History of the BBFC: How Has it Changed?

• 'Censorship' has now become 'classification' in the Board's title, reflecting the more lenient approach to challenging material in films and the move away from such guidelines as the '43 Grounds for Deletion'.
• The categories of film classification have changed a lot over the years, as 'A' and 'X' were replaced with '15', '18', '12', 'PG', 'R18', 'U', Uc', and most recently '12A'.
• Constantly shifting public views and the resulting ammendments to laws have also greatly affected how the current BBFC is shaped, and on what values its classification process is based.
• The BBFC has seen several leaders and directors, and each one tried to make the process less strict to allow films to be more expressive forms of artwork.
• The introduction of multi-platform media and home cinema has given the BBFC a bigger workload due to so many titles coming out not only in cinemas, but on DVD and Blu-Ray, Video Games and Trailers - all requiring classification.

History of the BBFC: 1912-49

1916 - T. P. O’CONNOR 

When T. P. O’Connor was appointed President of the BBFC, one of his first tasks was to give evidence to the Cinema Commission of Inquiry, set up by the National Council of Public Morals in 1916. He listed forty-three grounds for deletion as guidance for the examiners. This list was drawn from the Board’s annual reports for 1913-1915. The list shows the strictness felt necessary if the Board was to earn the trust of the public and relevant bodies:
 
1. Indecorous, ambiguous and irreverent titles and subtitles
2. Cruelty to animals
3. The irreverent treatment of sacred subjects
4. Drunken scenes carried to excess
5. Vulgar accessories in the staging
6. The modus operandi of criminals
7. Cruelty to young infants and excessive cruelty and torture to adults, especially women
8. Unnecessary exhibition of under-clothing
9. The exhibition of profuse bleeding
10. Nude figures
11. Offensive vulgarity, and impropriety in conduct and dress
12. Indecorous dancing
13. Excessively passionate love scenes
14. Bathing scenes passing the limits of propriety
15. References to controversial politics
16. Relations of capital and labour
17. Scenes tending to disparage public characters and institutions
18. Realistic horrors of warfare
19. Scenes and incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy
20. Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies
21. Scenes holding up the King’s uniform to contempt or ridicule
22. Subjects dealing with India, in which British Officers are seen in an odious light, and otherwise attempting to suggest the disloyalty of British Officers, Native States or bringing into disrepute British prestige in the Empire
23. The exploitation of tragic incidents of the war
24. Gruesome murders and strangulation scenes
25. Executions
26. The effects of vitriol throwing
27. The drug habit. e.g. opium, morphia, cocaine, etc
28. Subjects dealing with White Slave traffic
29. Subjects dealing with premeditated seduction of girls
30. 'First Night' scenes
31. Scenes suggestive of immorality
32. Indelicate sexual situations
33. Situations accentuating delicate marital relations
34. Men and women in bed together
35. Illicit relationships
36. Prostitution and procuration
37. Incidents indicating the actual perpetration of criminal assaults on women
38. Scenes depicting the effect of venereal disease, inherited or acquired
39. Incidents suggestive of incestuous relations
40. Themes and references relative to 'race suicide'
41. Confinements
42. Scenes laid in disorderly houses
43. Materialization of the conventional figure of Christ

THE YEARS BETWEEN THE WARS 

During this period the kind of material that caused concern included horror and gangster films, as well as those that dealt with aspects of sexuality. Some councils were beginning to bar children from films classified 'A', even when they had been cut by the BBFC to achieve a certificate. For example, the London County Council (LCC) and Manchester City Council (MCC) banned children from Frankenstein (1931), although a sequence in which the monster drowns a small girl had already been cut. In response to such material, the advisory category 'H' (for horror) was agreed in 1932, to indicate the potential unsuitability for children of the horror theme. 

 

1948 - ARTHUR WATKINS 

Arthur Watkins was appointed Secretary to the Board in 1948, under the Presidency of Sir Sidney Harris. Many film-makers sought the Board's advice on scripts before films went into production. Watkins and Harris formulated new terms of reference for the Board based on three principles:

• was the story, incident or dialogue likely to impair the moral standards of the public by extenuating vice or crime or depreciating moral standards?
• Was it likely to give offence to reasonably minded cinema audiences?
• What effect would it have on children?

The effect on children was of major importance since, apart from the advisory 'H' category, from which some councils already chose to bar children, there was no category that excluded children. An 'adults only' category was increasingly seen as desirable, not only to protect children, but as an extension of the freedom of film-makers to treat adult subjects in an adult fashion.

