Topic
1: explain the BBFC’s current role (board of classification)
in regulating film
Currently, the film industry in the UK is
regulated by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). (TOPIC SENTENCE)
The BBFC is responsible for classifying films that have a cinema and DVD release. The BBFC uses published Classification Guidelines for certain age ranges, ensuring that the content of the film is age appropriate and that children or young people do not see films that are unsuitable for them.
The BBFC is responsible for classifying films that have a cinema and DVD release. The BBFC uses published Classification Guidelines for certain age ranges, ensuring that the content of the film is age appropriate and that children or young people do not see films that are unsuitable for them.
The BBFC Classification Guidelines
are based on regular research with the public and updated every 4-5 years. The
research involves more than 10,000 people from across the UK, including
teenagers. The Classification Guidelines are available on the BBFC website.
The classifications are:
·
U – Suitable for all
·
PG – Parental Guidance
·
12A – Only used for films shown in
cinemas and suitable for 12 years and over. However, people younger than 12 may
see a 12A so long as they are accompanied by an adult
·
12 – Video release suitable for 12
years and over
·
15 – Suitable for only 15 years and
over
·
18 – Suitable only for adults
Topic 2: explain the BBFC’s origins as the
British Board of Film Censors
Approaches to film regulation have changed over the last three generations. (TOPIC SENTENCE)
By the 1930s, film was neither a state monopoly nor subject to public service obligations unlike broadcasting, but the development of the British Board of Film Censors supervised anti-rearmament or ‘peace’ propaganda. Its operating costs were met by the cinema trade itself from fees charged for ‘examining’ films. It was a private body but with a president nominated by the Home Secretary. Its main aim was to control negative propaganda at home and endorse positive cultural propaganda overseas. By persuading companies to submit ‘scenarios’ first before starting production, it could prevent ‘undesirable’ films being made as well as interfere in details, down to the choice of individual words. The means were there to ‘educate’ the cinema-going public which by 1934 stood at 18 million, far more that the circulation figures of the national daily press and the BBC. It was the only true mass medium of the period. For example, feature films could shape general attitudes to particular policies and events, a form of ‘psychological rearmament’ (Vansittart). Cinema screens were kept free from films that portrayed soldiers as dupes of bodies with a vested interest in war, or films that presented army life as tyrannical, dull and futile. It was from the industrial and working class that recruits had to come, as well as those needed for the new armaments industries. As a result, after 1935 there was no chance for any film with an anti-rearmament or pacifist message to reach the mass audience of 82 % working class youngsters who went to the cinema weekly. The trade association of film distributors was presided over by Sir Albert Clavering, director of the Conservative Party’s own film propaganda organization. Films take time and money to produce: distributors did not risk investing their time and money in films that might get banned. The BBFC refused to certify film that (for example) ‘portrayed British officers and forces in disgraceful,
Topic 3: offer case studies
Occasionally film classifications create controversy and these incidents reflect society and its changing attitudes. (TOPIC SENTENCE)
By the 1930s, film was neither a state monopoly nor subject to public service obligations unlike broadcasting, but the development of the British Board of Film Censors supervised anti-rearmament or ‘peace’ propaganda. Its operating costs were met by the cinema trade itself from fees charged for ‘examining’ films. It was a private body but with a president nominated by the Home Secretary. Its main aim was to control negative propaganda at home and endorse positive cultural propaganda overseas. By persuading companies to submit ‘scenarios’ first before starting production, it could prevent ‘undesirable’ films being made as well as interfere in details, down to the choice of individual words. The means were there to ‘educate’ the cinema-going public which by 1934 stood at 18 million, far more that the circulation figures of the national daily press and the BBC. It was the only true mass medium of the period. For example, feature films could shape general attitudes to particular policies and events, a form of ‘psychological rearmament’ (Vansittart). Cinema screens were kept free from films that portrayed soldiers as dupes of bodies with a vested interest in war, or films that presented army life as tyrannical, dull and futile. It was from the industrial and working class that recruits had to come, as well as those needed for the new armaments industries. As a result, after 1935 there was no chance for any film with an anti-rearmament or pacifist message to reach the mass audience of 82 % working class youngsters who went to the cinema weekly. The trade association of film distributors was presided over by Sir Albert Clavering, director of the Conservative Party’s own film propaganda organization. Films take time and money to produce: distributors did not risk investing their time and money in films that might get banned. The BBFC refused to certify film that (for example) ‘portrayed British officers and forces in disgraceful,
