Scott Chisholm (SC):
Open up a newspaper any day and you are bound to find a story about censorship, in one
form or another, or at least some expert or someone in the public eye telling us what we
should think or how we should behave - take this morning; the headline in "The
Thunderer" sums it up neatly - Viewers find cynical sex a television turn off.
We will investigate that a little more through this hour.
Our special guest has to second guess what is going to offend you and me - not on
television, that's not his department, but movies and videos are.
You wouldn't want this job by all accounts, it's pretty mind numbing stuff. Cooped up
in cramped rooms for hours at a time, watching the worst that popular culture can muster -
our guest this hour has taken on a job that guarantees he's always going to offend one
section of our community or another - and sometimes his own staff. When we are talking
censorship in the cinema or on video, the buck stops with our guest.
Who would want to be a censor? One disillusioned censor who quit last year has accused
her colleagues at the BBFC of pandering to alarmist fears: of slavishly responding to a
vocal minority, of not taking note of the vast majority of us who don't give
classification a second thought. There are others who ask, 'when will we trust adults to
choose for themselves?' There are others who ask, 'when will we credit children and young
people with the ability to watch critically?' Do we need censorship at all? Andreas
Whittam-Smith, why would you accept this poison chalice?
Andreas Whittam Smith (AWS):
Well, it's a very good question because...as... one day a week by the way, I'm the
President... It's one day a week. I'm not one of the excellent examiners who are sitting
in those cubicles you describe and they do that job full-time- there are twenty of them.
They watch wonderful things and they watch awful things, but finally, it is an important
job, I think and I have a lifetime policy of... if somebody asks you to do something,
unless you can quickly think of a reason why not you should probably do it. In a rather
unthinking way, as is my habit, I said, 'OK. If you want me to do it, I'll do it.'
SC:
Do you have to second guess what is likely to offend us, or indeed cause us harm?
AWS:
It's a mixture I think. One is doing it on behalf of one's fellow citizens, therefore,
you need to know...keep yourself regularly informed as to what they are thinking. The
public mood does slowly change. The report in this morning's paper suggests that viewers
of television dislike more than they did, the diet of sex which appears on their screens
it. I think the number thinking there is too much sex on their screens has only gone up a
small percentage- up from 34% to 37%.
SC:
Is this a cyclical thing?
AWS:
I think these are very, very deep currents which eventually turn around. The current
which probably _has_ started to move the other way is the public tolerance of violence on
screen- particularly sexual violence. I couldn't give you a statistical argument here but
my impression, and a lot of peoples impression is that people are less tolerant now than
they were. The video nasties, as they were described, of ten or fifteen years ago, have to
some extent gone and in the cinema the action heroes are getting a bit old and haven't
precisely been replaced. I think people's tolerance, of sexual violence in particular is
less. But on the whole people's tolerance of sexual explicitness is growing and there are
some interesting regional differences. When the police finally decide to prosecute.. I
don't know.. a merchant for selling obscene material of whatever type, unlicensed by us,
it is quite difficult in London to get a jury to convict, but in Manchester, it's a little
bit easier. So there are some regional differences.
SC:
How do you account for that?
AWS:
I don't know. I went to a very interesting conference at the Home Office, and both the
Manchester Police, and the Met., Customs and Excise and others concerned were comparing
notes and it became clear that there are these regional differences.
SC:
I want to pursue that because you, for the first time, took the BBFC on the road- a
censor's roadshow, round the country (Yes). To do what?
AWS:
Yes. I didn't view it as market research, I viewed it as essentially democratic. We do
this work on behalf of everybody else, we can and do have the power to stop people seeing
things they might want to see, we better open ourselves up to people. So we turned up in
nine cities, took a hall, gave an hour's presentation on how we view different films and
different episodes and people fire questions at us. We noticed that there was a different
atmosphere in most cities we went to. In Liverpool, the shadow of the James Bulger case
hangs over that city still. You can feel it in the air. In Northern Ireland it was a
different feeling. In Southampton, a different feeling again in London, some very
aggressive audiences, 3 in London, and whereas the rest of the country was often
pro-censorship, in London, it was very hostile to censorship.
