Censorship in Film Industry - Coursework Example

Censorship and Film Contents 1. Introduction 2. Film Censorship: A concept 3. Film and society: the inseparables 4. Why Censorship 5. Censorship in Britain: Historical perspective 6. Issues of Censorship 7. Significance 8. Legal position 9. Operations and Examples 10. THE BBFC TODAY 11. Current Concerns 12. Bibliography         Introduction Films are often considered a fair reflection of the society that creates it, although some trash them as fiction, which is not quite a faithful one. But, does film project an image of its own? Or, it lends a culture and perspective to the society. Does Hollywood lead things in the USA and Bollywood in India, or does it only project? While there are no easy answers, there is a general consensus that the films influence the society, and its behavioural patterns. According to Ang Lee, director of Brokeback Mountain, "movies have the power to change the way we're thinking.” This is precisely the reason why the censorship is required. This is especially because the films have a direct, immediate and powerful effect on its audiences, and is perceived as a powerful influence on behaviour change Film Censorship: A concept Film Censorship is the act of assessing films and cutting off portions that are found offensive and unacceptable for society. Although there are no watertight, blanket benchmarks available to this effect, the decisions are influenced by government laws, rules and regulations and orders and instructions. The concept was initially developed during the early years of twentieth century when films gradually begun influencing the societies across the world while increasingly representing modern and urban social values. The medium came in for sharp criticism from the conservatives who berated it for showing violent or explicit sexual content with potential to break the fabric of society. They demanded setting up of a mechanism to govern the contents of the films. A set of censorship boards was soon established in almost all countries, and explicit limits were set on what could be shown and to what extents. Today, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has developed an abstract guideline to distinguish between "manners" – which stipulates people’s flexible reaction on things like as nudity and obscene language, and "morals" – which are rigid and irrevocable codes of conducts. Based on this classification, the BBFC adjudicate individual films to assess if it has the potential to corrupt, disturb or negatively influence the society. Film and society: The inseparables The films have a commercial interest in mind, and therefore they are tailor-made to portray the fears and the fantasies of the large audiences who watch it. No wonder, the films simultaneously triggers emotions since they represent and portrays the belief system, and social mores that the society possesses. In all cultural and historical contexts, the films have been found influencing society, giving mirror images of its dreams, fears, and the mode of life. From 1896 to the 1950s-- for the first half of the twentieth century— people started picking up social traits from movies, which were the central focus of the limited leisure activity. The influence was deep and the imprints were indelible on how people talked, looked, and acted. Before anyone could consciously realise, the films became a major force of socialisation, with role models for every walk of life including fashion, love & courtship, and in marriage and career. People now had an option to aspire to become like someone. Like a double-edged sword films, however, also had negative or subversive effects (Jowett, 1976). In fact, the reported rise in promiscuity was once concluded as a definite result of the romantic dramas. Similarly, comedy maestro Charlie Chaplin was alleged for leading a generation towards inappropriate behaviour that he was found doing in his films while ridiculing the contemporary authorities. Similarly, the rise in juvenile delinquency and crime and the crime thrillers were found interlinked. For example, romantic dramas were berated for promoting promiscuity while the comedies of Charlie Chaplin made fun of authority figures. Worse still, crime dramas were found somehow fostering juvenile delinquency and crime. To some, the assertion may be highly speculative. But, a large number of social scientists are convinced that in various historical, artistic, industrial, national and global contexts movies are often influence the contemporary thought process in every society. Why Censorship The films come out with definite messages for its viewers. But, in some cases the viewers are required to be protected from it, because they may be influenced negatively and commit something to the detriment of the society. The concerns were underlined when the BBFC chopped off a few scenes from Fight Club (1999). Although the cut was berated as 'tinkering' which was unlikely to change the impression of the viewers, the BBFC justified the cut, as the two scenes had shown sadistic excitement when a defenceless man's face was beaten to a pulp. Since the films have been acknowledged as a powerful medium of mobilising desires into certain models, the proponents of film censorship argue that it protects the moral values that are prevalent in society. The counter-argument is that censorship betrays an impression that the viewers are incapable of mature, civil reactions to 'immoral' material, besides imposing values of certain people