DS Forums

 
 

Reclassifying Films


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-07-2016, 21:24
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
You've raised a great point there. I think another reason why it was rated PG instead of 15 in the 1980's is because of the target audience - there's a v/low risk of a child being exposed to it by the fault of their own actions as it probably doesn't appeal to them.

Yeah, I did say in my first post that the context of the film was why they probably chose PG over 15 originally (it's sedate period drama setting).

But that was something they had to weigh up before the 12 was introduced - as a result, we're now regularly seeing tame 15's downgraded and strong PG's upgraded when rereleased.

It stands to reason it would get a 12 with that scene in it.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 04-07-2016, 13:55
giratalkialga
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
Son of Saul is out on DVD today and with that in mind, I've noticed that hardly any Holocaust films are rated 18, despite the graphic nature of the subject matter. Even Uwe Boll's 'Auschwitz', which was slated upon release for being too gruesome and features a scene of tooth extraction, is rated 15.

The only 18-rated Holocaust film I've come across is a 1945 documentary called 'German Concentration Camps Factual Survey', which was given that rating in 2015 for 'graphic footage of atrocities'. It was abandoned for seventy years before being completed in 2014. Despite the adults-only rating it carries in the UK, five of the six reels were shown as an episode of the PBS series 'Frontline' in 1985 (although I think it was shown in a late-night slot).

I get that the BBFC are more lenient with historical films and I can understand why, but in some cases it just ends up being inconsistent and confusing for parents.* The BBFC openly admitted that the subject matter is the only reason why Saving Private Ryan didn't get an 18 rating and Ferman said, "We felt that it told the truth about war and we didn't want war glamorised for teenagers".
giratalkialga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2016, 17:28
dodrade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
Son of Saul is out on DVD today and with that in mind, I've noticed that hardly any Holocaust films are rated 18, despite the graphic nature of the subject matter. Even Uwe Boll's 'Auschwitz', which was slated upon release for being too gruesome and features a scene of tooth extraction, is rated 15.

The only 18-rated Holocaust film I've come across is a 1945 documentary called 'German Concentration Camps Factual Survey', which was given that rating in 2015 for 'graphic footage of atrocities'. It was abandoned for seventy years before being completed in 2014. Despite the adults-only rating it carries in the UK, five of the six reels were shown as an episode of the PBS series 'Frontline' in 1985 (although I think it was shown in a late-night slot).

I get that the BBFC are more lenient with historical films and I can understand why, but in some cases it just ends up being inconsistent and confusing for parents.* The BBFC openly admitted that the subject matter is the only reason why Saving Private Ryan didn't get an 18 rating and Ferman said, "We felt that it told the truth about war and we didn't want war glamorised for teenagers".
I think intellectual snobbery has been a factor in the past. Foreign language films seem to have got away with explicit violence and sex scenes an English language film probably wouldn't have done.
dodrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2016, 02:14
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
I think intellectual snobbery has been a factor in the past. Foreign language films seem to have got away with explicit violence and sex scenes an English language film probably wouldn't have done.
They actually say that in their case study for Salo, that the audience for it was small & presumably knew what they were about to watch. http://bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/salo120-days-sodom

(Always amused me they passed that one when the- in my 'umble opinion- far tamer Last House On The Left remained censored for years)
JCR is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2016, 08:28
giratalkialga
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
I think intellectual snobbery has been a factor in the past. Foreign language films seem to have got away with explicit violence and sex scenes an English language film probably wouldn't have done.
Were you talking about foreign films in general or specifically about Son of Saul? IMO Son of Saul is fine at a 15 certificate.
giratalkialga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2016, 16:34
Libretio
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,278
Were you talking about foreign films in general or specifically about Son of Saul? IMO Son of Saul is fine at a 15 certificate.
There's almost no on-screen violence in SON OF SAUL, only a small amount of natural nudity in the context of people entering the gas chambers and their corpses being removed, and no swearing that I can recall. It's more about the tone of the piece, though I think it's really a very soft 15.