History of the BBFC: 2000s

New Guidelines:

In 1999, the Board embarked on an extensive consultation process to gauge public opinion before the compilation of new Classification Guidelines. The major outcomes were:

• that the depiction of drugs and drugs use was the cause of greatest concern to parents
• the issue of violence in the lower classification categories was similarly concerning
• use of bad language on screen provoked a range of responses, reflecting varying tolerances in the general public.
• Portrayal of sexual activity, however caused less concern than previously.

The DCMS and Ofcom: 

In June 2001, governmental responsibility for film and video classification moved from the Home Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Ofcom is the new regulator for television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services. The regulation of films, videos and DVDs does not fall under Ofcom's remit and remains the responsibility of the BBFC. The BBFC is still the only regulator which regulates material before it is seen by the public.

The '12A' rating

In 2002, the new '12A' category replaced the '12' category for film only, and allows children under 12 to see a '12A' film, provided that they are accompanied throughout by an adult. The decision to introduce this new category was taken after a pilot scheme and research had been conducted to assess public reaction. The new category was also conditional on the provision and publication of Consumer Advice for '12A' films.  The Board considers '12A' films to be suitable for audiences OVER the age of 12, but acknowledges that parents know best whether their children younger than 12 can cope with a particular film.  The first '12A' film was The Bourne Identity. Consumer Advice:

The BBFC lauched website pages such as:

• Parent BBFC
• Children's BBFC
• Consumer Advice

This made the classification system a lot more transparent to the public, helpful for the parents, and educational for children and teenagers.

History of the BBFC: 1990s

Despite the statutory regulation of video since 1984, public concern about the influence of videos has continued and there have been periodic calls for stricter standards, most notably following the Jamie Bulger case. The trial judge linked this murder of a two year-old by two ten year-old boys to the viewing of violent videos, with the media singling out the horror video Child's Play 3 (1991). Though subsequent enquiries refuted this connection, public opinion rallied behind calls for stricter regulation. Parliament supported an amendment to the Video Recordings Act, contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which requires the Board to consider specific issues, and the potential for harm, when making video classification decisions. 



The Board has always been stricter on video than on film. This is partly because younger people are more likely to gain access to videos with restrictive categories than such films at the cinema (where admissions can be screened).  But it is also because, on video, scenes can be taken out of context, and particular moments can be replayed.

In 1997 the BBFC's President, Lord Harewood, stepped down after 12 years in the job.  His replacement, Andreas Whittam Smith, announced his intention to steer the BBFC towards a greater 'openness and accountability'.  This included the publication of the BBFC's first set of classification guidelines in 1998, following a series of public 'roadshows' in which public views were canvassed and the launching of a BBFC website.
Digital Media

The 1990s also saw rapid developments in the world of computer games, which seemed to become more realistic and sophisticated with each passing year.  Although the majority of video games were automatically exempt from classification, those that featured realistic violence against humans or animals, or human sexual activity, did come under the scope of the Video Recordings Act.  From 1994 the BBFC started to receive some of the stronger video games for formal classification, which necessitated a different way of examining (because it was impossible to see everything that might happen in a game). 

History of the BBFC: 1980s

Review of the category system: 

In 1982 'A' was changed to 'PG', 'AA' was changed to '15' and 'X' became '18'. A new category 'R18' was introduced which permitted more explicit sex films to be shown in members-only  clubs.  Previously, such clubs had shown material unclassified by the BBFC, but a change in the law closed this loophole.  Since the mid 1980s most 'R18' material is released on video, only available from a limited number of sex shops which must be specially licensed by local authorities. 

In 1985, at the request of the industry, the 'Uc' was introduced for video only, to identify works specifically suitable for very young children to watch alone.

In 1989 the BBFC introduced the '12' certificate on film, to bridge the huge gap between 'PG' and '15'. This was extended to video in 1994. The first film to be given a '12' rating was Batman.

The first of the Rambo series, First Blood, was passed '15' uncut in 1982, and the second, George Pan Cosmatos' Rambo - First Blood Part II was passed '15' uncut in 1985.  However, Rambo III was cut in 1988 to obtain an '18' certificate.  In addition to a horse-fall removed under the terms of the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937, the violence was reduced by the excision of spatter shots, and cuts were made to counteract the glamorisation of weapons which constituted a significant classification issue.  



Development of Home Cinema:

The development of the video recorder created new anxieties about the home viewing of feature films. Legally, there was no requirement that videos should be classified, which meant that films that had not been approved by the BBFC or which were suitable for adults only, were falling into the hands of children.

In particular the tabloid press led a campaign against so called  'video nasties'. This term was not always clearly defined, but there were 70 titles that had either been prosecuted by the DPP under the Obscene Publications Act, or were awaiting prosecution. Some of these were horror films that had never been submitted to the BBFC. Others had been cut for their cinema release, and the video versions sometimes included restored cuts.

