For once a government agency does something sensible.

quote:

---

Norfolk snubs censor's rating on Spider-Man

Two local councils re-classify superhero blockbuster to allow in under-12s

Xan Brooks
Wednesday June 12, 2002

If you're under 12 and desperate to catch the new Spider-Man movie, your best advice is to hop on a train to East Anglia... with a parent or guardian's permission, of course.

Two councils in the area have bowed to pressure from a cinema owner and agreed to replace the film's 12 certifcate with a PG (parental guidance). Breckland district council and North Norfolk district council agreed with cinema owner Trevor Wicks that the official British board of film classification rating was too strict and unfairly discriminated against Spider-Man's core audience.

Wicks, who owns a chain of five cinemas across East Anglia, says the film is less violent than The Lord of the Rings, which secured a PG rating from the BBFC last year. "It's aimed at children," he argues. "They can get Spider-Man with their burgers and see Spider-Man on their cereal packets, but they can't watch the film. I believe Norfolk is the first area to re- classify the film and it could be that there will now be pressure for others to follow. I think it's a victory for common sense." It is also a victory for Wicks, who now looks set to reap the benefits of a far wider audience at his cinemas.

While the BBFC's ratings are largely taken as gospel around Britain, the certificates are advisory only. The responsibility for upholding or overturning them falls to individual local councils.

"The reason we gave the film a 12 certificate was due to its levels of strong violence," explains Sue Clark, head of communications at the BBFC. "In fact we were actually verging on making it a 15 certificate.In our opinion Spider-Man's levels of violence qualify it as a borderline 12/15, There is no way that's it would qualify as a PG certificate under our guidelines. But I can understand why cinemas are putting pressure on the local authorities to re-classify it. If it remained rated as a 12, there would be an awful lot of parents angry that they could not take their children to see the film. The final decision is always with the local authorities."

Invariably, however, the local councils adhere to the BBFC rating. "It's very rare that they change it," says Clark. "The last time it happened was with Billy Elliot, which we classified as a 15 due to its strong language. One local authority changed the rating to a 12. I believe that it then received a lot of complaints from viewers angered by the language."

---

I would like to hear from our UK cousins thier thoughts on this.

The BBFC is a private company which has no legal power to determine what can and can't be shown in a cinema. The 1909 Cinematograph Act (and subsequent revisions thereof) determined that local authorities (i.e. county or city councils) must issue licences to cinemas. Without a licence, it is illegal to accept money from the public in exchange for admitting them to see a film. Ironically, the reason this law was passed in the first place was health and safety: this was before the age of sealed projection boxes and there had been some nasty nitrate fires, including one in London in 1906 which killed 30 people.

However, the law did not specify exactly what criteria a council could and could not apply when granting or refusing a licence, and so some started using the content of films as well as fire safety. There was a test case in 1911 (LCC v. Bermondsey Bioscope Co.) in which the judge decided that censorship was a legitimate criterion, which effectively passed it into law through the back door.

The film industry was alarmed at this because potentially, it introduced an element of inconsistency. Town A could ban its cinemas from showing a film (or in legal terms, rule that doing so would breach the conditions of its licence), whilst Town B might allow it. This would mean that the cinema business in Town A would be badly hit, as anyone wanting to see the film would simply get on a bus to Town B.

So in response to this the BBFC (the 'C' stood for censors in those days, being changed to 'classification' in 1985) was formed on 1 March 1913, not as a governmental organisation, but as a private company funded by the film industry. Its aim was to make censorship decisions which all local authorities would sign up to, thus ensuring that the same rules would apply nationwide. During the following decades it established a reputation for consistency and transparency - the BBFC published its assessment criteria and made all judgements according to them. It raised money (and still does) by charging studios to have their films examined. Apart from a brief period during the 1930s when the BBFC was subject to heavy political interference, it has generally been respected by the industry and by local authorities as being fair and consistent in the way it applies censorship criteria. The criteria applied for classifying films at the different levels are as open today as they were then, and can be read in full on the BBFC's website.

However, there have been serious disagreements about the criteria themselves, with conservatives complaining that they allow too much sex and violence and liberals complaining that they infringe civil liberties. The liberal argument gained ground since 1984, when the Video Recordings Act was passed. For the first time this gave the BBFC statutory legal powers. It is illegal to defy BBFC classifications in respect of videos. Whereas a cinema manager is breaking no law by admitting a five year-old to Zombie Holocaust (although he does risk losing his licence), a video store owner is committing a criminal offence punishable by up to 5 years in jail if he sells or rents that five year-old a VHS.

