BBFC News

The World's End screenwriter, Edgar Wright, asked the BBFC about how many light hearted uses of the word 'cunt' are allowed in a 15 rated film.

Senior Examiner Craig Lapper provided an interesting and detailed reply about current BBFC policy.

The BBFC's Guidelines at 15 state:

The strongest terms (for example, 'cunt') may be acceptable if justified by the context. Aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable .

As a general rule, it is highly unusual for the BBFC to permit more than three or four uses of very strong language at 15 in a feature length work. In terms of context, it is more likely that we would pass throwaway, matter-of-fact, or comic uses than uses that are aggressive, personally directed, or accompanied by complicating factors such as violence, threat, racism, or a power imbalance (for example, male to female uses are more of a problem than the other way around). In an extreme case, even a single aggressive use can push a film to 18 (for example, if a man were hitting a woman and calling her a cunt, or a man of one race hitting a person of a different race and using very strong language in combination with racist terms). Similarly, putting several uses together in a very short space of time may breach the 'repeated section of our Guidelines and cause problems at 15. It is generally better if uses are spread out somewhat.

As you say, we passed a single use in SHAUN OF THE DEAD because the use in question was throwaway, unthreatening, and essentially a term of endearment amongst friends ("Can I get any of you cunts a drink?"). In the case of HOT FUZZ we actually permitted two uses, one spoken and one written. First of all, we see the word 'cunt' on the list of prohibited terms on the swearbox in the police station and then we hear 'What a cunt' when a man tells his friend about a man who sold drugs to kids. In the first case, the use was written (which reduces its impact) and of course lacked any aggression. In the second case, the use was not aggressive and was not personally directed but instead uttered about a person who is not present at the time.

So, the answer to your question is that it is possible to receive a 15 with three or four uses, provided they are not aggressive or threatening or complicated by any kind of power imbalance. However, it's best not to concentrate them together into a short outburst and we'd certainly caution against more than three or four uses.

 As ever the BBFC Annual Report makes for an interesting read.

The BBFC has clearly being doing well in online world where competing commercial censorship regimes are generally arbitrary, cheap and shoddy. Whether it be website blocking algorithms as implemented by ISPs or the censorship of user content by Facebook, YouTube and the likes, they are characterised by arbitrary decisions based on vague, non-transparent, and unchallengeable rules.

In the commercial world censorship is enforced to keep people off internet company's backs as cheaply as possible rather than for ethical reasons. So the BBFC with its background of transparency, accountability and consideration for both consumers and content providers have a lot to offer. Except of course, that careful consideration by real people costs big money.

President's Report

Anyway the BBFC is going very aggressively for a slice of the internet censorship market. There's lots of self congratulation of current successes, and a massive corporate sell that the BBFC is aligned with the future.

President Patrick Swaffer writes:

What I found was an organisation with 100 years of experience and expertise. But what I did not ? nd was an organisation hidebound by the past. The BBFC I found was forward looking, considering issues such as how it can best protect children and empower consumers in the digital age when access to all forms of audio visual content is easier than ever. The BBFC's activities in its centenary year perfectly encapsulate this mix of expertise and looking to the future.

With ever greater amounts of audio visual content being consumed online both the public and home entertainment industries continued to make it clear that they valued BBFC age ratings and content advice.

As evidence of this, during 2012, we welcomed eleven new platforms to join the growing band of VOD platforms licensed to use BBFC ratings and insight on films and videos they supply online. These new members include Netflix, Microsoft Xbox, Sony Networks, Sainsburys, BA and Dixons KnowHow Movies. This voluntary, best practice, self regulation of online content applies trusted BBFC symbols and content advice to content being distributed online and 90% of parents say they value it.

Swaffer speaks also of the interesting BBFC podcasts that give an insight into BBFC work; the development of apps which present users with a database of BBFC classifications and InSight advice; and of course the comprehensive set of BBFC websites. He also notes that 2012 saw the initiation of a large scale public consultation about BBFC guidelines.

