" 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.
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.