Topic 3: offer case studies
Occasionally film classifications create controversy and these incidents reflect society and its changing attitudes. (TOPIC SENTENCE)
My first example
is Battleship Potemkin (dir. Sergei
Eisenstein, 1925)
According to the Regulator archive report, the film was rejected
when first submitted in September 1926, on the grounds that films should not address issues of ‘political controversy’ and that Potemkin’s pro-Revolutionary message was therefore unacceptable for classification. It was suggested that the film was rejected
for “inflammatory subtitles and Bolshevist Propaganda”. The nine day British general
strike in May 1926
had provoked fears amongst some quarters of society of a potential revolution in the UK. According
to The Times, screenings of the film in Berlin had already led to unrest
and a censorship battle began
between left wing supporters of the film and right-wing efforts to have it
banned. It was remarked by some at the time that, had violence been the real problem, cuts could have been made. However, the fact that no attempts were made to tone down the film suggested political motives. By the
time the film was looked
at the again, in 1954, silent
films were no longer
commercially viable and the film was therefore likely to appeal only to a very
small and select audience. With its
potential to cause political unrest diminished, especially after the death of Stalin in 1953, the film was finally classified X uncut (persons under
16 not admitted). Subsequently the film
was reclassified PG uncut for a limited cinema
re-release in 1987 and is now acknowledged as a classic.
My second example is The Dark Knight (dir. Christopher Nolan 2008). The most complained about film of all time in Britain is The Dark Knight, which received 364 complaints in 2008. The rating was 12A.
When The Dark Knight was released, some film critics thought it was too violent for children. This was a problem for the film's production company, Warner Bros., as the film was based on the DC Comic franchise, Batman, which is popular with younger audiences. The BBFC gave the film a 12A certification meaning children under the age of 12 could see the film if accompanied by an adult. Many commentators felt this rating was inappropriate given the film's tone and content; however, it remained a 12A throughout its theatrical run.
Newspapers reflected public opinion in questioning whether The Dark Knight was suitable for children. The Batman sequel has a 12A certificate, although the BBFC strongly advises parents not to take under-12s. So why choose a classification that would admit them? Because of printing deadlines for press information, critics sometimes see movies without knowing the certificate they have been given. This allows critics to play censor-for-a-day. During a preview of The Dark Knight, critics concluded that the film must be a 15, because of its numerous shootings and knifings, persistent atmosphere of nihilistic morbidity and the terrifying appearance and speech of Heath Ledger’s Joker,.
However, as it was classified 12A, unaware parents were able to take a child of any age to see it.
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), in response to the incredulity of reviewers, offered three justifications: 1) They are definitely not saying that the film is suitable for under-12s and strongly advise parents not to take younger children. 2) That the violence is discreetly presented. 3) The movie has a cartoon atmosphere, which lessens the impact of the aggression.
But critics felt that the film’s producers must be grinning like the Joker at what they had got away with. Though Batman is based on a cartoon, director Christopher Nolan proclaimed his aim to make the cinema version more realistic: his Gotham City is indistinguishable from today’s New York. And, while it’s true that we are spared much gory detail of the damage done by bullets and blades, the film contains widespread use of knives, currently a sensitive issue.
If the BBFC really is not recommending that under-12s go, why choose a classification that could admit them? Its confused stance made a case for the return of the strict 12 certificate, although even that would be too low. In may people's view, the number that fits is 15, although, as the movie industry is well aware, such toughness would cut its box office numbers. However, whatever the public opinion, a film is only reclassified if the company who owns it submits it to the BBFC for a new classification.
Topic 5: explain the role of IPSO and how it came about
Like the BBFC, IPSO are a semi-official independent body but unlike the BBFC they are self-regulating - this particular aspect has put them under public scrutiny post Leveson Inquiry with ministers, the public and even sections of the media questioning their effectiveness as an organization funded by the newspaper industry. (TOPIC SENTENCE)
When The Dark Knight was released, some film critics thought it was too violent for children. This was a problem for the film's production company, Warner Bros., as the film was based on the DC Comic franchise, Batman, which is popular with younger audiences. The BBFC gave the film a 12A certification meaning children under the age of 12 could see the film if accompanied by an adult. Many commentators felt this rating was inappropriate given the film's tone and content; however, it remained a 12A throughout its theatrical run.
