Page 6 - 15_Bafta ACADEMY_Louis Theroux_ok

academy first person
advise
and consent
The release of sexually-explicit films like Baise-Moi
and The Pornographer has once again thrust
The British Board of Film Classification into the spotlight. Ewart Needham, recently elected chairman of the BBFC’s Council of Management, explains the overall context for its decisions.
Iwas invited to join the Council of Management of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in 1997 at a time when I was Chairman of Teddington Studios.
It was a great honour to have been asked to join the Board and I was aware that BAFTA members David Samuelson and Harry Manley had both given outstand- ing service to the Board so I was following in excellent footsteps.
In recent weeks I have been elected to the position of Chairman and I am grateful to ACADEMY for giving me the opportunity to set out my hopes for its future role and perhaps dis- pel some of the myths that may persist about our organisation.
People may have heard men- tion of the BBFC in the Press on a number of occasions over the past few years and be unaware of the extent to which the Board goes to ensure the appropriate classification of films and videos.
The British Board of Film Classification was set up in 1913, although in those days the “C” then stood for censorship. It was set up to enable Local Authorities to license cinemas for the show- ing of films to the general public subject to a condition that no film may be exhibited which has not been classified by the Board.
In arriving at one of the seven classification categories: U, Uc, PG, 12, 15, 18 and R18, the Board and its examiners have to ensure
that appropriate laws are com- plied with, notably The Obscene Publications Act, The Protection of Children Act, The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act, The Human Rights Act and The Video Recordings Act.
Although originally set up to classify feature films for cinemas, the Board has since 1985 been the designated authority respon- sible for the classification of videos. The BBFC is funded solely from fees charged for its classifi- cation services. During 2001 the BBFC classified 504 cinema films and 6654 video features.
The Chairman and Council of Management, the President, Vice Presidents, Director, Deputy Director make up the manage- ment structure of the BBFC.
The examiners are chosen from a wide range of ages, social and ethnic backgrounds and typically their experience includes teach- ing, probation and youth work, research, television regulation and film and television production.
During the classification process if the examiners are unanimous in their conclusions, and there are no special issues of concern or policy arising, a Senior Examiner usually approves the proposed classification category. In all other cases the work will be viewed by a Senior Examiner, the Deputy Director or the Director.
If the work is particularly con- tentious or there is a possibility of rejection of the work then this will
be referred to the President and Vice Presidents. The Board works closely with its clients and where cuts are necessary these are made having due regard to the overall context as well as the classification guidelines.
The year 2000 marked a major change to the way that the Board classified works into appro- priate categories with regard to the relevant legislation as new classification guidelines were introduced after extensive con- sultation with the industry and the general public.
Human Rights legislation imposes a particular duty to make the classification criteria clear and the published guide- lines give the public the oppor- tunity to understand the basis of film and video classification. Since publication the guidelines have been widely welcomed, offering as they do greater transparency, accountability and consistency.
The Public Consultation took the form of public meetings, a nationwide questionnaire and citi- zens juries, during which the Board received a great deal of informa- tion that was vivid, illuminating and reflected the changes in pub- lic attitudes that had developed over the course of many years.
The main findings reflected the views and sensibilities of the British public to in particular the following areas of concern: Bad Language, Sex, Violence and Drugs.
In terms of Bad Language, 56% of the national sample felt that ‘young people’ use bad language because of what they hear in films and videos. 48% of the national sample felt that the Boards guide- lines were about right.
The Boards guidelines in Sex were felt by 54% of the national sample to be ‘about right’ though 46% of the sample felt that people over 18 have the right to see graphic portrayals of real sex in films and videos.
The subject of Violence also brought out strong views in the national sample with some 46% agreeing with the statement that “watching violence in films gen- erally made people more likely to be violent in real life”. 46% of the national sample also thought that ‘violence is more acceptable if it occurs in comic, historic or fan- tastic situations’.
There was a view that the por- trayal of Drugs use was more offensive than all the other classi- fied issues, (Sex, Violence, Language, Nudity and Blasphemy), with the citizens juries feeling that the guidelines were too relaxed in the 12, 15 and even 18 cate- gories. In terms of the national poll some 52% felt that ‘film should be allowed to portray drug use in a realistic manner’.
In a conclusion to the findings of the national sample it is clear that the public were particularly concerned about films in the PG category because they felt it
4