SC:
That's interesting, MORE censorship?
AWS:
There is a very, very strong lobby of people who argue...
SC:
Here's the problem though Andreas, is this the vocal minority that you are sometimes
accused of pandering to? Not you personally, but you censors.
AWS:
Well, the lobby groups are all minorities. What this minority believes is that many
children are in homes where the parents don't regulate their viewing particularly well,
and the board's job is to stand in place of those parents. I don't actually think it is
anyone's job to stand in place of parents but that is a very strongly held view.
SC:
Valid?
AWS:
I don't want to say whether it's valid or not valid. I describe what I think the scene
is, there are two armed camps, I don't mean that TOO literally, obviously. There are
people who would like more censorship and there are people who would like us to get out of
the way completely. These "armed camps" have ways of making their opinions
known: they have newspapers which support their views, they have MPs who make questions,
they have lobby groups, they have meetings, they have write in campaigns and, maybe 10%
are in the pro-censorship lobby, maybe 5% in the libertarian lobby and the rest of people
never think about it very much and are more or less content with the system the way it is.
Rita from Liverpool:
I hope this man isn't going to be a failure like his predecessor James Ferman. They are
supposed to be a censorship body and that means they set standards. James Ferman let films
through like Lolita and Crash and you have only got to look around in society to see the
destructive effects all this is having, violent sex crimes up, 11 and 12 year old parents,
and... I mean Michael Barrimore had a little boy about six on the other night ,on his
programme over Christmas, and he asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up. He said,
"I want to go out into the street and take all my clothes off, and be a male
stripper."..this is harming our children, it's destroying society.
AWS:
First of all James Ferman is the director, he's retiring, well, will shortly leave in
the next month or two, when a new director takes over. He has been doing the job for
23yrs. As for Lolita and Crash, I was certainly in office when Lolita came along and I was
the person who passed it. I am not aware that since it has been passed there have been any
events which suggest that that film, which is an extremely balanced examination of the
relationship between a middle aged person and a under-age girl, which happens, and you
only have to turn up at the courts to see that it happens... I'm not aware that it has any
negative results. As for Crash, which I passed for video, I wasn't there when it was
passed for cinema, it is a film... I wonder whether you have seen it...I wonder whether
you have seen Lolita too because you mention these things- you have to see them...not just
to go off what the papers say.
SC:
Have you seen them Rita?
Rita:
I don't have to put my hand in the fire to know that it burns.
AWS:
No, you haven't seen them. That's very important. You see, most critics have not seen
what they complain about. They read newspapers and they parrot the opinions of newspapers.
I would be very keen, you may not now be able to see them because it is some months since
they were available, but you can see the video Crash if you want to, and tell me what you
think its effect will be when you have seen it. It is a very cold film, about weird sex
between weird people involving car injuries and so on- as soon as I saw it I couldn't
think that any body was going to imitate this behaviour; and I've seen no evidence that
they would. There are video which I have refused to pass and they are unlicensed and they
can't be lawfully sold. That is because I think that they would generate anti-social
behaviour. The basic test for us, especially in the video market, is will this work
generate anti-social behaviour. The law asks us to consider: will it harm the viewer
directly- this would be an issue in the case of the video The Exorcist, for instance,
which is in front us at the moment. And will it harm society through the actions of
viewers. That's what the law asks us to do. In the cinema by the way- that's where Lolita
has been- there is an 18 certificate, the cinema is well regulated, you don't get young
people running in to 18 films miles below the age, adults know what they are going to see,
and I think we should pause long and hard before we prevent adults in a regulated cinema-
not in the home- seeing what they want to see.
