5th July
updated to
2nd October |
Destricted
From
The Melon
Farmers' Forum
 The BBFC have passed Destricted uncut with an 18 certificate giving
advice: with Strong Real Sex.
The film is a compilation of erotic shorts from various film makers
on the subject of sex and porn.
From Peter
Some of the films are said to be as explicit as an R18 and, to the
untrained eye, could be mistaken for one, so it does raise interesting
questions about the difference between art and porn.
Good on the BBFC giving it an uncut 18: an R18 for such a work would
have been a commercial disaster. Let`s hope that it really is the first
of a series, as suggested on the project`s web site
www.destricted.com
Review from
imdb
I just watched this film at Sundance. Clearly the most challenging
portion of this film for the audience was Gasper Noe`s use of strobe for
his part of the film titled We F--- Alone. A good fifth of the audience
cleared out during We F--- because they were bothered by the strobing.
During the Q&A following the film when asked why he used the effect Noe
replied, "Because it looks better." The style used in We F--- Alone may
not appeal to most audiences, but the premise of the film promised
shorts by director`s giving their impression of the world of porn and We
F--- Alone was obviously Gasper Noe`s take on the world of porn.
Other engaging portions of the film included Matthew Barney`s Hoist,
which involved a man having sex with a industrial machine lifted a dozen
feet off the ground; Larry Clarks Doc/ Porn, hosting try outs for young
men willing to satisfy their dreams of being a porn star; Marco
Brambilla`s amazing short splicing together frames from his own porn
collection. The rest of the other shorts mixed in seemed to lack depth
and were rather bland with the exception of Marina Abramovic`s vignettes
on superstitious Balkan sexual behavior which was very funny.
The movie is all that is promised and is an absorbing take on porn from
these artistic talents. This isn`t something to watch on a television
and should be experienced in the theater environment.
|
| 6th July |
Update:
Destricted Not Restricted
From
The Telegraph
Tate Modern is to hold the British premiere of one of the year's most
explicit films, a hard-core sex anthology billed as art. Destricted,
an Anglo-American production, is a two-hour compilation of seven short
films made by artists and independent film-makers who were commissioned
to explore the fine line where art and pornography intersect.
It features numerous acts of sexual intercourse. The contribution of the
British artist Sam Taylor-Wood, the wife of the Old Etonian art dealer
Jay Jopling, is an eight-minute scene of a man masturbating outdoors in
Death Valley. Another section shows a man having sex with the driveshaft
of a 50-ton lorry.
After considerable agonising, the BBFC granted an 18 rating for
Destricted this week, to be released uncut on DVD. But it said that
it must carry a warning that it "contains strong, real sex".
A source at the board described the film as "awful". Unusually, it was
not approved until it had been seen by the board's president, Sir
Quentin Thomas.
The board had considered granting an R18 classification, reserved for
work intended to be arousing. That would have meant that a Destricted
DVD could be sold only in sex shops and would have ruled out the
possibility of its being put on sale in the shop at Tate Modern, where
the film is to be given five screenings in September.
Sir Quentin said that Destricted was so explicit that it would normally
attract an R18 rating but he judged that it was a work of art not
intended to arouse: In purpose and effect, this work is plainly a
serious consideration of sex and pornography as aspects of the human
experience. We think that there are no grounds for depriving adults of
the ability to decide themselves whether they want to see it.
|
| 19th August |
Update:
Turnips at the BBFC
Based on an article from
Time Out
I'm
sitting in the offices of the BBFC talking about the dangers of
pushing a vegetable up one's backside. It's this precarious act
that artist Matthew Barney embraces in his new short film Hoist,
in which we see the director feigning sex with a throbbing industrial
machine while gripping the outer reaches of a turnip between his butt
cheeks.
Actually, we thought it might be a sugar beet, offers a
straight-faced Sue Clark, head of publicity at the BBFC, who is talking
alongside her colleague, Craig Lapper.
Hoist is one of seven 'porno' short films that producers Mel
Agace and Neville Wakefield have commissioned from seven artists and
filmmakers packaged together as the portmanteau film, Destricted.
