Options
Is this legal?
![[Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6844e355a611a7e9e32acd7b03c11c65.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 1,486 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Gus Van Sant's new film Restless has been released today without a BBFC rating. I know some arthouse cinemas do this, although major chains like Cineworld are showing it and AFAIK they don't have a license to do so.
For anyone who's seen it, is there a rating screen shown before the film or not? Maybe it has been rated and the BBFC are late updating their website?
For anyone who's seen it, is there a rating screen shown before the film or not? Maybe it has been rated and the BBFC are late updating their website?
0
Comments
For example, the BBFC has denied a certificate to The Human Centipede 2. Now there's nothing to stop any cinema showing THC2 unless the local authority expressly orders them not to. In the absolute worst case scenario, a busybody (or groups of busybodies) could kick up a fuss and a cinema showing THC2 could be prosecuted under obscenity laws.
So, in answer to your question, it is legal for a cinema to show Restless (or even THC2) without a certificate. However, a member of the public could complain and a prosecution could follow if there's anything 'obscene' within the film.
Just out of interest, are the cinema chains offering their own advice on which age groups they will admit to see the film? If it's a free-for-all and the film is unsuitable for children, that could cause problems.
No, on the Cineworld website the rating is listed as TBC. I expect they're admitting anyone. The film would probably receive a 12A rating, as it's a PG-13 in the US for "thematic elements and brief sensuality".
Apparently some Odeon cinemas showed My Soul To Take without a rating back in January. The VUE in York also showed it around early August.
Also, The Human Centipede 2 has been rated 18 for it's cinema release. It's the same cut version that has been passed for DVD.
There is no law 'banning' erect cocks on television. It's just that broadcasters face the risk of trouble, caused by complainers, if they do, and so they elect not to take the risk. If no-one complains, no-one is any the wiser and the world still spins
Cinema censorship is not voluntary at all and never has been since the BBFC was formed - although its formation was a volunatarty move by the film industry.
Unless you have a special club licence any cinema film screening needs a certificate.
The difference between cinema and home video is that for home video the BBFC are the last word.
With cinema releases local councils can over rule the BBFC and either block a film from being seen as they did in some areas with Life Of Brian or allow a banned film to be seen as Westminster Council did with the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre when the BBFC banned it in 1975.
For any cinema to show HC2 they would need to seek permission from the local council and get it before they were allowed to.
Screening unrated movies is fine in the US and its a great shame the UK does not have the option.
You've stepped right out of the film fans wet dream of a world where the BBFC can be ignored.
Not only is a certificate mandatory its also illegal to allow those not of age into the higher certificate movies
You may also recall that when the BBFC announced the ban for HC2 they were very clear that any screening of the movie in the UK would be illegal -and unless prior council permission was given they are right.
The important bit is :
"Films must have a certificate from either the British Board of Film Classification or councillors responsible for licensing before they can be shown commercially."
"If we show the public an uncertificated film we are in breach of our licence."
PJ
No, the BBFC wanted it to be a 12. It was eventually cut for a PG.
Are you implying it should be rated U?:D
They've not added it to the main site:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/search/?searchwhere=db&q=Restless
When I saw Mrs. Doubtfire at the cinema in 1993, it had a 12 rating (I was just over 11). Perhaps that was a council decision
AFAIK, now all the cuts have been waived at the PG level.
What did they cut
Not sure about any other edits
Thanks, I wasn't sure. I thought it waste whole cross dressing which was the problem?
It was given a 12, then 13 seconds were cut from it for a PG- 13 seconds of dialogue removed referring to cunninglinguistics, horizontal mambo and other subtle mentions of sexual foreplay during the restaurant scene. Every UK version up to a 2001 dvd release had the 13 seconds removed. The 2007 Special Edition dvd has the 13 seconds restored (the bbfc were under different management from the 90's by this point).
Info from www.melonfarmers.co.uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tf3XhO3XpE
Actually, I don't think it is real... What do you think about that?
The "12" rating was only introduced in 2002 therefore it couldnt have been passed 12 in 1993!!
Eh? No. It was 12A that was introduced in 2002- the 12 rating was introduced back in 1989.
But where are you getting the 2002 from? I figured you'd mixed it up with the introduction of 12A but surely that was more recently than 2002? Unless there was a later introduction of the new rating in Scotland, which would explain why I'm thinking 2002 is too early.
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/592516/index.html
The 12 certificate was introduced by the British Board of Film Classification on 1 August 1989
The 12 video certificate was finally introduced on 1 July 1994
On 30 August 2002 the BBFC replaced the theatrical 12 certificate with the 12A certificate