Paul in Oxfordshire:
I'm a publican(?) and an ex-commercial diver and by no means am I a puritan, but why...
every film out these days with a certificate 15, every other word is effing this and
effing that. You show a bit of breast, of something natural and a movie goes up to
eighteen. Some of these films, if you cut out the language, they would end up about five
minutes long.
AWS:
Well, the language is something that people are extremely sensitive to, and we have
very strict rules about language. It is one of the easiest things for a regulator to look
at- there either is a word or there isn't a word- there is no ambiguity about it. It
puzzles me but I have to accept that British people are very, very sensitive to bad
language on the screen. Much more so than other nations, much more so than the Americans,
and even much more so than a nation, which is very close to us, Ireland. I recently met
the film censor there and they are much more relaxed about language; over here we really
care about it.
SC:
Why would that be?
AWS:
I best explain it to myself by saying, whatever a family does, whatever language it
uses within the four walls of the house, at the work place, or school, or the football
match, it is when you go to visit the grandparents or something, it is then you hope your
children won't swear in front of grandmother. I think it is that sort of feeling. It is a
feeling which pervades the nation, it's a fact, it is no use criticising it, it is a
cultural fact. That is why I don't believe in harmonisation regulation across the European
community. There are strong cultural differences between us and I can't explain it; it is
just a fact.
SC:
So what do you do about it?
AWS:
Well, we have strict rules. We observe this fact, we monitor what people feel about
language and we are very careful about it. And so will the broadcasting authorities. In
fact, it is cynically used, if we say to a film maker that we are going to give them a
certificate that is one that they don't want, for commercial reasons they sometimes put
bad language in, in order to raise the classification. They would rather be in a fifteen
than a twelve, for whatever commercial reasons. The main line film distributors would
rather have a fifteen than an eighteen, because they want a family audience.
SC:
The British board is financed by the film industry is it not?
AWS:
It is in this sense: film makers and video producers must get their products classified
and they pay for it. It's a tariff and we charge by the minute, how long is the feature
and it is the same cost whoever you are. The industry finances classification.
Dave in Salford:
I am an avid movie collector, have been for years. I heard you saying that The Exorcist
is up for review. I just hope that if you do decide to give it a certificate that it is
going to be left in its entirety and not cut because it will detract from the impact of
the film, I feel. If it was going to be cut I would rather that they didn't release it.
AWS:
It's a very fair point. When I started this job I thought that cuts were often the
answer. When you come to do the work you see that... not really. Of course films are cut,
but it is not the easy option that it first appears. I have a lot of sympathy with what
you say. I particularly...am worried by the fact that, because the cinema is well
regulated, a film may be classified in a different way than its video version. The film
may have been in the cinema uncut and in the video cut. Sometimes the distributors might
submit to us a slightly different version for the video market. So, people like you for
whom this is a wonderful hobby, can buy the video version and you are disappointed to find
that the film you enjoyed in the cinema is just slightly different in the video version. I
have a lot of sympathy with people's problems with that.
SC:
The official line, I read about The Exorcist- the most popular horror film of all time,
2 Academy Awards, is coupled to successive social problems, the latest being satanic
child-abuse. The censorship of The Exorcist has been a running battle between the British
Board of examiners and your predecessor and you decide to review it after all these years
despite being, you are quoted as saying, "not being the kind of film I normally
watch". The unofficial line I read is that this is an example of the collusion, in
Britain between the censor and the censored.
AWS:
Well the fact is this, The Exorcist was launched again in the cinema, it has long been
available in the cinema. It started in Scotland and it has come down to England, and it
seems to me, given the vast amount of discussion of this very famous film, that it was
ridiculous for me as a new President to have it in cold storage and not get it out and
review it- even though, then the distributor hadn't asked for a video version. I thought
we should have a look at it. I viewed it and I asked the examiners to start the normal
process of reviewing it. Since then the distributor has asked for a video release and it
is now in the system and will emerge quite soon.
SC:
Why The Exorcist particularly? Why has this been such a protracted discussion?
