Die Hard Attitudes about the
Simpsons |
| Al |
Letter to the BBFCI have some queries regarding your
policy regarding different versions of the same work. I saw today that the commentary for
the episode of The Simpsons titled Simpsons and Delilah had been cut as
follows:
To obtain this category cuts of 0m 15s were required., some or all of these cuts were
substitutions. The cuts were Compulsory. Compulsory cut required to sexual references in
order to keep work in line with previous 'U' category. Reclassification policy does not
permit two differently rated versions of works passed after July 94.
I have a few questions:
- Has the policy changed recently? I am thinking of various examples of commentaries rated
higher than the main feature (e.g. Airplane, Rocky). My understanding was
that commentaries were considered as separate works.
- The "passed after July 94" bit puzzles me - according to your database, this
episode was originally classified "U" on 4/9/92 and hadn't been resubmitted
since.
- This question is more concerned with the policy of two different versions classified
differently: does the policy take into account the passage of time? For example, Die Hard
With A Vengeance was recently released on DVD in its cut version (as far as I am aware).
When released in the cinema, it was given a 15 certificate after some cuts on 18/8/95.
I was a world-weary 19 at the time, but since any impressionable then 15-year-old would
now be at least 21, is there no leeway for a film-maker to submit an alternative version
at a later date and get a higher rating? It seems to work fine in reverse, e.g.
Apocalypse
Now (18) and Apocalypse Now Redux (15). There are also films
such as Spaceballs and Romancing The Stone which have
recently been re-classified as 12s (previously PGs) after cuts were waived.
|
| BBFC |
We can certainly understand your confusion - this can be a
very difficult area even for us. The situation is further confused by the fact that
arriving at a satisfactory and consistent position on the issues thrown up by DVD has
taken some time. However, following extensive discussions with the Home Office, our
lawyers and LACOTS (the Trading Standards body) throughout 2000 and 2001 we believe that
current policy, which was formalised in Spring 2001, is now consistent. these discussions
- which were quite difficult - revolved around complicated legal arguments about the
definitions of video works and video recordings under the Video Recordings Act, and what
the Video recordings Act does and does not allow. With regard to works classified before
Spring 2001 (several of which you mention) we're afraid we simply have to put our hands up
and say that, whilst we were still feeling our way around, it is entirely possible that
decisions were taken that would no longer be allowed.
Firstly, THE SIMPSONS. There are a few BBFC policies to bear in mind here (all of which
are up and running now and, we hope, consistently applied). Basically if a work has been
classified since 1st July 1994 (the date on which the category system was last amended to
include a '12' on video) then the category last awarded to the work cannot be amended
whatever happens. However, if the work was classified before 1st July 1994 it is possible
for us to consider amending the category (if it is no longer "reasonable and
defensible") only if the submitted version is somehow different to the previous
version (eg a longer version, different ratio etc). The constraint that the work must be
somehow materially 'different' to the previous version stems from the Video Recordings Act
which states that, once a certificate has been awarded to a particular video work, it
CANNOT be amended under any circumstances. In order for a work to receive a different
classification (that was classified pre-1994) it must be a different version for the
purposes of the VRA (widescreen, uncut, extended version, shortened version, differently
panned and scanned, etc). However in this case the only 'difference' was that there was an
audio commentarywhich, under the VRA, is now known to NOT be a sufficient difference to
allow a different classification. So, we decided it had to be a 'U'.
As for ROCKY and AIRPLANE these decisions were taken before policy was finalised and would
NOT be allowed now. It should also be borne in mind, however, that the decision to rate
ROCKY '12' was in part a pragmatic response to the distributors' mistake in releasing the
audio commentary without submitting it to the Board.
As to ROMANCING THE STONE and SPACEBALLS we do not now, as you know, normally allow a
different version at a different category. Sometimes it is possible to allow a little
leeway based on whether (a) the cut was actually fairly minor (eg one use of the word
'fuck') and (b) whether it was taken so long ago that the original version is no longer -
to any significant degree - on the shelves. Normally this is not allowed to happen,
however, and since the examples you mention were allowed before current policy became
formalised it is possible that they would not be allowed now.
APOCALYPSE NOW is a completely different kettle of fish. We're not bothered about works
being downrated (see THE TERMINATOR and THE WICKER MAN for other examples) since all this
means is that a work previously only considered suitable for adults is now suitable for
mid teens by present standards. No younger viewers are being offered the forbidden fruit
of an uncensored higher rated version...
|
|
Nights of Terror with Thieves |
| Jonathon |
To Customs
Let me first introduce myself. My name is Jonathon; I'm 27 years old and an avid film fan.