on majority who have no say in the process. Yet, there is also an impression that films like the hypodermic needle immediately influence the passive viewers by the message, and therefore must be watched and regulated. The anti-censorship view, however, argues that the individuals should be held guilty if they allow themselves influenced by fictions, and then commits an act of violence in response. While the argument cannot be disputed, it does not really obliterate the significance of the censorship, as individuals need to be protected from negative influence, and the society must be safeguarded from its fallouts. Mary Whitehouse, a diehard advocate of censorship, had argued that the movies must be banned if they reel out explicit sex and violence because the images of sex and violence are in part responsible for the decline of moral standards in society. Whitehouse was convinced that the movie watchers, especially the young and the teenagers are susceptible to get influenced by inappropriate contents. According to her, the criminal activities faced by the society were often found to be the replays of the violence and crime images shown in the films. Whitehouse also quoted researches conducted on similar lines to substantiate that films influence violent acts. To her, films showing violent behaviours not getting punished are particularly reprehensible. The arguments on the necessity and the scope of film censorship, however, underwent a sea change when the War Game (1965), a seminal movie directed by Peter Watkins was banned. It was a documentary about a nuclear attack on Britain, and its aftermath in and around a typical English city. Although it won an Oscar for Best Documentary at the 1967 Academy Awards, it was deemed too intense and violent to broadcast. Watkins had used amateurs and made parallel reference to the pacifying of the Vietnam highlands by the American army in 1964, the beginning of the long disastrous war. In fact, the film had determining influence on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and later of the peace movement. This seems to suggest that those tasked with the assessment exercise examine the film’s content on two contextual grounds—does a particular scene has any rationale to show what it is showing, and if there was any justification to this.     Censorship in Britain: Historical perspective The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), originally British Board of Film Censors, was set up in 1912 by the film industry as a self-regulatory body. Thanks to the acceptance it enjoys among the local councils gradually the BBFC strands established as the UK's semi-official censor. There were in fact hardly any disputes in the arrangement, as the county councils more often than not were found approving the BBFC classifications given to films, although they still had the academic powers to allow of ban any films. There was, however, a marked departure in 1996 when the Westminster Council rejected the BBFC classification and disallowed showing of to David Cronenberg's Crash, although it had a smooth run in rest of the country. The Camden also used its authority in 1998 to approve showing licence to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. The BBFC, however, later rated the film ‘18’. The policy makers, however, had begun striving for a middle, rational path much earlier during the 1920s. There was a wide acknowledgement that few films should be classified in a category where parents could let their children see them under their supervision. During the 1930s, a new category ‘H” was coined for the horror films. Similarly category ‘X’ was introduced, and attached to such films, which were found inappropriate for anyone less than 16 years of age. The fresh changes were introduced in the 1970s when a new category ‘AA’ was coined for 14 plus, while the bar for the ‘X’ category was raised to 18. The advent of 80s also saw various fresh guidelines governing the rules of who should see what. In a major step, the video retail and the rentals were also included in the category, and the U, PG, 12, 15 and 18 guidelines were made applicable to these mediums as well. In terms historical perspective, before the introduction of the Cinematograph Act of 1909, the censorship was largely a voluntary concept. The filmmakers of that era actually wanted to establish the system to gain across the board acceptance for their films, and therefore had little objections to it. This, however, was just the beginning, as the Cinematograph Act led to the constitution of a formal structure known as BBFC today. Not surprisingly, films were now subjected to an elaborate examination, which saw a very large number of films released with cut while a few of them were even banned when they were found inappropriate for public viewing. Much before this, the Cinematograph Act of 1909 originally was introduced in order to prevent fire hazards in cinemas but actually gave local authorities the power to add whatever conditions they pleased to cinema licenses, and could therefore be adapted into a makeshift tool for censorship. The BBFC was also created as the people wanted uniform rules governing film certification across Britain, as it appeared that authorities from different areas had different conclusions about obscenity, and a film that was banned in one area was found legal a mere bus ride away. The British Parliament formally recognised BBFC as an autonomous institution in 1984, and included the video classification with its