Sight and Sound interview with Robin Duval
Alex
towards a better informed public" is beyond arrogant.
How is the public supposed to be 'better informed'? By the BBFC?
You can already pick up a video and find out what's in it by reading
the sleave and by what section of store it is in.
Do I really need to be told that David Cronenberg makes horror movies?
When I see Jenna Jameson semi-naked on a box cover, do I really have
to be told that this is a porn movie?
The question then is - who does? Unsuspecting parents? If they're smart
enough to have children, shouldn't they be smart enough to read a video sleave?
Alex
From: http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/2001_12/bbfc.html
Excerpt:
><Julian Petley>How do you see the future?
>
><Robin Duval>My personal ambition is that we move progressively towards a
>better-informed public. And at the end of that very long road, which we
>certainly won't reach while I'm still at the BBFC, the mandatory ratings
>system will give way to something more advisory. I think the industry as well
>as the board has a fundamental duty to provide more information about why
>a film has a particular classification. Cinemagoers and video/DVD viewers will
>not take uncritically our ratings for ever - they need to know enough about
>the ingredients in the package to make their own judgements. Is it '12' for
>bad language, or for sex, or for violence? It makes a difference as to whether
>people expect to enjoy the film or not. We are already testing this
>proposition in Norwich with an experimental advisory 'PG-12' that offers the
>public an opportunity to decide for themselves whether a particular '12'-rated
>film is right for their 10- or 11-year-old child. But the crucial ingredient is the
>consumer advice provided to assist them to make that decision. I think it may
>well work at '12' because there are no real harm-related issues. An advisory
>'12' (or thereabouts) is pretty much the norm in continental Europe and
>North America. I would be much less confident about making '15' or '18'
>advisory - I think there are serious difficulties there. But whatever happens,
>the decision will be a public one - not the BBFC's, and certainly not mine.
Peter Woods
"Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:JhlL7.22$qo2...@castor.casema.net...
> I think the phrase "My personal ambition is that we move progressively
> towards a better informed public" is beyond arrogant.
>
> How is the public supposed to be 'better informed'? By the BBFC?
> You can already pick up a video and find out what's in it by reading
> the sleave and by what section of store it is in.
> Do I really need to be told that David Cronenberg makes horror movies?
> When I see Jenna Jameson semi-naked on a box cover, do I really have
> to be told that this is a porn movie?
>
> The question then is - who does? Unsuspecting parents? If they're smart
> enough to have children, shouldn't they be smart enough to read a video
sleave?
>
> Alex
>
I think you've misunderstood what he meant. He is mainly talking about films
in the cinema, where there is little or no information provided which would
help audiences decide why a film has a particular rating. I don't think he
was being arrogant - he was suggesting that between the BBFC and
distributors they ought to be aiming towards a voluntary ratings system. Are
you saying that's a bad thing ?
Don't forget, Duval is not Ferman. Although the new BBFC management got off
to a bumpy start, recent decisions have shown that they are really doing
things differently. If you haven't already, I suggest you check out
www.melonfarmers.co.uk which reports, for example, that the BBFC are now
passing all the "video nasties" submitted to them (albeit with cuts). I'd
call that progress, wouldn't you ?
Peter
Alex
Peter Woods heeft geschreven in bericht <1006500821.19081....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>"Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:JhlL7.22$qo2...@castor.casema.net...
>> I think the phrase "My personal ambition is that we move progressively
>> towards a better informed public" is beyond arrogant.
>>
>> How is the public supposed to be 'better informed'? By the BBFC?
>> You can already pick up a video and find out what's in it by reading
>> the sleave and by what section of store it is in.
>> Do I really need to be told that David Cronenberg makes horror movies?
>> When I see Jenna Jameson semi-naked on a box cover, do I really have
>> to be told that this is a porn movie?
>>
>> The question then is - who does? Unsuspecting parents? If they're smart
>> enough to have children, shouldn't they be smart enough to read a video
>sleave?
