover a very wide range of issues which all bear upon
the acceptability of a film or video at every classification level from "U"
through to "18" or "R18": theme, language, nudity, sex, violence, imitable
techniques, horror, drugs. They are all listed against the individual
classification ratings, and the limits of acceptability described.
12. This has to be a balancing act. On the one hand, the expectations of
the British public, on the other the duty in a civilised society to preserve
freedom of expression. We also have to factor in the law. And crucially any
evidence we have that certain images or content may cause harm.
13. There are two ways of addressing the harm issue. One is to look at
the academic research – the literally thousands of studies, many American,
into media effects: how for example watching violent films or television
effects children or adults. We should be able to identify certain dangers
and make sure our Guidelines allow us to address them through restrictive
classification or cuts.
14. The other way of addressing the harm issue is to take advice from the
clinical experts – the specialists in child and adult psychology, sexual
harms, the police who deal with and recognise paedophiles, teachers, doctors
and lawyers.
15. But let me first look at the evidence of media effects research.
16. There is a great deal of violence in the media – in newspapers, on
televsion, in films and DVD’s, in viodeogames. I do not like it. As a
reglator my instict is to take action against it: give restrictive
qualifications or even cut it. However, again as a regulator, I am bound to
be fair to the product. If I cut or even over classify it, I must be able to
show good reason.
17. I have read dozens of scientific papers about media effects and
reviews of them. I have even read a number of so called "meta-analyses"
which do the work of reviewing all the literature for me. As the UK film,
DVD and violent videogames regulator I may be the most interventionist
censor here. Last year the BBFC cut works than for many years. We cut 20
cinema films, and 324 videos or DVD’s (out of nearly 9000 submissions). And
all that leaves aside the BBFC’s tendency generally to classify works more
restrictively than many other countries.
18. So I am, to say the least, open to persuasion that my interventionism
can be justified by scientific evidence. Let me quote a typical recent
conclusion by American media effects researchers: "It is now known that even
brief exposure to violent TV or movie scenes causes significant increases in
aggression, that repeated exposure of children to media violence increases
their aggressiveness as young adults, and that media violence is a
significant risk factor in youth violence".
19. Well offcourse this is exactly what I need.
20. Or is it?
21. I am afraid that what I learnt 18 years ago, when I first took a
senior job regulating the content of British television, is that this is an
academic battleground. For every piece of research that shows a correlation
or even claims a causal relationship between viewing films, and behaving
violently and aggressively, another is likely to show the opposite, or fail
to replicate the original finding. Even the meta-analyses fail to agree.
22. British analyses by Guy Cumberbatch (who is also here) Professor
Barrie Gunter and David Gauntlet conclude that the evidence is actually
inconclusive. In America, MIT’s Henry Jenkins has said: "it takes a series
of interpretive leaps and speculations to move from (statistical) data to
any meaningful claim that media images cause real-world violence… decades of
research on media violence sill yields contradictory and confusing results."
23. Similar criticisms have been made by Professor Ellen Seiter of UC-San
Diego, Professor Jib Fowles of the University of Houston and Professor
Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto.
24. Just to give you a sense of the sheer range of opinion here, I should
tell you that some eminent professors in Britain and the USA actually
incline to the view that – on balance – media violence may actually have
positive effects.Professor David Buckingham of London University – who is
probably the leading academic analyst of media effects on children in the UK
– has argued that children may indeed benefit fictional violence: it helps
them to conquer the fears they experience in real life".
25. Another academic view is that violent movies are not dangerous and
unhealthy but instead provide a safe environment in which to explore issues
of violence.
26. Another problem is that academic researchers frequently overclaim for
their results/ Very recently – earlier this year in fact – a major and
lengthy study was published which drew a lot of attention. You may have
heard of it. It was called "Longitudinal Relations Between Children’s
Exposure to TV Violence and their Aggressive and Violent Behaviour in young
Adulthood 1977 – 1992. The world’s press reported its claim that: "These
results support the hypothesis that the causal effects of media violence
that have been demonstrated in the laboratory extend into real life from
childhood into adulthood."
27. Of course, this was taken by journalists to prove that violence on
television turns children into violent adults. Did it?
