BBFC News

The BBFC have rated Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar as 17 for infrequent strong language.

The decision is explained in the Extended Classification Information:

J. EDGAR is a biopic of J.Edgar Hoover, the founder and head of the FBI. It was classified 15 for infrequent strong language.

The BBFC's Guidelines at 12A/12 state The use of strong language (for example, 'fuck') must be infrequent. The film contains only one use of 'f***ing', which would have been permissible at 12A. However, it also contains two uses of cruder language (in this case 'c***sucker') that were more appropriately classified at 15 where the Guidelines state There may be frequent use of strong language. None of the language is personally directed or accompanied by violence, but is spoken in a derogatory manner about political opponents who are not present at the time.

The film also contains some moderate violence during shootouts between police and mobsters. However, the violence is almost always bloodless and lacking in injury detail.

...

The film also contains some mild bad language, such as damn and Jesus Christ. There are a couple of uses of the term negro, although the term is not used in a pejorative sense, simply reflecting the common terminology of the period in which the film is set. The historical nature of the term and the lack of intent to offend is reinforced by sight of Martin Luther King using it himself in a televised speech.

Seems a bit harsh, but the US film censors seemed to agree that J. Edgar went beyond PG-13 and rated the film as R.

Interesting to note the inconsistent use of asterisks in the BBFC piece. It let one 'fuck' through but censored the next. Is this the BBFC keeping the page itself down to a 12 rating?

R v Peacock

Michael Peacock has been acquitted of all charges after a unanimous jury decision to find Peacock not guilty on 6 counts of obscenity.

Michael Peacock (referred to in the gay porn world as Sleazy Michael) had been charged for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs including representation of gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM.

The trial was heard before the Southwark Crown Court. The films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture). Also there was an example of a staged non consensual scene.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:

An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

Peacock was represented by Nigel Richardson and Sandra Paul of Hodge Jones and Allen

Myles Jackman, a solicitor specialising in obscenity law, said this outcome was a significant victory for common sense suggesting that the OPA has been rendered irrelevant in the digital age.

In a tweet, Jackman said that SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit dealing with human exploitation and organised crime, will meet with the Crown Prosecution Service and the British Board of Film Classification to review guidelines on obscenity.

And of course the authorities will be considering whether the law itself now needs changing. No doubt nutter campaigners will now be pushing for something new to replace the OPA now that it no longer supports their censorial views.

Speculation: So what may be the outcome at least in terms of BBFC censorship of R18s?

The BBFC have been cutting all such material citing the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act. But now of course this will change. The BBFC will still be at liberty to cut scenes off their own bat. And indeed the board has been regularly cutting scenes involving penetration by objects that could possibly result in harm justified via its own guidelines.

I think there will be a few changes welcomed by all sides. The current prohibition of female squirting leaves everyone totally baffled as to why. This prohibition can now be rapidly dropped. Perhaps urolagnia can now be generally allowed albeit with restrictions when it is considered by the censors to be degrading.

Perhaps something similar with fisting which could be generally allowed with a proviso that it must not be seen to be causing any discomfort to those participating.

The BDSM issue is not going to be easy. The current ban is at least easy to explain. To allow any level of hurt beyond trifling may prove very difficult to define. Maybe it is still banned by legislation examined during the notable Spanner Case, the judgement of which basically disallows people from giving consent to be hurt. So perhaps the BBFC will just switch justifications but continue to ban BDSM.

And I don't suppose that the non-consensual scene will impact BBFC guidelines at all. This will no doubt continue to be banned from R18s.

The 3rd January 2012 marks the first day of the most significant obscenity trial of the decade; which will ultimately clarify the law on the representation of gay fisting, urolagnia as well as BDSM.

The defendant in the case, Michael Peacock, is charged on indictment with numerous offences under the Obscene Publications Act for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:

An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

In this trial, which will be heard before the Southwark Crown Court, the films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture).

These activities feature on the current list of what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) currently consider to be obscene. Ultimately though, it is a matter for a jury to decide whether these acts are obscene by virtue of whether they deprave and corrupt the viewer.

Interestingly this case seems to have found unofficial tacit support from the BBFC; and the Metropolitan Police's Abusive and Extreme Images Unit (the Met's old obscene publications squad is now part of SCD9): on the basis that this case will establish whether the depiction of fisting and urination pornography is legal or not.