AWS:
When it arrived in the cinema 25 years ago, it had the biggest impact that any film has
had for a very long time, in terms of its ability to horrify and frighten people. People,
famously, fainted, rushed out of the cinema, there was a sort of hysteria about the film.
It still retains the power to frighten young people- you meet people who say: it is the
most frightening film I have ever seen, I wouldn't like to see it again, people still say
that and it's 25yrs old. Some of the effects, of course, look a little ancient by today's
standards. It still has that power. Maybe it's not so much the effects as the notion of
being possessed is the really frightening thing.
SC:
There are other movies which have not been passed by the censors, not necessarily under
your stewardship, but I read that there are films which would not have been passed if they
had been submitted by a sex film distributor, but it has been passed because it is being
distributed by the British Film Institute- because of different audiences. The inference
being that, if it is shown to the right audience, middle class intellectual and not grubby
people in raincoats, it is different somehow.
AWS:
First of all, in the viewing process itself, in the examination process, we don't
really know who submitted it. We have the title, all the documents, and so on. Reports
that accompany the process, it is highly documented as it should be, we just write about
the film, nobody asks the question 'who submitted it', it's not of any relevance really.
Secondly though, you do have to ask yourself what is the likely audience for something,
and my judgement on Crash was that the likely audience was not going to be of a kind...
the film addressed the audience in a way which wasn't going to generate antisocial
behaviour, but there are those that do so you are always concerned with the audience. What
is the likely audience? Thus , if it is a foreign language film that has got subtitles,
you know that that reduces the likely audience greatly- and that is a factor in the
process of arriving at a judgement.
SC:
What does the latest research tell _you_ about the influence of images and imagery on
people's behaviour?
AWS:
Well, the latest research, which is Home Office research into young offenders and their
viewing habits, of videos, shows that people with a violent disposition already will:
spend more time with violent videos, watch them, more often and six months later remember
them more clearly. From that you can suppose, but you can't prove, that it will validate
their behaviour, and reduce whatever barriers there are to violent action. You can
'suppose' it exacerbates the situation, but you can't prove it.
SC:
And certainly it decreases sensitivity...
AWS:
If you don't have a violent disposition, which is most people, it makes no difference
to you at all. It doesn't 'make' you violent but if you already are it can make you worse.
Chris calling in:
I work in the computer games industry and I was wondering what criteria censors use to
rate games.
AWS:
Games come under our perview only if they contain material which is likely, in the
words of the Act,...you know, deals with violence or horror or sexual behaviour or
whatever. Of course, many games don't and they won't do. We view them in precisely the
same way, the Act is the same, there is no difference in the legislation, there isn't
special games legislation and the basic test is, is this going to harm the user directly,
or society through the actions. Obviously the famous example recently is Carmaggedon,
which give points for running people over and which we thought might create antisocial
behaviour. The people who made the game exercised their legal right to appeal against our
decision and it is obviously very good that there should be an appeals procedure, and they
won the appeal, so that is the result.
SC:
Because people were hardly likely to go out in their cars and run people over trying to
score points.
AWS:
Well, this is the point. There is a lot of joyriding- particularly in Northern Ireland
we hear a lot about this and people are killed in joyriding incidents and the question is
do you think that will generate that sort of behaviour. It is the sort of judgement we are
asked by the law to make.
Les in Bristol:
I have a couple of points. I went to see The Exorcist not so long ago and I think that
time softens a film. Because as a general public, we advance as a society, and our views
change. There are certain bits in The Exorcist that people were just rolling about
laughing. They had a thing on the news about when it first came out and there were priests
coming upto the cinemas, counselling people after, stuff like that, I mean, we were just
laughing! It was hilarious.
AWS:
I think that's a very good point. That is partly what we will be engaging our minds
in.Whether you are correct about that. I don't know whether you are or not but it is a
very valid point I think. In the cinema at the moment is The Texas Chainsaw Murder,
another very famous, never allowed onto video, and I will take myself off to see it
shortly for the very reason you give. It is now a very ancient production and the context
in which we live rather forms our view of these things- and the context is different.
