British Film Industry - Essay Example

?The Significance of British Board of Film ification in British Film Industry The Relevance of Film ification: Every art form is a medium for the expression of opinion of the artist. Movies, being sources of entertainment for the public, have a larger scope for mass appeal. Therefore, films have greater influences on people than other means of mass communication. Movie makers consider their product as a source of revenue generation, besides being a platform to express their views and opinions. Thus, to gain mass appeal as well as to achieve realism, they include sex, violence and offensive dialogs in their movies. From a social perspective, such contents are considered as inappropriate to some segments of the prospective audience, especially children. Thus, it becomes necessary to classify movies into certain categories so that the audience can be guided as to which movie is suitable for viewing by a specific group of individuals. In this context, it is relevant that viewing of inappropriate content, especially scenes depicting graphic sex or violence, frightening images and coarse language etc can negatively impact children who are in the developmental stage. Young children as well as teenagers also have a tendency to try or imitate what they view on the movie or TV screens. Besides, they also lack the maturity and intellectual as well as psychological faculties to take informed decisions about what is proper or distinguish the real from what they view on the screen. Therefore, from a sociological perspective, it becomes the responsibility of not only the parents but also the society and governments to ensure that art forms do not expose children and teenagers to inappropriate content. Thus, movie rating or classification has come into practice, with a view to “help parents to protect children and teenagers from inappropriate contents” (Rating the Movies 2010). This system, practiced in all countries across the globe, seems to be effective in guiding the parents to decide which films their children should see or should not see. Overview of the British Board of Film Classification: In the earlier days, prior to the establishment of a specific agency, film censorship was handled by local authorities. The main drawback of this system was the absence of any unified or standard norms to regulate the screening of movies. Therefore, a general need was felt to implement a standard procedure for classifying the movies being produced in Britain, through a single regulatory authority. Thus, the film industry of Britain instituted the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in 1912, as an “independent, self financing not for profit media content regulator” (Mission Statement 2011), with a view to make them act as a trustworthy guide for the public in advising them about the suitability of the content for specific segments. This organisation has “exercised responsibilities over cinema” classification for about 100 years and for videos for about 27 years from 1985, pursuant to the Video Recording Act 1984, passed by the parliament (Student’s British Board of Film 2005, p. 1). According to their mission statement, they seek to function as a labelling service provider, for media content, whose main objectives are as under: - a) Prevent the public especially children, from exposure to “content which might raise harm risks” (Mission Statement 2011). b) Help the public in general, and parents in particular to “make informed viewing choices” (Mission Statement 2011). c) To ensure that “adult freedom of choice” (Mission Statement 2011) is honoured while adhering to relevant laws on the subject. d) Take into the consideration the changes occurring in “social attitudes towards media content and respond to them through consultation with the public as well as appropriate research” (Mission Statement 2011). e) Working within statutory constraints to facilitate a “cost effective, efficient classification service” (Mission Statement 2011). f) Maintain a close rapport with the film industry and design service models that are appropriate in providing “content advice which support emerging media delivery system” (Mission Statement 2011). g) Extend support to enforcement agencies in curbing violation of media regulations. From the objectives of the BBFC, as set out in their mission statement, it amply transpires that their main responsibility is to monitor media content and exercise control over the content to ensure that children and teenagers are not exposed to materials, which are inappropriate to their viewing. Besides, this organisation also seeks to protect individuals’ artistic freedom while making sure that movie, video and other media makers do not harm the public sentiment by depicting graphic violence, sex or gore in their artistic endeavours. From their defined role and the manner in which they have discharged their responsibilities over the last century, it can be evidenced that the BBFC has a critical role in British film industry and is a crucial factor in determining what kind of content the British audience should be permitted to watch. An Overview of British Film Industry: Like with the case of other countries, in Britain also the film industry is a source of revenue generation apart from being an agent of promotion of culture. This assigns the industry a crucial role in the development of the nation, especially in grooming creativity in children and youngsters as well as forming their attitudes. The sixth report of session 2002-03 (Volume 1) of the House of Commons, Culture, Media and Sports Committee finds that the British film Industry “generates significant returns for the UK economy” and estimates that UK films have fetched “? 