FILM REGULATION

" How and why have approaches to the regulation of film and the Press changed over time?"

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 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. This is by far the most contentious category.

·       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 two 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 wellas 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, reprehensible or equivocal light’ or contained ‘realistic representations’ of the horrors of war’ and even ‘the presentation of objectionable propaganda’. This was politically important given the period with WW2 starting in 1939 and continuing until 1945.

Therefore, studios that turned out films ‘with the right messages’ like Alexander Korda’s London Films received City capital investment. By contrast, soft left /anti-war thinkers like the film critic (and later famous novelist) Graham Greene were dismayed by this approach. John Grierson, the pioneering ‘father of documentary film’ bemoaned the fact that peace stood no chance when the cinema made ‘war more exciting than peace’ and that its overall effect on the young was to act as ‘the recruiting sergeant’. Newsreels of the time, unlike newspapers,  also depended for much of their news material the actual news footage on the active co-operation of various government agencies. Therefore the government could influence and control much of the diet that the cinema-going public consumed. One perfect example was a Pathe newsreel on the occasion of Hitler’s occupation of the Rhineland in 1936: ‘Scraps of Paper - German Troops Enter Rhineland’. Its consistent argument was the ‘the Germans have not changed’ and were preparing for war, despite the defeat of WW1. It deployed parroted propaganda phrases, pictures and posters, bits of film from previous events, with the unscrupulous use of photos such as German ministers in episcopal dress apparently ‘Heiling Hitler’ as he announced that he had torn up the peace treaty (the shots of the ministers were actually from a harvest festival). The main objective of making people accept rearmament was to stereotype Germans as ‘the beastly Hun’.

Topic 3: explain society’s changing attitudes

Occasionally film classifications create controversy and these incidents reflect society and its changing attitudes.

My first example is Battleship Potemkin (dir. Sergei Eisenstein,1925).
(In the midst of the Russian Revolution of 1905, the crew of the battleship Potemkin mutiny against the brutal, tyrannical regime of the vessel's officers. The resulting street demonstration in Odessa brings on a police massacre. We have watched the Odessa Steps massacre in class.)

 

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 Bolsheviks, also known in English as the Bolshevists, were a radical, far-left, and revolutionary Marxist faction founded by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdano. In general use, the term means 'a person with politically subversive or radical views; a revolutionary'. We still use the term 'bolshie'.) It was not just in the UK that the film's influence was feared: the film was considered "powerfully seditious" by critics and burned by French customs upon arrival, and banned by movie theaters in Pennsylvania because it "gives American sailors a blueprint as to how to conduct a mutiny."

 

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 under16 not admitted). Subsequently the film was reclassified PG uncut for a limited cinema re-release in 1987 and is now acknowledged as a classic.

Topic 4: Explain that the introduction of the 12A category reflected changing social attitudes

It is worth giving the context to the introduction of the 12A. I would first explain the introduction of the 12A in 2002

https://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/12a-ratings/49548/12a-the-problem-that-nobody-wants-to-fix

The 12A was a way to span the huge gap between a PG certificate film and a 15-rated movie, whilst not losing the warning element over the material within. The 12 certificate had been doing this to a degree since it was introduced at the end of the 1980s. But people were asking the BBFC: what are you supposed to do when a ten-year old wants to see a 12 movie, and you feel they’re ready for it? The BBFC decided to act. Following a seven-week trial that took place in Norwich towards the end of 2002, the BBFC replaced the 12 certificate for cinema classification with 12A (the 12 certificate is still in place for home entertainment releases). The Bourne Identity was the first new film in the UK to get the certificate. Local authorities, though, had been overruling the 12 rating given to the original Spider-Man film just before, and Sam Raimi’s movie was duly reclassified once the new certificate was formally introduced.

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 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 been given a 12A certificate, although the BBFC strongly advises parents not to take under-12s. So why choose a classification that would admit them? With its numerous shootings and knifings, persistent atmosphere of nihilistic morbidity and the terrifying appearance and speech of Heath Ledger’s Joker, this seems as to be a 15 but being classified as 12A meant that 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 one critic spoke for many saying  “The film’s producers must be grinning like the Joker at what they’ve got away with. Though Batman is based on a cartoon, director Christopher Nolan has 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 makes a case for the return of the strict 12 certificate, although even that would be too low. The number that fits is 15, although, as the movie industry is well aware, such toughness would cut its box office numbers. 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). The Daniel Radcliffe horror movie The Woman In Black  was the most complained about film of that year according to regulators. It attracted 134 complaints, three times as many as 2011’s most complained about movie, ballet drama Black Swan, which complainants thought was going to be a film about ballet rather than about a ballerina’s mental disintegration, with a sex scene as an aggravating factor.

 

On the regulator website they warn that TWIB - which sees Radcliffe play a young lawyer who visits a remote, haunted village - contains “intense supernatural horror and threat”. This was because the woman in black appears to hang herself from a noose, there are child suicides and because younger audiences might want to see the film because they associated Daniel Radcliffe with his role in the Harry Potter films.

 

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 initially refused to reveal the nature of complaints, but admitted “some people felt the film was too scary at 12A”. However, the regulator defended the decision saying that the text was part of the national curriculum as a classic ghost story, children could see the West End play, that the period setting allowed some degree of separation and that it was clearly a horror film. The BBFC’s routine public consultation on the film showed that 89% of the public supported the 12A certification.

 

The 12A is an example of how regulatory change does not always reflect society’s changing attitudes. The controversial certificate, introduced in 2002 after school kids complained that the old 12 rating  barred them from seeing Spider-Man is considered too vague by many and 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.

 

Two 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 his family, Kubric withdrew the film from UK circulation. 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.

 

Topic 5: 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 Lund 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”.

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.

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 deregulation (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 policy-making 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.