Reclassifying Films

1246711

Comments

  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,488
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    Spielberg's Duel has been raised from PG to 12.

    It was an AA originally so it's effectively gone back to what it started as.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    duplicate comment
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    (duplicate comment)
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    JCR wrote: »
    Mad Max and Mad Max 2 both lowered from 18 to 15 for cinema today.
    Cineworld's web page still shows the double bill as an 18. I've e-mailed them asking them to change it.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    Tomorrow's Blu-Ray re-release of Mad Max is still getting an 18 instead of a 15 because it wasn't resubmitted for video, only for cinema. It hasn't been submitted for video since 1995 so it would make sense to resubmit it and get a few more sales from the Blu-Ray. It would cost a few hundred to submit it in the first place but a big studio like Warner Brothers would be able to afford that.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,009
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Somewhat off topic but the advice for François Ozon's new release The New Girlfriend is, well, erm, interesting, given it's a 15.
    bbfc wrote:

    THE NEW GIRLFRIEND is a French drama about a young woman who loses her best friend to illness and then befriends the woman's husband; he confides in her about his secret lifestyle.

    Nudity

    There are some strong images of nudity, including brief sight of an erect penis and full frontal female nudity.

    Sex

    There are some scenes of strong sex that include sexualised male and female nudity.

    There is a scene in which two young girls cut their hands to perform a blood oath.

    I've not seen it, but does sound kinda amazing that got a 15. What times we live in. :o;-)
  • CLL DodgeCLL Dodge Posts: 115,488
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    Somewhat off topic but the advice for François Ozon's new release The New Girlfriend is, well, erm, interesting, given it's a 15.

    I've not seen it, but does sound kinda amazing that got a 15. What times we live in. :o;-)

    If it had been a mainstream English language picture directed by some talentless hack then 18 all the way.

    Ozon is a brilliant film-maker. I hope plenty of 15-17 year olds take the opportunity given to them.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    JCR wrote: »
    I've not seen it, but does sound kinda amazing that got a 15. What times we live in. :o;-)

    The full frontal nudity doesn't sound out of bounds for a 15; I've seen it in a quite a few including Predator 2.
    The blood oath/sacrifice could also be suitably 15 depending on how it's shot and how much they show.

    The rest sounds a bit dodgy though, especially considering that it got an R18+ in Australia which is a pretty hardcore rating and very few, if any BBFC 15 films have been given so far; some include Full Metal Jacket and Evil Dead II (which should be an MA15+ IMO and isn't quite that bad these days)

    However, I can think of quite a few hard 18s here that got an MA15+ over there, such as Dredd (the ultra-gory Karl Urban one), Fifty Shades of Grey, Machete (the first one) and Planet Terror. They seem to focus a lot more heavily on the context of a film than the UK does which is why I'm even more surprised that Evil Dead 2 keeps it's R18+ rating to this day
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    I should make a new thread on this subject (films which you think got the wrong BBFC rating). It's an interesting talking point
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,884
    Forum Member
    The BBFC have consciously tried to gradually put stronger and stronger sexual content in the 15 rating over the last 10 years. It can be very surprising sometimes watching 15-rated films at how stark, rough and graphic the sex can be compared to before. Check out the sex scene in Von Trier's Manderlay for example...

    That's not to say I think it's 'damaging' as such for 15 year-olds to see it, it's more an issue of what the public 'expects' to see in a 15.

    Like I said a page or two back, I don't know if this re-arranging of content into different categories is necessarily lined up to what the public are expecting to see in those ratings. The BBFC claim they consult with the public on these things, but we all know how questionable polls/surveys can be. A question asked 2 different ways can get 2 different responses from the same person.

    Personally I'm not convinced. I think the wide range of content is too much within both 12 and 15 ratings these days. The rating itself is becoming less indicative, which I think is possibly a backwards step in terms of the public having an instant impression of the content.