I have a massive (and some would say stupid) collection of movies on DVD, Video and
Laserdisc. I have been a film fan all my life and have been collecting movies for nigh on
15 years! I have many varied tastes, from horror to comedy, from Kung Fu to romance. Over
the last few years I have seen this country become more and more liberal towards the film
media. Finally realising that movies such as Exorcist and
Texas
Chainsaw Massacre are what they are, movies! Nothing more, nothing less. Allowing
these (and many other previously banned and cut) movies to finally get their official UK
release has made it a very liberating time to be a film fan.
However, on Saturday 19th January 2002 I received a notice of seizure from your Dover
offices, dated 17th Jan, Ref no 457419 (Seizure officer L. Reid). The package that was
sent to me from the Netherlands contained 4 DVDs, 2 copies of Zombie 3
and 2 copies of Emmanuelle and the Last Cannibals. One of each of these
DVDs is for my own personal collection. The second copy of each film was for my best
friend's birthday, which was on Friday 18th of January. These DVDs were ordered on the
17th December 2001, and I was hoping to receive them in time for his birthday,
unfortunately it looks like I'm not going to receive them at all.
I have found this seizure very annoying and in my opinion unjust. I have therefore
gathered as much information as possible and hope that you will revert your decision and
release these DVDs to me.
On Monday 21st Jan, 11:00am, I contacted your Customs Postal Department (Mr, R Joy) and
enquired the reasons why these DVDs have been seized. The information I was provided with
was as follows:
* Emmanuelle and the Last Cannibals - Scenes of cutting off of a nipple
and various flesh tearing.
* Zombie 3 - Cannibalism and Decapitation.
I was also informed that to determine if a film is allowed into the UK, the BBFC is
contacted and should the film in question not have a BBFC Certification it would not be
allowed in to the country. This judgement, in my opinion is outdated and limited to say
the least. The reasons for this is as follows:
- The BBFC will only ever have a classification of a movie if a distribution company
intending to distribute them to be sold in high street stores has submitted it to them.
- The BBFC could also have passed the movie with an alternative title, which would make
this method of querying very inaccurate.
- The film in question could also be in the process of being passed by the BBFC. This
means
- That a film that is not allowed today may very well be fine tomorrow.
Under this rationale, it seems that it is prohibited to import any film that a
distributor has not seen fit to decide to release in this country. Surely this cannot be
right?! This would mean that any unknown movie to the BBFC is essentially banned!
I contacted the BBFC directly after this conversation (11:24am Monday 21st Jan) and spoke
to David Barrett (Public Relations Manager) who was most useful. He was quite surprised
that the titles got seized, as importing DVDs for personal usage shouldn't under the norm
be so closely scrutinised unless Customs and Excise have some specific problem with the
titles. In my discussions with Mr Barrett, we discovered that Zombie 3
has in fact been passed by the BBFC as the title Zombie Flesh-eaters 2,
this was found not to be the correct title though as it has a different director and cast.
Further investigation shown that the film on the DVD I have had seized has indeed got a
certificate, under the title Nights of Terror. This was heavily cut (by
13:17), as it was classified during the video nasty period on 17/11/1986. This film,
should it be resubmitted for classification is most likely to get an uncut 18 rating as we
have become more of a liberal country now and several other titles with similar
cannibalism and decapitation themes (Zombie Flesh-eaters 2 and
Zombie
Creeping Flesh to note two titles in the last few weeks) have subsequently been
released uncut, and contain more gruesome detail than the Zombie 3 I am
trying to obtain. In the case of Emmanuelle and the Last Cannibals, this
film is currently in submission to the BBFC (by distributor Dark Vision/Orbit Video), and
it is currently in the process of obtaining a certificate.
Nonetheless to this reasoning, I am importing these DVDs purely for personal usage, no
intention of re-sell, rental or distribution. A copy of each title is purely for my
personal pleasure; the second copies of each title are intended as a gift for a friend's
birthday. Is this a crime?
At this stage of things, I am not requesting a court audience, I don't believe this is
necessary, you may have a different view and I am quite open to those views. If my only
option is to go to an Adjudicator, then I will consider that. My preference is that you
can review your decision in this case and let me know the outcome. I would appreciate
response within 7 working days, as the time limitations you place with the notice of
seizure are tight enough without further delay.
I would also like to request where your information to the content of the movie has been
received (I am guessing that the films were viewed by one of your officers). I did not
obtain that information at the time of the call, I assumed it was from the BBFC, but they
informed me that they cannot give that kind of information, only whether a film has a
classification or not. Also, does Customs and Excise have any specific criteria when
seizing films?
I assume, that you have viewed these films and based on criteria set out by someone has
made a decision to its suitability for importation. If so, can I please get a copy of
these guidelines? Also, if guidelines exist, how old are they? Do they incorporate the new
criteria supported by the BBFC? If there are no available guidelines, how do you base your
decision? The BBFC have mountains of psychiatric resource that determines what is safe
viewing and what isn't; do you rely upon similar resource to base your decision?
