Age Ratings

[elderford]

If you have 90 mins to while away, listen to the commentary track on Jet Lee's The One.

It includes comments about what they originally filmed, and later trimmed to get a lower rating to ensure more dollar heavy teen spending, instead of only grown-ups being allowed in who have to spend their money on children's shoes instead.

It would appear that the film was submitted to the censors, who then told them: well if that headshot stays in and that lingering strangulation it's gonna be an 18.

The film-makers also went to the trouble to refilm some scenes, but from further away, to lessen the impact of the violence. Took up the censors on their recommendations.

Re-submitted the film and got a coveted lower age restriction.

[skibz]

When Scorcese (think I've spelt that wrong) took Taxi Driver to the censors, they said he should re-do the big shoot-out scene at the end because it was apparently 'far too bloody'

Scorcese said 'fine', took away the print, re-submitted the exact same print a few months later saying he'd altered it and the censors said it was fine.

It's all just a load of shit, isn't it?

[Johnny Yesno]

Surely no one here is suggesting a five-year-old should be let in to see Irreversible or Battle Royale, even if accompanied by a parent. I know these are extreme examples but the age restrictions are there for guidance. A less extreme example is Jurassic Park where that bloke gets eaten on the toilet. If I was a parent I'd want to know in advance if I was in for a night of calming a kid down. The reviewers can't really warn you about that sort of thing without giving the plot away.
I do believe that age ratings prime the viewer but that's an inconvenience I'm willing to suffer.

[elderford]

Aha! No, what he did was tone the print down, making it darker.

Witness comparing the DVD version (toned down but brightened) and when it was last on telly and was near to dark, reducing the impact considerably.

Unfortunately the originally negs are no longer with us, so we can never watch the true impact of the blood red version.

American censors have a real thing about red blood, hence why we all sit there watching Fightclub wondering why everyone has black blood.

Or Dusk 'til Dawn, which uses about every colour but red for blood.

[skibz]

Jurassic Park where that bloke gets eaten on the toilet. If I was a parent I'd want to know in advance if I was in for a night of calming a kid down.

This was a PG, and I seem to remember a lot of crying kiddies in the cinema at the part :) In this case, the only way parents would have been able to really decide if the film was suitable would have been to do some research - come on, if 15-year-olds can do it for GCSE coursework, why not grown adults?

Aha! No, what he did was tone the print down, making it darker.

Aaaaaaahhh. I always thought that scene looked a lil odd :)

[Morrisfan82]

I always harboured a conspiracy theory that Jurassic Park would have certainly been a 12 had it not been a dead-cert take-the-kids-to-see-it, raking-it-in-at-the-box-office affair.

It was the first film I ever noted as having a "PG - contains scenes unsuitable for very young children" warning on the promotional material.

[Alberon]

I think the silly little comments put after the rating like 'Contains mild peril, might make a four year old have nightmares' that sort of thing are okay if it means the BBFC can relax the actual rating for the film more than otherwise.

[Johnny Yesno]

Jurassic Park where that bloke gets eaten on the toilet. If I was a parent I'd want to know in advance if I was in for a night of calming a kid down.

This was a PG, and I seem to remember a lot of crying kiddies in the cinema at the part :) In this case, the only way parents would have been able to really decide if the film was suitable would have been to do some research

Yeah, by seeing the film or reading spoilers. Kind of ruins the spontaneity  though, doesn't it? I thought that was the complaint about having age ratings.

[5 Knuckle Shuffle]

I don't understand why many seem to be pissed off about there being a ratings guide. It's a guide and not set in stone. It's there to help you decide, not dictate.
Whether you agree or not, society has a duty to protect us/ guide us with certain things. I know parents are also part of society but I hope you understand what I mean. While we're at it, what's wrong with dropping the age of consent of sex, drinking alcohol, smoking altogether. Make all drugs legal, hurray!! Let the parents decide if they feel it's right for their children to get pissed as arseholes or smacked up to their tits instead. Sometimes in life, it's the adults that need protection/ guidance as much as the children. The guides are fine as they are.

[elderford]

I do like the ones that help you avoid overly dull material:

violence: none
nudity: none
swearing: none
content: a bit dull

as opposed to

violence: frequent and impressive
nudity: box shots
swearing: coarser than a miners' locker-room
content: lurid

[MojoJojo]

Bah, from my experience, Taxi Driver is almost edited badly when on TV - jarringly so. It's around the bit he gets shot in the neck - in some TV versions, he never actually kills the bloke who shoots him.

When I was under 18, I thought film censorship was the worse thing ever, and they only got away with it because you can't vote when you're under 18. Then I turned 18 and I no longer care.

Some censorship is necessary. And having an 18 certificate is probably an OK idea.

The main reason for all the other certificates though, is purely marketing demographics... As many people before me have pointed out most things considered only suitable for mature audiences, swearing, kung-fu, gore, boobs, are only of interest to immature audiences.