Newspapers reflected public opinion in questioning whether The Dark Knight was suitable for children. The Batman sequel has a 12A certificate, although the BBFC strongly advises parents not to take under-12s. So why choose a classification that would admit them? Because of printing deadlines for press information, critics sometimes see movies without knowing the certificate they have been given. This allows critics to play censor-for-a-day. During a preview of The Dark Knight, critics concluded that the film must be a 15, because of its numerous shootings and knifings, persistent atmosphere of nihilistic morbidity and the terrifying appearance and speech of Heath Ledger’s Joker,.
However, as it was classified 12A, unaware parents were able to take a child of any age to see it.
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), in response to the incredulity of reviewers, offered three justifications: 1) They are definitely not saying that the film is suitable for under-12s and strongly advise parents not to take younger children. 2) That the violence is discreetly presented. 3) The movie has a cartoon atmosphere, which lessens the impact of the aggression.
But critics felt that the film’s producers must be grinning like the Joker at what they had got away with. Though Batman is based on a cartoon, director Christopher Nolan proclaimed his aim to make the cinema version more realistic: his Gotham City is indistinguishable from today’s New York. And, while it’s true that we are spared much gory detail of the damage done by bullets and blades, the film contains widespread use of knives, currently a sensitive issue.
If the BBFC really is not recommending that under-12s go, why choose a classification that could admit them? Its confused stance made a case for the return of the strict 12 certificate, although even that would be too low. In may people's view, the number that fits is 15, although, as the movie industry is well aware, such toughness would cut its box office numbers. However, whatever the public opinion, a film is only reclassified if the company who owns it submits it to the BBFC for a new classification.
My
third case study is The Woman In Black (dir. James Watkins 2012). ![]()
Daniel Radcliffe's horror movie
The Woman In
Black is the most complained about film of the year 2012 so far according to regulators. It attracted 120 complaints, three
times as many as 2011’s most complained about movie,
ballet drama Black Swan.
On
the regulator website they warn
that the film - which sees Radcliffe play
a young lawyer who visits a remote, haunted village - contains “a
number of scenes of supernatural horror
and threat”.
The issue may have
been the rating. The Woman In
Black had six seconds of cuts made to
ensure it got a 12A. The regulator admitted “some people felt the
film was too scary at 12A".
The controversial certificate was introduced
in 2002 after school kids
complained that the old ‘12’ rating (i.e. no one under that age was allowed
in) barred them from seeing ‘Spider-Man’. The regulator introduced
the softer 12A, which allows youngsters under that
age to see the film if accompanied by an adult. The vague rating, however, has been a constant irritant to the BBFC, with the vast majority
of their complaints reserved
for
12A films that were felt
to be too grown-up
for the age bracket.
These include Casino Royale, Terminator
3: Rise of the Machines and Beowulf.
Alternative case studies: Fight Club (dir. David Fincher 1999) info here, Clockwork Orange (dir. Stanley Kubrik 1971) info here.
Fight Club (1999) was classified 18. Some felt an uncut 18 was acceptable for this adult viewing experience, but there were concerns under the BBFC Guidelines of the time about the glamorisation of violence and the potential for encouraging an interest in organised bare-fist fighting. Neither the novel nor the film condoned brutal fighting, as the conclusion of the narrative makes clear. Objections to Fight Club also centred round the moral panic that Brad Pitt's huge appeal would inspire youngsters to start bare-knuckle fighting. Some reports of this emerged in the US but none in the UK.
In 2002, revised guidelines concluded: "The new BBFC Guidelines established the principle that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment, within the law, and it was considered that there was nothing in Fight Club that was in breach of UK law, or felt to be harmful."