The subject of sexual violence usually gets a mention in these reports and this year Swaffer reports on the rather naff 'research' commissioned by the BBFC involving a very small number of people being asked leading questions about banned and censored movies that they were asked to watch. The BBFC concluded from the 'research', that more factors should be taken into account when classifying controversially violent movies. Nothing new, but it looks better summarised in a couple of paragraphs in the annual report, than it does if you read the full research document.

Director's Report

David Cooke spoke of the BBFC exhibition and rather good season of banned films that celebrated the BBFC's 100 years of film censorship. There was also the interesting book that followed the progress of the film censors through those 100 years.

Cooke also recalls the special award from the film industry via the British Video Association. It is always worth remembering that the BBFC also serve the industry who pay for their services. They are not just a one sided body who only care about the kids, and couldn't give a shit about the businesses making the films (unlike some other British censors).

In fact the BBFC outlined several improvements in the technical side of making things quick and easy for film distributors. (But cheap will have to wait).

And on the state of the economy Cooke reports that the number of cinema films classified is the highest since 1965 and that the decline of DVDs has slowed. Of course if the BBFC and the government really cared about the economy then they would scrap the massive economic and creative burden of mandatory film censorship altogether.

Cooke wraps up by noting that 2012 saw the end of most BBFC involvement in computer game classification.

And of course a little more upbeat congratulation:

2012's centenary was a perfect time draw breath and look critically at how we have changed over the last century to become what film critic Mark Kermode described as the most open and accountable film regulation body anywhere in the world . We intend to build on this accolade as we work with our industry partners and international colleagues -- and most importantly with the British public -- to ensure the best possible child protection and consumer empowerment when it comes to consuming film and video, whether in cinemas or at home; and whether on a physical disc or online.

Top Complaints

Of course the BBFC will not be judged by efficiency, transparency, fairness, nor by the thoughts of film viewers or the film industry. No they will be judged by the handful of complaints from a tiny amount of moaning minnies and their supposed 'outrage' and easy offence. And so the complaints list will inevitably make up the bulk of newspaper reports of 2012 at the BBFC.

Something that the BBFC PR department obviously know well, so the complaints section of the Annual Report has been boosted by the usual jokes to ensure that newspaper coverage is fun and upbeat.

The film generating the majority of public feedback in 2012 was The Woman in Black starring Daniel Radcliffe. The film generated £21m in UK cinemas in 2012, making it the second most popular British film of 2012 after Skyfall. 134 of these cinema-goers complained that the film was too dark and unsettling for a 12A certificate. Some said the sense of threat, coupled with the theme of supernatural deaths of children in the film, was too disturbing for young audiences.

The Hunger Games is an adaptation of the first book in a fantasy trilogy in which children and teenagers are forced to fight to the death in televised gladiatorial contests in a dystopian future. The books are very popular with young people. The BBFC classified the film 12A following edits to remove some violent detail.The film generated 43 complaints about its violence and theme. The violence in The Hunger Games is generally restrained and undetailed. It is a moral film, critiquing violence rather than glorifying it. The lead characters do not relish killing and survive and defeat the unfair and evil adult system through bravery, teamwork and resourcefulness. There were a small number of complaints criticising the decision to cut the film for 12A.

Men in Black 3 , the second sequel in the popular comedy Sci-Fi action series, received 50 complaints for its language, violence, horror and sexual innuendo. The film was classified PG, as were the earlier two films in the franchise, and contained similar comic misadventures of Agents K and J. However, some parents found the figure of the villain, Boris the Animal, to be too frightening and the opening prison break sequence too violent for young audiences. The scene in which Boris and his girlfriend French kiss with sight of his unfeasibly long alien tongue was also criticised; parents felt this gross out moment was too overtly sexual for a PG audience. The language used in the film also attracted complaints. Parents felt terms such as bullshit and arsehole , although permitted at PG under the BBFC's Classification Guidelines, were not appropriate for eight year olds to hear.