I know my personal opinion doesn't come into this, but I do believe this is a breech of my
Human Rights. I feel that you are dictating what I am allowed to watch, and I know I can
make that decision by myself. You are currently preventing a film fan his greatest passion
and hobby, to watch and enjoy movies, and at the same time preventing my good friend from
having a birthday present.
|
| T Thirkettle HM Customs |
I have consulted with our Criminal Justice and Pornography team who have
overall responsibility for the import prohibition on indecent and obscene material. They
have advised me that both titles are deemed seizable as they are the strong uncut
versions.There is no exception for goods imported by post for personal use.
The DVDs remain seized.
|
Can't British television get
erections straight? |
| Stephen |
You may have noticed that over the last couple of years network
television programmes in the UK have (where relevant) made a point of referring to the
restrictions made on their explicit depiction of human genitalia and activities to do with
sex......the Channel 4 programme charting sex-education since the Fifties observed:
"it is perhaps a comment on how far we have progressed in the last thirty years that
we can only show scenes from [Martin Coles'] films *which were shown to schoolchildren in
the 1970's* if they are censored..."
...Robert Winston, in the episode of his Human Body series which dealt
with sexual development observed that although it was okay to discuss the erect penis it
was explicitly forbidden to screen images of one...
...in the recent series Taboo Joan Bakewell made a lengthy explanation
of the same point...
...in a discussion of the film Sebastiane Derek Jarman spoke at length
of "the problem of the hard-on..." when the film was screened by Channel 4...
...and anyone who has watched a series like Real Sex or
Sex
for Sale will have seen the very large blurred discs which travel around the
screen covering both male and female genitalia and the focus of sexual activity
depicted...
BUT...
...while Derek Jarman was discussing how they avoided screening the "hard-on"
in Sebastiane that very scene from the film was clearly running on the
large film screen behind him...
...elsewhere in Taboo Joan Bakewell, while examining sexually explicit
magazines at a licensed sex shop, turned the open pages towards the camera while turning
pages of photographs of fellatio, intercourse and erections...
...Robert Winston continued his discussion of penile erection accompanied by film of
the offending member only lightly overlaid with a thermal image...
...in a feature on adult clubs in Australia, Sex for Sale ran a
lengthy sequence in a gay club depicting several men fondling or sucking each other while,
on a raised area behind, a man watched while masturbating...
(These are the few instances which spring to mind while writing - no doubt there have
been many more disrepancies than this which I have missed or have seen but not recalled.)
Can a Melonfarmer put their finger on the rules which explicitly proscribe depiction of
the erect penis on network television, or is the "Mull of Kintyre" rule a sham?
What is the penalty for transgression? Has it ever been levied? Are all the networks (who
strive to incorporate the concept of sex into anything possible) too spineless to make a
stand (sic) for what they evidently *want* to show? Where do the rules state that still
images are Art or Science, but moving images are Pornography?
Or is this yet another case of British Bullshit - deliberately fudging the issue to
make it as vague as possible - a practice which is designed to favour the "powers
that be" in all instances - a practice for which the British laws on censorship are
justly notorious ( the only element of 'justness' in them)?
|
| Highlander |
Apparently there is a difference between live images and still images,
the latter appears to be more acceptable when showing erection and this also applies
to hardcore porn when it is shown on TV. The first time I had seen erect penis, along with
intercourse and oral sex on British network TV was in a film called
Hardcore
starring George C Scott, I think it was BBC2 or Ch4 over 10 years ago, in the film there
was a scene when a woman investigating the disappearance of a girl went to an adult shop
and she leafed through a porn magazine and it shows very clearly intercourse and oral sex.
The only live images of penile erection (without thermal images) are in the film
Sebastian,
though that might be just semi-erect.However British TV did show full on erections,
that is not "network" but on digital and satellite, nontheless it stil British
TV. The first time erection is shown are the Lovers Guide on the Adult
Channel some 7 years ago and was followed by several other adult sex education films on
the same channel.
More recently the documentary Under the Knife which shows a man with
"a bent dick" who undergoes operations to have it straigtened have to have
seline injected into his penis to make it erect and viewers could see an erect penis
lasting for some 15 minutes while it is disected and sewn up.
On mainstream TV we recently had Sex Sense on the Discovery Channel
(which is still being broadcast) and on several episodes there were closeup images of
erect penises including one which shows how the foreskin peels back drawing arousal, these
were all shown in minute details.