purview. While this surely was a red-letter day in the history of the BBFC since the body now had an official status and a defined field of operation, it simultaneously made it more susceptible to Government’s guidelines. Not surprisingly, what can and cannot be screened in the British cinema halls today is largely determined by a large and varied group of institutions, including the Department of Culture Media and Sport, local councils and film distributors, the Home Office, and of course the BBFC. In terms of autonomy, the BBFC, however, still has the overriding powers formally examine, and issue classification certificates for all films. The board also charges the film distributors for the classification services. Issues of Censorship Annette Kuhn, in Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality, 1909-1925 (1988) has maintained that Censorship is often understood foremost as an act of prohibition, excision or 'cutting out' - 'a practice through which certain subjects are forbidden expression in representations' (Kuhn, p. 2). The censored text is seen as distorting 'reality' in some sense. As Kuhn argues, that censorship stands, rightly or wrongly, in the way of this process of reflection." But the censorship issue cannot be wished away to be one involved with an ancient belief. On few occasions, the scrutiny of the films has not always been a smooth affair for the BBFC. The biggest furore to this effect was created over Crash (Canada, 1996, d. David Cronenberg), which was based on J.G.Ballard's novel. The film sparked off a huge controversy with political overtones, as National Heritage Secretary Virginia Bottomley made an appeal to the local authorities, seeking to block its screening. Similarly, the Westminster Council issued warnings to ban the films it unless few objectionable portions were cuts off. In the centre of this furore, which was perhaps the biggest in the history of British film censorship, was a sex scene involving a disabled woman. There was a series of discussions, although it failed to break the ice, as the Westminster banned its screening despite BBFC decision to let it go uncut in March 1997. The controversy holds crucial significance because it revealed the conflicts and the contradictions that the British film regulation still grapples with. Significance Despite the hawk-eyed BBFC, there are quite a few films that have not been banned despite having unusual and objectionable contents therein. The Censorship, however, has helped by chopping off some parts, and allowing release under classification different to the originally suggested. In fact, the sensitive British society was quick to denounce the hugely successful breaking Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone for its pronounced leaning towards occult. The film was not censored. In fact, a number of teachers had expressed disgust and warned that the movie can trigger a harmful interest in the occult among the teenagers. Similarly, there was several objections heard when A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange, 1971 Film) was released. In fact, concerns were shown only when the films were released, as none had cried foul as long as the two stories were available in novel form. This further strengthens the belief that films because of its visible characteristics are the more powerful medium, and therefore its content must be regulated to control its impact. J Robertson further strengthens the belief. He suggested (The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action, 1913-72, Cinema & Society) that the censorship institution has greatly impacted the history of British film. Backing his arguments with empirical case studies, Robertson argued that over the years the censorship has left a marked impact on several of the important films. The list of such films pointed out by him includes Battleship Potemkin and No Orchids for Miss Blandish, besides A Clockwork Orange. Legal position The Obscene Publications Act prohibits contents with potential to influence those who read, see or hear it towards inappropriate behaviour. The law, however, is applied against any blanket activity, and often criticised for being a vague order that goes against anything encouraging inappropriate behaviour or sexual violence. In fact, the BBFC once even consulted the police before classifying Gone in Sixty Seconds (Dominic Sena, 2000). The BBFC, which had the task at hand to classify the film, was concerned about certain car theft scenes. They asked the police to provide a definite opinion on the possibility of these scenes influencing the would-be car thieves. The police reply was in the negative. Before classifying them, the BBFC particularly examines if its contents are offensive or acceptable, and if it requires cuts to make it worth watching for a particular group of audience. Following could a list of the yardsticks though which a film is scrutinised before the BBFC issues the classification 1. Zero tolerance on sexual violence, 2. Any kind of sadistic portrayal of violence and its processes, 3. Pronounced portrayal of potentially lethal firearms and weapons, which are not well-know in Britain, 4. Scenes depicting cruelty against animals, and shabby treatment of the child actors, 5. Pictorial elaboration of dangerous crime techniques and processes that can be copied, or can trigger inappropriate behavioural pattern in the society, and 6. Sacrilegious depiction of pictures or verbal conversation. Operations and Examples The Censorship