Despite the film's ample cum-shots, copious hard-ons and irregular use
of a root vegetable, the BBFC has awarded Destricted an '18'
certificate – not the usual 'R18' reserved for hardcore porn. We
wouldn't describe the film as pornographic, explains Lapper:
One
of the Board's aims is to take account of the intentions of a filmmaker
and the film's likely audience. This wasn't a film intended to arouse
sexually. It's possible that some segments may have that effect on some
people, but the overall intention of the film was to explore the
boundaries between pornography, sex and art.
The BBFC enjoys a reputation for taking a sensible and liberal approach
to its work. Last year, for example, it gave an '18' to two features
containing scenes of real sex. One was Carlos Reygadas' Battle in
Heaven (blow-jobs); the other was Michael Winterbottom's Nine
Songs(bonking).
I think the Board puts more emphasis now than it did ten years ago on
the rights of adults to make their own decisions, suggests Lapper
when I ask him if the BBFC has become more liberal. That's come about
partly as a result of what the public has told us and also because of
increasing commitments under the law to do with human rights and so
forth.
In the past, even at the adult level, the board would intervene with
material on the basis that it was "disturbing" or "offensive" or
"tasteless". We tend not to make those kind of decisions now. It's more
about harm and legality. We do take into account public offence, but we
have to weigh that up against other considerations. So if something's
merely challenging or shocking, and if we're not convinced that there's
a harm issue there, we prefer to allow adults to make their own
decisions.
Interestingly, while the BBFC has been moving towards greater
liberalism, some odd exceptions have arisen when rating older work. Take
a recent DVD collection of episodes of The Benny Hill Show, for
example; the BBFC found that Hill was making jokes at the expense of
rape victims and awarded a '12' rating rather than the previous 'PG'.
When episodes of the '70s British sitcom Love Thy Neighbour
were released on DVD, the BBFC again opted for a hike from 'PG' to '12'.
|
| 7th September |
Update:
Destricted on Restricted
Release
Thanks to Peter
From the Times
Congratulations have to go to the BBFC for giving this an 18. Taken as a whole,
It certainly doesn't look like an R18 but it's as explicit as an R18 and one of
the films in the collection appears to have been taken directly from porn
film...
- Tate Modern London, from 6th September
- Curzon Soho, 15 & 16 Sept
- Cameo, Edinburgh, 15 & 16 Sept
- Cambridge Arts Picturehouse, 16 & 17 Sept
- Fact Liverpool, 18th Sept
- Barbican Centre London, 20th Sept
- York Picturehouse Brighton, 20th Sept
- Tyneside Newcastle, 20th Sept
- ICA, London 21st Sept
- IFI Dublin, 30th Sept
The DVD release has been set for September 25th 2006
|
| 2nd October |
Update:
Destricted Chart Success
at Woolies
Thanks to Matthew
I
was browsing the web today, as I'd been thinking of getting a copy of Destricted to see what the fuss was all about. And that's when I came across
the 'Woolworths' DVD chart...
www.woolworths.co.uk/ww_p2/browse/index.jhtml?cat=cat30136
Should 'Woolworths' really be stocking this title? I mean, they hardly ever seem
to have foreign titles on their shelves. Let alone hardcore pornography! Well,
it seems to have been a good move on their part - Destricted is at Number
5 in their DVD sales!! Brilliant. Lets hope 'Woolworths' continues to distribute
taboo-breaking material to the masses.
|
| 4th October |
Comment:
Destricted Chart Accuracy
Thanks to Jak
I'm
as shocked as most that Destricted is on sale at Woolies. However
it is not all good news.
The number 5 ranking on their charts is all bollocks. Several years back
I was looking for a CD that was due for release around that time. The
shop assistant actually took out a few weeks charts to see if it was
going to be released in the near future. I was shocked that Woolies
actually published charts in advance - how the hell could they know what
they will sell the most of!
So, great that Woolies have stocked the film and promoted it as a top 10
seller - just a shame that it might not actually shift that many copies
or even sell far more than the no. 1.
|
| 23rd August |
Cock-A-Doodle-To-DoThe Act states clearly that such films cannot be
exhibited in public, whether money is changing hands or not (section 3).
I am sure that would include Festival screenings, where members of the
public can attend. However, if you exclusively invited particular
individuals to come and see the film at a private location (to which
members of the public were not invited and could not apply to attend)
that would probably be ok.