Clockwork Orange (1971) was classified 18 uncut but horrified many. At the time, the BBFC's Secretary, Stephen Murphy, defended the film by stating that: "Disturbed though we were by the first half of the film, which is basically a statement of some of the problems of violence, we were, nonetheless, satisfied by the end of the film that it could not be accused of exploitation: quite the contrary, it is a valuable contribution to the whole debate about violence". But a strong body of press and public opinion that the criminal and anti-social actions of the film's main character, Alex, would be copied by young people, inspired by his charismatic example to break the law. Indeed, reports in the papers suggested that some attacks now occurring were inspired by the film. In fact, however, no such behaviour by anyone over the age of 18 was ever reliably established as being related to the film.
Alternative case studies: Fight Club (dir. David Fincher 1999) info here, Clockwork Orange (dir. Stanley Kubrik 1971) info here.
Fight Club (1999) was classified 18. Some felt an uncut 18 was acceptable for this adult viewing experience, but there were concerns under the BBFC Guidelines of the time about the glamorisation of violence and the potential for encouraging an interest in organised bare-fist fighting. Neither the novel nor the film condoned brutal fighting, as the conclusion of the narrative makes clear. Objections to Fight Club also centred round the moral panic that Brad Pitt's huge appeal would inspire youngsters to start bare-knuckle fighting. Some reports of this emerged in the US but none in the UK.
In 2002, revised guidelines concluded: "The new BBFC Guidelines established the principle that adults should be free to choose their own entertainment, within the law, and it was considered that there was nothing in Fight Club that was in breach of UK law, or felt to be harmful."
Clockwork Orange (1971) was classified 18 uncut but horrified many. At the time, the BBFC's Secretary, Stephen Murphy, defended the film by stating that: "Disturbed though we were by the first half of the film, which is basically a statement of some of the problems of violence, we were, nonetheless, satisfied by the end of the film that it could not be accused of exploitation: quite the contrary, it is a valuable contribution to the whole debate about violence". But a strong body of press and public opinion that the criminal and anti-social actions of the film's main character, Alex, would be copied by young people, inspired by his charismatic example to break the law. Indeed, reports in the papers suggested that some attacks now occurring were inspired by the film. In fact, however, no such behaviour by anyone over the age of 18 was ever reliably established as being related to the film.
In 1973, allegedly concerned about reports of copycat violence, and threats made to the safety of himself and his family, Kubrick withdrew the film from circulation in the UK. It was not until after Kubrick's death that his family agreed to permit the release of the film again. It was submitted to the BBFC in 1999 for a modern classification certificate and received an 18, without cuts, to replace its old X certificate.
1979 BBFC Life of Brian AA classification
challenged by local council authorities who said it was blasphemous and banned
it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjz16xjeBAA
Topic 4: explain the current situation / current thinking.
The ways in which we consume film nowadays makes regulation
increasingly problematic as people claim the right to express themselves freely
(TOPIC SENTENCE)
Gatekeeper is the term for
who allows and decides which content
will go forward
and be published or broadcast. Changing
technologies have drastically altered
the traditional gatekeeping process.
Nowadays, it is possible to consume film online, using
unregulated sites like BitTorrent. This means that illegal, racist, untrue and
inflammatory material as well as material that is harmful to children is available.
Anyone can upload anything they want. Consumers have become producers. 300 hours
of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute.
Almost 5 billion videos are watched on YouTube every single
day. Sonia Livingstone and Peter Lunt suggest that the global
nature of the net and the volume of material uploaded make effective regulation
very difficult.
Whilst Tapscott and Williams in Wikinomics celebrated how mass collaboration had changed everything, with the knowledge, resources, and computing power of billions of people who self-organise into a massive collective force, making the web the first global platform for collaboration in history, it is also true that this democratising force is open to potential abuse. Plunkett (2008) argued that a “new generation of UK media power players are ditching traditional gatekeepers and going straight to their audience via the web”.
Whilst Tapscott and Williams in Wikinomics celebrated how mass collaboration had changed everything, with the knowledge, resources, and computing power of billions of people who self-organise into a massive collective force, making the web the first global platform for collaboration in history, it is also true that this democratising force is open to potential abuse. Plunkett (2008) argued that a “new generation of UK media power players are ditching traditional gatekeepers and going straight to their audience via the web”.
It could be argued that self-regulation is the answer. Self-regulation is when individuals make choices about what media to access, or publish
as a
prosumer. It is
also the display
of control by established media outlets who can choose what content to distribute based on moral
and ethical guidelines.
