The
British Board of Film Classification
(BBFC), originally British Board of Film
Censors, is the organisation legally responsible for
film classification within the United Kingdom
. It was believed to be responsible for
video and some
video
games until August 2009.
Responsibility and power
The BBFC rates theatrically-released films, and rated videos and
video games that forfeited exemption
from the
Video Recordings Act
1984, which was discovered in August 2009 to be unenforceable.
Legally,
local authorities have the
power to decide under what circumstances films are shown in
cinemas, but they nearly always choose to follow the advice of the
BBFC.
The Video Recordings Act ordered that video releases not exempt
(music, documentary, non-fiction, video-games, etc.) under the Act
had to be classified, making it illegal to supply any recording
that had not been certified. Certificates could restrict release to
any age of 18 or under, or to only licensed sex-shops. The
government currently designate the BBFC as the authority for
certifying video releases. As the Act required the certificate to
be displayed on the packaging and media labels of the video
recording, in practice only UK releases could be legally sold or
hired in the UK, even if a foreign release had identical content.
The system will continue on a voluntary basis until an enforceable
act is passed.
Video games with specific themes or content (such as the
Grand Theft Auto
series) must also be submitted to the BBFC to receive a
legally-binding rating (contrast with the advisory
PEGI ratings) in the same way as videos. Other video
games may be submitted at the publisher's discretion.
All videos and games rated by the BBFC receive a certificate, along
with "consumer advice" detailing references to
sex,
violence and
coarse language. If a certificate specifies that a
film or video game is only suitable for someone over a certain age,
then only those over that age may buy it.
The BBFC can also advise cuts for a less-restrictive rating. This
generally occurs in borderline cases where distributors have
requested a certificate and the BBFC has rated the work at a
more-restrictive level; however, some cuts are compulsory, such as
scenes that violate the Protection of Children Act or Cinematograph
Films (Animals) Act. The final certificate then depends on the
distributor's decision on whether or not to make the suggested
cuts. Some works are even rejected if the distributor refuses the
cut.
Both examiners and the directors of the BBFC are hired on a
permanent basis. Examiners are required to watch 5 hours 20 mins of
media, to a maximum of 35 hours a week. Turnover is low and
vacancies, when available, appear on their London job vacancies
website.
Current certificates
The BBFC currently issues the following certificates. The category
logos were introduced in December 2002, replacing the previous ones
that had been in place since 1985.
| Certificate |
Name |
Definition |
 |
Universal |
All ages admitted, there is nothing unsuitable for children.
However, the message on the back of the DVD does not always say the
same thing. |
 |
Parental Guidance |
General viewing, but certain scenes may be unsuitable for
children under 8. |
 |
12A |
Suitable for those aged 12 and over. Those aged under 12 are
only admitted if accompanied by an adult at all times during the
performance. (Replaced the standard 12 certificate for cinema
releases in 2002.) |
 |
12 |
Suitable only for those aged 12 and over.Nobody younger than 12
can rent or buy a 12 rated VHS, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, UMD or game.
(Used for cinema as well before getting replaced by 12A in
2002) |
 |
15 |
Suitable only for those aged 15 and over.Nobody younger than 15
can see a 15 film in a cinema. No-one younger than 15 can rent or
buy a 15 rated VHS, DVD, Blu-ray Disc, UMD or game. |
 |
18 |
Suitible only for adults.Nobody younger than 18 may see an 18
film in a cinema.
No-one younger than 18 can rent or buy an 18 rated VHS, DVD,
Blu-ray Disc, UMD or game. |
 |
Restricted
18 |
For adults only.
May only be shown at licensed cinemas or sold at sex shops, and only to people aged 18 or over. |
Material that is exempt from classification sometimes uses symbols
similar to BBFC certificates, for example an E "certificate". There
is no legal obligation, nor a particular scheme, for labelling
material that is exempt from classification. On the BBFC's online
classification database, material that has been refused a
classification uses a red shield R in place of a rating
symbol.