SC:
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, banned on film and video, it is supposedly an analogy of
the American defeat at the hands of the Vietcong, according to its maker Tobe Hooper,
but he's probably closer to the mark when he says 'it is about meat'.
The official line is "an outrageous, revolting film which shows the pornography of
terror", the unofficial line is that: it has surprisingly little graphic violence,
James Ferman has made repeated attempts to cut it for an 18 certificate, but he has always
been stymied by such intangibles as "macabre atmosphere" and the film's
"mental terrorisation". What does these terms mean?
AWS:
I havent read the reports and I havent seen the film but I mention it because I agree
with Les, when life has moved on and generations have moved on, one sees things in a
different way and it is quite possible that this will be the case here, it may not be the
case, I just don't know, but I think I need to give myself a chance to see.
SC:
Do you brace yourself before you go in?
AWS:
I do a bit, especially with one that is so famously violent.
Les:
I'm a big Star Trek fan and I've just been to see the latest film and one of the things
that concerns me is the standard of... when somebody says 'we don't like that bit cut it
out', how badly some films actually look on screen. There was one certain part of the film
where there was a face-lifting exercise going on, on an alien creature and the editing was
so bad it was as if it was done with meathooks, now, do you tell the film maker, 'Edit
this' or do you edit it?
AWS:
If there is bad editing there, it is down to the film makers not to us. We give the
makers lists of cuts... we tell them what the problem is and ask them if they could adjust
the film to deal with our reservations, but it is up to them to make the change.
Maisie from Weybridge via fax:
Good to hear that an influential member of Britain's censorship body is a balanced
logical person. I feel the rules concerned with sex within the media are fine. There are
rules that limit the link between sex and violence, which is the most disturbing, and I'm
satisfied with that. However, the censorship of violence in films, I feel that ther could
be tighter controls. I can't give you suggestions on how this could be done. The film that
comes to mind, that disturbed me, was an American film called Goodfellas. Andreas, are
guidelines for violence being looked at?
AWS:
They're not being specifically looked at, at the moment. We have recently reviewed the
guidelines- and part of the point of the roadshow was to get peoples reaction to our
guidelines and the people who came to our nine meetings were asked to, and they did,
filling forms and indicate what they agreed with and what they didn't. That didn't suggest
that we should change them but I have instituted a regular review of the guidelines and
they will be looked at, probably annually, in the light of experience. I can't say that at
the moment we have plans to alter the guidelines as far as violence is concerned.
Nick via fax:
Given that one of the purposes of censorship is to prohibit the showing of films or
video that lead to antisocial behaviour, could your guest tell us how many of the film
examiners he employs have gone on to be satanic child-abusers and the like, as a result of
watching the films that we aren't allowed to see.
AWS:
Heh-heh. This is a very good question. It is about the effect of watching material on
the professionals who do it. First of all, I think that any job one does affect one. You
get a mind of a particular kind. I have already got a tiny bit of a censors mind. I can't
any longer go to the cinema ordinarily and not just notice censorship points. It is the
way everybody's mind works. As to whether it hardens your mind, or the opposite happens, I
think it varies from person to person. James Ferman himself says that he is less tolerant,
he has become less tolerant of violence, it has worked that way for him. Other people it
can be the opposite effect. I think age has something to do with it, speaking of myself. I
took up this job aged 60. One's character is so set by that age that one is less likely to
be dramatically affected than if one was 25, that's all.