So we get this graded scale from PG to 15 to 18, so films like  The One can target teenages interested in all that punching, but don't have to make it "safe" for younger viewers at the same time.

I imagine the certificates are set purely on demographics lines.

Hmm, was what I said really obvious? Sorry if that was the case.

[skibz]

It's a guide and not set in stone. It's there to help you decide, not dictate.

Do you remember when Princess Di took William and Harry to see 'The Devil's Own', that IRA thriller from the mid-90s? There was a huge row in the papers about her getting away with breaking the law taking them in under-age, and practically no mention of whether they were mature enough to actually understand it.

[5 Knuckle Shuffle]

I've just done a quick search and found this out, of which I never really knew.

History of British Film Certificates
The UK's film ratings are decided by the British Board of Film Classification and have been since 1913 (previously there were no ratings). For cinema releases, the BBFC has no legal power (technically, the film studios do not even have to submit their films for classification), as it falls to the local councils to decide who should be admitted to a certain film. However, the councils nearly always abide by the BBFC's certificates, effectively making them legally-binding. They have also followed the BBFC's recent advice and added legal backing to the new 12A certificate, meaning that children under 12 can be admitted as long as they are accompanied by an adult. In the case of videos, the BBFC have had legal powers since 1985 (previously there were no video ratings) and are obliged to rate every new video release (the ratings themselves determining the age a person needs to be to buy and rent a video).

So effectively, it's not illegal, but it is??? :-)

Taken from here by the way http://www.filmbug.co.uk/dictionary/bbfc.php

[skibz]

I'd forgotten about the council having to accept the BBFC rating. It's reminded me of the time Mrs. Doubtfire was released - the BBFC rated it a 12, but most local councils overturned this and rated it PG, mainly because 'parents thought so'. Yet if the parents find a film is unsuitable and their child is upset, it's usually seen as the BBFC's fault for rating it too low.

[MojoJojo]

I'm surprised by that... the Union Film Society here have to be registered with the Home Office as a "Film Club", which I thought was a sort of light version of what cinemas had to register for.

The Union Film Society aren't apparently bound by certificates either, and can show unlicensed films. Something they considered doing when membership numbers were low.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

Are film people legally required to put the 'Contains mild peril' things on posters and trailers? Or can they just put the rating, like they used to do? Surely there are some cases where the warnings are tantamount to spoliers?

Also, if the BBFC insist on a film being resubmitted with cuts, do they always check up to make sure that these cuts are included in the prints which get released to cinemas? I mean, they don't have the resources to do this surely? Anyone know what the penalty is for using the rating given for the cut version but reinstating all the censored material?

[TJ]

Are film people legally required to put the 'Contains mild peril' things on posters and trailers? Or can they just put the rating, like they used to do? Surely there are some cases where the warnings are tantamount to spoliers?

There's no legal requirement, but I bet those warnings are there as a result fo the intervention of twatty lawyers. "You'd better insert a warning about the mild peril in case someone claims that they weren't warned and sues you, now can I have my eight million pounds please?".

Also, if the BBFC insist on a film being resubmitted with cuts, do they always check up to make sure that these cuts are included in the prints which get released to cinemas? I mean, they don't have the resources to do this surely? Anyone know what the penalty is for using the rating given for the cut version but reinstating all the censored material?

The uncut version of "The Burning" was accidentally released by Thorn EMI in the early 1980s - I believe that on that occasion, the BBFC accepted it was an innocent mistake and just made 'be more careful in future'-type comments.

[skibz]

uncut version of "The Burning"

I wonder what that was like :)

edit: just realised I'd been misreading that as 'The Buming'. ooooooooooops....

[Johnny Yesno]

I'd forgotten about the council having to accept the BBFC rating. It's reminded me of the time Mrs. Doubtfire was released - the BBFC rated it a 12, but most local councils overturned this and rated it PG, mainly because 'parents thought so'. Yet if the parents find a film is unsuitable and their child is upset, it's usually seen as the BBFC's fault for rating it too low.

A-ha! That's why LtPlonker remembers Shaun of the Dead having a different rating where he lives from the rating at my local multiplex.

The Union Film Society aren't apparently bound by certificates either, and can show unlicensed films. Something they considered doing when membership numbers were low.

There's a small cinema in Brighton called the Cinematheque that does that very thing. They show animations and porn filmed using thermal imaging and stuff.

[TJ]

uncut version of "The Burning"

I wonder what that was like :)

A rather quite good "Friday The 13th" ripoff about a mad serial killer armed with a pair of shears on the loose in a Summer Camp, starring a young Jason Alexander. The two minutes or so of cuts that were made were mainly to reduce the more easily imitatable aspects of the sequences with the shears. So now you know.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

The uncut version of "The Burning" was accidentally released by Thorn EMI in the early 1980s - I believe that on that occasion, the BBFC accepted it was an innocent mistake and just made 'be more careful in future'-type comments.

