British Cinema in the 1980s - Report Example

British Cinema in the 1980s Whilst this essay focuses on the period 1980s I think that it is an inevitably more permissive path that British cinema has followed throughout history. Film has progressively become a far more accessible, and daring, medium as technological advances have allowed increased distribution channels for film and with a greater use οf more fantastic special effects this has released the imaginations οf scriptwriters, producers and directors. Along with these inevitable technical improvements that have made filmmaking a more daring means οf cultural representation, the influence οf John Trevelyan, secretary οf the British Board οf Film Censors from 1958 to 1970, should not be dismissed when considering the apparent relaxation οf values within the film industry. His ability to work with directors, as opposed to against them, is legendary, allowing scenes to be passed for certification that would previously have been found on the cutting room floor before the films release. Throughout this essay, I intend to highlight the increased use οf graphic violence and immorality seen in films during the specified period above, focussing on how censorship codes and values have adapted, and how these relaxed attitudes were critically and socially received. Firstly, I think that it is important to look at society and the political and cultural reaction to prominent events in Britain as an indicator οf social attitudes. In this period, the Moors Murderers, possibly Britains most hated killers, were finally charged with the brutal murders οf several children; the notoriously violent Kray twins were given life sentences for murder; the Gay Liberation Front hold their first demonstration in London, raising the public awareness οf gay issues, and armed troops moved into Ireland for the first time and are seen on television news items, more or less daily, thereafter. Similarly news items were also covering the end οf the Vietnam War, with very public disturbances being caused as veterans returned home. This increased amount οf violence being received in viewers homes as acceptable news items effectively numbed individual sensitivities to what would previously have been conceived as horrific. However coverage οf atrocities were not a new thing, whilst news coverage οf the war was commonplace in cinemas during the 1940s, the scenes were far more acceptable, with the majority οf camera shots depicting the devastation caused by bombing, the camaraderie οf soldiers and the rallying together οf towns and villages in their hour οf need. Little was ever projected highlighting the death and destruction caused by the war as everybody was in some way involved and a high public spirit had to be maintained. Conversely, perhaps because neither the situation in Ireland, nor the Vietnam War, immediately impacted on the life οf the average citizen on the British mainland, the violence depicted on the news seemed somewhat distant from daily life. Nevertheless, this violence slowly became more tolerable as it was regularly received in peoples homes, their individual places οf safety. I fully believe that this slow, almost invisible, process was the start οf the relaxation οf censorship regarding violence in films. This immunity to violence was quickly taken advantage οf by British filmmakers. Ken Russell, a director, whose films have been critically slated for the over use οf sex and violence to no real effect, has admitted that his style is in the main used purely to make his films more shocking. People are used to watching television and seeing the Korean War or the Vietnam War or Ireland. I think even that, in the end, becomes associated with fantasy. It becomes a fantasy οf reality, οf hand held cameras running down the street. Thats why I would never do a modern film like that. People have come to expect that sort οf violence...I want to shock people in to a sense οf awareness.1 Ken Russell used this shock tactic in both his use οf violence and the portrayal οf sex in his work, the more promiscuous aspects οf which will be looked at later. His film, The Devils (1971), is probably Russells most notorious film to date. Depicting graphic scenes οf violence and religious immorality, several cuts had to be made from the original film before its ultimate release as the British Board οf Film Classification (BBFC) deemed there to be too much gratuitous violence contained within it. However, Russell has argued many times since the films release that Aldous Huxleys novel, on which the film is based, is far more graphic in its depiction οf many οf the torture scenes. The censors remained steadfast, echoing the thoughts οf John Baxter ...the word has to be translated, interpreted, if necessary censored - the image is immediate, irrefutable.2 This concern seems to be the central factor when considering whether a scene should be cut or not. It is deemed to be much easier to view scenes οf a film out οf context and subsequently misinterpret the meaning than it is with the written word, a fear that became all the more apparent with the increased accessibility οf video. It should be remembered that in the 1940s and 50s, violence was apparent in films albeit in a more dilute measure. Brighton Rock (1947) is a classic example, depicting a murderous villain who uses a cutthroat razor and acid on his victims. The difference between this film and The Devils, and to a degree, eras, is that the violence is not graphically portrayed in the earlier texts. Brighton Rock hints at the malicious intentions and