BBFC News

BBFC advised category cuts were made for UK cinema and home video releases of Paul WS Anderson's Pompeii .

The BBFC commented at the time of the cinema release:

This work was originally seen for advice. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a 15 certificate but that their preferred 12A classification could be achieved by making some changes.

The company was advised:

• to reduce stronger moments of violence where there was a dwelling on particular acts and
• to reduce the emphasis on blood on bladed weapons.

When the film was formally submitted, changes had been made which addressed these concerns. Consequently, the film was passed 12A.

Now Movie-Censorship.com reveals that the BBFC advised category cuts were adopted for US PG-13 rated release and also for FSK 12 rated release in Germany. Presumably the BBFC cuts therefore apply worldwide.

BBFC advised category cuts similarly found there way into the worldwide Theatrical Version of Brett Ratner's Hercules . But at least in this case there was an Extended Version released on US Blu-ray which restored the cuts. The Extended Version is MPAA Unrated in the US but has not been released in the UK.

ATVOD recently published minutes from the September board meeting which predated the recent government censorship decree for internet porn.

The law was discussed at the meeting but this seems a little irrelevant after the law was published. Other related issues that cropped up were:

Secret Censors Pact

The Board NOTED the progress being made with development of a MoU with Ofcom and BBFC. Once finalised the MoU would be published and made available to Industry Forum members.

Move to censor the internet to the same level as TV

The Board AGREED that ATVOD should offer to provide Ofcom with the benefit of its expertise with regard to the work Ofcom is undertaking on a common framework for media standards.

You can run but you cannot hide

The Industry Forum meeting had supported working party proposals for a process designed to confirm whether an on demand service fell under UK jurisdiction. The Board DISCUSSED the details of the scheme. It was expected that the final scheme would be brought to the November Board meeting for approval.

Licence to kill the adult trade

The Board NOTED that there had been no recent communication from DCMS on proposals to consider the feasibility of a licensing scheme for foreign pornographic websites.

More censorship rules to follow

The Board AGREED that finalisation of ATVOD's additional guidance for adult providers should be put on hold until the new AVMS Regulations was introduced.

In league with the devil

BBFC presentation on 18, R18 and unclassifiable material 8.1

Murray Perkins, BBFC, attended the meeting and gave a presentation which included examples of material classified at 18, material classified at R18 and material which had been refused a classification.

On 1 December, the Communications Act 2003 was amended. The regulation of R18 pornographic content available on-demand in the UK will henceforth be subject to the same standards as those applied to pornography on DVD by the British Board of Film Classification, where I am a senior examiner. The amendment applies to those works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation, with the R18 category being a special and legally restricted classification primarily for explicit works of consenting sex, or strong fetish material involving adults.

While some non-pornographic films may contain material which raises issues comparable with those which might be found in sex works, and which may also be subject to cuts -- such as scenes of sexual violence -- there is no direct crossover between the standards for sex works and those applied to non-pornographic films.

Underpinning the BBFC guidelines is a specific requirement for the Video Recordings Act to have special regard to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers, or, through their behaviour, to society. This means that, before classifying a work, the BBFC may cut certain acts in pornographic works where imitation or the influencing of attitudes is a particular concern. Breath restriction is one such example. It would be wrong to assume that the BBFC consequently cuts all sight of people sitting across other people's faces. But the BBFC will cut sight of clear and deliberate restriction of a person's ability to breathe during sexual play. Breath restriction for the purposes of sexual enjoyment can result in death. Given such a clear and well-documented risk of harm, passing such breath play in a sex work would be contrary to the BBFC's designated responsibility.

The BBFC also intervenes where material risks prosecution under UK law. This includes prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Indeed, the BBFC's designation under the Video Recordings Act requires that it does not pass any content in breach of UK law. We regularly consult both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police to understand and keep up to date with the types of content which are subject to prosecution and conviction. Consequently, we may not classify any material which may be subject to prosecution. Among other activities, this includes any repeated focus on urination during sex and urination over any other person, including any act which cannot be distinguished from urination on the basis of the onscreen evidence alone.

It has recently been suggested that the introduction of the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations will lead to several acts now being banned from UK on-demand services, including spanking and verbal abuse. Much of this information is inaccurate, some of it is wrong. In judging material which may or may not be allowed under BBFC Guidelines, it is often unhelpful to speak hypothetically and in generalisations when specifics of context and potential harm in a given situation are among the considerations which really matter. The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations will ensure that UK on-demand content is consistent with legally available pornography off-line, benefiting from the application of UK law and the expert legal and medical advice which informs BBFC decisions.