Tony via fax:
I have a couple of points on the subject of pornography. I feel that in the days of mass
communication and the Internet, censoring film and videos is a little pointless. Within 30
seconds I can view so-called hardcore images on my home computer and I can receive films
from Europe via satellite, and can order videos from abroad. The reason we can't view
pornography in this "free country " is because no MP wants to be associated with
a bill to relax the law. It would be political suicide and the MP would be ridiculed by
the public and his peers. The strange thing is that an Internet search engine showed that
50% of all searches on the Internet is for pornography, so it isn't even the case that a
moral majority want it kept under wraps. It seems that we are free to do whatever we want
so long as the moral minority say that it is acceptable. Who is to say that Page 3 is
harmless but x-rated videos will corrupt viewers? In a free country, we should all be able
to make our own decision about what we want to see. The only restriction should be that
anyone taking part in the film should be willing to participate and old enough to make the
decision to do so. As for children watching them, how about parents taking their jobs
seriously? In Japan, films that would be banned here are freely available but the Japanese
seem a ble to distinguish between fantasy and reality. And those Scandinavians are known
for their violent hatred of women aren't they? No they are not. A quick question for your
guest: after viewing so many banned films has he become an axe-wielding lunatic, I'll take
the answer as no. So why is it assumed that the populous in this country will all be
corrupted? To sum up; why is it that I can make love with my partner in all sorts of ways
but I can't watch others doing it on film? Which century are we approaching the end of? It
doesn't feel like the Twentieth-Century. With that I'll go, and drape that tablecloth a
little lower over the table legs, lest I become aroused.
AWS:
Well, a lot of points there. The first one is there is undoubtedly an unregulated
fringe. There are videos sold which have not been licensed by us. In London, you can go to
Camden Lock Market and buy a video of a film which is not yet, supposedly, in video, you
could buy the video of Titanic the day after it opened in the cinemas, let alone buy
things which would never be classified by us. So there is an unregulated fringe and the
Internet adds to that, there is no question. One should note that less than 10% of
households in this country are capable of linking themselves to the Internet and receiving
these images , so it is important not to get that figure out of proportion. Whenever you
have regulation you have an unregulated fringe, when you have customs duties, you always
have smuggling. The question is whether that unregulated fringe is so large and powerful
that it is making a nonsense and a mockery of the regulated...centre, if you like. That is
a risk because, I suspect that the unregulated video market is getting a bit larger and
it's certainly a risk because of the arrival of the Internet, if I say that less than 10%
of households are linked, that figure is rising very quickly- but I am not so gloomy about
the regulation of the Internet as some people are. First of all, I don't think it will be
long before anybody with an Internet site has to have a sort of electronic label on it, if
you can imagine that. The result of this is that if the site is not labelled it then you
wont be very easily able to access it. I think one should view the Internet like a sort
of, you know like he Cold War a sort of armed struggle between the people who want to get
stuff out and the people who want to regulate it. It will be down to the makers of
software, whether you can filter out things which you don't want your family to see and
that is the way it will go I think.
Paul in London:
I can't remember the name of your guest, but I want to ask him if he knows what the
story was behind the release of the film A Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick. When I was
at college I had a general studies teacher who tried to get the video from the US, in fact
he got the video and we were going to watch this and the whole subject was censorship
because it wasn't available in the UK. Unfortunately, and we didn't know at the time, if
you bring a US video into the country you can't watch it because it is a different
television system, so we never actually got to see it in the end. But from what I can
understand id that it was Stanley Kubrick who decided that it shouldn't be released in the
UK.
AWS:
As far as I know you are correct. Kubrick has not allowed it to come into the video
market and , finally, if a video distributor doesn't knock on our door and say, 'please
classify this', there is nothing we can do about it. As we mentioned before in the case of
The Exorcist, I thought at least we should have a look and that the knowledge that we were
having a look caused the distributor to come forward and ask for classification. Finally,
we are reactive, we are not active.
SC:
Again we have an official line and an unofficial one. This is from an article published
in the Guardian last September; The official line is that Kubrick, who co-owns the British
rights withdrew it after a year on release in the West End and ever since, those who want
to see it make a pilgrimage to Paris. The unofficial line is that the most likely
explanation is Kubrick got fed up with the film being a political football. It has also
been suggested that Kubrick received death threats to his family and his relatives. The
bottom line is Paul, if you want to go and see it, until Andreas is asked to classify it,
you have to Paris.