Do you know how they found out though? I mean, unless a film was infamous for having a dodgy scene removed, it would depend on the specific BBFC bod who viewed the film seeing it again at a later date wouldn't it? And him remembering what he'd requested they cut.

If you're a film-maker with your own dubbing suite etc, are you allowed to duplicate your films and show them in public (or sell the DVDs by mail order) without submitting it to the BBFC? I know that 'factual' films are excempt from classification, which is why wedding videos/home movies can be distributed without them being rated, but what if you make low-budget feature films? Do you only send stuff to the BBFC if you need major distributors to handle your film?

I often wonder about this stuff.

[TJ]

Do you know how they found out though? I mean, unless a film was infamous for having a dodgy scene removed, it would depend on the specific BBFC bod who viewed the film seeing it again at a later date wouldn't it? And him remembering what he'd requested they cut.

It was on video rather than in the cinema - as far as I can make out, even though the board had no classificatory powers over early home video, they were informally studying the releases quite closely in anticipation of the fact that they eventually would and didn't want to be faced with a massive backlog of titles to make decisions on whilst the public were shouting about how all the 'filth' should be removed from the shelves with immediate effect. I'd imagine in that case, probably the first thing that they would have done would be to check videos against records of their cinema classified version - if they were able to just say "yep, fine as it is, the original certificate stands" then that saved an enormous amount of time.

Weirdly, I remember reading that the Director of Public Prosecutions included the uncut version of "The Burning" (risibly) on his list of actionable obscene video titles, but specified explicitly that the video of the cut version was not to be considered actionable. How the police differentiated, I don't know.

[Emergency Lalla Ward Ten]

The third Mausoleum Club thread I've posted today, but anyway:

http://www.the-mausoleum-club.org.uk/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=2096

[TJ]

The third Mausoleum Club thread I've posted today

Just don't link to any with Gareth R in them, please!

[thomasina]

Surely no one here is suggesting a five-year-old should be let in to see Irreversible or Battle Royale, even if accompanied by a parent.

Let in?  I am saying the cinema should not have the responsibility, the parent should.  You're not seriously suggesting that a plot synopsis of Battle Royale wouldn't give a clue that there may be, um, killings in it?  And the Jurrassic Park example proves my point, if anything.  Weren't those films released as 'parental guidance'?  And because 5 year olds were not actually legally banned from seeing the film, stupid cunts still took their 5 year olds and whined about the violence, despite the extra warnings given in all the publicity.  

The way I would have it, they would be prosecutable, instead of writing self righteous letters to crappy newspapers about how the cinema should have not let them in.

[thomasina]

I've just done a quick search and found this out, of which I never really knew.

History of British Film Certificates
The UK's film ratings are decided by the British Board of Film Classification and have been since 1913 (previously there were no ratings). For cinema releases, the BBFC has no legal power (technically, the film studios do not even have to submit their films for classification), as it falls to the local councils to decide who should be admitted to a certain film. However, the councils nearly always abide by the BBFC's certificates, effectively making them legally-binding. They have also followed the BBFC's recent advice and added legal backing to the new 12A certificate, meaning that children under 12 can be admitted as long as they are accompanied by an adult. In the case of videos, the BBFC have had legal powers since 1985 (previously there were no video ratings) and are obliged to rate every new video release (the ratings themselves determining the age a person needs to be to buy and rent a video).

So effectively, it's not illegal, but it is??? :-)

Taken from here by the way http://www.filmbug.co.uk/dictionary/bbfc.php

As it says, though, councils almost always take the BBFC's ratings as set in stone.  And if the council has agreed with the rating, it IS illegal.
A very, very few councils have, in the past, taken it on themselves to operate a higher age restriction than the BBFC recommended and others have unilaterally banned films from being shown locally. (Straw Dogs was one, i think.  Maybe Taxi Driver).  I never heard of a council deciding to set a lower age rating than the BBFC, although they have the power to do so.

[Joy Nktonga]

I never heard of a council deciding to set a lower age rating than the BBFC, although they have the power to do so.

Without doing any research to confirm that what I'm about to say is true, I'm pretty sure that a few local authorities down-shifted Spider-man, or something similar, from a 12 to a PG 'cos loads of parents were pissed off that they couldn't take their kids to see it, and couldn't see what was so bad about the film that it warranted the certificate in the first place.

[thomasina]

Yes, I'd missed some posts on page 2 that said something similar happened with Mrs Doubtfire.  12s are now PG12 anyway, which, as I said, a lot of parents take to mean "if i take my 5 year old to see it and it's not suitable, then it's someone else's fault, so that's ok.'  But I guess the change was due to responses like the one you pointed out.

[skibz]

bump

Just to wrap this whole discussion up, as I think most of the good arguments for and against have already been made, I've added a poll.

which probably should have been there from the start.
but never mind.