Oh, and intellectual snobbery is very much part and parcel of the BBFC's remit, though they will swear blind that it isn't. However, the evidence gives lie to their ridiculous assertions. Ask them why the full-on Art-house porn of Gaspar Noe's LOVE is OK at 18, but not the comparatively small amount of hardcore images in Radley Metzger's SCORE (all of which were cut from Arrow's recent video version), and watch 'em squirm...
Libretio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2016, 19:57
giratalkialga
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
There's almost no on-screen violence in SON OF SAUL, only a small amount of natural nudity in the context of people entering the gas chambers and their corpses being removed, and no swearing that I can recall. It's more about the tone of the piece, though I think it's really a very soft 15.
The BBFC thought just as much. Here's what they had to say about the film in their annual report (the extended bbfcinsight for it is more or less identical to this, just very slightly re-worded):
Spoiler


I've seen the film myself and I have to agree because
Spoiler


An interesting point to note is that the Irish content advisory mentions 'strong violence and harrowing holocaust scenes' - the IFCO gave the film a 15A rating. When a film gets a 15A rating in Ireland it usually indicates it's at the softer end of a 15 in the UK. They also noted that the language was at the 'moderate' level, which is odd as I don't remember any. The BBFC's extended insight doesn't mention any issues with language either.
giratalkialga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 02:02
dodrade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
Were you talking about foreign films in general or specifically about Son of Saul? IMO Son of Saul is fine at a 15 certificate.
No, I haven't seen Son of Saul yet. Irreversible is the kind of example I had in mind.
dodrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2016, 02:28
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
No, I haven't seen Son of Saul yet. Irreversible is the kind of example I had in mind.
Ferman did cut Seul Contre Tous, which is a prequel of sorts to Irreversible (hilariously so, he pixelated the naughty bits in a hardcore scene, allowing him to claim he hadn't cut the film, just altered it).

You're right in that the Gaspar Noe/Michael Haneke/Lars Von Trier type euro arthouse directors aren't likely to get censored these days
JCR is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2016, 09:14
giratalkialga
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
Bedknobs and Broomsticks has been upgraded from U to PG over 'mild bad language'.

The language they had a problem with was the use of 'bloody' and 'ruddy', said once each. Is that really all it takes nowadays?
giratalkialga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2016, 10:20
DeathMagnetic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 44
Bedknobs and Broomsticks has been upgraded from U to PG over 'mild bad language'.

The language they had a problem with was the use of 'bloody' and 'ruddy', said once each. Is that really all it takes nowadays?
Yet the F word can get used in 12s, and the C word in 15s. The mind boggles!
DeathMagnetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2016, 10:35
pad-e
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 596
And "piss off" is in Watership Down which remains a U.

I'd have said "piss off" is stronger than "bloody" or "ruddy". Strange decision.
pad-e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2016, 12:28
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
If I recall from Bedknobs, the child says it in an aggressive manner - although it's been so many years since I've seen it I may be misremembering it. It did stand out from the general tone of the film.

Perhaps, because it's a clear bit of deliberate naughty swearing from a small child - and not some offhand, casual muttering by a grown up, they reckon its a bit inappropriate for a U. Behaviour that can be copied, and so on. Which is fair enough.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2016, 22:27
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
And "piss off" is in Watership Down which remains a U.

I'd have said "piss off" is stronger than "bloody" or "ruddy". Strange decision.
They've publicly said Watership Down should be a PG, but they have no way of changing it unless the distributor wants to.
JCR is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 20:56
giratalkialga
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
What's worth mentioning is that the Blu-ray of Bedknobs and Broomsticks is also rated PG, but only because of the special features. The recent submission was for a cinema re-release.
giratalkialga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 20:58
giratalkialga
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 238
They've publicly said Watership Down should be a PG, but they have no way of changing it unless the distributor wants to.
I'd say even a PG is far too lenient. It's a solid 12 at the very least, even when taking into consideration that the BBFC are more lenient with animation.
giratalkialga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 07:33
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
I would suspect there's lots of video that's U/PG from the 90's that be higher now. For example there's an episode of Star Trek DS9- Image in the Sand- that's PG which has a shot of a character being stabbed with blood, then a shot of the bloody knife, there's no way it'd be PG under the current guidelines.
JCR is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2016, 13:24
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,707
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was lowered from 18 to 15 today.
JCR is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:39.