However inspite of this subject there is hardly any showing of the women's vagina,
unless it is in the context of childbirth this appears to be a bigger taboo than erection,
the only sight of women's genitalia are often just the external vulva and very
superficial. According to censorship laws in the UK, the erect penis should be comparable
to an opened vagina. We did
see opened female genitalia in the Ch4 documentary
Vagina and recently in
Designer Vaginas but apart from these it wasnt if ever shown on TV not
even Discovery Channel's Sex Sense dared to show a live image of a split
beaver eventhough they were happy to show erect penises. These are very strange censorship
rules with a hint of double standards.
|
| Michelle |
I worked, albeit at the lowest admin level, at BSC some years back and
can clarify a few points that the guy was asking about.
Firstly and probably most
importantly to keep in mind, the BSC don't go looking into programmes without a report
from the public (or in some cases reports in the press). You can therefore conclude that
the progammes the guy mentioned, would need to be reported to BSC. Naturally, anybody
watching these shows would most likely be interested in the subject and it's content and
are therefore highly unlikely to report the programme, as this would impact upon future
broadcasts by the channel involved.
Of the programmes mentioned, I only viewed the Taboo programme and I
can clarify that if reported, this would definetly (I don't think things have changed too
much since my BSC days) be in serious breach of broadcasting standards. You also have to
remember that all the programmes mentioned, may have been reported! When I worked there,
cases averaged around 3 months to conclude and sometimes as long as 6.
|
| Highlander |
To Michelle
It is true that the BSC like the
ITC will only look into a programmes only when veiwers complained to them but things have
indeed changed over the years and more TV companies have begun putting far more risque
materials, you only need to look at the BSC website and you know how many times people had
complained about nudities on TV and how often the BSC did not upheld viewer's complaints.
Over the last 12 months I had posted two complaints to the BSC, not because I object to
censorship which I am totally against, but because of the programmes that was shown one
featured graphic penile enhancement surgery which was Broadcast on Channel Health
throughout the day from 8.00am and repeated throughout the
day every 3 hours, and on a programme
Horizon on BBC Knowledge about male
circumcisions which featured a group of men naked having a bath and feature up close
their genitals, a infant male child distress and undergoing circumcision and a freshly
dissected foreskin of an adult being prodded in a lab. Normally Horizon
when broadcast on BBC2 it comes on after 9.00pm watershed but when shown on BBC Knowledge
its on from 10.00am and gets repeated every 3 hours. My complaints to the BSC was not
because of the contents but rather the time these two programmes was shown when children
can see and should have been shown after 9.00pm, I felt the channels concerned was
irresponsible. However the BSC did not upheld my complaints because their opinion was
these programmes was treated with "sensitivity" and was shown in minority
channels, I find that startling because does that means the BSC consider minority
channels, that is all digital channels, to have a seperate censorship laws to that of
terrestrial channels? What do the BSC make of the premium adult channels if they broadcast
their contents free on air throughout the day because they also fit into the category of
minority channels? In another word the BSC dont really have a clue and unless the media
start making noises about something only then they would react. Personally I think the BSC
would not have acted against Taboo because the programme was shown after
9.00pm and also because viewers are aware of the contents, maybe there should be an
uncensored version after 11.00pm, but I am waiting for the repeats of the show on
BBC Knowledge or BBC Choice so I can watch it while having lunch with the family.
|
Die Hard Box Set |
| The Melon Farmers |
A slightly misdirected mail which should rightfully be targeted at the
distributors. However it does make a good point in that voluntary censorship may make
commercial sense on a case by case basis. However such decisions appear pretty stupid when
applied to box sets designed to appeal to the informed collector.
|
| Chris |
Email to the BBFCCan you tell me why you are
releasing the first two Die Hard films in a DVD box set, but not the 3rd
film? Whereas the USA have released all three films altogether in a 6 disc box set.
Please don't tell me you have done this, so you can cut the 3rd film AGAIN! so you can
give it a 15 certificate, !? The first two films are certificate 18, why are you doing
this? there is no point !
if you are doing this, I for one will not be buying the product, due to your shear
stupidity, and neither will the majority of the UK customers, as the people that buy this
, would be true die hard fans. You are digging yourself a hole in the ground, I will be
purchasing a true Die Hard box set from another region!
A very unhappy UK DVD fan.
|
| BBFC |
What does or does not appear in a box set is a matter for the
distributors to decide rather than the Board. There is no way in which the Board could
'prevent' the third film in this series appearing in any box set. DIE HARD WITH A
VENGEANCE has, of course, already been classified '15' for video release (in a cut
version) so there is no need for it to come to us again for DVD approval.
As for the cuts made to gain the film a '15' certificate, this was a commercial decision
taken at the time by the distributors, not by the BBFC.
However, seeing as the BBFC does not allow different versions of the same film to exist at
different categories the DVD will also have to be the cut version. However, any complaints
about this 'cutting for category' should be addressed to the distributors rather than the
Board. It was their decision - made for purely financial reasons - rather than ours.