The much-loved children's film The Railway Children , first classified U in 1970, received its first complaint 42 years later. The correspondent was concerned that children may be encouraged to play on railway tracks as a result of seeing the film. While aware of the real dangers of such behaviour, the BBFC judged that it was very unlikely that The Railway Children would promote such dangerous activity. The Railway Children is set in the Edwardian period and trains and access to railway property are very different today. The film also demonstrates the potential harm to children if proper care is not taken.

Thanks to Alan who lamented: Shit! When I heard there'd been a complaint, I was hoping somebody had discovered hardcore scenes of the fragrant Misses Agutter and Thomsett! (Or Dinah Sheridan as a MILF!)

ParentPort

One final observation. The BBFC spoke of complaints received via ParentPort. This was a single point of contact to UK censors inspired by the Reg Bailey anti-sexualisation report. He claimed that parents were to dim to know which censor to complain to when they had a beef, so they needed a single point of contact. The BBFC wrote:

The BBFC was involved in setting up ParentPort. This website makes it easier for parents to raise concerns about media content. The BBFC is one of seven UK regulators involved in the website since it launched in 2011. As a result of our involvement with this project we received emails from parents covering a range of films and issues, including language and sex in films, the display of certain DVDs in shops and the nature of some cinema trailers, during 2012.

The number of complaints is notably missing from the BBFC spiel, presumably as the figure is embarrassingly low. So perhaps we can infer that the BBFC listed all the complaints that it received via ParentPort, a grand total of 3 or 4.

In its centenary year the BBFC worked to achieve greater protection for children from harmful content both online and in videos exempt from classification under the Video Recordings Act.

In 2012 the BBFC responded to a DCMS consultation on exempt video. The BBFC, British Video Association, British Phonographic Industry, the Video Standards Council and the Entertainment Retailers Association all supported a technical adjustment to the Video Recordings Act whereby content in exempt videos which is potentially harmful to children should lose the video its exemption. In May 2013 the Government announced that a change would be made to the Video Recordings Act to ensure that content which is potentially harmful to children will in future be scrutinised by the BBFC to keep it from impressionable and vulnerable children.

Online was an area where the BBFC saw the greatest changes in 2012. The number of online only classifications rose by 40%. The number of companies using the BBFC's Watch & Rate service for online only content more than doubled, with 11 new platforms licensed to use BBFC ratings online, including Netflix, Sony PlayStation, Microsoft Xbox and Sainsbury's, BA and Virgin Atlantic.

On the back of a number of films submitted to the BBFC in 2011 which contained extreme violence, generally against women, we carried out a major piece of research into depictions of sexual and sadistic violence in film in 2012. The BBFC has consistently maintained a strict policy in relation to classifying depictions of such violence and will continue to intervene in relation to any depiction of sexual or sadistic violence which is likely to pose a non trivial harm risk through, for example: making sexual or sadistic violence look appealing; reinforcing the suggestion that victims enjoy rape; or inviting viewer complicity in rape or other harmful violent activities.

BBFC Director David Cooke said:

In 2012 the BBFC worked with both Government and the home entertainment industry to maximise the impact of our expertise in tracking public opinion and protecting children from potentially harmful content through both digital age ratings and informing the DCMS consultation on exempt videos.

At the adult 18 level we took extra steps to ensure our policy on depictions of sexual and sadistic violence are in line with public opinion. Research carried out in 2012 reaffirmed views that adults should be able to choose what they see, but highlighted a public concern about certain depictions of sexual and sadistic violence. This concern was particularly acute in relation to young men without much life experience, and other vulnerable viewers, accessing sadistic and sexually violent content, which could serve to normalise rape and other forms of violence, and offer a distorted view of women. The decision as to whether and how to intervene in scenes of sexual and sadistic violence is complex, but by carrying out detailed research and highlighting aggravating and mitigating factors, the BBFC is better equipped to arrive at a decision which balances freedom of expression against public protection.