Hence, if the jury decides that such pornography is not obscene, on the basis that it does not deprave and corrupt the viewer; then it is entirely likely that both the producers and distributors of pornography will make such material available for sale, for example via licensed sex shops.

Consequently, this significant obscenity prosecution will either reaffirm or rearrange the boundaries of obscenity law.

Mr Peacock is represented by  Hodge Jones and Allen LLP..

...Read the full article

Update: Follow Live on Twitter

5th January 2012.  See article from lawandsexuality.blogspot.com

The #ObscenityTrial involving the issue of fisting (among others) goes into day three today.

If you're not already doing so, be sure to follow on twitter the excellent activist and scholar, @lexingtondymock. I'd also suggest following the journalist @NichiHodgson. Both have been providing fascinating coverage through their live tweets from the courtroom.

Many of the exchanges today would be comical, were they not so serious.

The BBFC has added BT Vision to the roster of platforms that use the BBFC.online classification service.

From January 2012, BT Vision subscribers will see the same classification symbols and content information next to films as those the BBFC provides for cinema releases and DVDs. A BT Vision and BBFC co-branded electronic black card, similar to those UK cinemagoers see before theatrical releases, will also be run before each film begins.

David Cooke, Director of the BBFC, said We're delighted to welcome BT Vision to our BBFC.online service. Parents have told us it's important for them to see the classification symbols they recognise before they download or stream a film for family consumption. We asked parents for their views and 82% said they would prefer to download films that are classified with the trusted BBFC symbols and Consumer Advice.

Jacob Ahlin, Head of Film said BT Vision are delighted to become a member of the BBFC, enabling us to clearly label the hundreds of blockbuster and classic films, which are available on BT Vision and giving our customers peace of mind when choosing what to watch with their family.

BBFC.online was launched in 2008 to provide the BBFC's trusted and recognised classifications, category symbols and Consumer Advice to set-top box, video-on-demand and online content providers. The BBFC worked closely with the home entertainment industry to develop the voluntary regulatory service to bring the benefits of the DVD classification system to digital content that is delivered online.

BT Vision join other key industry members working with the BBFC including Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment Europe, Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, Paramount and platforms including BlinkBox, Picturebox and Talk Talk, bringing the total number of members to 34.

British fans will be able to see Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom just as its director Steven Spielberg wanted, almost three decades after its release.

The film will be screened unedited at the National Film Theatre in London for the first time at the end of next year as part of a season of films put together to celebrate the centenary of the BBFC.

Censors demanded a number of cuts to Temple of Doom when it was submitted in 1984 before it would grant a family-friendly PG rating.

Paramount Pictures was keen to avoid a 15 certificate as the film was aimed at kids and families, but it was too violent and intense for a PG classification, a spokeswoman for the BBFC said. And the option for a 12 certificate wasn't available at the time. The BBFC director at the time, James Ferman, flew to Los Angeles to edit the film for UK release with Spielberg.

The numerous cuts reintroduced will please the more bloodthirsty of fans. They include close-ups of a heart being ripped out and a head cracking against a rock. A scene where Indiana Jones is forced to drink blood before being whipped will also be reinstated.

The season will also include a showing of The Devils, directed by Ken Russell who died last month. But it seems that a hundred years of film censorship is not sufficiently important to persuade Warners to allow a screening of their uncut version.

The season of censored films also includes The Evil Dead, which made the Director of Public Prosecution's video nasties list in 1982.

This is just one among several initiatives the BBFC is preparing for its 100th anniversary next year. David Cooke, director of the BBFC, said: This is a chance for us to look forward and to celebrate our past.

The BBFC has added TalkTalk to the BBFC.online classification service.

TalkTalk will launch YouView in Spring 2012, and subscribers viewing film content will see the same classification symbols and content information as those the BBFC provides for cinema releases and DVDs. The BBFC's information will make it easier for consumers to make informed decisions about the films they and their families watch.

David Cooke, Director of the BBFC, said We're delighted to add TalkTalk to our BBFC.online service. Parents have told us it's important for them to see the classification symbols they recognise before they stream a film for family consumption. We asked parents for their views and 82% said they would prefer to download films that are classified with the trusted BBFC symbols and Consumer Advice.

Max Alexander, Director of TV at TalkTalk, said It's important that our customers trust the suitability of content they are about to watch and this agreement with the BBFC gives them what they want. Working with the BBFC shows our ongoing commitment to ensure that we help protect our customers across all products and services they use with us.