If you wish to buy the box set from the US, that is entirely a matter for you and, of
course, completely legal. Perhaps if people refused to watch films that had been cut in
order to obtain a particular category then companies would stop this practice. However,
box office revenues suggest that such cutting increases profits rather than the other way
around.
|
| Shaun Hollingworth |
Hello BBFC,
On the Melon Farmer's web site you are reported as stating:
> However, seeing as the BBFC does not allow different versions of the same film to
exist at different categories
Why on earth not for goodness sake ? That seems a bit unfair to say the least...
> the DVD will also have to be the cut version.
Even less fair, given that DVD and VHS are different formats...... And recognisably so by
users and resellers... I really don't think you do your case for censorship any good, by
imposing unnecessary restrictions/conditions such as these...
> However, any complaints about this 'cutting for category' should be addressed to
the distributors rather than the Board.
Well, given that you won't "allow" them to offer an "adult" or
enthusiast version, that REALLY isn't entirely true is it ?
> It was their decision - made for purely financial reasons - rather than
ours.
Probably because you PROHIBIT them from offering two versions of the film to the
public.... WHY PLEASE ?
Surely there would be nothing wrong with allowing different versions of the same film,
with different classification levels to be available..... Say: "Die Hard 3 v15"
and Die Hard 3 v18" In fact they would be different films, as the content and title
were subtly different..... having "v15|" and "v18" appended to the
title..
It seems to me, that you perhaps impose such restrictions to make your own job easier, and
that of law enforcement easier... Some, who it seems to me, are really not all that
bright....judging by some of the things they do.... (and perhaps therefore shouldn't be
heavily involved in what is, after all, a definite and admitted restriction of human
rights...)
However I singularly fail to see why different versions of the same film/video cannot be
available to different target audiences, of different ages, if it is practical, and
commercially viable for the copyright vendor to do so..... I'd be very interested in the
answer to this one....I think we need to switch to the kind of censorship imposed on
the citizens of Sweden, Denmark, Spain, France etc.... It seems that anything more really
is neither necessary or justified......
|
| BBFC |
Thank you for your e.mail. Although we appreciate that you will not agree
with our position - regardless of what we say - I will try to set out the rationale behind
our current policy in this area. As the article on Melon Farmers suggests, current BBFC
policy states that we cannot classify 'different versions' of a work at 'different
categories'. The reason for this is twofold.
Firstly, having differently classified versions of a film on the shelves creates
enforcement problems for trading standards officers (a view
endorsed by the Home Office, Video Standards Council, British Video Association and
Trading Standards organisations). A retailer faced with the existence of differently
classified versions of the same film is more likely to become confused and to end up
providing the wrong version to the wrong people, which may result in significant
difficulties for the effective enforcement of the Video Recordings Act.
Secondly - and more importantly from our point of view - by classifying a higher rated
version than the original, children who have seen the original may be tempted to seek out
the 'forbidden fruit' contained in the 'uncut' version, say from an older sibling or
friend. This raises issues of harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, which
requires the Board to consider the likely audience for a work. In such a case a younger
audience will already have been established and we cannot 'tempt' them with unsuitable
material in a different version of a film they already know.
Of course, there have been a small number of occasions in the past (particularly under our
previous Director) when the Board has allowed
different versions of films to exist at different categories. But these instances occurred
before current policy was clarified. It became clear to us that a formal and consistent
policy was required shortly after DVD was introduced as it seemed likely that we would be
facing the problem of alternative versions and resubmissions of previously cut works more
frequently than before. At the time (1999), the Board did write to all distributors asking
whether they agreed with this policy or whether they would like to argue for a more
lenient position in view of DVD. Sadly the response to our consultation was very poor and
the majority of companies who responded endorsed the Board's position (as did the BVA and
VSC).
As for your suspicion that the Board takes this position to make its own job easier, this
is complete nonsense. From a technical point of view it would of course be very easy for
us to classify two different versions - and would possibly even increase the Board's
income. The dual reasoning behind our policy is simply harm and enforcement. And, as we
said, the distributors don't appear to disagree with us (contrary to what you seem to
think about the rights of 'copyright vendors').
Regarding your disagreement with our statement that cuts 'for category' are the decision -
and therefore 'fault' - of the distributors themselves, we have been over this ground with
you before. If a company chooses to edit their work to make it appeal to a younger
audience and maximise their profits then, put simply, they can't have their cake and eat
it. As for your assertion that the DVD market is somehow 'different' to the VHS (and
cinema) market, this simply has no basis in law (the Video Recordings Act makes no
distinction between tapes and discs).