I don't suppose there is much chance of change but it does seem a bit
over the top to censor classic and historic films when the industry has
moved on and would never show real cruelty anymore anyway. But it
certainly sounds a shame. Perhaps a word to an MP may help but it is
probably one of those issues that politicians would rather not get
involved with.
The uncut region 1 DVD is available at US
Amazon
From
The Times
 One
of the most eagerly awaited screenings at this year’s Edinburgh Film
Festival was cancelled last night after the organisers learnt that the
film violated a 70-year-old animal cruelty law.
Cockfighter, a brutal American drama set in the Deep South, was
shot on a shoestring budget and is notorious for its footage of real
cockfights. It made little impression on its release in 1974 but is now
regarded as a cult classic by many critics, who say that the
magnificent, brooding performance of Warren Oates as the cock trainer is
proof of the film’s merit.
Rarely shown in Britain, Cockfighter appeared to be an ideal
choice for the festival’s retrospective of obscure 1970s masterpieces.
However, according to the BBFC, showing it in public is illegal.
The festival organisers said that they were unaware of this until they
received representations from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA).
Of course it’s disappointing, Ginnie Atkinson, the festival’s
managing director, said. It is a very anomalous, strange situation,
because there is a genuine, historical context for showing it.
A spokeswoman for the board said that the film contravened the
Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 because the cockfighting scenes
were organised for the purpose of filming. There’s nothing the
festival organisers could have done. The Act makes it illegal to show
any scene which was organised or directed for the purpose of the film
involving actual cruelty to animals. If you cut the cockfighting scenes
from Cockfighter it doesn’t have anything in it.
Cockfighter had a gala premiere at the Edinburgh Film Festival in
1974 and was shown at the National Film Theatre in 1995. Both screenings
were illegal, according to the BBFC. The film is not available in this
country because it has never been classified in Britain, but it can be
bought on DVD abroad and imported.
|
Review from US
Amazon
Warren Oates plays Frank Mansfield in 1974's Cockfighter. Although outlawed in most states, cockfighting was
legal in Georgia, and Oates portrays a top trainer. However, Mansfield
is also a deeply flawed man whose success leads him to recklessness. On
the night before a major fight, he impetuously enters a cockfight that
ends badly. At that moment, he takes a vow of silence, which he will not
break until he can regain his position in the sport. Throughout most of
the movie, therefore, Oates is mute, with his thoughts serving as
narration.
Warren Oates is truly great in this role. His weathered face and ability
to portray unsympathetic characters in a likeable manner bring great
authority to this film. Although perhaps best known for his appearances
in Peckinpah films (The Wild Bunch, Ride the High Country),
he also did extraordinary work in a number of lesser known 1970's films:
Two-Lane Blacktop, Badlands, Rancho Deluxe.
Director Monte Hellman was a collaborator with legendary producer Roger
Corman, and he's simply one of the most underappreciated filmmakers of
the 1970s. He specialized in spare, low-key character studies, such as
Two-Lane Blacktop (1971). This film is so vibrant because of his
talent for using naturalistic settings and minimalist direction. His
style is perfectly suited to this script, which was adapted by Charles
Willeford from his novel of the same name. The book is out-of-print, but
Willeford is a marvelous writer of noir and gritty fiction.
Despite being a solid character study, the film is probably of limited
appeal. For the most part, the sport of cockfighting (if you consider it
a sport) serves only as the background, and the characters drive the
film. However, the sport is presented in an unflinching manner. The
bloody and violent aspects of cockfighting are not glossed over in any
way. Thus, this film is definitely not for people who are squeamish or
extremely passionate about humane treatment of animals. In ways, though,
the film is reminiscent of Peckinpah, who made violent deaths in The
Wild Bunch seem almost operatic in their grandeur. Watching the
cockfights depicted here is almost sickening, but Hellman manages to
capture their bizarre magnificence as well. If you can set aside your
distaste for the topic matter, then you will be treated to some great
acting and directing and a truly unique cinematic experience.
|
5th July
updated to
19th August |
Destricted
From
The Melon
Farmers' Forum
The BBFC have passed Destricted uncut with an 18 certificate giving
advice: with Strong Real Sex.
The film is a compilation of erotic shorts from various film makers
on the subject of sex and porn.
From Peter
Some of the films are said to be as explicit as an R18 and, to the
untrained eye, could be mistaken for one, so it does raise interesting
questions about the difference between art and porn.