In 2011, Sex and Zen 3D broke all box office records in Hong Kong, beating Avatar's previous opening day milestone by raking in HK$2.78 million. However, around the world, Sex and Zen ran into trouble with censorship bodies, and the distributors released modified versions in a number of territories. The British Board of Film Classification cut almost three minutes from the film, filtering out the most extreme sequences of sexual violence.

...Read the full article

Clockwork Orange and the BBFC were the topics of conversation on BBC Radio 4's  Today programme on the 19th December 2011. Previous BBFC President Andreas Whittam Smith and Julian Petley, professor of journalism and screen media at Brunel University, spoke about turn of the century BBFC film censorship.

During the talk, Whittam Smith spoke about the time when Clockwork Orange, The Exorcist. Straw Dogs and Texas Chainsaw Massacre struggled at the BBFC.

They also spoke about violence in films and whether it effected viewers. Whittam Smith said:

... nobody's ever .. uhm .. shown the link. The best research I ever saw took young offenders. Showed them violent videos uhm, and so on, about six months later they re-interviewed and they tended to remember scenes, the graphic scenes better than a control group of ordinary people. And that suggests that it does have some effect but it's very hard to make that, bring that up to the level required for uhm, a court of law, where actions had to be beyond all possible doubt

Julian Petley thnn says In my view there is no proven link...

So Andreas Whittam Smith says that the best evidence he has seen is not up to the level needed for a court of law.

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is marking its 100th year in 2012 by resurrecting its historical Theatrical Black Cards. Beginning in January cinema-goers across the UK will see updated versions of the vintage Black Cards ahead of all 2012 theatrical releases. The six retro designs based on those used in 1913, the 1940s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and the present day will be released as a series with each design appearing for two months at a time.

The first retro card to be show in cinema's in 2012 will be based on the 1912 theatrical card, first shown in 1913.

Other activities taking place to mark the BBFC Centenary year include a film season at the BFI; an exhibition about the history of the BBFC; and a Centenary book mapping 100 years of film classification and controversy.

David Cooke Director of the BBFC says: The BBFC's Centenary is a chance for us both to look forward and to celebrate our past. We are constantly striving to develop new services; provide the public with fuller, richer information; and to improve our efficiency. At the same time, we recognise our duty to explain our history, and we do a lot of this, particularly with schools and teachers. The retro Black Cards are a way of celebrating our history. I think they're pretty stylish too.

Established as the British Board of Film Censors in 1912, the BBFC was designed by the film industry to ensure uniformity in film classification and was a reaction to the 1909 Cinematographers Act whereby all Local Authorities had the power to provide or withhold licenses for cinemas in their area.

Areas of notable interest in the Board's history include T.P. O'Connor's 1916 list of 43 grounds for deletion, intended as a guide for Examiners; the shifts in public opinion and changes in the law over the decades; and the classification of various controversial films from Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange to the video nasties of the 1980s.

Today the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is an independent, private, not for profit company which classifies films, videos, DVDs and certain video games, advertisements and trailers under the Video Recordings Act (1984).

...Read the full article

December 16th, 2011 by Catherine Anderson

In this episode of the BBFC podcast, BBFC Examiners James Blatch and Caitlin O'Brien discuss classifying violence in films, and talk to BBFC Director David Cooke about The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence).

...See BBFC Podcast Episode 2

And if you missed Episode 1 on the subject of the 12A certificate

...See BBFC Podcast Episode 1 from bbfc.co.uk

Update: David Cooke on Radio 5

18th December 2011. A film a week film censor

Listen to interview with Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode from bbc.co.uk

But isn't pre-release classification irrelevant in the age of the internet, cloud computing and internet TV? Well no, it isn't, for three reasons.

• First, consumers want it; 73% want the same level of regulation and labelling in place for online audio visual material as exists in the physical world and 89% of parents are checking classifications for films they and their children download, even though this isn't always easy to do.

• Second, there's a vast stock of decisions which the BBFC has already taken which can be re-used highly effectively when existing content is distributed again via download.

• Third, the home entertainment industry wants it. The BBFC has developed a number of partnerships where rapid, low-cost, non-traditional methods of classification can be applied to completely new, or otherwise previously unclassified, material, including web-pages as well as more traditional linear content. We have no statutory monopoly of regulation in this area, but we can still provide a cost-effective, high quality service kite marked by our uniquely trusted brand.

...Read the full article