>>
>> Alex
>>
>
>I think you've misunderstood what he meant. He is mainly talking about films
>in the cinema, where there is little or no information provided which would
>help audiences decide why a film has a particular rating.
Maybe I misunderstood, but I believe he was thinking much broader than just ratings,
but the information of the public itself.
He also balked at '16' or '18' ratings being advisory. As long as they're not, I think
they will use the excuse that videos (dvds, games, home entertainment in general)
should be more censored than the hallowed movie cinema.
>I don't think he
>was being arrogant - he was suggesting that between the BBFC and
>distributors they ought to be aiming towards a voluntary ratings system. Are
>you saying that's a bad thing ?
But not totally voluntary. Not for the higher ratings.
>Don't forget, Duval is not Ferman.
But their new mantra is that 'the public' is ok with sex, but not with violence,
so I don't know how much has really changed if you're looking at it from the
point of view of cuts to movies, etc.
>Although the new BBFC management got off
>to a bumpy start, recent decisions have shown that they are really doing
>things differently. If you haven't already, I suggest you check out
>www.melonfarmers.co.uk which reports, for example, that the BBFC are now
>passing all the "video nasties" submitted to them (albeit with cuts). I'd
>call that progress, wouldn't you ?
Of sorts. :) What's the use of having videos etc. go through an expensive
and unnecessary ratings routine? It increases the price at which videos
can be rented, it restricts what the distributors leave in it (that they cut
their own videos in order to get a lower rating is not something that
is the fault of the distributors only, as the BBFC people like to insinuate).
What's the point? Who's really being protected?
Alex
Peter Woods
>
> Peter Woods heeft geschreven in bericht
<1006500821.19081....@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >"Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:JhlL7.22$qo2...@castor.casema.net...
> >> I think the phrase "My personal ambition is that we move progressively
> >> towards a better informed public" is beyond arrogant.
> >>
> >> How is the public supposed to be 'better informed'? By the BBFC?
> >> You can already pick up a video and find out what's in it by reading
> >> the sleave and by what section of store it is in.
> >> Do I really need to be told that David Cronenberg makes horror movies?
> >> When I see Jenna Jameson semi-naked on a box cover, do I really have
> >> to be told that this is a porn movie?
> >>
> >> The question then is - who does? Unsuspecting parents? If they're smart
> >> enough to have children, shouldn't they be smart enough to read a video
> >sleave?
> >>
> >> Alex
> >>
> >
> >I think you've misunderstood what he meant. He is mainly talking about
films
> >in the cinema, where there is little or no information provided which
would
> >help audiences decide why a film has a particular rating.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood, but I believe he was thinking much broader than
just ratings,
> but the information of the public itself.
I believe his aim is to encourage the distributors to give better and
clearer information about films than they do now, so that parents (mainly)
can decide beforehand whether they think that a particular film is suitable
for their kids. Right now, there is no agreed "labelling standard" for
films, so parents have no reliable information to go on, other than the
blunt instrument that is the BBFC rating.
> He also balked at '16' or '18' ratings being advisory. As long as they're
not, I think
> they will use the excuse that videos (dvds, games, home entertainment in
general)
> should be more censored than the hallowed movie cinema.
That's because there is almost universal agreement that there should be at
least one mandatory "adult" rating in the cinema but there isn't agreement
on the age. Many (like me) believe it should be 16. As for video, I think
you'll find that nowadays, for 18 rated material at least, the BBFC are
applying almost the same rules to both film and video.
>
> >I don't think he
> >was being arrogant - he was suggesting that between the BBFC and
> >distributors they ought to be aiming towards a voluntary ratings system.
Are
> >you saying that's a bad thing ?
>
>
> But not totally voluntary. Not for the higher ratings.
>
> >Don't forget, Duval is not Ferman.
>
> But their new mantra is that 'the public' is ok with sex, but not with
violence,
> so I don't know how much has really changed if you're looking at it from
the
> point of view of cuts to movies, etc.