7 billion in overseas investment and ? 1.1 billion in domestic investment” (The British Film Industry 2003, p. 9) which totals to ? 3 billion. The committee also claims, quoting British Film Institute (BFI) sources, that “film and moving image were important for reflecting British culture back to British society and out to the world” (The British Film Industry 2003, p. 10). Films produced in a country, like other art forms, are also the token of the artistic talent of that region, which reflects a national spirit as well as identity. Thus, it can be construed that the industry has a definitive role not only in the economy of Britain but also in its culture as well as the image it projects to the outside world. Similarly, the BBFC, being the regulatory authority for movies, can be seen as significant not only to the British film industry but also to the nation as a whole. Evolution of BBFC over the Years and the Changes in Their Policies: Human history is a saga of constant transformation in concepts and attitudes and evolution into new ideals. Access to new information, gaining of fresh knowledge as well as technological advancements in different fields bring about drastic changes in human life with the passage of time. These changes also reflect in human perception of different art forms, including movies. The BBFC has also, over the years, evolved according to the changing needs of time. Its evolution also relates to a great extent to its leadership as well as various changes that have taken place in film production. During the hundred years of its existence, regulating the British film industry, the BBFC has implemented several policies for film certification. The changes in the standard are mainly attributable to external stimuli such various legislations passed by government with regard to media content, new developments in technology, historical events and the impact on art in general, the shifts in social attitudes etc. Thus, it becomes necessary for the board to evolve according to such changes and accommodate new policies to conform to the needs to the changed environment. This section of the study examines various milestones within the film industry, with reference to the changes in its leadership as well as the implementation of different policies, in chronological order, as under: - 1916 – Under the Regime of T P O’Connor: Hitherto being regulated solely by the discretion of local authorities, without any standard guidelines, the British film industry remained directionless so far as classification of films was concerned. With a view to implement predetermined guidelines for the censorship and regulation of films, The National Council of Public Morals felt the need for a regulatory authority and instituted the Cinema Commission of Inquiry in 1916. To provide this agency with a definitive set of norms as guidelines for the screening of movies, O’Connor listed “forty-three grounds for deletion laid down for the guidance of examiners” to summarise the policies of BBFC (Ford 1997, p. 2). The parameters considered in the said list were intended to exercise strict control over movie content, with a view to elicit trust from the public as well as the local authorities. The list required the exclusion of items such as sex, violence to children, women and animals, irreverence, excessive drinking, display under clothing, political controversies, love-making scenes, prostitution, racism etc, among other things, from movies. 1918 to 1939: During the intervening period between World War-I and World War-II, the British film industry witnessed a boom in movie genres such as horror and gangster films. At this particular point, movie themes dealing with human sexuality also found the favour of film production companies. Violence and sex being an integral part of such movies, the board had a tough time dealing with classification issues. The movie, Frankenstein (1931), based on the novel of the same name by Mary W Shelly and directed by the famous British director James Whale, was one such instance. The movie, an epoch making event in the annals of horror movie history, became a hit among the masses in Britain but caused a major controversy, especially in the context of the scene, where the monster drowns a small girl child by throwing her into a river. An organization called “The Order of the Child,” made concerted efforts to pre-empt children from watching the movie. Frankenstein claims the unique honour of being “a pivotal film in the ‘children and cinema’ debate in Britain” (Smith 2005, p. 70). The controversy kicked off by this movie forced the BBFC to scrape the drowning scene in the movie but it was screened in Britain, with an “advisory category ‘H’ (for horror), agreed to in 1932, to indicate the potential unsuitability for children of the horror theme” (The British Film Industry 2003, p. 4). Thus, the BBFC was instrumental in facilitating the release and subsequent popularity of the film in Britain, despite the hue and cry surrounding it. In a similar fashion, the BBFC made available to the British audience Hollywood movies like Dracula (1931), The Mask of Fu Manchu, The Mummy (1932), Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933), The Black Cat (1934) etc. These movies, despite their questionable content, are still perceived as classic examples of cinematic techniques and attract audience all across the globe with the same fervour. A deluge of horror and monster movies, released after the success of Dracula, also testify to the commercial