Whereas previously the BBFC was only really accountable to the film industry and to local government - it could duck the civil rights issue by claiming that its decisions had no status in law - it can no longer do so because civil libertarians point out, quite correctly, that if the BBFC refuses to classify a video then it is effectively making it illegal.

The last time this debate surfaced in a big way was in 1992, when two teenagers were convicted of kidnapping and murdering a baby in Manchester. At their trial it was alleged that they had seen a video of Child's Play 3 and that this had inspired them to commit the crime. Whilst detractors pointed out (and I agree with them) that anyone who is capable of commiting that sort of crime would surely have been provoked by something else had they not watched the video, there were calls by some politicians for all 15 and upwards videos to be withdrawn from sale.

So the BBFC are really caught between a rock and a hard place where controversial decisions are concerned. In recent years, most of the highly publicised ones have concerned art and rep titles, most notably, Crash, Romance, Amores Perros and Baise Moi. As they were never going to be shown in the multiplexes these debates were never wide ranging - the only thing I'd say is that the publicity probably ensured that these films got a wider audience than they otherwise would have done. But when Hollywood blockbusters get controversial, cans of worms get opened. Right-wingers mieow and hiss about how the evil film industry is corrupting our youth, the civil libertarians counter that with civil libertarian arguments, and the film industry just wants its product distributed as widely as possible. The most usual outcome in these cases is for the BBFC to request minor cuts to bring a film down (for example) from 15 to 12 or 12 to PG, thus increasing its potential market share. It's very unusual for a local council to overrule a BBFC classification, and even more unusual for it to be adjusted down.

My feeling is that the BBFC will sit up and take note, because if they lose the confidence of licensing authorities, who then regularly then start classifying films themselves, they've lost half their business and half the reason for their existence.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Definition of PG below

General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for some children

'PG' Parental Guidance
Unaccompanied children of any age may watch. A 'PG' film should not disturb a child aged around eight or older. However, parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger or more sensitive children.

Theme
More serious issues may be featured, eg crime, domestic violence, racism (providing nothing in their treatment condones them).

Language
Mild bad language only.

Nudity
Natural nudity, with no sexual context.

Sex
Sexual activity may be implied, but should be discreet and infrequent. Mild sexual references and innuendo only.

Violence
Moderate violence, without detail, may be allowed - if justified by its setting (eg historic, comedy or fantasy).

Imitable techniques
No glamorisation of realistic, contemporary weapons. No detail of fighting or other dangerous techniques.

Horror
Frightening sequences should not be prolonged or intense. Fantasy settings may be a mitigating factor.

Drugs
No references to illegal drugs or drug use unless entirely innocuous.

"12" Rating defined as

No-one younger than 12 may see a '12' film in a cinema or rent or buy a '12' rated video.

Theme
Mature themes are acceptable, but their treatment must be suitable for young teenagers.

Language
The use of strong language (eg 'fuck') should be rare and must be justified by context.

Nudity
Nudity is allowed, but in a sexual context will be brief and discreet.

Sex
Sexual activity may be implied. Sexual references may reflect the familiarity of most adolescents today with sex education through school.

Violence
Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly indicated and without physical detail.

Imitable techniques
Dangerous techniques (examples include: combat, hanging, suicides) should contain no imitable detail. Realistic and contemporary weapons should not be glamorised.

Horror
Sustained threat and menace is permitted. Occasional gory moments only.

Drugs
Brief and occasional references to, and sight of, 'soft' drug-taking (eg cannabis) are allowed, but must be justified by context and should indicate the dangers. No instructional elements are permitted.

 |  IP: Logged

You have to be over 18 to have a beer. Anyone under 18 is not allowed, even if they have a parent with them.

----------
BTW In the US isn't Spiderman a PG-13 anyway? , not PG

quote:

---

It sounds like the 12 rating is very conservative, being only slightly worse than PG. Why are childred not allowed to see such a film even if they are accompanied?

---

Its a scale. A PG is slightly worse than a U, a 12 slightly worse than a PG, a 15 slightly worse than a 12, an 18 slightly worse than a 15.