2012 was also a historic year for the BBFC as the organisation reached its 100th year. A series of retro BBFC black cards were designed and shown before all new UK cinema releases, and a season of controversial films, panel events and an exhibition was held at BFI Southbank, London. The BFI published a book, Behind the Scenes at the BBFC: Film Classification from the Silver Screen to the Digital Age, with contributions from, leading film critics, historians, cultural commentators and even BBFC staff. There were further collaborations to mark the BBFC's Centenary, including an exhibition in partnership with University of Westminster, celebrating 100 years of British Cinematic history, and events at the Hippodrome in Falkirk and Soundtrack Festival in Cardiff.

BBFC Director David Cooke said:

In 2012 we looked back at our first 100 years, often in partnership with numerous organisations and individuals, all of whom added richness and expertise to our celebrations. But in examining the past, we also looked towards the future, where the BBFC will continue working with current and new partners to classify and label online content, better protect children and empower consumers.

The information the BBFC provides for the public was refreshed during 2012 through the creation of a new website bring together the main BBFC website, the BBFC website for parents (PBBFC) and the BBFC education website for students (SBBFC). The new BBFC website allows users to watch trailers for new films classified U-15 and sign up to receive regular BBFC newsletters.

There was also a revision of BBFC Consumer Advice and Extended Consumer Information (ECI) to create BBFCinsight. BBFCinsight captures both Consumer Advice and ECI, bringing both of them under a more memorable name. BBFCinsight includes both a summary sentence (like Consumer Advice) and a longer explanation about why the film received the classification it did. It also provides other details parents have told us they like to be aware of, such as examples of mild bad language, or themes such as divorce or bereavement that might not impact on the age rating but which might upset some children. Parents can find a short summary of BBFCinsight on DVD boxes and cinema posters and more detailed BBFCinsight on the website and the BBFC iPhone and Android Apps. BBFCinsight is available for every film and video game classified by the BBFC since Autumn 2007.

The Mobile Broadband Group is appointing the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to take over from the Independent Mobile Classification Board (IMCB) in providing the independent framework that underpins the Mobile Operators' code of practice, established in 2004, for the self regulation of new forms of content on mobile.

The Classification Framework enables mobile operators to restrict access to their commercial content that is unsuitable for customers under the age of 18. The Framework is applied to commercial content such as: video and audio/video material; or mobile games. The framework is also used by the mobile operators to calibrate the internet filters that parents can use to restrict content accessible by children via a mobile operator's internet access service.

Hamish MacLeod, chair of the Mobile Broadband Group, commented:

We are very grateful for the excellent work that the IMCB has done over the last 8 years to support our code. However, with customers increasingly consuming content via mobile networks, we feel that the BBFC's unparalleled expertise will be best suited to provide us with the independent framework and guidance for the future.

David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said:

We are pleased to be able to use our experience and expertise, including the insight we have into public opinion about what kind of content is suitable for under 18s to help Mobile Operators to restrict access to content accessed via mobile networks by those under 18. Parents are concerned about the content children access via mobile devices and the BBFC Framework takes into account the same issues the BBFC considers when age rating a film or DVD, such as strong language, violence, drug use, discrimination, sex and nudity.

The BBFC works to published Classification Guidelines based on large scale public consultation exercises involving around 10,000 people. The Classification Guidelines are formally revised every 4-5 years.

The BBFC Classification Framework is a living document which will be updated regularly to reflect evolving public attitudes and societal concerns.

Premium rate voice services or premium rate SMS (text only) services are not covered by the BBFC Classification Framework and continue to operate under the PhonepayPlus Code of Practice.

Over the coming weeks, the parties involved will put in place the necessary transition arrangements and the BBFC Classification Framework will come into use on 2 September 2013.