History and overview
Back when they were the "Film
Censors"
The BBFC was established in 1912 as the
British Board of
Film Censors by the film industry (who would rather manage
their own censorship than have national or local government do it
for them). The legal basis on which it operated was the
Cinematograph Act 1909, which
required cinemas to be licensed by local authorities. The Act was
introduced following safety concerns following a number of
nitrate film fires in
unsuitable venues (fairgrounds and shops which had been hastily
converted into cinemas), but the following year a court ruling
(
LCC v. Bermondsey Bioscope
Co.) determined that the criteria for granting or refusing a
licence did not have to be restricted to issues of health and
safety. Given that the law now allowed councils to grant or refuse
licenses to cinemas according to the content of the films they
showed, the 1909 Act therefore enabled the introduction of
censorship. The film industry, fearing the economic consequences of
a largely unregulated censorship infrastructure, therefore formed
the BBFC in order to take the process 'in house' and establish its
own system of self-regulation. Some decisions from the early years
are now subjected to derision. In 1928, the Board's examiners
report famously claimed that
Germaine
Dulac's
surrealist film
The Seashell and the
Clergyman was "Apparently meaningless" but "If there is a
meaning, it is doubtless objectionable".
Informal links, to varying degrees of closeness, have been
maintained between the BBFC and the Government throughout the
Board's existence. In the period before
World War II, an extensive but unofficial
system of political censorship was implemented by the BBFC at the
Home Office's request.
As the cinema became a
culturally powerful mass-medium, governments feared the effect of
its overt use for propaganda (as happened in the Soviet Union
and Nazi Germany), and
discouraged any expression of controversial political views in
British films. This trend reached its climax during the
1930s. Following protests from the German Embassy after the release
of a film depicting the execution of
Edith
Cavell (
Dawn, 1928, dir.
Herbert Wilcox), intense political pressure
was brought to bear on the BBFC by the Home Office. A system of
script vetting was introduced, whereby British studios were invited
to submit screenplays to the BBFC before shooting started.
Interestingly, imported Hollywood films were not treated as
strictly as British films, as the BBFC believed that audiences
would recognise American cinema as representing a foreign culture,
and therefore would not apply any political messages therein to
their own lives. So while the
Warners gangster films and other 1930s
Hollywood films which explicitly dealt with crime and the effects
of the
Great Depression were
released in the UK largely uncut, these subjects were strictly
off-limits for British film-makers.
During World War II, the BBFC's political censorship function
effectively passed to the Films Division of the
Ministry of Information, and the
BBFC never regained this to the same extent as before the war. The
increasing climate of post-war liberalism ensured that from the
1950s onwards, controversies involving the BBFC centred more on
depictions of sex and violence than on political expression. There
were some notable exceptions:
Yield to the Night (UK, 1956, dir.
J. Lee
Thompson), which opposed
capital
punishment;
Room at the
Top (UK, 1959, dir.
Jack
Clayton), which dealt with class divisions;
Victim (UK, 1961, dir.
Basil Dearden), which implicitly argued for
the legalisation of
homosexuality all
involved the BBFC in controversy.
In 1984 the organisation changed its name to "reflect the fact that
classification plays a far larger part in the Board's work than
censorship". At that time it was given responsibility for
classifying videos for hire or purchase to view in the home as well
as films shown in cinemas. Home video and cinema versions of a film
usually receive the same certificate, although occasionally a film
may receive a more restrictive certificate for the home video
market, as it is easier for children to watch a home video than to
be admitted into a cinema.
The Board is an
independent, non-governmental
organisation. Its business affairs are controlled by a council
of management selected from leading figures in the manufacturing
and servicing sectors of the film industry. This council appoints
the President, who has statutory responsibility for the
classification of videos and the Director who has executive
responsibility and formulates policy.
The Board, which is
based in Soho
Square
, Soho
, London
, is financed
from the fees it charges for classifying films and videos and is
run on a not-for-profit basis.
In the case of films shown in cinemas, local authorities have the
final legal authorisation over who can view a particular film. The
majority of the time, local authorities accept the Board's
recommendation for a certificate for a film. There have been some
notable exceptions - particularly in the 1970s when the Board
allowed films such as
Last Tango
in Paris and
The
Exorcist to be released with an X certificate (essentially
the same as today's "18") - but many local authorities chose to ban
the films regardless.