28. Of course not. It was another sad example of over-claiming. Doubly
sad because the study itself was actually quite cautious. It acknowledged
the view that violent behaviour "seldom occurs" unless there are many
non-television factors involved such as "neuropsychological abnormalities,
poor child rearing, socio-economic deprivation, poor peer relations,
attitudes and beliefs supporting aggression, drug and alcohol abuse,
frustration and provocation and other factors."
29. It acknowledged that the study was based upon only 329 young adults
who had been children in Chicago in the 1970’s. It acknowledged that the
kind of violent programs that supposed influenced the children included
typically the Roadrunner cartoons (rated very violent). It finally even
acknowledged that "the effect sizes for media violence on aggression
revealed in this longitudinal study are modest" Here is a brief but typical
example of what this recent "major" report considered "very violent".
30. Interestingly, very recent research (published this autumn in the UK)
shows that children do not regard cartoons in any form as "violent" because
the yare not "real". What children find violent is the news.
31. So how did the research arrive at the conclusion that the "causal
effects of media violence" have been demonstrated? And that viewing violent
programmes as a child can turn you into a violent and aggressive adult.?
Well, and to be frank, by committing the most basic error of confusing
correlation with causality.
32. What the study shows is that aggressive children (who grow up to be
aggressive adults) may like violent (or at least moderately violent)
entertainment. Does that make them aggressive? Which is the chicken and
which is the egg? The researchers touch on that in the study, but even
though it is the most important question, it gets only a few paragraphs in
which they fail to resolve the issue. Basically, they argue that, because
not all the aggressive adults still watched as many violent programmes as
they did as children, it follows that their aggressiveness did not cause
them to view violent programmes … I leave you to pick the bones out of that.
33. Thus the research – like so many other studies – fails to show any
causal link between watching violent entertainment and being violent (or
aggressive).
34. This confusion of correlation and causality is endemic in much
American violence research. So is the frequent assumption that aggression
equals violence. We know, for instance, that watching comedy or sport can
raise energy levels also and make people feel more aggressive – more "up for
it". That seems like commonsense: we all tend to be a bit bouncier when we
have thoroughly enjoyed something. And that, one strongly suspects, is often
what these laboratory studies are measuring. So should we then ban comedy
and sport?
35. Another problem is the failure to take account of other possible
equal and opposite effects from televsion or film viewing. Aristotle’s
catharsis theory, whereby violent entertainment purges the viewer’s own need
for violence, seems to be under an academic cloud these days. It’s time will
surely come again.
36. But, quite aside from that, what about the huge and diverse range of
positive and pro-social images on television and in films. Do they count for
nothing? In the movies, the good guys generally come first, the police
usually catch their man, virtue is rewarded, family values upheld and so on.
Any acquaintance with American entertainment will find these images in
abundance. I would suggest they are at least as endemic, taken over the
entertainment media as a whole, as images of violence. Have they no
influence at all? Certainly it is a very long time since I read any American
research which attempted to weigh the positive images in the media against
the negative ones.
37. And finally… do we really believe that Roadrunner cartoons, or Tom
and Jerry, are more dangerous than all the things older generations grew up
on: Hans Anderson, the Brothers Grimm, all those fairy tales about ogres and
monsters, Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood and the wolf and so on?
Perhaps, again, a measure of practical commonsense might be in order.
38. I have been, I suppose, fairly rude about the current state of play
on research about media violence generally. But that is not to say that
there are no reliable indicators when you begin to move form the general to
the more particular, and especially if you are dealing with in extreme
portrayals. Here I think we can, as regulators, draw comfort- if that is
quite the right word.
39. The most troubling issue my organisation has to deal with – and the
one most likely to lead to cuts in films even at the adult level – is sexual
violence. Here the situation is rather different. When extreme violence is
mixed in with explicit sexual or erotic elements, my earlier scepticism
about the research becomes more difficult to sustain.
40. There is a large body of evidence over the years from respected and
responsible researchers that shows that, where violence and sex are
intermingled, the effects upon some people are likely to be harmful. The
people concerned may only represent a small minority of the population
(though some experts would go further than that) but they themselves may be
harmed and their actions may have a disproportionate and harmful effect upon
society.