Good on the BBFC giving it an uncut 18: an R18 for such a work would
have been a commercial disaster. Let`s hope that it really is the first
of a series, as suggested on the project`s web site
www.destricted.com
Review from
imdb
I just watched this film at Sundance. Clearly the most challenging
portion of this film for the audience was Gasper Noe`s use of strobe for
his part of the film titled We F--- Alone. A good fifth of the audience
cleared out during We F--- because they were bothered by the strobing.
During the Q&A following the film when asked why he used the effect Noe
replied, "Because it looks better." The style used in We F--- Alone may
not appeal to most audiences, but the premise of the film promised
shorts by director`s giving their impression of the world of porn and We
F--- Alone was obviously Gasper Noe`s take on the world of porn.
Other engaging portions of the film included Matthew Barney`s Hoist,
which involved a man having sex with a industrial machine lifted a dozen
feet off the ground; Larry Clarks Doc/ Porn, hosting try outs for young
men willing to satisfy their dreams of being a porn star; Marco
Brambilla`s amazing short splicing together frames from his own porn
collection. The rest of the other shorts mixed in seemed to lack depth
and were rather bland with the exception of Marina Abramovic`s vignettes
on superstitious Balkan sexual behavior which was very funny.
The movie is all that is promised and is an absorbing take on porn from
these artistic talents. This isn`t something to watch on a television
and should be experienced in the theater environment.
|
| 6th July |
Update:
Destricted Not Restricted
From
The Telegraph
Tate Modern is to hold the British premiere of one of the year's most
explicit films, a hard-core sex anthology billed as art. Destricted,
an Anglo-American production, is a two-hour compilation of seven short
films made by artists and independent film-makers who were commissioned
to explore the fine line where art and pornography intersect.
It features numerous acts of sexual intercourse. The contribution of the
British artist Sam Taylor-Wood, the wife of the Old Etonian art dealer
Jay Jopling, is an eight-minute scene of a man masturbating outdoors in
Death Valley. Another section shows a man having sex with the driveshaft
of a 50-ton lorry.
After considerable agonising, the BBFC granted an 18 rating for
Destricted this week, to be released uncut on DVD. But it said that
it must carry a warning that it "contains strong, real sex".
A source at the board described the film as "awful". Unusually, it was
not approved until it had been seen by the board's president, Sir
Quentin Thomas.
The board had considered granting an R18 classification, reserved for
work intended to be arousing. That would have meant that a Destricted
DVD could be sold only in sex shops and would have ruled out the
possibility of its being put on sale in the shop at Tate Modern, where
the film is to be given five screenings in September.
Sir Quentin said that Destricted was so explicit that it would normally
attract an R18 rating but he judged that it was a work of art not
intended to arouse: In purpose and effect, this work is plainly a
serious consideration of sex and pornography as aspects of the human
experience. We think that there are no grounds for depriving adults of
the ability to decide themselves whether they want to see it.
|
| 19th August |
Update:
Turnips at the BBFC
Based on an article from
Time Out
I'm
sitting in the offices of the BBFC talking about the dangers of
pushing a vegetable up one's backside. It's this precarious act
that artist Matthew Barney embraces in his new short film Hoist,
in which we see the director feigning sex with a throbbing industrial
machine while gripping the outer reaches of a turnip between his butt
cheeks.
Actually, we thought it might be a sugar beet, offers a
straight-faced Sue Clark, head of publicity at the BBFC, who is talking
alongside her colleague, Craig Lapper.
Hoist is one of seven 'porno' short films that producers Mel
Agace and Neville Wakefield have commissioned from seven artists and
filmmakers packaged together as the portmanteau film, Destricted.
Despite the film's ample cum-shots, copious hard-ons and irregular use
of a root vegetable, the BBFC has awarded Destricted an '18'
certificate – not the usual 'R18' reserved for hardcore porn. We
wouldn't describe the film as pornographic, explains Lapper:
One
of the Board's aims is to take account of the intentions of a filmmaker
and the film's likely audience. This wasn't a film intended to arouse
sexually. It's possible that some segments may have that effect on some
people, but the overall intention of the film was to explore the
boundaries between pornography, sex and art.