Some recent examples

U Return to Never Land, Ice Age
PG Attack of the Clones, Snowdogs
12 Spiderman, Dragonfly,
15 Panic Room, Not Another Teen Movie, Unfaithful
18 Blade II, From Hell

quote:

---

Do all of those ratings mean that no one under the specified age can see it at all?.

---

Yes. In the case of videos, the retailer (or hirer) can be prosecuted, as selling (hiring) a video to someone under the required age is a criminal offence. If a cinema allows people under the specified age in then they risk losing their licence, and hence being forced to close.

Punching and kicking

Thats whats got the '12' rating

The BBFC never liked kung-fu. That why Rush Hour/Rush Hour 2 were rated '12'.

Come to thing off it Rush Hour had a 15 certificate for its theatrical release. And the main trailer was 15.

---------------------------------------------------

The press release from the BBFC

Spider-man is possibly the most violent film which is aimed at a young audience that the BBFC has classified. The levels of violence make the film a borderline '15' rating and most certainly not suitable for a 'PG' rating which would allow very young children to view the film. The violence is set in a modern urban setting with a clear message that the use of violence is the normal and appropriate response when challenged. The Board does not believe that this is the sort of message to be sending to young children. The BBFC carried out an extensive consultation exercise with the public and the very clear message from parents in particular was that they were very concerned about the levels of violence in films aimed at young children. The Guidelines which were used to classify Spider-man were based on the outcomes of that research.

Hollywood has carried out an aggressive world-wide marketing campaign aimed at young children when the film is not suitable for them. The film has been given a similar rating to the BBFC's '12' in the US and Europe. The difference is that in the US the PG13 rating does not prevent children under 13 from seeing the film. The '12' rating in the UK does. This is what has created the situation where local councils are coming under pressure from cinemas and parents to change the rating for the film. There are 468 local authorities in the UK and to date, according to the media, only a couple have changed the rating, which they are legally entitled to do under the 1985 Cinemas
Act.

-----------------------------------------------------

And in Norwich
------------------

Norwich has been chosen to be the first of a series of pilots for a new film classification category. The BBFC would like to know what the public thinks of changing the current '12' category, which excludes children under the age of 12 from seeing the film at the cinema, to PG-12. PG-12 would mean that parents or guardians could decide that children younger than 12 will be able to see a film with that rating.

The Norwich pilot will run from 26 October to 13 December. During this period all films which are '12' rated in the rest of the country will be rated PG-12 in all of the cinemas in Norwich and will be open to children younger than 12, but only if accompanied by a responsible adult. Children of 12 and over will still be able to go to the cinema without an adult, as usual.

During the pilot period the BBFC will be carrying out public opinion polling in and around the city's cinemas. As well as asking people whether the '12' rating should change to PG-12 they will be asked whether the rating should require an adult to accompany children under 12.

Robin Duval, Director of the BBFC said:
"Changing the mandatory '12' rating to an advisory PG-12 would be a significant step and we need to find out if the public supports it or not. Providing parents with the opportunity to try out the proposed new category should enable them to judge for us whether it would be a worthwhile change. We will be carrying out further pilots in selected towns and cities throughout the UK and only when we have the results of all the public opinion polling will we come to a decision about whether to change the '12' rating.

"The BBFC recognises that parents will need more information about the content of the films they may wish to take their children to see and I am delighted to say that the film distributors have given their full backing to the provision of 'consumer advice' on film posters. In Norwich all 'U', 'PG' and 'PG-12' film posters will carry a panel which explains what the film category is, what that means and a short sentence giving information about the content of the film.

"I would particularly like to thank Norwich City Council and the city's cinemas for their full and enthusiastic support for this exercise. Without it the pilot could not go ahead. We think it is particularly important that as many people as possible have an opportunity to take part in the decision making process."

Chair of Norwich City Council Regulatory Committee, Councillor Brenda Ferris said:
"The City Council is very pleased that Norwich has been chosen as the country's first city to pilot a scheme for an advisory 12 certificate. This not only reflects the importance of our city as a cultural centre but also provides an opportunity for Norwich movie goers to take part in this important research".

Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. This signifies that the film rated may be inappropriate for pre-teens. Parents should be especially careful about letting their younger children attend. Rough or persistent violence is absent; sexually-oriented nudity is generally absent; some scenes of drug use may be seen; one use of the harsher sexually derived words may be heard. From ( www.filmratings.com )

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.