Conversely, in 2002, a few local authorities, apparently under
pressure from distributors and cinema chains, ignored the BBFC's
ruling that
Spider-Man
receive a 12 rating, and allowed children younger than 12 to see
the film. However, the BBFC were already in the process of
replacing the 12 rating with a new 12A which allowed under-12s to
see the film, provided that they are accompanied by an adult, so
shortly afterwards,
Spider-Man was reclassified as 12A.
The first 12A certificate awarded was for
The Bourne
Identity.
Local authorities do not have such power for video recordings.
Under the
Video Recording Act
1984, all non-exempt recordings must be classified by an
authority chosen by the
Secretary of
State for Culture, Media and Sport. This classification is then
legally binding, in that supply of material contrary to its
certificate (selling recordings which have been refused a
certificate, or supplying to someone younger than the certified
age) is a criminal offence. However, possession is not an offence
in itself, other than in the case of "possession with intent to
supply". Since the introduction of the Act, the BBFC has been the
chosen authority. In theory this authority could be revoked, but in
practice such a revocation has never been suggested, since most
local authorities simply don't have the supplies needed to do such
things as remove cuts, pass films that the BBFC rejected and vice
versa, put in place new cuts, etc, regularly.
The BBFC has also rated some
video
games. Normally these are exempt from classification, unless
they depict human sexual activity, human genital organs or gross
acts of violence, in which case the publishers should submit the
game for classification. A publisher may opt to submit a game for
classication even if they are not obliged to. The first computer
game to receive a 15 certificate from the BBFC was an illustrated
text adventure called
Dracula, based on the
Bram
Stoker novel, published in 1986 by
CRL. The first computer game to receive an 18
certificate was another illustrated text adventure called Jack The
Ripper, also by CRL, which was published in 1987 and dealt with the
infamous real life murders in Victorian London. The horror in both
games came through largely in their detailed prose. Had the game
publishers reprinted the games' text in book form, it would not
have carried a certificate, as the BBFC has no oversight over print
media. Both games had numerous certificate stickers all over their
covers to emphasise to parents and retailers that they were not
intended for children, as computer games carrying BBFC certificates
were previously unheard of.
The first game to be refused classification by the BBFC was
Carmageddon in 1997, however a
modified version of the game was later awarded an 18 certificate.
In June 2007,
Manhunt 2 was
refused classification in both its
PlayStation 2 and
Wii
versions, meaning that the game was illegal to sell or supply. A
modified version was made that was accepted by the
ESRB but was still refused classification from the
BBFC. The decision was later overturned by the
Video Appeals Committee (an
independent body set up by legislation); the BBFC then asked the
High Court for a judicial review of the VAC decision. The High
Court ruled that the VAC had made errors in law and instructed it
to reconsider its decision, the VAC subsequently ruled that the
game should receive an 18 certificate, which the BBFC
accepted.
In 2009, the Japanese horror film
Grotesque was refused
classification, making it illegal to sell or supply in the
UK.
On June 16, 2009, the UK's
Department of Culture,
Media and Sport ruled in favour of the
PEGI
system to be the sole classification system for videogames and
software in the UK. This decision will also, unlike beforehand,
allow PEGI ratings to be legally enforced much like the BBFC
ratings.
Attitudes to censorship
Historically the Board has faced strong criticism for an
over-zealous attitude in censoring film. Prior to the liberalising
decade of the 1960s, films were routinely and extensively censored
as a means of social control. For example,
Rebel Without a Cause was cut in
order to reduce the "possibility of teenage rebellion". Ingmar
Bergman's
Smiles of a
Summer Night was cut to remove "overtly sexual or
provocative" language.
The BBFC's attitude moved extensively towards liberalisation during
the 1960s - concentrating on censoring films featuring graphic sex
and violence. However decisions which the Board reached repeatedly
caused controversy in the 1970s when it banned a series of films
that were released uncut and were popular in other countries (such
as
The Texas Chain Saw
Massacre and
Last
House on the Left), or released others which proved
controversial, such as
Straw
Dogs and
A
Clockwork Orange. However, under recent President
Andreas Whittam Smith and current
incumbent
Sir Quentin Thomas,
guidelines have been relaxed again, allowing the release, usually
uncut, of these previously banned films on video and in cinemas.
