ASK & DISCUSS

INDEX

The British Board of Film Censorship

11 years, 11 months ago - Daniel Cormack

Okay, it's actually the British Board of Film Classification, although it's name used to be the British Board of Film Censors. The name has changed but it's role is still essentially the same.

In a canny bit of marketing The Great Hip Hop Hoax have been publicising their 18 certificate via the medium of the Shooting People mailout.

http://www.strangethingsarehappening.com/takingthepiss.html

Essentially, the BBFC beef seems to be that a rapper pulls out his cock in Leicester Square and urinates in the hands of another man who then washes his face in it.

As the blog the SP mailout links to points out, there is no automatic 18 for on-screen urination, but some of the examples it gives who have recieved less than an 18 are a little less provocative ie. people urinating in the old-fashioned way, just to relieve themselves, rather than providing an impromptu face wash.

But in the world of The Inbetweeners and American Pie, is this really that shocking? I'm pretty sure both feature people being pissed on for comic effect and you don't need to be 18 to watch those films / TV shows.

Erstwhile Shooting People member and female pornographer Anna Span locked heads with the BBFC because they denied the existence of female ejaculation and insisted her films showed sexual urination and were therefore were obscene and not only ineligible for an 18 cert, but also illegal.

Is the BBFC relevant to Shooters given that films are increasingly being distributed via VoD or sales from websites outside the UK?

What might the future hold with faith, family and flag politicians seeking to extend government control over the internet?









Only members can post or respond to topics. LOGIN

Not a member of SP? JOIN or FIND OUT MORE

Answers older then 1 month have been hidden - you can SHOW all answers or select them individually
Answers older then 1 month are visible - you can HIDE older answers.

11 years, 10 months ago - Daniel Cormack

Can you copy and paste what they said? I'm sure everyone would be fascinated to hear their notes!

I've also been on the wrong end of a BBFC classification and creative advice. My film Nightwalking was given a 12a because of the "sustained atmosphere of fear and menace".

I suppose in a way it was compliment, but equally the second half of the film dispels the fear and menace and is actually comic and always gets some really good laughs whenever it's screened in front of audience.

I put this to the BBFC in an appeal Virgin Media made on my behalf and Murray Perkins (what a great name for a censor), one of two senior examiners at the BBFC, responded: "It is fair to say that the noted comedy does not come through particularly strongly, and consequently does little to lighten the overall tone of the work."!

Not only censors, but also the comedy police! I wonder what comedies he settles downs to of an evening.

Response from 11 years, 10 months ago - Daniel Cormack SHOW

11 years, 10 months ago - Daniel Cormack

How bizarre! So they actually went beyond their remit of classifying the work and offered an opinion on what would "devalue" the comedy? Am I reading that right?

What did the initial classification come back as and what were they saying you would get if you made their suggested cuts?

Maybe I'm being dense here, but I'm a bit confused about what it is implied the woman is going to do with the handcuffs.

Comedy is simply something that makes people laugh. It may not make everyone laugh, but you can't deny its existence just because you personally don't find it funny. Personally, I thought if anything I over signposted the comedy in that particular film which they deemed unfunny.

The BBFC seem to be enforcing a very rigid definition of comedy in the way they classify material.

Response from 11 years, 10 months ago - Daniel Cormack SHOW

11 years, 10 months ago - Colin Hives

Daniel, I got into trouble for handcuffs and a penis once. they weren't even in the same shot. Infact the penis wasn't in shot at all. I got a written letter about suggestive cuts. Madness.

Response from 11 years, 10 months ago - Colin Hives SHOW

11 years, 10 months ago - cath le couteur

Such a great post Daniel. Think you silenced everyone into FEAR :)

Response from 11 years, 10 months ago - cath le couteur SHOW

11 years, 10 months ago - Colin Hives

The scene was basically this - A man drops his trousers, they fall to the floor as a woman kneels in front of him holding handcuffs (This was 12 years ago).
A guy named Marcus Elliot explained that the suggestive nature of the two shots implied that something "Over" sexual was about to happen, and, with the film being a work of comedy it would devalue the piece and take on a more adult content. In his opinion the shot of the woman would have to either be removed or re-positioned. Or (and this is funny), the trousers falling being removed. Didn't make much sense to me at the time, or now. I replied asking what he though my female lead was going to do with the handcuffs, was she going to slip them on his penis? Somebody else then replied "Telling" me that a debate on the matter was not an option. Great movie loving people. Now, the film was only being put forward so we could show it for a paying audience at a local cinema. We decided not to take their advice (Even though they took our money) and showed it anyway (For a none paying audience :))

Response from 11 years, 10 months ago - Colin Hives SHOW

11 years, 10 months ago - Colin Hives

They did not mention what certificate would have come back (Nothing more than a 15 I would think). As for the opinion on the cut - I don't really think they were trying to "devalue" I think they jumped way ahead of themselves on what they thought may happen with the cuffs. Nothing is seen at all in a sexual way. Implied? Probably. The actress looking up with the cuffs probably told a story they didn't actually see. Which I guess is a problem. A friend suggested they sometimes just like to be awkward. I guess it was a slow day.

Response from 11 years, 10 months ago - Colin Hives SHOW

11 years, 10 months ago - Daniel Cormack

For me the denying the existence of female ejaculation tells you all you need to know about the BBFC.

Response from 11 years, 10 months ago - Daniel Cormack SHOW