    But, it's more money for the film companies the lower the rating....
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    That's not to say I think it's 'damaging' as such for 15 year-olds to see it, it's more an issue of what the public 'expects' to see in a 15

    If it wouldn't damage a 15 year old to see it then it's not likely to be unsuitable for a 15; however it's very hard to predict what will upset a particular teenager as they're all so different.

    About the public consultation thing, it's important and good that the BBFC is consulting 15 year olds too on this as it's pretty much pointless otherwise if you are just interviewing adults, who are used to 18's and may think of a 15 film's content a little too strictly. And the end of the day the final decision on guidelines is best as a mixture of parental and child/teenage opinion.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    roger_50 wrote: »
    It can be very surprising sometimes watching 15-rated films at how stark, rough and graphic the sex can be compared to before. Check out the sex scene in Von Trier's Manderlay for example...
    Personally I'm not convinced. I think the wide range of content is too much within both 12 and 15 ratings these days.

    IMO historical films should always be given a little bit more leeway in terms of depicting accurate violence and sex. I saw Saving Private Ryan for the first time at 15 and it didn't scar me, even though it was hard to watch, because it wasn't gratuitous/unnecessary violence.

    It's always very hard and always will be to decide where the line lies between two ratings as they get dragged down.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    Maybe we should move the conversation to this thread instead:
    http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2075111
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    The Town That Dreaded Sundown lowered from 18 to 15 for video last Monday.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,129
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LMTie wrote: »
    Ironically, the BBFC's reclassification of certain films only serves to highlight how utterly pointless their existence really is.

    It's a legalised money making scam, nothing more.

    No, it merely shows changing social opinions.

    As has been said above many X-rated films are now shown during the day like the Hammer Horrors.

    I would suggest you listen to the BBFC podcasts that have been put out.

    They are absolutely superb and they are very open about how they certificate films of different types and how they listen to the public when deciding on how films should be classified.
  • Grabid RanniesGrabid Rannies Posts: 4,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    Somewhat off topic but the advice for François Ozon's new release The New Girlfriend is, well, erm, interesting, given it's a 15.

    I've not seen it, but does sound kinda amazing that got a 15. What times we live in. :o;-)

    Just as in the turning point whereby the BBFC finally deigned to allow erect penises without demanding them either censored or relegated to 'R18' ie sex shops only, I guess they are now in turn standing down (teehee) from the view of erect penis in and of itself = automatic '18'. There was a film a couple of years ago, some Swedish teen drama or other, with a hard-on, which they passed at 15, and there's also one in Ingmar Bergman's Persona and if I'm not mistaken that's a 12. There is admittedly a qualifying difference though that in those two examples, the marauding member was not 'live'; ie the former was visible in the pages of a pornographic magazine, whereas the latter is one photograph in a rapidly-edited montage. So it is surprising to note this progression, although let's face it, everyone knows what they look like by 15.

    I do however feel that the BBFC is taking its leniency on sexual content and/or themes and younger viewers perhaps a little too far. In a concurrent thread, I cited the case of 'Wish You Were Here' having been downgraded to a 12, and in my humble opinion very questionably so given the visual frankness of some of the sexual content, especially combined with it being perpetrated in an abusive scenario.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    There's also one in Ingmar Bergman's Persona and if I'm not mistaken that's a 12.
    Persona is a 15.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,884
    Forum Member
    alfster wrote: »
    they are very open about how they certificate films of different types and how they listen to the public when deciding on how films should be classified.
    But as I pointed to earlier, it's very easy to get the general consensus you choose to get, if you ask the right kind of people the right kind of questions in a survey. The BBFC are rating films the way they want to rate films.

    In reality, I rarely go very long between hearing comments from various people about how shocked they were to see such&such in a particular rating, etc. The general view I always hear is that certain content is too strong for 12's and 15's. I never hear the opposite, that the BBFC are being too strict, for example.