>
I think you'll find (again, at 18 level) the BBFC don't make cuts just for
violence. Nowadays, they're mainly for animal cruelty, sexual violence and
for potentially dangerous sexual acts. The BBFC's problem with violence is
mostly where they feel that kids might be encouraged to imitate it.
> >Although the new BBFC management got off
> >to a bumpy start, recent decisions have shown that they are really doing
> >things differently. If you haven't already, I suggest you check out
> >www.melonfarmers.co.uk which reports, for example, that the BBFC are now
> >passing all the "video nasties" submitted to them (albeit with cuts). I'd
> >call that progress, wouldn't you ?
>
> Of sorts. :) What's the use of having videos etc. go through an expensive
> and unnecessary ratings routine? It increases the price at which videos
> can be rented, it restricts what the distributors leave in it (that they
cut
> their own videos in order to get a lower rating is not something that
> is the fault of the distributors only, as the BBFC people like to
insinuate).
>
The BBFC's survey concluded that the public don't want to scrap the ratings
system. I agree that it isn't perfect but surely it's better than nothing ?
Would you really want very young kids having ready access to "New York
Ripper", "Texas Chain Saw Massacre", or even "The Exorcist" ?
> What's the point? Who's really being protected?
Children.
>
> Alex
>
>
Shaun Hollingworth
<pe...@apacomp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pypL7.43$qo2...@castor.casema.net...
>> What's the point? Who's really being protected?
>
>Children.
But that's no excuse for making works intended for the 18/R18
classification mandatorily subject to the scrutiny of the BBFC is it ?
Or are you saying such scrutiny of 18, and R18 rated works, are
necessary for the protection of children ?
It was interesting to note that certain types of film are still
censored on the grounds of obscenity.... Because they are found to be
obscene in the courts.... Of course something which a jury believes is
illegal, will be found guilty.... The first thing a jury is told when
sworn in, is that they must find according to the law... But that law
ought to include evidence of real harm...... To break the otherwise
circular argument... Things should not be classed as obscene because
they are offensive. They should be classed as obscene, because they
would harm people who view,or cause harm to those that are involved in
creating the work.... I cannot think of much, that fits into this
category, save for child pornography, and acts of real torture of
living things etc, and I don't include the consensual SM
Routine censorship, as a tool, must be proven to be properly
necessary, or got rid of.
Other free countries do without it, and suffer no manifest harm. It is
clear therefore, that it simply isn't necessary.
A compromise should be made for the time being.. Films targeted at
children, should be mandatorily classified. Films targeted at only
adults should not.
I believe the censorship machinery in this country simply panders to
the mistaken beliefs of religious zealots, rather than serving any
useful purpose....
I wonder if Mr. Duval really is happy in serving such a role ? If I
was him, I'd find something different to do, because by taking the
middle ground, as he does, he will please absolutely no one who cares
at all about this issue. For me, and I suspect most people who are
against censorship, he is still much too strict, and for the religious
zealots, I would imagine he is MUCH too liberal nowadays...
No one will be happy. Not a suitable, or sustainable situation I
suspect.
A final point:
I have often said, that obscenity, and other censorship law in this
country, if properly scrutinised, would fall foul of the Human Rights
Act.
Why is it, that Duval had to get a consensus of agreement with the
police, and customs, as to what they would allow ?
Their job is to UPHOLD the law, not to make it. Therefore it follows
that such a wide margin for interpretation of the law, so wide that
people responsible for enforcement, cannot agree what should, and
should not be allowed, means that the law itself, is not clear, and it
should be "clear enough for the ordinary citizen to find out what the
law was"
If the law was clear, there would be no basis for customs, the police,
and the BBFC to have ever argued about what is, and is not
permissible..
Jack Straw's "flexible regulatory tool" is nothing but a blatant Human
Rights violation, and I hope the government are proud, that they have
chosen to do nothing about it.... I hope some aggrieved person or
company takes them to task, and it costs them..... and I've no doubt,
the tax payer too...
