Research: Film Censorship (Mr. S)

Film Censorship

Film Censorship in the UK is regulated by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification). Their role is to protect the public from anything offensive of potentially harmful to an audience. An example of this is a rape scene. Some viewers, particularly the young or victims of such an idea, could be upset by this. Thus, it could lead onto a public disturbance. 

The BBFC decide these three main factors:

• If it should be released - some movies are predicted to sell while others may be deemed as to not be successful.
• If it should be banned - some movies are banned from being released to the public due to major complications such as lack of a plot twist or the prediction of a public disturbance.
• If it should be censored - if a movie isn't banned, then some parts may be censored out to make it suitable for the public.

Censorship is when a film is revised due to the context it shows. The BBFC have a final say on what gets censored, regardless of what the Director says. However, their requests for change are rarely unjust as the purpose is for the protection of vulnerable members of society.

What gets censored? What exactly is it that is missing from the final cut of a movie in the cinema?

•                        violence

•  graphic representation & realism
  
•             corrupting the young
  
•                     controversy
  
•                    sex & nudity
  
• sexual violence
• religion
• class
• language
• drug abuse
• culture
• race
• true events

Censorship includes the act of a film being CUT or BANNED. Cut means editing or deleting whole scenes for the protection of the public. Banned means a film taken completely away from the cinema due to indecent or harmful material. The difference between the two is that cut films make it into the cinema, banned films do not.

An example of a movie BANNED from cinemas is Grotesque. A 2009 Japanese splatter horror; the film is heavily criticized for a lack of plot or narrative and raw scenes such as eye amputation, which may cause offence or disturbance between viewers. It has been banned in many countries including the UK.

Forna & Kemode

There are various opinions toward censorship, both negative and positive. Some people campaign FOR censorship whilst others campaign AGAINST it. In 1999 Channel 4 broadcast a short season of programmes about censorship, as well as some controversial films. The season included two short programmes, one advocating censorship and one challenging it. In Don't Look Now the writer, journalist and broadcaster Aminatta Forna makes the case for censorship. In Eyes Wide Open, the film critic and broadcaster Mark Kermode makes the case against.

• Don't Look Now: A case for censorship (Aminatta Forna)

Forna begins by arguing that 'In the adult world of mass media and mass audiences we're beginning to recognize the power of words and images to harm'. By this she implies that the growth of freedom moves at the same pace as the growth of responsibilities associated with those freedoms. 'If my right threatens the freedom of others then it can't be an absolute right and since the 1976 laws have recognized that argument in terms of racial hatred. Allowing some groups to use their freedom to stir racial hatred removes the freedom of minorities to live without persecution.'

Forna evidences this with the Race Relations Act and BBFC. She criticizes their 'protection' for the uncut release of Romper Stomper (Geoffrey Wright, Australia, 1992). A film based on a group of skinheads who oppose people of ethnic background into their neighbourhood. Within the movie are scenes of racial violence, accompanied by rousing music. Forna describes this as 'giving the movie the glamour of a pop video' and a 'cult movie'. She also comments upon the perspective the audience is made to see - 'our interest lies with the skinheads - we hear their philosophy, understand their fears, engage with their lives and relationships', and challenges the filmmaker in portraying the opposed as less 'human', with less characteristics, and so viewers are manipulated into a sub-conscious agreement with the skinheads as they are more likely to relate with. In addition she compares the plot of the movie to the reality within her own neighbourhood. 'I live only a few miles from where Stephen Lawrence was murdered', a factor that could encourage offence to certain individuals who watch Romper Stomper, and the influence upon potential racial abusers. Forna would agree to this film being completely banned from cinemas by the power of the council.

Forna argues her case further with a much earlier movie based on racial hatred, implying that the media has undergone little change in terms of attitudes toward censorship. 'But racism in the cinema is hardly a new issue'. She describes Birth of a Nation (D W Griffiths, USA, 1915), a film based on black men lynched for unjust crimes. She claims that the approval of this would encourage the persecution of a black man near the cinema that it would be shown in.
With her attention focused on images, she talks about how images have the power to create desires and allow us to associate ourselves with the characters. She evidences this with an episode of Eastenders in which one character tried to commit suicide, in relation to the rising number of attempts in real life. 
She also mentions sexual violence. Society looks down upon acts such as sex with minors, but movies are thought to encourage this and 'break down' the norms and values of a man who, by instincts, would otherwise not commit such a crime. In reference to a rape scene from Straw Dogs she claims that sexual imagery no matter how violent or 'wrong' is enough to arouse a member of the audience and eventually lead them into creating a real-life event of the scene as repeated violations in media begin to affect a person psychologically. Though she agrees that movies aren't the only cause of sexual violence, it is a factor which is why she believes in censorship.
Forna concludes by saying that setting limits on the box office is a part of responsibility - so as well as protecting viewers from themselves and others, it's a part of adult life to take on the responsibility of censorship.  She raises the issue of new technology making controversial scenes seem real to the eye. And that everyone has certain potentials but it is an absolute need to lock away those desires because law and society seems to not be enough.

• Eyes Wide Open: A case against film censorship (Mark Kermode)

Kermode, on the other hand, argues against film censorship. He says that censorship creates the implication of being 'an idiot, stupid, weak, easily led and unable to distinguish between fiction and reality'. His argument is based on the fact that censorship removes privileges of minutes of footage, or understanding on scenes.
His theory suggests that there is a fear of freedom and responsibility, then goes on to blame the BBFC for censorship. Critisizes the BBFC for looking into specifics when the law is 'open to wide interpretation'. 
He also disagrees with the idea that uncensored consensus porn corrupts the audience. Kermode says he has met many fans of exploitation cinema who hated I Spit On Your Grave - 'It appalled them but it didn't corrupt them'. 
Taken into consideration is individualism. Watching the same films isn't seeing the same films. A response to a film is personal to oneself which further leads him to question the censorship for the whole audience.
Kermode notes that cut films are the 'equivalent of watering down all alcohol available in off licenses on the basis that you might be a lousy parent who allows kids open access to the drinking cabinet'. And as an example, claims that even the cut version of The Evil Dead is bound to offend so censorship makes little, if none at all, difference.
Cutting and diluting also may put a film at risk of portraying a completely different meaning. Using Portrait of a Serial Killer as an example, the initial idea of first-person killer perspective was abolished by the BBFC and instead some reaction shots made it.
Interestingly he raises the argument that it's not only what you visually see that affects an audience's response. In Rupert The Bear, the off-screen death is magnetized by a strong storyline and powerful scene, which did not need a visual imagery. Censorship can't protect viewers from the art and literature embedded into the film world.
There are three solutions toward censorship that he raises awareness of:

1. To accept the fact that the idea of policing the effect of movies at some kind of national level is impossible
2. Get beyond the idea of obscenity and accept that there is no such thing as a provable tendency to deprave and corrupt
3. The BBFC should restrict itself to making cuts only when an actual offence has been committed during the production of a movie.

In terms of my own opinion, I am stuck at 50/50 - both cases have some strong arguments. It is true that each individual will respond according to their personal opinion, like Kermode says - but it's also true that generally films came be influential and offensive, and the law is proof of this. Violent sex acts are abolished in our law because they hurt and offend people.

Conclusion: my opening is going to be a 15, so there are not many aspects that have the possibility of causing offence or harm. However, with what I do have in mind (e.g madness) I should look into how exactly these themes COULD have reasons to be censored for. Madness may be a possibility because if somebody has a family member who acts in a similar manner they may feel offended. Also, showing madness as something disgusting could influence a member of the audience to discriminate against mentally unstable individuals.