Comment: 10 questions for the BBFC about R18 porn rules

5th December 2014. See article from strangethingsarehappening.com by David Flint

That so many people are appalled by these rules seems to have rather shaken the BBFC. After all, they pride themselves on their feminist credentials, and consider many of the acts and images they forbid as acts of sexual violence, mostly against women. To be told that they are being sexist and patriarchal by banning spanking movies must genuinely baffle them.

...Read the full article

Comment: Carry on censor Who decides what is too shocking for us to see?

5th December 2014. See article from eyeforfilm.co.uk by Jane Fae

It has been suggested in the past that the BBFC simply ask the public on these topics [obscenity rules]. After all, if the test of obscenity is what a majority of people consider to be obscene, then this is one area where opinion polling could be helpful. What is interesting about the culture at the BBFC is that when such suggestions have been made, the BBFC has reacted with superior amusement -- incredulity even.

What do you mean? Actually ask the public what they think on a matter where the public are the final arbiter.? What an extraordinary idea!

...Read the full article

The BBFC explains a small increase in classification fees for 2015:

Having consulted the DCMS, we will be raising our fees for the first time in seven years on 1 January 2015. We have not increased our fees since 2007. This is equivalent to a 19% reduction in real terms in the cost of BBFC services over that period. We sustained these savings by improving the efficiency of our systems and reducing our operating costs, and at the same time we have vastly improved our turnaround times.

To maintain and improve these levels of service, we will make small, sub-inflation annual increases starting in 2015, with the aim of minimising the impact on film and video industries. The model we will use for our statutory work is RPI minus 1%. Using the September 2014 RPI figure of 2.3%, as published by the Office for National Statistics, the fees will therefore rise by 1.3% on 1 January 2015.

Perhaps not of prime interest to film viewers but the cost of classification makes a big difference to the availability of films. Given that professional people have to spend a few hours on a typical film then it is never going to be cheap. And for a small market film, the price of the censorship may make the difference between a film getting a release or not. Such economic censorship is equally effective in preventing films being seen, as for BBFC censorial concerns about the content.

Paddington is a 2014 UK / France family comedy by Paul King.
Starring Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins and Julie Walters.

A young Peruvian bear with a passion for all things British travels to London in search of a home. Finding himself lost and alone at Paddington Station, he begins to realize that city life is not all he had imagined - until he meets the kindly Brown family, who read the label around his neck ('Please look after this bear. Thank you.') and offer him a temporary haven. It looks as though his luck has changed until this rarest of bears catches the eye of a museum taxidermist.

The BBFC Just passed the film PG uncut for cinema release with the consumer advice:

dangerous behaviour, mild threat, innuendo, infrequent mild bad language.

But a little earlier, the consumer advice had read

dangerous behaviour, mild threat, mild sex references, mild bad language.

The BBFC changed the wording of its guidance after the Daily Mail ran a story about the PG rating for the film. It seems that the Paddington author Michael Bond was totally amazed at the term mild sex references used by the BBFC. Bond told the Daily Mail:

I'd be very upset. I might not sleep well tonight. I can't imagine what the sex references are. It doesn't enter into it with the books, certainly.'

After an approach from the film's distributor the BBFC altered the term mild sex references to innuendo . The distributor also asked for clarity to the frequency of mild bad language, and the BBFC duly obliged by adding the descriptor, infrequent.

The film's director Paul King said he had expected the BBFC to issue a PG rating:

I'm not surprised about that but I don't think it's a PG for sexiness. That I would find very odd, he said.

The Daily Mail also a dragged up a trivial sound bite from Pippa Smith, of the SaferMedia campaign. She said:

There should be absolutely nothing threatening, sexual or dangerous about Paddington. If there is, it should be cut.

For a full description of what the BBFC are alluding to here is the BBFC Insight. (which still uses the heading 'sex')

Imitable Behaviour

There are infrequent scenes of dangerous behaviour, including Paddington hiding from a villain inside a refrigerator and riding on a skateboard while holding on to a bus, as well as a brief scene of a boy strapping fireworks to his shoes.

Threat

There are occasional sequences of mild threat when Paddington is chased by the villain who threatens to kill and stuff him, as well as a brief sequence in which Paddington lies unconscious on a table while a taxidermist prepares their tools nearby. There is also a short scene in a jungle when Paddington and his family run for shelter during an earthquake with trees falling around them.

Sex

There is some mild innuendo, including a comic sequence in which a man disguised as a woman is flirted with by another man.

Language

There is a single mumbled use of bloody .

Update: Panto

27th November 2014. See article from digitalspy.co.uk

Paddington producer David Heyman has spoken about the unfair controversy surrounding the film's BBFC rating. Heyman told Digital Spy:

When I first heard, it was with a little bit of disbelief. There's nothing in the film that is more inappropriate, or has more innuendo, than panto.

They're doing their job, and I understand, but I think this time they were a little unfair. It's good old fun, and it's playful.