The BBFC enjoys a reputation for taking a sensible and liberal approach
to its work. Last year, for example, it gave an '18' to two features
containing scenes of real sex. One was Carlos Reygadas' Battle in
Heaven (blow-jobs); the other was Michael Winterbottom's Nine
Songs(bonking).
I think the Board puts more emphasis now than it did ten years ago on
the rights of adults to make their own decisions, suggests Lapper
when I ask him if the BBFC has become more liberal. That's come about
partly as a result of what the public has told us and also because of
increasing commitments under the law to do with human rights and so
forth.
In the past, even at the adult level, the board would intervene with
material on the basis that it was "disturbing" or "offensive" or
"tasteless". We tend not to make those kind of decisions now. It's more
about harm and legality. We do take into account public offence, but we
have to weigh that up against other considerations. So if something's
merely challenging or shocking, and if we're not convinced that there's
a harm issue there, we prefer to allow adults to make their own
decisions.
Interestingly, while the BBFC has been moving towards greater
liberalism, some odd exceptions have arisen when rating older work. Take
a recent DVD collection of episodes of The Benny Hill Show, for
example; the BBFC found that Hill was making jokes at the expense of
rape victims and awarded a '12' rating rather than the previous 'PG'.
When episodes of the '70s British sitcom Love Thy Neighbour
were released on DVD, the BBFC again opted for a hike from 'PG' to '12'.
|
| 30th June |
Extreme
Films Research
From Martin Barker, to all
readers of Melonfarmers:
 Here
is a very rare opportunity. We are doing some serious research into how
audiences feel about, and respond to, films involving sexual violence.
And we really want to include your views. If you don’t have time to read
on through this message, then please at least notice this web address:
www.extremefilmsresearch.org.uk
I think quite a few of you will know my name, and that I have long
had an interest in issues around ‘effects’, and have been very critical
of a lot of standard claims about this. Well, partly as an outcome of
this, and of some other research I have done (on audience responses to
Straw Dogs), we have gained the funding support to mount a
research project from Aberystwyth into responses to five films which
gave the BBFC pause for thought. In four cases they made cuts, of
varying ‘strengths’. In the fifth case, they passed the film uncut. The
five films are:
A Ma Soeur
Baise-Moi
House on the Edge of the Park
Ichi the Killer
Irreversible
The idea we pitched to the BBFC, was for a project to find out how
actual (rather than possible or guessed at) audiences really felt about
and responded to these films – and in particular, how they felt about
the contribution that the scenes of sexual violence make to the films,
and what differences any cuts made to the films. One part of this
project involves the questionnaire which we have posted on a special
website. We are not assuming you will have liked, or enjoyed, or approve
of these films – in fact the whole point of the research is to try to
get all kinds of responses to them. But whatever your views on them, it
will help us greatly if you would complete the questionnaire, for as
many of the five films as you have seen.
The BBFC have guaranteed that we can publish the findings of the
research in any form that we choose. I will make sure that in due course
we let everyone know, via Melonfarmers, where and how the findings will
be published. The BBFC will listen to what we learn. It is then up to
them if and how this influences their future policy on films of this
kind. Our job is simply to make sure our research is strong and
reliable.
So, please visit the research website and complete the questionnaire if
you can – and tell other people, both in the UK and elsewhere.
Thanks very much
Martin
|
25th May
Updated to
22nd June |
Carry
On State Censorship
Press release from the
BBFC
BBFC President Calls For Forum To Consider New Media Regulation
 In light of the rapidly growing range of audio visual content on
offer via a range of media, the President of the BBFC, Sir Quentin
Thomas, has called on the Government to bring together commercial and
creative interests along with those operating the regulatory regimes to
consider how best to provide the public with the information they need
to choose which content they wish to consume and how to protect children
and vulnerable people from harm.
Writing in his introduction to the BBFC’s Annual Report Sir Quentin
said:
As the audio visual content on offer to the public grows rapidly,
with a marked diversity in the nature of the medium and in the means of
delivery or access, it is perhaps not surprising that some observers of
this dynamic but confusing scene conclude that there is little future
for regulation and the attempt to maintain it seems like attempting to
shut the stable door when the horse has bolted. At the BBFC we do not
share this view.