viability and mass appeal of this genre. Many such movies have also won critical acclaim and generated scholarly debates. During the particular period these movies were released, the content might have offended some segment of the audience that upheld the so called morality. But the fact remained that these movies were artistically perfect. They deserved public screening and the appreciation by the audience. In this context, it was also relevant that apart from the entertainment aspects these movies were also the transmitters of cultural values. The BBFC, despite the public resentment and uproar about some of the content, had facilitated their screening by appropriate classification. Thus, they allowed the British audience the opportunity to enjoy such Hollywood treats. On the other hand, another Hollywood box office hit, Island of Lost Souls (1933), based on the novel The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) written by H G Wells, produced by Paramount and directed by Erle C Kenton, met with a different fate at the hands of the BBFC. Their consideration of the societal perceptions becomes evident in this case when Paramount applied for censorship of the movie in March 1933. This was a period when propaganda for prevention of cruelty towards animals was gaining momentum in Britain. The movie’s main theme being evolution of animals into semi-humans through vivisection, it attracted severe opposition from the British society. Besides, there was also an apprehension that Hollywood was perpetrating “real cruelty to animals” (Robertson 1993, p. 56). Thus, taking into consideration the situation and the pressure groups, BBFC denied certification to the movie, maintaining that “the Moreau experiments flouted the laws of nature” (Robertson, p.57). However, Paramount persisted in its efforts to get a certification but their prospect of getting it remained uncertain again with the passing of Cinematograph (Animals) Act, 1937, which prohibited depiction of cruelty towards animals. Paramount became finally successful in its endeavour during July, 1958 when the BBFC cleared the movie with an ‘X’ certificate. Thus, it transpires that the BBFC intervenes with the classification process at every stage, after taking into consideration of the social perceptions existing at the specific period. They, accordingly, exercise control over the media content and have a definitive role in regulating the direction of the British film industry. 1948 – Under the Regime of Arthur Watkins: Another significant stage of evolution of the BBFC occurred during the regime of Arthur Watkins as the secretary to the board while Sir Sydney Harris remained the president. At this time, the only category that pre-empted children was the H category and, therefore, it was considered desirable to prescribe the new category of “adults only.” This classification, apart from protecting children from the exposure to adult content, was also expected to give the movie makers the leeway to treat adult themes in an appropriate level for the viewing pleasure of a mature population. “Watkins and Harris formulated new terms of reference for the board based on three principles,” such as: the contents of the movie do not compromise moral standards, do not offend the audience and do not cause a harmful effect on children (The British Film Industry 2003, p. 4). This also delineates BBFC’s role in determining the course of British film industry and accentuates the fact that they are crucial in influencing the trends in cinema and the movie culture of British audience. A major controversy about BBFC policies occurred in the case of “Battleship Potemkin” (1925), directed by Sergei Eisenstein, which was submitted for censorship during 1926. The film, inspired by 1905 revolution, contained violence and was thought to be politically inciting. The BBFC harboured an apprehension that it might contaminate the British society, especially due to its pro-revolutionary content. Thus, the board refused to give a certificate to the movie on two occasions. Eventually, it was given a ‘X’ certificate during 1954, when the BBFC believed that “its potential to cause political unrest diminished, especially after the death of Stalin in 1953” (Battleship Potemkin n.d.). Though the movie was a classic not only in the Russian context but also in the history of world cinema, the British viewers were denied the opportunity to watch it. Events like these emphasise the fact that BBFC has a key role to play in determining the course of British film industry and in deciding which movie the British audience should or should not watch. 1950s: With the economic prosperity of the fifties, the film industry stood to gain benefits, especially when youngsters began to have disposable income. A major development within the BBFC during this period was the introduction of ‘X’ category in 1951 “incorporating the ‘H’ category given to horror films” (Student’s British Board of Film 2005, p. 5). The boom in television industry, witnessed by the mid-fifties drastically reduced the number of adult film viewers but some movies became very popular among teenage crowds. During this period, some of the major movies that underline BBFC’s relevance to British film industry are: “The Wild One” (1954), “Rebel without a Cause” (1955), “The Garden of Eden,” (1955), “Rock Around the Clock” (1956), “Smiles of a Summer Night” (1956) etc. The Wild One, starring Marlon Brando in the lead role of a bike gang leader was denied certification because the board thought it contained “unbridled hooliganism” (Murphy 2009, p.5). Similarly, Nicholas Ray’s Rebel without a Cause met with the board’s rejection because of its violence and antisocial behaviour involving teenagers but was finally passed with several cuts and a categorization of ‘X’. On the other hand, some of the dialogues from Ingmar Bergman’s Smiles of a Summer Night were cut because the board considered the references to sex as “too risque” (Murphy 2009, p.5). In the same vein, the board rejected The Garden of Eden on the grounds of nudity in several scenes. From the aforesaid episodes it becomes apparent that it had always remained the endeavour of BBFC to protect the risk prone group against violence and inappropriate sexual content in movies. 