    It's as if they've gone too far in the opposite direction to the 1980's. The sweet spot was somewhere in the middle, but they've somehow managed to get it all wrong again. From being way too conservative to being way too liberal (especially with the 12-rating).
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    roger_50 wrote: »
    It's as if they've gone too far in the opposite direction to the 1980's. The sweet spot was somewhere in the middle, but they've somehow managed to get it all wrong again. From being way too conservative to being way too liberal (especially with the 12-rating).

    I think it's good that they're becoming less strict. Adults don't always know exactly what modern 12 and 15 year old's can handle because the BBFC's standards were different when they were younger. I speak as a 15 year old myself if that adds any more credibility to my statement.

    I think that they should become a bit less strict with the c-word though; it's nowhere near as traumatizing as the BBFC think it is, but apart from that, the guidelines they have at the moment are fine. If they get softer than they are now then I could see a problem.

    Any films in particular that you think were too strong for a 12 or a 15?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,129
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    roger_50 wrote: »
    But as I pointed to earlier, it's very easy to get the general consensus you choose to get, if you ask the right kind of people the right kind of questions in a survey. The BBFC are rating films the way they want to rate films. .

    Listen to the podcasts to find out how they rate films.

    Do you have insider or knowledge of how the BBFC actually rate films these days?
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,884
    Forum Member
    The guidelines they have at the moment are fine. If they get softer than they are now then I could see a problem.

    Any films in particular that you think were too strong for a 12 or a 15?
    Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I think they've made the mistake in going too far in the other direction - and I feel the comments I hear from people in general about BBFC ratings correlates with that view (from my own experience).

    I mean, we could delve really deep into various films. Take Last of the Mohicans for example, at the end you see a close up shot of an axe exiting someone's back through their spine, with grisly sound effects. It's just way too graphic for a 12 certificate - to the point where it's hard to have any confidence whatsoever in the guidelines they're claiming to stick to. (Since it breaks their own 12-rating rules)

    It's basically become a lottery in terms of knowing what to expect in a 12.

    With the 15 rating I feel they've ruined a perfect system of before; 18 for very severe content, 15 for stuff that's less severe but still strong. Now, pretty much anything goes in a 15 rating - and this has taken away any ability to deduce whether a film will be a bit 'too much' or not, depending on your views or preferences. I sometimes wonder whether they need a 15 and a 15+ or something.

    A BBFC rating has less meaning than it used to, due to the wider range of content being crammed in.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,884
    Forum Member
    alfster wrote: »
    Listen to the podcasts to find out how they rate films.
    I listen to all BBFC podcasts.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,129
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    roger_50 wrote: »
    I mean, we could delve really deep into various films. Take Last of the Mohicans for example, at the end you see a close up shot of an axe exiting someone's back through their spine, with grisly sound effects. It's just way too graphic for a 12 certificate - to the point where it's hard to have any confidence whatsoever in the guidelines they're claiming to stick to. (Since it breaks their own 12-rating rules)

    It's basically become a lottery in terms of knowing what to expect in a 12.

    A BBFC rating has less meaning than it used to, due to the wider range of content being crammed in.

    You really have a problem with the BBFC don't you?

    If you sent them an email they would explain the reasons they certified the Last of The Mohicans as they did - if you think it breaks their guidelines then you really should make a complaint - you cold have easily done that in the time it has taken you to post your concerns on this thread.

    There is also the written word explanation of what is in the film from the phrases on the description like: 'mild peril' etc.

    They also have this site:

    http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/what-bbfc-insight

    Which details the classification decisions and what is in the films so parents can judge whether a film is suitable for *their* children.

    and that is one of the things that they are doing: they have taken on board that different children can cope with different levels of peril/stress/and scaredness in films.

    It is why the 12A certificate has come in.
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,884
    Forum Member
    Hmm, bit of a strange response there. I'm just giving my opinion on the current issues with BBFC ratings.

    It's not really about 'having a problem with the BBFC'. All discussion is a good thing surely? We can't all be in agreement.
  • giratalkialgagiratalkialga Posts: 240
    Forum Member
    Do The Right Thing lowered from 18 to 15 for cinema on Wednesday.
Sign In or Register to comment.