Should the "12" certificate in the
cinema become advisory? This would mean that parents would decide whether children below
the age of 12 would be able to attend films classified for the 12-to-14 age group. At
present, the rating is mandatory. Under 12s are not supposed to go to "12"
movies even if accompanied by their mother, their father, their grandparents and the local
priest.I write "not supposed" because a certain amount of dodging goes on. Friends
have told me how they took, say, 11-year-old Sophie or Euan to see The Mummy despite its
"12" rating and have dared me to disapprove. I don't cluck my tongue because,
frankly, the "12" rating does have problems. The maturity of children at around
that age varies widely and parents are the best judges of their robustness. And cinema
staff, too, cannot necessarily distinguish between an 11-year-old, for instance, and a
13-year-old, just by looking.
Moreover, the "12" rating is still highly restrictive.
Billy Elliot,
in many ways a natural "12" was classified at "15" because of the
extensive use of four-letter words, albeit in a conversational rather than aggressive
manner. The rule at "12" is that strong language should be rare and justified by
context. As to violence, there should be no dwelling on detail and no emphasis on blood
and injuries. Sexual violence can only be implied or briefly indicated and in any case
without physical detail. Likewise, sexual activity may only be implied. Sexual references
must do no more than reflect standards set by sex education in schools. There can be
horror movies at "12" but limited to occasional gory moments. Similarly,
references to soft drugs or scenes where soft drugs are used must be brief and few in
number. They must be justified by context and indicate the dangers. Hard drugs are off
limits.
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was classified at "12"
because the considerable violence was cast in the form of stylised martial arts. It is
always a consideration to what extent form distances violence from the viewer. To take a
different example, the excellent Australian film, The Dish, seemed to me
to be a sort of modern miracle because of the almost complete absence of sex and violence.
The "dish" refers to an Australian radio telescope which found itself playing an
important role in the American moon landing.
Here, the decision went the other way. The Dish would have been a PG
(parental guidance) except for one bit of bad language; this raised it to the
"12" category. Another example of a "12" is Pearl Harbor,
which seems to be as big a commercial disaster for the makers as the actual event was for
the American navy. The Mummy Returns, now for me indelibly associated
with Lady Thatcher ever since her ponderous reference to it, is also, like its
predecessor, a "12".
As it happens, a good illustration of the difficulties of the mandatory "12"
is coming up. Lara Croft Tomb Raider, rated "12", will open
shortly. This is a big-budget film version of a successful computer game. It is a story of
a quest for a magic device which gives the possessor the power to control time. The
acrobatic, all-guns-blazing Lara fights an evil society - as well as passing robots - for
its possession.
Large numbers of youngsters, whether or not they have quite reached their 12th
birthdays, will want to go to it for they have already seen the Lara Croft character on
computer screens. As a matter of fact, though, the version submitted to the BBFC did
conflict with the rule that "realistic and contemporary weapons should not be
glamorised". The main problem concerned shots emphasising the attractiveness of flick
knives. The film company took the board's concerns seriously and brought the movie into
line with the "12" guidelines.
There are, however, major problems confronting any plan to make the "12"
certificate advisory. One is the issue of accompaniment. It is difficult to write a rule
which ensures that under 12s will be accompanied by a parent or responsible adult. At the
box office window, the cinema staff have no way of ascertaining whether the older person
who presents him or herself is indeed the parent or nominated by the parent. Insisting on
adult accompaniment might encourage some kids to ask complete strangers to take them into
desired movies.
When older readers of this newspaper were young teenagers, using a willing stranger to
get one into a forbidden film was a recognised practice and I don't remember any reports
of harmful experiences. But those days of innocence have passed. Paedophiles might see an
opportunity. Is there any way of designing a satisfactory accompaniment requirement?
Another issue is consumer information. If parents are to decide whether to let younger
children go to a "12" rated movie, they need to know what sort of film it is.
The board provides consumer advice on its
website for
every film and video passed. But the board has no power to insist that the film and video
industry uses it in its advertising. Until now, the cinema distributors and owners have
been unenthusiastic.
A further question is the manner in which the board should proceed in exploring the
case for a change. The frame within which the board operates is the law. In the cinema,
the most relevant statutes are The Protection of Children Act 1978, The Obscene
Publications Act 1959, the 1937 act which makes it illegal to show any scene involving
actual cruelty to animals and the new legislation on human rights.
Within these bounds, the board sites its detailed guidelines and these govern
individual classification decisions. The important point is that the board's guidelines
are designed to reflect public opinion as closely as possible. In a sense, the board has
no view of its own. It does what it believes the public, particularly parents, wish it to
do. In turn, cinema owners can operate only if they have a licence from the local
authority, an invariable condition of which is that the board categories be observed
unless the authority makes an exception for a specific film.
How, then, to test the proposition that "12" should become advisory rather
than mandatory? I think, the question must be put in the following form: would parents
approve a relaxation in the rules provided that useful consumer information about
individual "12" category films was readily available? Of course, this begs the
further question whether better information can be provided. To this end, the co-operation
of the cinema owners and distributors and involvement of local authorities will be
essential.
There are signs that this can be secured. And once the board can put the question in a
form which ties in better consumer information, then the methods used to test public
opinion can be used again. It may also be possible to organise an experiment, perhaps
lasting three to six months, in a single local authority area. The bottom line, however,
is that the board will not make a permanent change unless satisfied the public approves.
Public opinion will have the decisive say.