The outcome of this concern was new legislation, introduced as a private member’s Bill by Conservative MP, Graham Bright.  The Video Recordings Act 1984, makes it an offence for a video work to be supplied if it has not been classified, or to supply a classified work to a person under the age specified in the certificate.

The Board was designated as the authority with responsibility for classification in 1985, with a consequent increase in staff to deal with a massively increased workload consisting of a backlog of titles already on the market and all new titles.

History of the BBFC: 1970s

CHANGES TO THE CATEGORY SYSTEM: 

• The introduction of the 'AA' was finally approved by local authorities and the industry in 1970.
• Raising of the minimum age for 'X' certificate films from 16 to 18. 
• The old 'A' (advisory) category was split to create a new advisory 'A' which permitted the admission of children of five years or over whether accompanied or not, but which warned parents that a film in this category would contain some material that parents might prefer their children under fourteen not to see, and a new 'AA' certificate which allowed the admission of those over 14, but not under 14, whether accompanied or not.

The idea was that this would protect adolescents from material of a specifically adult nature and would permit more adult films to be passed uncut for an older, more mature audience.  It recognised the earlier maturity of many teenagers by giving them access to certain films at the age of 14, without being accompanied by an adult.

It also indicated to parents the difference between films wholly suitable for children of all ages, which would continue to be classified 'U', and those which might contain some material which some parents might prefer their children not to see. New System in the US:

A new ratings system in the United States included an uncensored 'X' category, left to the sole control of the criminal law. John Trevelyan, the Secretary at the time, was concerned by this: “We are afraid that this will have the effect of giving certain film-makers the opportunity of going much further than they have done in scenes of sex and sexual perversion, since with the protection of an 'X' category, they can shed personal responsibility”.

The seventies did indeed see the release of a number of provocative films, in particular those that linked sex and violence, for example  Straw Dogs (1971), and A Clockwork Orange (1971), both of which contained controversial rape scenes.

History of the BBFC: 1960s

Challenges to the Obscene Publications Act (1959), suggested a strong shift in public opinion. John Trevelyan, as Secretary to the Board, responded to the new spirit of liberalism by stating:
"The British Board of Film Censors cannot assume responsibility for the guardianship of public morality. It cannot refuse for exhibition to adults films that show behaviour that contravenes the accepted moral code, and it does not demand that ‘the wicked’ should also be punished. It cannot legitimately refuse to pass films which criticise ‘the Establishment’ and films which express minority opinions".

However, the decade began with a challenge in the form of Michael Powell's  Peeping Tom, which had been seen by the Board at the script stage and provoked a remark from Trevelyan about its 'morbid concentration on fear'. Various cuts had been suggested at script stage, and the film was passed 'X' in 1960 with cuts. Critics greeted the film with a torrent of abuse and it failed to please the public, damaging Powell's reputation. The video remained an '18' work until 2007 when it was reclassified and passed '15'.

As public tolerance increased in the sweeping social change of the sixties, films became more explicit, but in practice the Board still requested cuts, usually to verbal and visual 'indecency'.
One of the most commercially successful series of films of the decade began in 1962 with Terence Young's Dr No, the first of the long running James Bond movies. Passed 'A' with cuts, this set a pattern for what followed, with From Russia With Love passed 'A' with cuts to sexual innuendo in 1963, Goldfinger passed 'A' in 1964 with cuts to nudity and violence, and Thunderball passed 'A' in 1965 with a cut to a sexy massage scene.

History of the BBFC: 1950s

One development that stemmed from this apparent affluence was the emergence of 'youth' as a group with a defined identity and as a target for consumer goods, as young people with disposable income became an attractive proposition for those selling records, clothes and all the trappings of the teenager.

Controversial subjects on film were accommodated in the UK under the new 'X' category, introduced in 1951and incorporating the former advisory 'H' category given to horror films.

Films like Rock Around The Clock(1956) drew teenage audiences. Cut for U, this film caused rioting in cinemas and fuelled increasing concern about teenage criminality, although there was in fact no evidence of a teenage crime wave as suggested by the popular Press.

Nicholas Ray's 1955 Rebel Without A Cause ran into trouble because of its depiction of what the Board considered to be anti-social behaviour and teen violence, but substantial cuts were agreed for the film's release at 'X'.  