1960s – Era of Liberalisation: The early 60s witnessed a drastic shift in social attitude towards morality, which reflected in the BBFC’s policies regarding classification also. During this time, the issue of the publication of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” a sensational novel by D H Lawrence, became a topic of great controversy in Britain. The publishers challenged the Obscene Publications Act (1959) and the jury ruled for lifting the ban on the book that British government had earlier imposed. This was a major milestone in the British publishing history. Responding to the “new spirit of liberalism,” the BBFC secretary, John Trevelyan, maintained that the board cannot shoulder the onus of “guardianship of public morality” and that it is not proper on the part of the board to refuse to an adult audience, the exhibition of “behaviour that contravenes the accepted moral code” (Murphy 2009, p.8). However, the subsequent release of the movie, “Peeping Tom” (1960), with an ‘X’ rating, later brought public resentment against Trevelyan as critics disapproved the movie strongly. Again, the board passed the movie “Alfie” (1966) despite its focus on the theme of abortion. These events in the British film history illustrate the fact that BBFC has a pivotal role in regulating the film industry in Britain. One of the main objectives of the BBFC is the protection of children from improper media content. The argument, whether children’s psyche can be damaged by watching horror movies or those containing sex and violence, “continues – unsettled – to the present day” (Johnson 1997, p. 5). However, there is no concrete evidence to indicate that horror movies can indeed cause any harm to children. On the other hand, there also exists no proof that such media content is absolutely healthy for children. To be on the safe side, the society has to exercise some control over the content that children are allowed to watch. The relevance of organizations like the BBFC can be better understood from this perspective. They regulate media content and control the film industry with the primary intention of protecting certain segments of the audience from exposure to harmful material. The classification and refusal of certification to the movies as discussed above, delineates the role of BBFC in regulating media content. Evolution of the Audience and the Change in Their Attitudes: The controversial novel, “Lady Chatterley’s Lover,” (1928) by D H Lawrence could not be published in England until 1960, while it became available to readers in Italy or France immediately after it was written. This fact points to the attitude of the British society and the legislators at that time. It is also intriguing that “books by Henry Miller, Lawrence Durrell, Cyril Connolly and others were available only to those English readers who could afford to travel to Paris to purchase them” (Robertson 2010). However, in the post globalization era, the British people have changed their attitude and would not prevent classic work of art from seeing light in their society. Similarly, in the present day, a parent may not mind watching the movie, “Species” (1995), which falls in the Science Fiction Horror category, with a seven-year old kid, where a new born infant shoots his tongue to grab a rat and gorge it. Nor this parent will shy away from viewing the scene from “The Book of Eli” (2010), a post apocalyptic film, where the hero, played by Denzel Washington, shoots an arrow to hunt down a “deprived” cat for his meal. Ironically, in another scene, he offers a cooked piece of the cat to the rat, saying, “It’s a cat” (Hughes, 2010). Most of the educated parents in the modern world recognise the significance of spending quality time with their children and do not mind explaining to their kids various nuances of the movie and help them distinguish fiction from reality. The advent of computer and internet technology has also contributed to the changes in the attitude of people. In the modern world of technological advancements, the audience does not consider sex or horror as taboo subjects. Topics like teen pregnancy, gay marriage etc are now being openly discussed by teenagers. The changed perception of morality has made the audience be more tolerable to movie themes like deviant sexual behaviour, serial killings, horror involving aliens, crimes involving gangs, extreme violence etc. The success of movies like “Boyz n the Hood” (1991), Basic Instinct (1992) and its sequel Basic Instinct-II (2006), Species (1995), its sequels Species-II (1998) and Species-III (2004), The Apocalypto (2006) etc stand testimony to this fact. The advent of computers and internet technology has further entailed a transformation in how people receive movie advertisements. Realizing the web’s potential as a marketing tool for promoting movies, some film makers heavily rely on web sites to attract viewers. A most relevant film that adopted such promotional strategies is “The Blair Witch