But there is little consensus about what is acceptable. In 2009 John
Beyer of Mediawatch UK, said “The BBFC has become far too lax in what it
permits for public exhibition and there has been a gradual shift in what they
regard as acceptable so that what would have been regarded as 18 a few years
ago is now thought suitable for 15”. Certainly, more adult content seems acceptable
at the certificate 12A level, ten years on, after
films like The Dark Knight and Hunger Games,
perhaps because of public desensitization. With parental responsibility for
protecting children open to abuse and easy access to illegal downloads, some
would argue that there has never been greater need for regulation.
Media regulation has always been controversial
since it assumes state intervention, which limits freedom of expression and the
right to communication. Globalization, technological convergence, and other
structural changes such as privatization, commercialization, industry
consolidation, and reregulation (referring to the relaxation of strict rules
for broadcasting and telecommunications and the introduction of ‘light touch’
regulatory frameworks) have had an impact that affects media policymaking and
regulation. Many commentators attempt to elaborate on the theoretical
foundations for understanding the ongoing developments in communications policy
and regulatory aspects by providing definitions of the concept of the ‘public
interest’. In 2003, OFCOM was established, drawing together duties that
had been the work of five different regulators. Lunt and Livingstone
draw attention to the ways in which media policy is formulated and how the
claims of ‘citizen’ and ‘consumer’ can conflict: the traditional distinction is
that citizens are involved
with politics and consumers are attached
with popular culture.
The UK Government has announced that in January
2020, after a consultation on social media companies such as Facebook and
Google, OFCOM will enforce codes of practice that spell out what tech companies
need to do to protect users from harmful content. These will cover terrorism,
child abuse, illegal drug and weapon sales, cyberbullying, self-harm, harassment,
disinformation, violence and pornography. In other words, this is a new ‘duty
of care’ approach that sets out legislation to make the UK the safest place in
the world to be online. When the consultation on regulating social media companies
was published in the summer of 2019, there were concerns that it could lead to
regulation of the press by the back door, but the Government committed to ‘defending
freedom of expression and in particular recognising and defending the
invaluable role of the free press’. (Steven Swinford, 31.12.19 The Times ‘Tech bosses face court if they fail to protect users’)
It seems to me that every generation faces challenges in
reconciling the need to protect the citizen, a need overseen by government
regulatory bodies, and the right to develop new technologies that enhance our
freedoms, liberate our creativity and offer us the freedom to consume media
where, when and how we wish.
Topic 5: explain the role of IPSO and how it came about
Like the BBFC, IPSO are a semi-official independent body but unlike the BBFC they are self-regulating - this particular aspect has put them under public scrutiny post Leveson Inquiry with ministers, the public and even sections of the media questioning their effectiveness as an organization funded by the newspaper industry. (TOPIC SENTENCE)
The former regulator the PCC was described as toothless and inadequate during the phone-hacking scandal that led to the closure of The New of the World. The Leveson Inquiry raised the issue of statutory regulation but editors resisted, preferring to adhere to their own 'Editors Codes of Conduct'. IPSO regulates a voluntary membership of over 1,500 newspapers and magazines and 1,000 online news titles. Some newspapers have refused to sign up the voluntary code, including The Guardian, The Observer and the FT.
IPSO has the power to levy fines of up to £1 million; however, in practice, it has never issued any financial penalties. Editors print an apology with due prominence. In practice, the majority of complaints to IPSO are about accuracy and minor grammatical errors.
The alternative, to have statutory regulation, has been opposed because it opens the door to state censorship in a democracy like ours where the Press is regarded as the fourth pillar of the Establishment. This means that the Press should be able to hold power to account. However, it is also argued that newspapers use the 'freedom of the Press' argument to legitimise intrusion which supports the cynical argument that newspaper Editors disregard IPSO codes in the pursuit of sales. Whilst The Observer / Guardian, The Telegraph and The Independent have developed their own exacting codes of conduct that reinforce brand integrity and maintain reader trust, titles like The Daily Star adopt a much looser approach to sexually explicit content and adopt a 'publish and be damned' approach.