The year 1956 also saw the resignation of Arthur Watkins, who was replaced for the next two years as Secretary by John Nichols. In 1958 John Trevelyan became Board Secretary.
At the end of the decade came Beat Girl, a sort of UK equivalent ofRebel Without A Cause, starring Adam Faith. The Board was not impressed with the script for this film about a teenage girl who seeks to rebel against her father by hanging around with a bad crowd in Soho and considers becoming a stripper. The script was judged to be 'the product of squalid and illiterate minds' and several amendments were made before it was cut for 'X'. It is now classified '12' on video, having lost its appeal to shock.

PCC & BBFC Seminars

Why were they useful?

• Allowed me to grasp the size and importance of organisations by visiting their offices
• Meeting employees from both organisations was useful in getting an idea of the daily activities of the PCC and BBFC
• There was the chance to benefit from the opinions of real examiners/commissioners on the systems and hear their well-informed views on their organisations
• We were able to ask relevant questions about the current state of the BBFC and PCC and have them answered authoritatively

What have I learnt?

• The PCC seems to be a thriving organisation from the look of its expensive office in Holborne, yet is a smaller organisation than i thought, with only 17 members and the chairman wandering around amongst them all in a much more family-like setup than I had envisioned.
• The BBFC examiners are for some reason restricted to watching exactly 5hrs41mins of footage each day as outlined in their job descriptions
• As well as learning new things, I have also deepened and consolidated my knowledge of PCC and BBFC regulations and case studies I was already familiar with

Anything unexpected or surprising?

• Only 3 works were banned by the BBFC in 2009, a much smaller figure than I expected
• The PCC has a surprisingly large amount of influence on the industry considering its size
• The BBFC may cease to classify videogames in the near future, handing the responsibility over to PEGI

PCC Case Studies

1. Man vs Northwich Guardian

• Clause 6 could be relevant because the boy is under 16
• However, the boy himself already posted the video in the public domain, so he has forfeited his right to privacy
• Public interest - dangerous and serious anti-social behaviour and criminal activity

Decision: Complaint Dismissed




2. Man vs Zoo Magazine

• Clause 6 is relevant, as the girl in the photo is 10 years old
• Risk of intrusion into child's life, bullying and ridicule
• Only public interest in general abuse in football crowds which could just be represented with father's picture
• Daughter's face should have been blurred

Decision: Complaint Upheld

3. Man vs Sunday Times

• Clause 4 is relevant as the child is being harassed by journalists. 
• Clause 6 applies as boy is 14 and has the right to complete his education without intrusion, especially as the journalist is trying to obtain photos of other schoolchildren without their or the school's permission. 
• Clause 6 also condemns the paying of children too, as well as clause 15 which outlaws any paying of witnesses in criminal trials.

Decision: Complaint Upheld

4. Woman vs The Independent

• Clause 3 is relevant here, as the article is a breach of the woman's privacy. She had only told her private friends and the information was not public until declared in an official theatre press release
• No public interest - woman's private life
• It must also be taken into account that the information was released less than 3 months into her pregnancy, which adds another layer of insensitivity and uncertainty to the story, as pregnancies cannot ever be reliable until 3 months in. In this case, the woman did indeed have a miscarriage.

Decision: Complaint Upheld

5. A Woman vs The Sun

• Clause 5, very likely to be an intrusion into grief or shock of family.
• However, it took place in a public setting with many witnesses
• Paper insists that the suicide was not treated inappropriately

Decision: Complaint Dismissed

6. A Woman vs Eastbourne Gazette

• Clause 3 applies here, as the privacy of the man's health and life have been breached
• Clause 4 is relevant, as the man and his family are being harassed. Man asked the journalists to desist, but they went on to phone him again and leave another message
• Clause 8 was breached, as journalists must seek permission from an executive before entering a hospital
• No public interest

Decision: Complaint Upheld

7. A Police Officer vs The Sunday Telegraph

• Clause 3 could be in breach, as the man only posted the statement to his own Facebook friends, and the policewoman's right to privacy has not been respected
• Clause 10 applies, as the newspaper admitted to subterfuge in their search for information
• However, the police officer did add the paper on Facebook, thus allowing it to obtain the information legitimately
• Overriding public interest in this case, as the public have a right to know the racist and extreme views/links to nazi ideals of any police officers working for them. The man's position of public power could make him a threat to any social groups he does not approve of.

Decision: Complaint Dismissed




8. Paul McCartney vs Hello! Magazine

• Clause 3 is the issue here, as his complaint regards the breach of privacy of him and his family
• Clause 5 is also very relevant, as the paper is intruding into his family grief at the death of wife and mother Linda McCartney
• However, his celebrity status means that he should expect media interest when seen out in a public place
• No public interest in the private grief of a celebrity over their dead wife.