41. When we reviewed all the sexual violence literature last year, we
found quite an impressive body of work about the stimulation of aggressive
thoughts and fantasies by violent pornography: evidence that it may teach
men how to treat women badly, relax their inhibitions about doing so and
condition them to experience sexual arousal in relation to such acts. Sexual
criminals are most likely to seek out and respond to sexually violent
material; and exposure to violent sex scenes has increased male viewers’
rape myth beliefs (e.g. that women enjoy rape) suspects, is often what these
laboratory studies are measuring. So should we then ban comedy and sport?
42. Overviews or meta-analyses in the 1990’s have continued to find a
persuasive consensus that violent and explicit sec scenes excite dangerous
anti-women attitudes.
43. But censorship should never, with respect, rely wholly upon academic
research.
44. In restricting or cutting sexually violent material, the BBFC also
calls in aid a range of clinical specialists. We regularly take advice from
consultative groups which include child psychiatrists and psychologists and
other experts in harm to children or in adult behaviour. Frequently, when we
have a problem with a film, we take advice from forensic psychologists who
specialise in dangerous or disturbed people. We ask them how likely a film
might be to stimulate an anti-social or criminal response in a viewer.
45. Not so long ago, we asked some clinical experts to look at a French
Film A Ma Soer! We were concerned that one
particular scene in it might have serious potential for harm. The scene
occurs right at the end of the film. The 12 year old heroine has just
fantasized the murder of her mother and sister by a passer-by. Then this
happens.
46. We took advice from two very senior forensic clinicians who worked
with disturbed or abusive patients. Basically, we asked them if there was
any significant danger that the scene, taking the film as a whole, Might
encourage paedophile behaviour. They advised that A Ma Soeur! Could only be
shown in the cinema un-cut providing it had an adults-only "18" rating. This
offcourse means in Britain that no-one under 18 is allowed in the cinema at
all. We do not allow accompaniment as the Americans do with their "R"
rating.
47. However, both consultant psychologists advised, strongly, that the
video version should be cut. They took the professional view that the final
scene, in which a 12 year old is raped with her breasts forcibly exposed,
was exactly the kind of material which could be used by paedophile males
when grooming a prospective victim in a domestic environment. That is
something they could not do of course in and adults only cinema.
48. Accordingly, the BBFC cut all the scenes from the couple entering the
wood to the police at the murder scene. But only for video, because of the
clear forensic advice given to us.
49. Now I’m not suggesting that our method, which you may find rather
painstaking, commends itself to all regulators in every country. Indeed
there are many differences between us. I know for example, that the British
place more emphasis upon research and evidence than most other countries. I
have illustrated the extent to which we take advice from medical and
forensic consultants. I have touched on our use of media effects research.
But we also monitor, continually, the expectations of the British public.
Last year, for example, we changed our "12" cinema rating, which forbade
children under 12 to enter a cinema at all, to a "12A" rating which allows
them in providing they are accompanied by a responsible adult. We made that
change only after we had piloted it for 8 weeks in a British city, and then
taken the views of 4000 representative members of the British public. All
that takes time – about 12 months on this occasion – and money. It is not
for everyone.
50. But if you do not test your classification or censorship policies
against the professional and public evidence, what do you rely on? How do
you avoid subjectivity and arbitrariness? In some cases this probably
reflects very accurately what individual national publics expect. In some
cases, one suspects that national regulatory standards reflect more
significantly the views of government, or even the film industry itself.
51. Be that as it may, I think the general perception is that at least we
in the United Kingdom are not very different in our standard setting from
the other English speaking countries. Like the USA and Canada, for example,
we do not like strong language in films for children. But we are probably a
little more relaxed about sex than they are. For example, the BBFC gave
Halle Berry’s Monster’s Ball a "15" rating but the MPAA in
America gave it their highest practical rating, "R", and then only after
cuts to the sex scene which we were happy to pass at "15". In Australia
incidentally, Monster’s Ball was classified "R18" for adults only.
You don’t like sex either apparently. This then, is what the American’s cut,
Sweden and Denmark rated for 11 year old, the French rated for 12 year olds,
Norway, Finland and the British rated for 15 year olds, and the Australians
– and the Spanish – rated for adults.