then the viewer is shown the devastating results however, films οf the late 60s and early 70s graphically portray the act οf violence itself. An interesting point should be noted that the writer οf the Long Good Friday (1979), Barrie Keeffe, was infatuated with stories οf gangsters, his favourite being the 50s villain Jack Spot, who always used razors and machetes for his wars: when he needed 147 stitches for razor slashes, he calmly said to the surgeon: "If you run out οf thread, call my tailor." Cool and funny...and dangerous.3 This highlights the fact that Britain was perhaps no less violent in previous decades and that the stories told in local pubs often glamorised the violence within society at the time. The fact that the films didnt portray this violence in such detail suggests to me that the general public were, by and large, protected from the graphic retelling οf these events. The passage οf time has, however, enabled more graphic violence in films to be shown, keeping audiences shocked and directors on their toes to continually push against the boundaries set by the censors. Sexual violence was, and remains, an area οf much stricter control by the BBFC. Two films from 1971 stand out as shining examples οf the disturbance caused by the press due to the graphic, and often unnecessary, sexual violence contained within them. A Clockwork Orange and Straw Dogs both received their certification for cinema release after much debate over the content οf certain scenes, but were later banned from video release. Straw Dogs, in fact, continues to fight for its video certificate in Britain. Both films depict vivid scenes οf rape and torture, both subjects that had previously been very tightly controlled. Straw Dogs was reviewed in The Times newspaper in December 1971 as dubious in its intention, excessive in its effect, and likely to contribute to the concern expressed from time to time by many critics over films which exploit the very violence they make a show οf condemning.4 Whilst the public were, at last, becoming more tolerant οf such issues, the press , and other moral campaign groups, continued to hound the BBFC for tighter controls to be imposed. Perhaps the fact that these films were so sensational encouraged audiences to accept more than they previously would have done. Certainly, Dilys Powell was οf the opinion that the younger generations were almost oblivious to the brutality displayed. ...The Devils, Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. Nobody could deny that the third was disturbingly violent (though young audiences take it as farce and merely laugh); but the violence was the expression οf ferocious satire, and few film critics complained. The other two, though both were made by men οf exceptional talent, many οf us found nauseating.5 I believe that this apparent apathy is almost impossible to measure. Whilst there is no disputing the facts that police reports exist telling οf copycat violent attacks, especially in connection with Kubricks A Clockwork Orange, the connection should be made with the stylised way in which the attacks were carried out, not necessarily with the violence itself. The critical fear was that violence itself was becoming as fashionable as the films that depicted such. However, as a counterpoint, and from earlier comments about villainy, the 1950s were very probably as violent as the 1970s. Certainly, considering the content οf current films, the board οf film censors appeared to be becoming more lenient. With John Trevelyan at the helm οf the BBFC it seemed to be more conducive for both the board and film directors if agreement could be reached prior to any scenes being shot, saving both time and money on all sides. It should not be suggested that films were purposely being toned down in order to pass the censors eye however. The coherence οf a film was now being considered before the board requested major cuts and the agreed alternative seemed to be to make minor cuts to the most extreme elements οf a scene. Sex, violence and anti-social behaviour therefore became more and more explicit with only certain topics, which were considered to be deviant, that remained most restricted. In these instances, it seemed that much more hesitant progress was being made in terms οf the liberalisation οf censorship. As Anthony Aldgate explains as it was in 1955 and 1960, so it was in 1965. Voyeurism, like nudity, "language", homosexuality, sex, abortion, contraception, and various other subjects which exercised the censors minds, was not considered fit entertainment to put before the British cinema-going public in undiluted or unsanitised form, if it were to be mentioned at all.6 Voyeuristic scenes in Darling (1965) had to be obscured to avoid complete removal despite the lengthy debates between John Schlesinger and the BBFC that continued throughout the production οf the film. However, setting a precedence for future films such as Alfie (1966) and Poor Cow (1967), Darling expressed itself as a piece οf social realism, the sex depicted was part οf daily life and did not appear in the film merely for the titillation οf the viewer. Yet despite references to abortion and after considering the context οf the subject matter, the BBFC granted the film an X certificate, something that was becoming more commonplace yearly. Surprisingly, by 1969, the number οf X rated films passed for commercial viewing had exceeded the total number οf U and A films combined.7 This in itself should indicate the impudence οf directors trying to force the limits to which they could go, coupled with the