Some films from the 1970s remain unreleased (see
this
list for titles), but many of these titles remain banned
primarily because their distributors have not chosen to re-submit
the films to the BBFC, almost certainly for commercial reasons. If
they were, they would be likely to receive a more sympathetic
hearing than 30 years ago - only two films from the 1970s,
Love Camp 7 (rejected in 2002)
and
Women in Cellblock
9 (rejected in 2004), both of which contain substantial
scenes of sexual violence, have remained completely banned
following a re-submission since 2000.
In general, attitudes to what material is suitable for viewing by
minors have changed over the years, and this is reflected by the
reclassification of older films being re-released on video. A 1913
film given the former
A rating could very probably
be rated
U today. An extreme example of this is
the rating of the
horror film
Revenge of the
Zombies, with a
U certificate upon its
video release in the late 1990s, whereas, when it was first
examined as a film in 1951, it was given one of the first
X ratings.
Relaxation
There has been considerable relaxation since 1999 onwards. The
relaxation of guidelines has also made
hardcore pornography widely available to adult
audiences through the R18 rating. Films with this rating are only
legally available from licensed sex shops, of which there are about
100 in the UK. They may also be seen in specially licensed
cinemas.
Recent examples include the passing of
Irreversible,
Romance,
Antichrist, and numerous
other films uncut for cinema and video viewing. Despite this trend
towards liberalisation, anti-censorship campaigners are still
critical of the BBFC. A prominent online campaign group is the
"Melon Farmers", which criticises both the laws that BBFC is
required to uphold and the BBFC's interpretation of that law in
specific cases . Conversely, BBFC has attracted more criticism from
conservative press, in particular the
Daily Mail, on the grounds that
the release of sexually explicit and violent films was corrupting
the nation. The newspaper's most famous clash with the BBFC came
when the Board released
Crash without cuts. The following day
(19 March 1997) the
Mail led with the banner headline
"CENSOR'S YES TO DEPRAVED SEX FILM".
Westminster City
Council
imposed its own ban on the film after the
decision.
Current concerns
The BBFC's current guidelines identify a number of specific areas
of concern which are considered when awarding certificates or
requiring cuts. These are
discrimination,
theme, language (i.e.
profanity),
nudity,
sex,
violence,
sexual violence, criminal or harmful
actions that can easily be imitated (certain combat moves, suicidal
techniques, and stunts considered criminal acts or likely to end up
in injury or death fall under this category),
horror, and
drugs. The BBFC also continues to demand
cuts of any material which it considers may breach the provisions
of the
Obscene Publications
Act or any other legislation (most notably the Cinematograph
Films (Animals) Act 1937 [which forbids the depiction of animals
being abused or in distress] and the Protection of Children Act
1978 [which forbids the depiction of children being abused, in
distress, or sexually exploited]). Between 2000 and 2006, about 2%
of films have had material cut.
There is no theme or subject-matter that is considered inherently
unsuitable for classification at any level, although more
controversial topics might require a restricted certificate. This
is in keeping with current practice in most
liberal democracies, but in sharp contrast
to the early days of the BBFC when such themes as
prostitution,
incest and
the relations of
capital and
labour were unacceptable in any
circumstances.
'Bad' or 'strong' language can earn a film a more restrictive
certificate, though BBFC policy states that there are no
constraints on language use in films awarded an 18 certificate. It
is difficult to compare the BBFC's policies in this area with those
in other countries as there are different taboos regarding
profanity in other languages and indeed in other English-speaking
countries.
For example, the use of 'strong' language has
little effect on a film's classification in France
. The
BBFC's policy proved particularly controversial in the case of
Ken Loach's
Sweet Sixteen in 2002, which
was passed uncut only at 18 certificate, even though its main
characters were teenagers who frequently used profanities that the
director argued were typical of the social group his film depicted.
The film
received similar certificates in Ireland
(also an 18
certificate) and the United States
, but in Australia it was
awarded the less restrictive MA
certificate.
There are minimal restrictions of the depiction of non-sexual
nudity, which is allowed in even U and PG certificate films, but
scenes of (simulated) sexual activity are limited to more
restricted certificates. With regard to material that is intended
primarily as pornographic the Board's policy, as stated on its
website is "Material which appears to be simulated is generally
passed ‘18’, while images of real sex are confined to the ‘R18’
category." However, for some years depictions of real sex have been
allowed in 18 certificate videos which are intended to be
educational, and in recent years a number of works such as
Catherine Breillat's
Romance,
Patrice Chéreau's
Intimacy and
Michael Winterbottom's
9 Songs which feature apparently
unsimulated sex have been passed uncut for theatrical
release.