I hope you understand now the reasoning behind this policy even though - inevitably - you
won't agree with it.
|
| Jon |
What the BBFC reply doesn't say is that the rights for Die Hard 1 and 2
are held by 20th Century Fox. However, the rights for Die Hard with a Vengeance are
held by Buena Vista in this country. Without the distribution rights, Fox could not
have produced a complete box set even if they wanted to (and I bet they did want
to). In the states, Fox hold the rights to all 3 films and hence, were able to
produce a complete box set.Although we are often correct to ascibe sinister censorship
motives to companies' decisions, in this case its simply a matter of 'ownership' rather
than any other, more sinister motives.
|
| Paul |
- Bearing in mind the BBFC response ref the desire not to have 2 versions of a film in
circulation, it seem ironic that this very box set will contain an uncut version of Die
Hard 2 while the VHS p+s version is a 15.
- I wonder whether the BBFC have a position on the routine cutting of violent films for
earlier showing on the terrestrial TV stations. I have often sat amused watching a hacked
to pieces version of Beverly Hills Cop at 6pm on a Bank Holiday Monday on prime time BBC1,
wondering who thought that simply cutting the swear words out would somehow make this film
wholesome family entertainment. Surely a version watched by millions on BBC1 will have
entered the nations subconscious more than the few hundred thousand who saw it on video
and the cinema. How many kids have grown up thinking that it was a family film, and been
shocked to discover that its got swearing of mammoth proportions when they caught a
version on SKY or video. Furthermore, how many parents have bought the film for the kids
because they liked that nice Eddie Murphy and his muddy funster catchphrase when the film
was shown on Boxing Day?
The answer is not very many, because this simply isn't a problem. That the BBFC have
chosen to make it one is their mistake, and I can't express how disappointed I am that the
film companies didn't make strenuous complaints to the BBFC about this. You'd think they'd
be keen as custard to sell us two versions of the same film.
- Whats gonna happen to The Exorcist. I'm guessing that as long as the rating doesn't
change, you can have as many versions as you like, right?
|
| Alan |
I've just read Shaun Hollingsworth's
letter to the BBFC and their response.
Maybe I've missed something here, like a restrictive meaning of
"film", but the BBFC certainly used to certificate Electric Blue's mildly
naughty videos in both 18 and R 18 versions, the latter being slightly more revealing
(i.e. the 18 version cutting shots in which the vagina was clearly visible, but perhaps
including an extra model to make up for the resulting cut in time).
|
| The Melon Farmers |
This is a good point particularly as sex videos are still cut for 18
whilst an uncut version may co-exist at R18. I guess the explanation is that the 12,
15, 18 versions of the same film are prohibited because they theoretically may lead to
under-age viewing. This is not the case for 18 & R18 versions co-existing.
|
| Paul |
Well I spotted a very
recent exception, This time Its the Disaster spoof,
Airplane. Both
the Widescreen closed caption video release and the DVD with director's commentary were
classified as recent as 23 April, 2001. Both have the same aspect ratio and run time (84m
3s) and reported as having no cuts yet the video was given a PG (unchanged from previous
releases of the film) However the DVD was hit by a 15 cert. I assume that the actual film
itself is identical and the only difference being the director's commentary which they
might of objected to.
|
| The Melon Farmers |
Of course by BBFC logic, the 15 certificate will be ignored anyway
because the film has already been marketed to a general audience.
|
| Andrew |
Email to BBFCI have been following the debate regarding the
Die
Hard box-set at melonfarmers.co.uk and feel compelled to ask you some questions
on the subject.
You steadfastly maintain the stance that you are not responsible for the cuts made to,
for example, Die Hard with a Vengeance,stating that 'any complaints about
this "cutting for category" should be addressed to the distributors rather than
the Board. It was their decision - made for purely financial reasons - rather than ours.'
I see this as a rather skewed perspective of the truth. Certainly, the distributor is
the one choosing to cut BUT only after you classified the film '18'. You pretend thatyou
had to classify Die Hard with a Vengeance '18' because you are
followingthe strict rules of the Video Recordings Act. In reality,
classificationisyourlargely arbitrary decision based on the Video Recordings Act which is
such a grey area that you could make any decision and it is very unlikely to be challenged
(unless it was in radical opposition to the basics of the Act). I guarantee that had you
classified the uncut version '15' there would have been no dispute whatsoever. What you
fail to mention is that YOU chose to classify the film '18', YOU told the distributor what
to cut to make the film a '15'. The distributor chose the cuts, but only within the
confines of a situation YOU created for them. In light of this, surely it is YOU who
should answer to complaints about 'cutting for category' sinceYOUR choices directly caused
the distributor's predictable decision to cut. Is this not the case?