The BBFC’s Director David Cooke said:
We are putting a good deal of effort into researching, and speaking
to others about, the implications of the growth of new media for our
system of regulation. We do not argue for regulation except where it is
genuinely needed. But effective regulation has clear benefits: the
prevention of harm; enabling informed choices; creating a safe
environment within which to enjoy creative content. We regularly see and
deal with material, whether so-called ‘extreme reality’, abusive
pornography, or simply content which is unsuitable for the age group to
whom it is addressed, where our intervention is clearly necessary.
No-one should assume that such material will be confined to established
platforms such as film and DVD. Whether in a regulatory or an advisory
capacity, we believe we have unique expertise and experience to offer.
Sir Quentin said:
There is no doubt that regulation must serve a relevant social
purpose, and not needlessly be an impediment between the customer and
the services available. Regulatory regimes must command and sustain
public confidence and be fit for purpose. There is good reason for
thinking that because of the nature of audio visual product and its
potential impact the public is likely to expect some oversight,
particularly with a view to the protection of children. We believe that
there is also a strong commercial interest in demonstrating that product
in this field meets accepted standards. Nonetheless, the rapidly
shifting nature of the media scene, with new technological possibilities
means that these issues need to be kept under review. We welcome the
enquiry by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee into new media
and the creative industries and would welcome the establishment of a
forum perhaps under the auspices of the Department for Culture, Media
and Sport to advance consideration of these issues.
The BBFC 2005 Annual Report includes the accounts for the year along
with information about the work of the Board during the year. Copies of
the Annual Report can be obtained from the BBFC, 3 Soho Square, London
W1D 3HD or can be downloaded from the BBFC main website,
www.bbfc.co.uk
(select 'downloads' option on home page)
|
| 19th June |
Update:
Stupid Intervention
From
The Times
The Times has picked up the above story and added a couple of
comments:
Simon Davies, of Privacy International, which campaigns for freedom
of expression said It sounds like the most stupid intervention since
the registration of fax machines and photocopiers in communist China.
Sue Clark, a spokeswoman for the board, said that people should be able
to make informed choices about what to watch. Regulation, in this
case, doesn’t mean banning or cutting. It is about providing
information.
|
| 20th June |
Update:
BBFC Wackos
Based on an article from
The Guardian
Video
content on the internet could receive certificate 18-style
classifications from film censors under plans submitted to the
government today. The proposals could see web videos rated for language,
violence, sex and themes in the same way as films, videos and DVDs.
The BBFC said the huge growth of online video content risked making the
regulation of old media redundant as more and more people get access to
video over the internet.
Internet video has mushroomed in recent years, with the spread of
broadband and content-streaming technologies making downloading
high-quality footage easier. The video site YouTube sees 35,000 new
clips added and 30m clips downloaded every day, while it would take
almost 500 years to watch all the content currently indexed by Blinkx,
which claims to be the largest online video search engine.
Sue Clark, a spokeswoman for the BBFC, said the government should be
looking at ways of providing information to online viewers about the
sort of material they were being exposed to: If there's some sort of
standardised labelling system that people understand, then they know
that it's material they can trust.
And
shamefully
added: We don't want to go down the route of cutting and banning
things and blocking sites...BUT... a lot of the
content that's out there on the internet is not something the majority
of people would want to view. [...Which they WILL of course cut and ban...] She cited the example of
Terrorists, Killers and Middle East Wackos, a compilation of video
clips of actual killings and terrorist attacks. The compilation is
banned on
video or DVD in the UK because the BBFC believed it to contravene
the Obscene Publications Act, but it is freely available on the internet
through file-sharing sites.
And for an organisation that doesn't want to go down the route of
cutting and banning things, it has been reported that 27% of
softcore 18
certificate video works have been censored in 2006, along with 23% of
hardcore R18’s.
The BBFC wrote to the department of culture, media and sport last month,
asking the government to consider a system of classification. It said
that the most likely scenario would see them advising companies
providing video content on what material would be acceptable to viewers.
[BOLLOX BBFC, you mean acceptable to the Government
and to people who like to impose their views on others about what they
should be watching. Eg spanking videos are obviously acceptable to
informed viewers that choose to watch them, they are only not acceptable
to people who would rather you did not watch them. ie the Government,
nutters and censors!]
|
| 21st June |
Update:
More from the BBFC Wackos
Based on an article from
IT Week
Sue
Clark, a spokeswoman for the
shameful
BBFC said that people recognised that the internet may not be regulated,
...BUT... expected certain types of content such as films
to have passed through a classification process.