52. It is well known that in Europe, there is a big difference between
France and the other nations. For the French, the quality of the film can
affect the rating – if it is culturally significant it may even get a
universal rating so that the youngest children may see it. Certainly, films
like American Beauty or Titus Andronicus which have been rated
for adults in other parts of the Europe and the world have regularly
received general ratings in France.
53. It is even more common for films rated for adults only in most parts
of Europe to be given an "12" rating in France. Famous examples are:
Tarrantino’s Pulp Fiction, The Exorcist, Hannibal and Gangs of New
York. Also the graphic sado-masochist activity in Secretary by Maggie
Gyllenhall and James Spader (a "12" in France but an "R" in America and an
"18" in the UK).
54. But even if you put the French to the side, there are also big
differences between the rest of us. The Germans and the Scandinavians tend
to rate higher for violence. The British are pretty much alone in Europe in
their Anglo-Saxon sensitivity to strong language. The Spanish tend to take a
harder line than anyone on sexual morality. It is possible for one film to
be classified (not always France) for children and in another for adults
only. The most extreme case in recent years was Lars Von Trier’s The
Idiots which ranged from a rating for all ages in Italy via a "12" in
France to being totally banned in Ireland. Here is another wide-ranging
example.
55. That was from the very popular Hollywood teenage comedy,
American
Pie. It was passed for all ages by Sweden, Denmark, Franc, Italy,
Belgium and Iceland; rated for 11 or 12 year olds in Germany, Switzerland,
Finland, Norway and the Netherlands; rated for 14 or 15 year olds in Austria
and Britain; for 17 year olds in Greece; and given an "18" rating in Spain
and Ireland. It got the adult R rating in America. Its sequel American
Pie 2 had a similar range of ratings from all ages in France to 18-rated
for adults only in Ireland. This years American Wedding looks as
though its going the same way.
56. That of course tells us something about particular national
sensitivities. The Scandinavians, French and Italians are pretty relaxed
about sex and what you might call immorality. The Spanish and the Irish are
the opposite. The rest of us, with the Americans and Canadians etc occupy
the ground in between – some more concerned than others.
57. What about violence, though? Here is just one example of a similar
range of European views.
58. That was an American War movie, Behind Enemy Lines, set in
Bosnia. It was rated for all children in France, it was a PG in Singapore,
for 12 year olds in Britain, a PG13 in America, for 15 and 16 year olds in
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland – as well, incidentally, as
Australia; and Germany gave it an "18". Here the issue was mainly violence,
though the use of very strong language bumped it up in Britain from a
possible "PG" to a "12". What is interesting is the greater concern among
all the Scandinavian countries about the violence in the film. But Germany
found it violent enough to restrict it to adults only. This is not untypical
European profile. More extreme perhaps than usual in its outcomes, but
nonetheless providing a useful insight into some of the other differences
between us.
59. Amongst the further differences, it should also be noticed that some
countries – Ireland, Italy, Norway, Iceland, Britain even France – cut or
ban films. Others – Austria, Denmark, Finland – prohibit censorship for
adults. In some countries, the age rating is mandatory. In others it is
advisory only. I’m afraid there is a long way to go before anyone can talk
sensibly about European harmonisation of cinema regulation. A report
published by the European Commission in May this year revealed that no less
than ¾ of movies classified in Europe got the full range of
classifications from "all ages" to restricted to "15" or "16" year olds. Not
surprisingly the record concluded that harmonisation of rating practice
throughout Europe "may seem currently impossible to achieve."
60. And if we are so divergent in Europe. What hope is there for us of
worldwide harmony? I am in Australia now – a country that occasionally bans
films even the British have passed, Baise Moi for example. After much
deliberation, we in the UK agreed to pass Baise-Moi "18" for cinema
release, subject to 10 seconds of cuts. In line with our strict policy on
sexual violence, we removed a single close-up shot of actual penetration
because of concerns that this might add an erotic charge to an otherwise
purely horrific depiction of rape. In Australia, by contrast, the film was
refused a classification outright and in neighbouring New Zealand it was
restricted to festivals and universities only. The New Zealanders have also
restricted Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible – a film which I believe has yet to
arrive in Australia – to festivals and academic institutions. However,
Irreversible has been passed "18" uncut for cinema and video release in the
UK and "16" uncut in France, and "15" in Sweden.