You base your classification onthe degree to which a film might harm a likely audience;
so in effect we have a situation in which a handful of people are making fickle,
groundless judgements that have lasting, rigid and important damaging effects on the
freedom of British citizens. Regarding the release of multiple classifications of a single
film, you state in one response that 'the Board did write to all distributors asking
whether they agreed with this policy or whether they would like to argue for a more
lenient position in view of DVD.' What about asking the British public? The people you
exist to serve. Why is it that you listen to and adapt to the wishes of profit-hungry
distributors and ignor the pleaing public for whom you were created? We wantto buy anuncut
version of Die Hard with a Vengeance in our own country and you are
stopping us; if you did not exist we would not have a problem obtaining our uncut copy, so
without passing the buck, please give me a good reason as to why you will not allow usan
uncut Die Hard with a Vengeance. Why will you not implement a policy that
ensures all classified material must remain uncut, for example?
|
| BBFC |
It seems you have already read our reasons for not allowing the
simultaneous existence of cut and uncut versions on the Melon Farmers website - i.e. (1)
harm and (2) enforcement difficulties. We have nothing to add to this position. There is,
however, an important distinction between 'compulsory cuts' (i.e. cuts the Board would
insist on at any category) and 'cuts for category' (i.e. cuts the Board suggests in order
to achieve a particular certificate). Of course, the latter type of cuts ARE insisted on
by the Board, but ONLY because the distributor wishes to achieve a particular category.
That is their choice and their right - it is after all their 'product' and one in which
they have invested a lot of money. This practice of cutting a film to achieve a particular
certificate has always existed and happens in other countries as well (eg. many films are
cut in the States to achieve an 'R' rather than an 'NC-17'). If the Board refused to
provide this service, the distributors would merely cut their own films prior to
submission - and probably remove even more than was necessary to ensure the film was
classified at the desired level. So your suggestion that the Board should refuse to cut
films for category is a non-starter, however frustrating some people might find this
practice.As for your assertion that the Board's decisions about what category a film
should be are "largely arbitrary", we're afraid you are quite wrong. All our
decisions are based upon our published guidelines - which are displayed on our website for
anybody to see - and which were arrived at after a thorough process of public
consultation. We cannot simply give the distributor whatever category they want because
this would conflict with our guidelines and, by implication, with public opinion. It would
also make a complete nonsense of classification. If a distributor wants a '15' but under
our guidelines (and in line with public opinion) their film warrants an '18' then they
have a simple choice - accept a higher category or make cuts. This is not a matter of the
Board making "fickle groundless decisions" - it is a matter of the Board
allowing the distributor to reach their target audience whilst also ensuring that what
hits the screen at '15' is acceptable to the general public (and not harmful to persons of
the targeted age).
And as for not allowing a subsequent release of the uncut version, we have already
explained (in the response reproduced by Melon Farmers) how this would undermine the whole
point of making the cuts in the first place. The audience already created (by the
distributor) for the cut version will be tempted to seek out the uncut version, thereby
creating the possibility ofharm amongst those whom the cuts were made to protect.
|
| Sampath |
I thought I'd make my contribution to the very interesting debate on your
site about the BBFC's "no dual rating" policy. The following is an e-mail I sent
off to the BBFC and their reply. As you can probably see it's all swings and roundabouts,
and clearly the BBFC is convinced they are correct to persevere with this policy. Also I
note that the Board clearly admit that for example Cherry Falls is not
unsuitable for under-18s. Why is it then I wonder, if you look at the packaging, it
insists it is "suitable only for persons of 18 years and over." Doesn't seem to
be much ground for interpretation does there? And if parents are to understand that one
18-rated film is actually perfectly fine for their 15-year-old kid, what are they to
understand about any other 18-rated fare? Of course the solution for this would be for
them to spare us the legal mumbo-jumbo and make the certificates purely advisory with
clear and unambiguous advise for parents - but that is an entirely separate debate....
But at least it is good to see they take the time to respond to queries such as this.
Letter to the BBFC:
I have been following with great interest the debate at www.melonfarmers.co.uk on why the
BBFC refuses to allow different versions of films to exist with different ratings. I draw
your attention in particular to the following reason given by the BBFC for this policy:
Secondly - and more importantly from our point of view - by classifying a higher rated
version than the original, children who have seen the original may be tempted to seek out
the 'forbidden fruit' contained in the 'uncut' version, say from an older sibling or
friend. This raises issues of harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, which
requires the Board to consider the likely audience for a work. In such a case a younger
audience will already have been established and we cannot 'tempt' them with unsuitable
material in a different version of a film they already know.
So the BBFC is effectively claiming that awarding the video version a higher certificate
will actually make it more attractive to under-aged viewers rather than less attractive.