It is simple. Those who wish to censor what others are free to watch,
must justify the reason it is necessary. Evidence of harm should
consist of more than the view of an over conservative jury too.
Regards,
Shaun.
>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>
>
Alex
Peter Woods heeft geschreven in bericht <1006524552.28097....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>The BBFC's survey concluded that the public don't want to scrap the ratings
>system. I agree that it isn't perfect but surely it's better than nothing ?
Not at all. If there was no ratings system, the people would get what they
pay for. No middle class busy bodies and their half baked social theories
(the BBFC, ITC, and the modern-day manhating feminism they seem to
base their paradigms of lone male predators etc. on) deciding what is 'good'
for everyone.
>Would you really want very young kids having ready access to "New York
>Ripper", "Texas Chain Saw Massacre", or even "The Exorcist" ?
>
>> What's the point? Who's really being protected?
>
>Children.
When growing up, I've watched Mandingo, Caligula, porn movies through
cable pirates (this is 1981/82), 120 Days Of Sodom, and a host of far
more frightening mainstream television series (De Stille Kracht, Michael Strogoff
Courier of the Czar, I Claudius, the Angelique series with Michele Mercier, some
episodes of The Avengers like the one with the giant rats) and stuff that was outright
offensive (The Onedin Line, Poldark, etc.).
I've also watched Jaws, the Nightmare On Elm Street series, much of the great
cheesie horrors of the eighties. And include with that much of the exploitation
of the seventies (Ilsa 1 through 4, I Spit On Your Grave, The Female Bunch, the
Cheri Cafaro/Ginger series).
However, it hasn't done me any undefined, hypothetical harm whatsoever.
It hasn't made me upset, homicidal, anti-social or anything else. In fact,
I would sooner get upset by the evening news, because at least that's
supposed to have some level of contact with reality.
So, how does the existence of the BBFC protect "the children"?
And from what? In my view, it only does them damage in limiting their
imaginations and making them more dull.
Alex
Ness and Lucy
"Peter Woods" <pe...@apacomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1006524552.28097.0.nnrp-
> I think you'll find (again, at 18 level) the BBFC don't make cuts just for
> violence. Nowadays, they're mainly for animal cruelty, sexual violence and
> for potentially dangerous sexual acts. The BBFC's problem with violence is
> mostly where they feel that kids might be encouraged to imitate it.
So how does WWF get away with it???
Sam Butler
The World Wildlife Fund?
Well, I suppose it's regarded as "nature red in tooth and claw".
--
Sam Butler
Ness and Lucy
"Sam Butler" <samb...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:h4o40uobe8puog39j...@4ax.com...
phil
<1006524552.28097....@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> >The BBFC's survey concluded that the public don't want to scrap the
ratings
> >system.
Of course they wouldn't...
Maybe the public dont want to scrap A ratings system not THE ratings system?
The current system is mandatory backed with criminal sanctions etc.
Ratings should be a useful guide for parents only and administered by an
industry body with guidelines. Indeed, I believe many parents when
questioned by the BBFC support certificates because they find them useful in
this respect. Any movies that want an (R)18 cert shouldnt have to go near
such a body. There is no need for legislation in this field, no need for
the president of such a body to be effectively appointed by the home
secretary and no need for ridiculous criminal sanctions.
Just think of the opportunities for film makers if they weren't forced to
pay the BBFC £12/minute to have their (R)18's vetted. It would be of great
benefit to the ADULT consumer. The notion that everyone over 18 should
suffer to "protect" children doesn't stack up, firstly you must tell us
explicitly what you wish to protect them from?? It is the role of the
parent to protect their children, not the state.
> >Would you really want very young kids having ready access to "New York
> >Ripper", "Texas Chain Saw Massacre", or even "The Exorcist" ?
> >
Don't see any reason why not, especially if their parents let them and if
they dont, they will anyway :)
Regards,
-Phil