Another challenge to regulation is the reality of decentralised global media and the difficulties of policing online global media. Most tech giants fall beyond the reach of the UK's regulatory system. The failure of social media to control fake news and extremist content is made harder by online anonymity and the explosion of online content.
There is another important issue. Regulation is not just about censorship; it should equally be about content creation. However, this balance in the media landscape shifted after the 2003 Communications Act and the creation of OFCOM. Instead of the focus being on citizen-oriented approaches, a consumer-oriented approach has dominated the media landscape: the regulatory system gives media makers as much freedom as possible to make the media that audiences want to see and choices regarding content are largely devolved to audiences, with a reliance on advertising. As a result, media makers often promote entertainment values over public service.
Livingstone and Lunt argue that the consumer-oriented regulatory approach trusts media producers to police their own content guided by 'light-touch' editorial codes of independent regulators. Their argument that the media landscape is dominated by a consumer-based regulatory system (rather than a citizen-based system) can be applied to the newspaper sector. Citizen-based approaches to regulation are concerned with encouraging the production of content that contributes to the social and cultural health of society, to improve the lives of citizens and contribute to the well-being of wider society. In this model, power is held to account.
By contrast, Henry Jenkins emphasises the benefits of global media, with audiences now able to make their own digital content and make connections with like-minded communities across the world. This process allows for groups to take charge of real changes at grassroots level. Equally, David Gauntlett values the diversity of representations offered in the media; he sees the value of enabling individuals to encounter a wide range of identities that can help shape our own values and sense of self.
In conclusion, media regulation has changed over time and, with the new challenges of global media producers, the freedom offered to individuals by digital media and the issues over the difficulty of regulating online content, it will change further to meet new concerns.
IPSO has the power to levy fines of up to £1 million; however, in practice, it has never issued any financial penalties. Editors print an apology with due prominence. In practice, the majority of complaints to IPSO are about accuracy and minor grammatical errors.
The alternative, to have statutory regulation, has been opposed because it opens the door to state censorship in a democracy like ours where the Press is regarded as the fourth pillar of the Establishment. This means that the Press should be able to hold power to account. However, it is also argued that newspapers use the 'freedom of the Press' argument to legitimise intrusion which supports the cynical argument that newspaper Editors disregard IPSO codes in the pursuit of sales. Whilst The Observer / Guardian, The Telegraph and The Independent have developed their own exacting codes of conduct that reinforce brand integrity and maintain reader trust, titles like The Daily Star adopt a much looser approach to sexually explicit content and adopt a 'publish and be damned' approach.
Another challenge to regulation is the reality of decentralised global media and the difficulties of policing online global media. Most tech giants fall beyond the reach of the UK's regulatory system. The failure of social media to control fake news and extremist content is made harder by online anonymity and the explosion of online content.
There is another important issue. Regulation is not just about censorship; it should equally be about content creation. However, this balance in the media landscape shifted after the 2003 Communications Act and the creation of OFCOM. Instead of the focus being on citizen-oriented approaches, a consumer-oriented approach has dominated the media landscape: the regulatory system gives media makers as much freedom as possible to make the media that audiences want to see and choices regarding content are largely devolved to audiences, with a reliance on advertising. As a result, media makers often promote entertainment values over public service.
Livingstone and Lunt argue that the consumer-oriented regulatory approach trusts media producers to police their own content guided by 'light-touch' editorial codes of independent regulators. Their argument that the media landscape is dominated by a consumer-based regulatory system (rather than a citizen-based system) can be applied to the newspaper sector. Citizen-based approaches to regulation are concerned with encouraging the production of content that contributes to the social and cultural health of society, to improve the lives of citizens and contribute to the well-being of wider society. In this model, power is held to account.
By contrast, Henry Jenkins emphasises the benefits of global media, with audiences now able to make their own digital content and make connections with like-minded communities across the world. This process allows for groups to take charge of real changes at grassroots level. Equally, David Gauntlett values the diversity of representations offered in the media; he sees the value of enabling individuals to encounter a wide range of identities that can help shape our own values and sense of self.
In conclusion, media regulation has changed over time and, with the new challenges of global media producers, the freedom offered to individuals by digital media and the issues over the difficulty of regulating online content, it will change further to meet new concerns.