increasingly liberal approach οf the board. Despite the apparent control over British filmmakers, foreign films were being made, and shown, in their respective countries containing far more explicit sex scenes than could ever be found in British home grown product. Yet despite failure to achieve any form οf British certification, many οf these films could be seen in Britain in private cinema clubs and art houses. This was an ever-flourishing part οf the industry and as such pressured the BBFC to raise the age limit οf the X rated film from sixteen to eighteen years οf age in 1970. This, in turn, opened the floodgates to British directors with new opportunities to be grasped increasing the appeal οf their films on both home and international markets just by making scenes more explicit. This was immediately recognised as a new marketing tool and in an attempt to recapture the lost audiences οf the 1950s Hammer developed a new, raunchier, vampiric horror cycle commencing in 1970. Despite the soft-core pornographic images, these lesbian-vampire films failed to recapture the reputation οf their predecessors and ultimately sealed the fate for the cinema film making οf Hammer. Similarly, the Carry On team attempted to compete with the X rated popularity οf their counterparts. They even produced a parody οf the French soft-porn film Emmanuelle (1974) but sadly the films were not X rated enough and soon fell by the wayside, making way for the more lewd Confessions of... cycle that appeared in the mid 1970s. Alongside the efforts made by existing genres to maintain a degree οf sensationalism, new films were being made introducing homosexual relationships. Whilst many οf these dalliances were covert, implying far more than they actually ever dared to show, it was certainly a breakthrough for British cinema. Most films adhering to the documentary format reduced any inference by critics οf sordid behaviour or titillation. Nighthawks (1978) diversified from this trend as it follows a fictional path, telling οf the difficulties οf Jim, a gay teacher. This was an important step for the gay movement as films were needed that showed the reality οf our existence - the fact οf our existence and what our existence was really like.8 This progressive movement toward the inclusion οf all members οf society in film by the BBFC was a radical step that could not be reneged upon. Notes. 1. Ken Russell in Joseph A Gomez, Ken Russell, The Adaptor as Creator (London: Frederick Muller Ltd, 1976), p.143 2. John Baxter, An Appalling Talent, Ken Russell (London: Michael Joseph, 1973), p.202 3. Barrie Keeffe, Haunting Friday, in Sight and Sound, vol.6 no.8, August 1996, pp.20-21 (p20) 4. Forbidden Cinema - a collaboration with BBC2, supplement with Sight and Sound, supplement with vol.6, no. 6, June 1995, p.11 5. Christopher Cook, ed., The Dilys Powell Film Reader (Manchester: Carcanet, 1991), p.405 6. Anthony Aldgate, Censorship and the Permissive Society. British Cinema and Theatre 1955-1965. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), p.151 7. Figures from John Trevelyan, What the Censor Saw. (London: Michael Joseph, 1973), p.60, cited in Gonna Have a Revolution? Open University notes, p.108 8. John Trevelyan in Anthony Aldgate, ibid. p.5 9. Richard Dyer, Now You See It: Studies on Lesbian and Gay Film (London: Routledge, 1990) p.237 10. John Ellis, Visible Fictions: Cinema: Television: Video (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982) p.226 Bibliography. Aldgate, Anthony, Censorship and the Permissive Society: British Cinema and Theatre, 1955-1965 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) Baxter, John, An Appalling Talent, Ken Russell (London: Michael Joseph, 1973) Conrich, Iain, Traditions οf the British Horror Film, in Robert Murphy, ed., The British Cinema Book (London: BFI, 1999), pp.226-34 Cook, Christopher, ed., The Dilys Powell Film Reader (Manchester: Carcanet, 1991) Dacre, Paul, Traditions οf British Comedy, in Robert Murphy, ed., The British Cinema Book, pp.198-206 Dickinson, Margaret and Sarah Street, Cinema and State: The Film Industry and the British Government 1927-84 (London: BFI, 1985) Dyer, Richard, Now You See It: Studies on Lesbian and Gay Film (London: Routledge, 1990) Ellis, John, Visible Fictions: Cinema: Television: Video (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982) Gomez, Joseph. A, Ken Russell Adaptor as Creator (London: Frederick Muller Ltd, 1976) Keeffe, Barrie, Haunting Friday, Sight and Sound, vol.6, no.8, August 1996, pp.20-1 Macnab, Geoffrey, J. Arthur Rank and the British Film Industry (London: BFI, 1992) Murphy, Robert, Sixties British Cinema (London: BFI, 1992) Owen, Gareth and Brian Burford, The Pinewood Story -The Authorised History οf the Worlds Most Famous Film Studio, (London: Reynolds & Hearn, 2000) Richards, Jeffrey, British Film Censorship in Robert Murphy, ed., The British Cinema Book pp.167-77 Richards, Jeffrey and Anthony Aldgate, Best οf British, Cinema and Society 1930-1970 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983) Robinson, David, The Chronicle οf Cinema 1895-1995, Sight and Sound, vol. 4, December 1994 Russell, Ken, A British Picture: An Autobiography (London: Heinemann, 1989) Russell, Ken, The Devils and the Censor, in Forbidden Cinema, Sight and Sound, supplement with vol.6, no. 6, June 1995 Sinclair, Iain, Smart Guys, Sight and Sound, vol. 6, no. 8, August 1996, pp.22-3 Wollen, Peter, Possession, Sight and Sound, vol. 5, no. 9, September 1995, pp.20-3 Wood, Robin, Hitchcocks Films Revisited, (London: Faber & Faber, 1989) Read More