Violence remains one of the most problematic areas, especially
where it is sexualised. The Board continues to cut films even at 18
certificate for "any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous
acts which is likely to promote the activity." This is particularly
the case with so-called "imitable techniques". However, the Board
takes into account issues of context and whether it considers
scenes of sexual violence to "eroticise" or "endorse" sexual
assault. In 2002, the board passed
Gaspar Noé's
Irréversible uncut, but less than a
month later cut
Takashi Miike's
Ichi the Killer by three
and a quarter minutes specifically for its allegedly eroticised
sexual violence.
Crime techniques which may be imitated may be cut at any level of
certification, as may depictions of drug use that might be
imitated. Films which "promote or encourage the use of illegal
drugs" may also be cut at any level. The issue of imitable
techniques is one that does not seem to figure especially highly in
the censorship systems of most other countries, but in the UK
numerous minor cuts have been made, primarily to films whose
distributors want a PG or 12A certificate, to scenes of imitable
techniques. For example, in recent months issues involving hanging
have become very problematic; the
Ren and
Stimpy Series 1 DVD set (classified PG) was edited to remove
the song "The Lord Loves a Hangin'" because the song implied that
hanging is "comedic, fun, and risk-free".
Paranoia Agent Volume 3 DVD set (classified
18) was also cut to remove the depiction of a child nearly hanging
himself for the same reason.
Leadership
Presidents of the BBFC
Directors of the BBFC
During James Ferman's time the title of the chief executive officer
at the BBFC changed from "Secretary of the Board" to the current
"Director". At the same time, the
title
card displaying a film's certificate which opens all
theatrically-screened films in the United Kingdom stopped carrying
the chief executive's signature; the President's signature is now
used instead.
- Joseph Brooke Wilkinson (1 January 1913-15 July 1948) (died in
office)
- A.T.L. Watkins (26 July 1948-23 January 1957)
- John Nicholls (23 January 1957-30 April 1958)
- John Trevelyan (22 May 1958-1
July 1971)
- Stephen Murphy (1 July 1971-18 June 1975)
- James Ferman (18 June 1975-10
January 1999)
- Robin Duval (11 January 1999-19
September 2004)
- David Cooke (20 September 2004–present;)
Notes
- Quoted as “The film is so cryptic as to be almost meaningless.
If there is a meaning, it is doubtless objectionable” on p.39 of
James Crighton Robertson's The Hidden Cinema: British Film
Censorship in Action, 1913-1975, 1993, ISBN 0415090342, and at
p.70 of Rachael Low's History of British
Film, 1970, ISBN 0415154510
- BBFC page on Rebel Without a Cause
1955 classification for 1956 UK release.
- BBFC page on Smiles of a Summer Night
classification for 1956 UK release.
See also
References
- Knowles, Dorothy, The Censor, the Drama and the Film,
London, George Allen & Unwin (1934).
- Hunnings, Neville March, Film Censors and the Law,
London, Allen & Unwin (1967).
- Mathews, Tom Dewe, Censored, London, Chatto &
Windus (1994).
- Richards, Jeffrey, 'The British Board of Film Censors and
Content Control in the 1930s', Historical Journal of Film,
Radio and Television, vol. 1, no. 2 (1981), pp. 95-116
& vol. 2, no. 1 (1982), pp. 39-48.
- Robertson, James C., 'British Film Censorship Goes to War',
Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, vol. 2,
no. 1 (1982), pp. 49-64.
- Robertson, James C., The British Board of Film Censors:
Film Censorship in Britain, 1896-1950, London, Croom Helm
(1985).
- Robertson, James C., The Hidden Cinema: British Film
Censorship in Action, 1913-72, London, Routledge (1993).
- Baron, Saskia (writer & director), Empire of the
Censors - two-part TV documentary, pc. Barraclough Carey,
prod. Paul Kerr, BBC2, tx. 28 & 29 May 1995.
External links
Top topics
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Misc
Search