Decision: Complaint Upheld

PCC: 16 Clauses

1. Accuracy

2. Opportunity to reply

3. *Privacy

4. *Harassment

5. Intrusion into grief or shock

6. *Children

7. *Children in sex cases

8. *Hospitals

9. *Reporting of Crime

10. *Clandestine devices and subterfuge

11. Victims of sexual assault

12. Discrimination

13. Financial journalism

14. Confidential sources

15. Witness payments in criminal trials

16. *Payment to criminals

The public interest

There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

PCC Overview

What does the PCC do?:

• Independent body, which deals with complaints about editorial content of magazines/newspapers and their websites
• 16 clause Code of Practice which editors and journalists must obey
• They investigate complaints from people directly affected
• Tries to help editor and complainant to find resolution to their disagreement (e.g. apology, public correction, clarification)
• If case isn't resolved simply, PCC assesses evidence in an adjudication, deciding whether to uphold or reject the complaint

How does the system work?:

• Not legal or government run, rather a voluntary agreement between editors
• 16 clause Code of Practice devised by editors
• Commission run by majority public ('lay') members (10/17 including chairman) - No members are connected to the industry

What does the Code of Practice cover?:

• 4 main areas: accuracy, privacy, news gathering and protecting the vulnerable
• Editor expected to take responsibility for stories/photographs in their publication and comply with the code
• 'Public interest' a mitigating factor
• Doesn't cover issues of taste/decency as in accordance with free press publications should be free to choose style
• Understands individuals choose to look at a newspaper and can make their own decisions
• More public mediums (e.g. billboards) may be ruled inappropriate on taste

How are they funded?:

• Funded by 'Press Standards Board of Finance' (PressBof) who receive money from newspapers/magazines in UK
• Newspapers pay in proportion to no. of readers in circulation - big publications pay more than small ones
• No funding from government or public

History of the PCC?:

• Set up in 1991, replacing Press Council set up in 1953
• In 1980s, a small number of publications failed to observe the basic ethics of journalism leading to MPs loss of confidence in the Press Council
• PCC set up to show that "non-statutory regulation can work effectively"

Who complains to the PCC and why?:

• People who believe an article involving them breaches the Code
• In 2007, 1.5% of complaints came from celebrities, 95.8% from the general public
• Special protection to vulnerable groups such as children, hospital patients or minority groups.
• Majority of complaints about smaller regional newspapers

Why is the PCC important?:

• Free press is vital in a democratic society
• The PCC works democratically as it is impartial and voluntary
• Fast (deals with complaints in average of 35 days), and costs nothing to use

Film Regulation: Thoughts on the Current System

What are the PROS and CONS of the current UK system of film classification?


PROS

• Clear, simple classification system. Gives buyers instant idea of general suitability of the film.
• Parents have a reliable, government-approved authority to trust to rate films correctly for their children.
• The BBFC are not all-powerful - they are answerable to OFCOM and local authorities can overrule BBFC rating decisions in their respective areas.
• The BBFC constantly update their guidelines to keep abreast of the current social climate and any new laws that are passed.

CONS

• The laws against the selling of unsuitable films to children are impossible to enforce and one could argue that the laws primarily exist to protect the government from any damage to society done by films.
• The ratings system is fundamentally flawed in that it assumes all children are the same in terms of sensitivity and fears. It is impossible to quantify what will affect a particular child and what one 6 year-old finds upsetting may not disturb his twin at all.
• The BBFC guidelines and website are not well advertised, so not many parents are aware that extensive information on film classification is available to them. Therefore some of them remain woefully ignorant of film classification guidelines.

Do you think the way films are regulated is sensible, useful to society and achieves its aim of protecting the vulnerable and upholding the law?


I think that the BBFC guidelines are sensible and relevant to modern society. The organisation is very necessary to enforce quality control on all professional films being consumed by the public. The guidelines successfully enforce the law on films passing through the system, making cuts to scenes or even banning works completely. 


However, I do not think the classification system succeeds in its aim of protecting the vulnerable at all. Besides having guidelines that do not take into account different sensitivity levels in children, the UK laws do not stop children watching unsuitable films at all. The internet means that a child can watch anything they want whenever they want, rendering the laws protecting children useless.


Is there anything you think could be done to improve the system?

• Raise public awareness of the BBFC website to reduce parental ignorance
• Police crackdown on illegal video sites - tightening of Digital Economies Bill
• Involve parents more in the rating process. Take public votes into consideration perhaps?

Notable Differences Between Ratings: 18 - R18

18 - R18


While 18s are still ordinary films with adult content, the R18 category exists purely for sex works.

• Clear images of real sex are allowed, unlike at 18.
• May not breach any criminal laws.
• Abusive behaviour is not acceptable.