To me this reasoning appears to be at odds with the justification for another of the
Board's policies - namely the classification of the same version of certain films at one
rating for cinema but at a higher rating for video (which I believe is a requirement of
the VRA). Surely the very fact that the video version of, for example
Copland,
Starship Troopers or Con Air, is rated 18 when the
cinema releases were rated 15 brings the "forbidden fruit" (as you put it)
factor into operation - i.e. 15-year-olds who saw these films at the cinema may be tempted
by the 18-rated video versions and actively seek them out. I can only assume the Board
awarded these videos 18 certificates because it believed there to be a significant chance
of harm being caused if anyone under 18 viewed them at home. Whether or not the video
version actually contains stronger materials is a moot point, since not all videos
indicate whether they are 'uncut' or not; therefore under-aged viewers will have to go out
of their way to find out this information, which is not always readily available unless
they are aware of sites such as the Melon Farmers.
I am in no way suggesting that the Board should insist videos are cut so that they are not
rated at a higher category than at the cinema - I'm merely pointing out the apparent
contradiction in the Board's policies.
The same applies to DVD releases which carry a higher rating than the cinema release of
the film on account of the supplementary material being stronger (for example the DVD of
Jaws).
Again, under-aged viewers will be tempted by material which, according to the BBFC, has a
significant potential to cause them harm. I presume that at any rate the supplementary
material counts as separate works on their own right, and there is not a great deal the
Board can do to prevent separate works with different classifications being released on
the same disk. Again, I'm not suggesting the BBFC should insist on cuts to DVD extra
material to bring their classification in line with the main feature, however.
Finally I'd be interested to know if the BBFC received any complaints from parents,
retailers or trading standards officers regarding video works that were allowed multiple
versions in the past - for example Die Hard 2, Tango & Cash,
Spawn, and more recently, The Mummy. In other words,
what made the Board feel a change of policy regarding this was in order?
I must add that I applaud the recent markedly liberal attitudes displayed by the BBFC;
however your "no dual rating" policy remains a cause of much disappointment for
British film fans, as illustrated by some of the responses posted on the Melon Farmer's
site.
|
| BBFC |
The Board's Response:
1. It is actually quite rare for a film's cinema certificate to be raised for video (eg
CHERRY FALLS, STARSHIP TROOPERS). Generally this happens in cases where (a) there has been
a significant level of public complaints against the cinema certificate (as happened with
STARSHIP TROOPERS), or (b) where we feel that a stronger signal should be sent out to
parents because the possibility of underaged viewing is much greater on video at the
cinema. We would not assert, for example, that CHERRY FALLS is 'harmful' on video to 15-17
year olds who saw it at the cinema. It is simply a matter of ensuring that, given the
film's content, parents should be given an even stronger caution about letting younger
children (below 15) see the film. We do understand your point about the audience already
created at the cinema but, as we said, it is not so much about 'harm' to 15-17 year olds
in these cases as the need to send a stronger warning on video to parents.
2. As for DVD extras classified higher than the feature itself, you are quite right that
we have no (legal) grounds to intervene with what is in effect a completely different
work. That said, if any DVD extra includedm material cut from the feature itself for
category purposes, we would remove it. In most cases what raises the category of such
extras is bad language (foul mouthed stars and directors, etc!). So it is not so much an
issue of 'harm' as one of 'offence'. And most younger viewers will be attracted to the
main work itself rather than the extras. Provided the extras are clearly marked as
containing material unsuitable for the younger members of he feature's audience (i.e. by
the certificate), we believe the possibility of 'harm' in such cases is relatively
limited. And, as you stated, because of the way the Video Recordings Act is constructed,
classifying 'video works' (i.e. parts of a tape or disc) rather than 'video recordings'
(the whole tape or disc, there is nothing to stop two differently rated - and totally
unrelated - works appearing on the same disc or tape anyway.
As for complaints, no there haven't been any so far about multiple versions (eg THE MUMMY)
but there really aren't that many on the shelves. As for the origin of the current policy,
this was not so much a matter of changing existing policy as formulating a consistent
policy. What had existed before was a matter of the Board allowing different versions in
some cases and not in others on an individual basis. It became clear in 1999, however,
that policy needed to be clarified as because this was likely to become a much more common
problem with DVD.
|
| The Melon Farmers |
I have emailed the BBFC on the subject of alternative versions and I
think I have found a solution for at least DVDs. Several
recent DVDs have had their certificates raised due to the language used on the commentary
sound track. The DVDs of Airplane, Rocky and
Jaws
have all been raised from PG to 15 because of the commentary track.
The BBFC cannot
insist on cuts because the soundtracks are treated separately to the main feature. The
BBFC seem happy to increase the certificate for this reason even though the original
marketing of the movie was aimed at a general audience. This seems to me very
contradictory as by BBFC reasoning young kids will still want to see the film and will
ignore the certificate only to be morally stunted by the language they will get to hear.
The trick is for distributors to add enough 'fucks' to the soundtrack to ensure a 15/18
and resubmit the 15/18 director's cut. Surely then the BBFC can't sensibly argue that the
film should be cut to the original version.
|