61. Is harmonisation at any level achievable? Well this is really part of
a wider subject, which is to do with convergence. And that is intended for
other and separate sessions at this conference. I do not want to overlap too
much into that territory but there are a few things I think I can say.
62. In Europe, as the European Commission report this year found, there
is in fact no desire for harmonisation even amongst the film industry or its
audiences. At the same time, there is a lot to be said for diversity- which
is the opposite of harmonisation and convergence. At its most obvious, the
cultural differences between the nations of the world, which define who we
are, are expressed and sustained by our different languages.
63. Harmonisation would progressively remove the present barriers which
prevent Hollywood rolling everything out from a single matrix generated in
Los Angeles.
64. It would considerably lower their unit costs and make them more
dominant than ever before. Our different national industries, making films
with different national languages, will be squeezed even further. Would they
indeed survive?
65. And it is worth looking at the models available for harmonised
regulation. There are really only three ways of regulating films. One,
the most common in Europe and elsewhere, is regulation by government
department or at least by a body which reports directly or indirectly to
government. The second is self-regulation by the film industry itself –
indeed, the American model, represented by the MPAA. The third is the
rarest: regulation by an independent body. This is very difficult to
achieve. The BBFC in Britain is the only clear example I know of. Our
independence of course is really an accident of our history rather than any
deliberate act of policy.
66. So any future harmonisation, which by definition has to be
international, probably only has two models that are pragmatically
available: self regulation by industry and government based regulation.
67. It is difficult to see how this can ever work. In Europe, where we
have economic union, and have achieved a degree of administrative
harmonisation, there is no serious prospect of similar politicisation of
cultural harmonisation. The British, the French, the Germans – to name but
the three largest nations – would oppose it. Indeed, I do not believe there
is any desire within the European Community for harmonisation of film
regulation under a single body reporting to Brussels where the union has
political headquarters.
68. That leaves only self-regulation. This already exists in Europe for
video games. It is called NICAM and is based in the Netherlands. It is
relatively new but should work for videogames because they are highly
adapted to trans-national regulation. There is no problem with regionality
of video games – the all (nearly) come from Japan and America and share a
common language. There are no cultural or regulatory complexities in
videogames: 95% are rated for violence only. As the European Commission
Report I referred to earlier said this year: the NICAM system "has in the
opinion of some experts, only been possible because the form of the content
is so new and because it, in general, does not carry the ‘cultural’
connotation [of film]…
69. There are no arguments of context, cultural merit, social
significance etc to be made when you are rating a videogame. Rating can be
codified in fairly simple terms. You can tick boxes for violence, sex, drugs
etc and trigger an automatic rating. The more complex issues of address,
appeal, context, aversiveness, message, effort etc which a film regulator –
at least in the UK – must address have a very limited relevance when you are
dealing fairly mechanistically with the amount of violence in an
off-the-shelf videogame.
70. It is interesting nonetheless that, in order to achieve agreement
among all the participating European countries (Germany is the only major
country not to participate because of legal developments there), the
harmonised Euro ratings had to settle for the standards of the most
restrictive nations. In cinema terms, that would mean the French would have
to raise their standards to the much more restrictive standards of Spain and
Ireland, and all the European countries would have to accept the British
obsession with strong language. As I have previously made clear, any films
would be uprated not just one or two classification levels, but all the way
from available to all to adults only.
71. NICAM incidentally reports to a controlling body called the ISFE.
This is a self-regulatory organisation, made up of Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo
and other multinational businesses. The implications for cinema regulation
are obvious. A similar cinema system would be controlled by Sony, Fox,
Warners, Disney, etc.
72. I am in favour of different standards.
73. I would hate a single, harmonised, unitary system which regulated for
whole continents or even, God forbid, globally. Even Orwell’s nightmare
vision of a
standard setting Ministry of Culture did not envisage something as all-embracingly
monolithic as that. So let us aim to share our knowledge and experience on a
cooperative but nationally and culturally independent basis. The Internet is
not the end of the world and the digital revolution will not replace cinema,
or the DVD and all its personalised successors. There will remain infinite
scope for diversity, if we want it.