AWS:
One shouldn't give too much status to what is called an unofficial line, the unofficial
line is generally journalists sitting behind word processors wondering what to say and
putting down the first thing that comes into their heads.
Dave in Suffolk:
A couple of observations on people getting involved in censorship, especially TV
companies. I watched Fatal Attraction and the scene of Glenn Close and Michael Douglas in
the kitchen was removed, but the scene at the end, which was fairly violent, was kept in.
I don't know why they decide to do that
AWS:
In the case of television, first of all they do their own... they make their own
decisions using the 9 o'clock watershed as their chief regulatory device. Secondly there
are often a variety of prints of a particular film around and for all I know they may have
bought a version that was adjusted for television. They obviously notice what we do and,
they take a lot of notice of it, indeed, but finally, it is their decision and you do get
some disparities and contradictory results between the television and the cinema and video
markets.
Norman in Somerset:
Being a father and a grandfather, this new cult video South Park I'm a bit concerned
about the crudity of the language that is used in it and I want to know why, you only gave
it a 15 certificate.
AWS:
Well, I hope you'll forgive me for saying I haven't seen that one. I would be surprised
if we... because as I said before the language, in a way, is the easiest thing to monitor
and we can write precise rules, I would be surprised, indeed distressed if I found that we
had wrongly classified it. But I haven't seen it and your question prompts me to ask 'are
we sure we did the right thing with that video'?
Norman:
In my opinion you haven't done so. It is basically a story in cartoon form, of
children. One of the characters in each of the stories gets killed. The language in it is
not rude, it is absolutely crude. They use modern idioms and I just wonder whether your
censors are aware of the content within this programme.
AWS:
Oh look, the censorship procedure is extremely painstaking. The examiners work in teams
of two, so it is not just one person on his or her own. If there is any disagreement
between them, or any doubt in their minds, a second team of examiners looks at it. If it
seems at all a difficult question, the entire examining body watches the work in question.
The Director and others are asked to give an opinion and that is quite often, maybe a
hundred times a year or something, then I as President and the Vice-Presidents are also
asked to have a look. So, it is a pretty painstaking process as you can imagine. In any
organisation if there is doubt, they like their seniors to have a look. They are not
inclined to make very controversial decisions on their own.
SC:
I've seen a bit of South Park and it is a bit near the knuckle. And you will be pleased
to note Norman, that Andreas has taken a note of South Park. Andreas, how long are you
going to put up with all of this.
AWS:
It is difficult thing to say you are enjoying a job when it means you have got to look
at things you wouldn't normally want to watch, but the issues are extremely interesting, I
have been forced to think very deeply about violence and violence on screen, and sex
obviously but I am talking about violence, what re the circumstances under which we should
take action and when not to. It depends always on the context, upon the resolution of the
film, it depends on a whole variety of circumstances. Also there is the rather interesting
and difficult question of very frightening and disturbing movies where a lot of the action
is actually off screen, it is all suggested. It is almost as if it is in front of your
eyes, when in fact it isn't. There is a film in... at the moment... in the cinema Funny
Games, which is a perfect example of that. A very frightening and worrying film about a
family being terrorised on holiday, which we gave an 18 certificate to, but as a matter of
fact the terror is all suggested. you don't see anything explicit in violence terms. I
enjoy the job because I have been made to think very, very hard about these question, I
have been made to wonder about the state of public opinion and how it shifts. I have been
made to wonder about the national differences we talked about earlier- why we should be so
sensitive to the bad language and I greatly enjoy working with the 20 examiners and the
rest of the staff, because, obviously their reports are not published and shouldn't be,
they are written for a particular purpose but they are very insightful, and if my film
critic friends will forgive me I get much more out of reading one of their reports that I
do reading about film criticism in a newspaper.
SC:
Thanks Andreas.