Project” (1999) by Daniel Myrick and Edward Sanchez. Evidence indicates that the marketing campaign undertaken through websites “went a long way to explain the film’s eventual box office take of over $240 million worldwide” (Nelmes 1996, p.39). Similarly, the most recent episode of the appearance of the song “Why This Kolaveri” from the Indian movie “3” in You Tube and discussions about the same in social networks such as Facebook and Twitter has helped the movie attain tremendous popularity. Recent trend in UK indicates growing popularity of the multiplex culture and the number of movie goers, especially those “over the age of 30 has increased significantly” (Nelmes 1996, p.37). The extensive increase in education has also caused the transformation of movie audience. This is mainly because education helps people to gain a better understanding of various themes portrayed in movies and research has found that increase in the level of education “translates to increased frequency of cinema-going” (Nelmes 1996, p.36). Besides, in the post-globalisation scenario, people have developed a higher sense of awareness of cultures of other countries and they enjoy movies from all over the world, which show different perspectives of life and morality. Thus, in the present day, the British audience have become more open minded to view movie content without much reservations on how it affects their sense of morality. The BBFC has, accordingly, changed their stance on media content also because ultimately they will have to consider public perception also as to what they would actually like to see in movies. Conclusion: One of the main objectives behind the establishment of BBFC has been to protect children from in appropriate media content. From the evidence, as discerned during the process of this study, it transpires that they have efficiently and effectively shouldered this responsibility. The argument, whether children’s psyche can be damaged by watching horror movies, or those portraying other questionable content, “continues – unsettled – to the present day” (Johnson 1997, p. 5). However, in the absence of any concrete evidence to indicate that horror movies can indeed cause harm to children, one cannot simply assume that such films should be banned. On the other hand, there also exists no proof that such media content is absolutely healthy for children. To be on the safe side, the society has to exercise some control over the content that children are allowed to watch. The relevance of organizations like the BBFC can be better understood from this perspective. They regulate media content and control the film industry with the primary intention of protecting certain segments of the audience from exposure to harmful material. The classification and refusal of certification to the movies as discussed above, delineates the role of BBFC in regulating media content. This study has also considered several controversial movies that have been subjected to classification by the BBFC. These examples illustrate that the BBFC has, whenever there have been a reasonable grounds to do so, prevented inappropriate movie content from being screened to the British audience. On the other hand, in many cases, they have assigned the films specific classification so that such content are viewed only by certain categories of audience to which those are considered as harmless. In some other instances, the BBFC has called for cuts of specific scenes so as to facilitate the British audience an opportunity to watch movies that are classic examples cinematic technology. In the modern day, youngsters who use internet have unrestrained access to a variety of media content. However, this may not nullify the relevance of BBFC in regulating movie content in Britain. Throughout their existence of over a century, the BBFC has effectively controlled the visual media in Britain, playing a key role in British film industry, directing its course and making sure that inappropriate content do not reach their audience, and it will continue to do so in the future. Thus, it becomes amply clear that the BBFC is still a significant part of the British film industry as the monitoring authority for restricting film content. Reference List Battleship Potemkin n.d. British Board of Film Classification. Available at [Accessed on 05 April 2012]. Ford, M 1997. Classification and Regulation in Britain. British Board of Film Classification. Available at [Accessed on 05 April 2012]. Johnson, T 1997. Censored Screams: The British Ban on Hollywood Horror in the Thirties. McFarland & Company Inc. Print. Available at [Accessed on 05 April 2012]. Mission Statement 2011. British Board of Film Classification. [Online] Available at [Accessed on 05 April 2012]. Murphy, R 2009. The British Cinema Book. British Film Institute. Print. Nelmes, J 1996. An Introduction to Film Studies. Routledge. Print. Rating the Movies 2010. Media Awareness Network. [Online] Available at [Accessed on 05 April 2012]. Robertson, CR 1993. The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action. Routledge Inc. Print. Robertson, G 2010. The Trial of Lady Chatterley's Lover. The Guardian. [Online] Available at [Accessed on 05 April 2012]. Smith, SJ 2005. Children, Cinema & Censorship: From Dracula to the Dead End Kids. I B Tauris & Co Ltd., London. Print. Available at [Accessed on 05 April 2012]. Student’s British Board of Film 2005. The SBBFC Student Guide 2005/06. Available at [Accessed on 05 April 2012]. The British Film Industry 2003. House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Vol. 1. Available at [Accessed on 05 April 2012]. Read More