The BBFC knew of at least one distributor who sees video-on-demand as a
way of getting around its controls on pornography: This guy has
stated that he will be putting stuff out which the BBFC will not
classify. He has to be prosecuted to stop that. [It should be pointed out that BBFC are censoring and cutting hardcore
porn for a whole load of nonsensical reasons such as the the vague
possibility that ice or a dildo may possibly cause harm if used in a
whacky way by complete imbeciles. The BBFC view on what should be cut is
proving near worthless and surely does not automatically infer that the
cut material is obscene and liable to prosecution].
The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has set up an inquiry into
new media and the creative industries, which Clark hoped would lead to
legislation or the introduction of a voluntary industry agreement: We
have not asked the government to consider this because we think that it
necessarily needs legislation. It may be that the industry signs up to a
voluntary system. [As far as I can see the
creative industries committee is unsurprisingly more concerned with
licensing, IPR, DRM, piracy etc rather than worrying about censorship
concerns of nutters and film censors facing redundancy]
|
| 21st June |
Opinion:
Soho Square has got it Wrong
From
The Guardian
at
Bobbie Johnson's Blog which also includes a lively dicussion
According
to reports this morning, the BBFC says it envisages being able to censor
what is on the net.
In its annual report, the BBFC says it may be worth having a voluntary
system of rating - spinning off from its rankings of U, PG, 12A, 15 and
18 - that can help people surf the web safely.
According to the Times, it says: No one should assume that such
material will be confined to established platforms such as film and DVD.
Whether in a regulatory or an advisory capacity, we believe we have
unique expertise and experience to offer.
Outrageous, cry the web's hordes. Freedom is our watchword, and we will
not bow to censors.
It's a laudable position, of course, but one that's not entirely true.
Censorship already abounds on the net - just ask Google in China or go
back to Yahoo's continental court case about the sale of Nazi
memorabilia. We accept some forms of censorship, where appropriate, and
in many ways the BBFC recommendations are in this mould.
Web pages and content have the ability to contain tags that promote an
age rating. Parents can already employ web monitors like NetNanny to
shepherd their children online and block unsavoury or unwanted
information. Why not just crank up the regulation and make sure that
every site has a rating?
The problem with such schemes, of course, is that the internet is a
global phenomenon. How do you enforce censorship across nations? If you
force any material hosted on British servers to carry advisory ratings,
then some people would just move elsewhere (it's very easy to do). And
if you don't enforce the rules, then those who do want to exploit them
will just plough ahead and lie, or avoid the ratings altogether.
The ultimate problem, though, is how to regulate what people do in their
own homes; how parents interact with technology and with their kids.
While it's clear that an 18 certificate for a movie in a cinema stops a
seven-year-old child watching the movie on the big screen, the private
situation is far from clear. How effective, after all, is the 9pm
watershed? How many pre-teens have watched 18-rated DVDs at home? How
many kids play Grand Theft Auto with their parents' consent?
Even recent attempts to solve the conundrum have fallen foul of the very
people who would welcome the BBFC's comments. When the porn industry
suggested a .xxx domain name to house adult material (easily spotted by
nanny programmes and blocked by parents), it seemed like a fair idea,
but it was shot down by the Christian right - the same people who would
no doubt welcome the BBFC's proposals. Why? Because pornography should
never be legitimised, and creating a .xxx suffix would do exactly that.
So we're stuck in a world where the veto goes to those who want to have
their cake and eat it while ideas are flung about for forcing new rules
on producers and consumers alike. Any net censorship would be expensive
and almost certainly unsuccessful - and in any case, it would be far
easier and cheaper to teach people how to use the tools that already
exist. But that would just be too simple, wouldn't it?
|
| 22nd June |
Opinion:
Simply Not Wanted
Letter from Shaun to the BBFC
Dear
Ms Clark,,
Please tell your director Mr. Cooke, that many people simply don't want
your attempts at censorship of the internet...
I suppose he's looking for extra work and all that... In case it's
decided that video classification in the form of censorship isn't really
necessary.
BUT: In case you had not realised, the **Internet Watch Foundation**
already has the job of internet censorship, and we don't want any more
classification (which really means censorship) than that thank you very
much.