institution has created for itself few basic guidelines that help it operate smoothly while carrying out the classification job. Following are the few examples that suggest what are these principles could be: Apparently because of having explicit sexual contents, Damaged Goods (1919) was not allowed for screening. It showed a soldier with sexually transmitted disease. Two 1992 films, Reservoir Dogs and Natural Born Killers were objected to because of violence. A number of the films have been objected because of showing pronounced footages of corpses. Night and Fog (1959) could be especially picked since it carried vivid footages of corpses in Nazi concentration camps. Battleship Potemkin (1926) was disallowed for screening because of its inherent pro-communist. It was feared that the film could trigger violent revolutions. Local councils disqualified Monty Python’s Life of Brian because it apparently had a comical but blasphemous take on Jesus. In 1954, the Wild One (1954) was banned because it had a storyline where the teenagers after committing crime were let off the hook without any punishment. Besides, the police were depicted as weak and incapable in the film. The van was obviously ordered because it was found that the film could have negatively influenced the young while setting a bad example. THE BBFC TODAY The BBFC came out with new guidelines in September 2000. It relaxed the 18 -category but suggested tough measures at younger levels. Apparently in consonance with the changing times, the BBFC has even permitted some pornographic content by liberalising the R18 category. This may be viewed in the backdrop of the recommendations submitted by the Committee On Obscenity and Film Censorship widely known as the Williams Committee after its chairman, Bernard Williams. It had suggested material may be restricted as a public nuisance if offensive to reasonable people, but to be banned altogether material should be actually liable to cause harm, or its production should be harmful. The BBFC is apparently convinced that such phased liberalisation will enable it and the British society to engineer the situation and maximise effectiveness. For instance, the parents have been given some leeway to assess and decide if the 'PG-12' rating, which stipulates suitability for 12-year-olds could be fine with children, who are a year or two younger. Current concerns The BBFC wants to understand, predict and systematically analyse which are the areas where it should have zero-tolerance and which are the areas where minor aberrations may be allowed in sync with the changing times and perception. Following, however, could be safely assumed as contents where it will not hold back its scissors when awarding certificates or requiring cuts. Any theme or explicit sexual or violent contents, which can activate similar thought process in the society, or have imitable potentials for the same has to be cut down, and if required banned. Similar yardsticks applied to scenes glamorising drugs, nudity or suicidal techniques. Besides, the Obscene Publications Act or any other relevant legislation (for instance the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 and the Protection of Children Act 1978) continues to guide the BBFC while deciding classification for the films. Between 2000 and 2006, more than 100 films have had their contents cut off because they apparently violated one or the other guidelines suggested by these legislations. Conclusion In course of time, the exercise of power around film censorship has acquired a broader spectrum and many more articulations. Similarly, the media, the citizenry and even the judiciary have continued highlighting its ‘moral’ parameters. There is also a consensus among the critics the focus of the censorship must be located within the context of the social milieu within which the movies released and received by the commoners. This is especially significant because rapid globalisation has made the films produced across the globe being able to reach new audiences. Not surprisingly, in Europe, Hollywood films comprise 75-80% of the box office. The films are creating a cultural fusion at the global scale, and the men with scissors needs to keep they eyes open. The one good thing about the BBFC is that despite having blanket rules to fall back upon, it has succeeded in taking very objective decisions. It has refused to take any issue or subject matter as potentially unsuitable for being screened. The decisions have been largely made on individual yardsticks, and the results so far have been satisfactory. Bibliography Annette Kuhn, in Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality, 1909-1925 (1988) Knowles, Dorothy, The Censor, the Drama and the Film, London, George Allen & Unwin (1934). Hunnings, Neville March, Film Censors and the Law, London, Allen & Unwin (1967). Mathews, Tom Dewe, Censored, London, Chatto & Windus (1994). Richards, Jeffrey, 'The British Board of Film Censors and Content Control in the 1930s', Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, vol. 1, no. 2 (1981), pp. 95-116 & vol. 2, no. 1 (1982), pp. 39-48. Robertson, James C., 'British Film Censorship Goes to War', Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, vol. 2, no. 1 (1982), pp. 49-64. Robertson, James C., The British Board of Film Censors: Film Censorship in Britain, 1896-1950, London, Croom Helm (1985). Robertson, James C., The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action, 1913-72, London, Routledge (1993) Read More