Also people don't believe you, when you (you=the BBFC) say you will
"just classify. " You will censor, and cut, like you have ALWAYS
censored, and cut, with your big scissors.
But censorship is beloved of repressive regimes the world over.
How would you censor content on P2P ? It is content on OTHER people's
computers, and changes all the time. What about stuff on foreign web
sites? What would you do if a work was "beyond" R18 or something ?
Anyway exactly WHO would be paying for all this? Are you going to do for
free, for your love of humanity and your desire to protect us all? I
doubt it.
It'll be Internet users I suppose? By an extra "fee" or internet tax I
suppose?
Well sorry but it simply isn't necessary and it isn't wanted.
Did you know that I've got two children aged 12, and 15 (next week) with
a connection to an 8mbit broadband connection ? Do you also know that
despite regular spot checks, I've never had to worry about anything they
have seen, such as explicit sex, because currently they simply are not
interested. The only things I would really worry about are chat groups.
How would you classify those?
Parents on a broadband Home network (including wireless networks) can
use VNC or similar programs to see exactly what their children are
doing, using another machine. They can see a copy of the kid's desktop
on another machine elsewhere in the house.
This is what I do. My kids can see when I am doing it (their icon
changes colour) so I don't need or want the BBFC to pre-vet to protect
my kids, when I can do it myself.
See:
www.tightvnc.com
|
| 14th May |
Telegraph Harp Back to their Golden Age of Film Scissorship
I wonder what prompted this story?
Based on an article from
The Telegraph
A record number of films containing extreme violence and explicit sex
are making it onto the big screen without any cuts.
Figures compiled by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) show
that during the past decade, less than 3% of the 4,951 films released
into cinemas have had to lose footage in order to get their preferred
certificate.
The drastic fall in the number of films requiring cuts, from a high of
27% in the 1970s, comes as a new generation of film makers compete to
push the boundaries of taste and decency.
Whereas in the 1960s and 1970s X-rated films were routinely cut on the
grounds of taste and decency, the board will now cut 18 certificate
films only if they encourage illegality or if the content is likely to
encourage someone to harm themselves.
In January, the BBFC allowed an unaltered version of the horror film
Hostel into cinemas even though, in its own words, it contained
scenes of "bloody violence, torture and strong sex". Eli Roth's film, in
which a group of wealthy Americans pay to fulfil their most depraved
fantasies, shows one character having his eyes gouged out, and was
denounced as "perverse" and "obscene" by some critics.
In 2004, when the number of films cut by the BBFC reached an all-time
low of 0.9%, the board allowed unaltered versions of Michael
Winterbottom's film 9 Songs into cinemas even though it featured
people having sex.
On its own website the board admits that such a decision would probably
not have been made 10 years earlier.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the BBFC required producers to make cuts to
around one in four films and, even in the 1980s, it was still requiring
content changes to 17% of mainstream releases.
So far this year, five films or 2.9% of the total released, have been
required to make cuts to get their preferred classification.
None of these films were 18 certificate and all made cuts to secure the
lucrative 12A classification rather than the 15 certificate.
The total amount of footage dropped amounted to two minutes and 54
seconds.
John Beyer, the nutter director of Mediawatch UK, which monitors the
work of the BBFC, has attacked its reluctance to take action. He said:
It is a free for all. Films should be classified by a body which is
not linked to the industry.
But Andreas Whittam Smith, the BBFC's president between 1997 and 2002,
said classification had to reflect the moral climate of the time: The
board should be guided by what the public wants. We shouldn't have a
situation where the board tells the public what it wants.
A BBFC spokesman said the board was in the business of classification
rather than censorship. We leave it up to adults to make up their own
minds about the films they see.
|
BBFC
discuss the 12A certificate for Casino Royale
Surely
off topic but I would hate to see the BBFC get disturbed from their
unvaluable work of censoring our hardcore.
The
police have also been sniffing around the concept of somehow enforcing
the repressive Video Recordings Act on download material. There is an
article about this in the Adult Industry trade paper, ETO. But really I
cannot even guess where they are coming from to suggest that the Act
applies to computer communications.
As
It is a feel-good romantic comedy in the traditional sense, with
break-ups and reconciliations alongside laughs and tears. But it also
has more real and graphic sex than any other film to be given a
certificate for the mainstream cinema.
Dare Devils at the BBFC
