Censoring the Classics

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

I agree but looking at in the reality of what the BBFC are saying is that you shouldn't let your kids watch Mary bloody Poppins alone in case they hear the word 'Hottentot'.

I don't think it'll make any difference to most people. It does show that the BBFC is aware of how language changes and things that were commonplace 60 years ago now have the potential to offend, so err on the side of caution for today's (or tomorrow's) sensibilities.

I've never given the word a single thought before today and associated more with Tom Lehrer's 'We'll All Go Together When We Go', a satirical song about nuclear Armageddon in which the final verse is:

"And we will all go together when we go.
Ev'ry hottenhot and ev'ry eskimo.
When the air becomes uranious,
And we will all go simultaneous.
Yes we all will go together
When we all go together,
Yes we all will go together when we go."

I suppose Eskimo would probably be subject to the same criteria, given that the indigenous Alaskans are now referred to as Inuits.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Rob4

It's a strange one. I'd never heard of the word and I think I'm above average on colonial history.

Without specifically saying why on the box the film is a PG are they expecting parents to watch the film in advance (or with the children) to try and identify one very obscure potentially offensive word and then sit down with their tots and explain this was a very naughty word used to upset a very particular group in South Africa, over a 100 years ago, and you must never ever say it, just in case, on the off chance, that one of this group might overhear you and be offended...?

Mmm methinks Mrs Average from Bolton won't be doing that...

Yes, it is a curious one and a decision which will only affect a few people. Unless they've read the story, people who buy a physical copy of Mary Poppins probably won't factor the certificate into their shopping decision, nor will they notice when Admiral Boom says the contentious lines.

[Demoncrat]

I'll just say here, that recently the families that come in just do not buy "kids films" anymore. The curse of streaming ... it's not across the board, but I've noticed a steep drop off since last year tbh. So, there is that.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

It looks like more films will be reclassified because of the way the BBFC has responded to last year's public consultation:

On-screen violence is of increased concern for UK audiences

BBFC launches new Classification Guidelines reflecting shifts in public opinion towards violence, drug use, sex and use of language

Today, the BBFC publishes its new Classification Guidelines, informed by its largest-ever public consultation. Throughout 2023, the BBFC spoke to 12,000 people across the UK to explore what matters most to audiences when it comes to classification.

The research found people are now more concerned about depictions of violence on screen in content across all age ratings. The findings demonstrated broad support for how the BBFC currently classifies violence, but audiences expressed concerns about how distressing or disturbing some forms of violence can be. Going forward, a higher rating may be required for violence across all age-rating categories, especially when particularly intense or impactful scenes occur.

The last time the BBFC conducted this research was in 2019. Then, as now, sexual violence was the biggest area of concern for UK audiences. Since 2019, however, suicide and self-harm has risen to the second biggest area of concern - ahead of sex, violence and drugs. People expressed a clear desire to be warned about this type of content, and the BBFC will continue to highlight suicide and self-harm in its content advice.

Although people are largely in agreement with the BBFC's current approach towards classifying drug content across all age categories, audiences have become more relaxed about cannabis use and solvent misuse than they were in 2019.

The research revealed that people are now slightly more accepting of cannabis misuse at 12A/12, so long as it is not detailed, glamorised or frequent. The BBFC will therefore take a less restrictive approach to such material, but maintain its current standards on other drugs. People also felt the BBFC?s current policy towards classifying solvent misuse was overly cautious, and this finding has been supported by expert advice. Such content will now be treated less restrictively.

People are calling for a more cautious approach to classifying sex scenes at the border of 12A/12 and 15. Participants were concerned by the level of sexual detail, nudity and the duration of the sex scenes rated 12A/12 under the 2019 guidelines. Similar content is now more likely to be rated 15. However, the research also indicates that audiences are happy for classification to be more lenient towards some sex references at the 15/18 borderline, especially in comic contexts.

The new research also offers valuable insights into the evolving perspectives and expectations of parents and caregivers, grandparents, educators, and young people.

Parents are concerned about the normalisation of bad language, especially terms with sexual or misogynistic connotations. For example, terms such as 'son of a bitch', ?bitch?, 'dick'. The worry is that young viewers may hear and repeat such language. Language such as this may now require a higher age rating.

Audiences are comfortable with the relaxation of standards across most areas when it comes to trailers, especially in the junior categories (U, PG and 12A/12). For example, in some cases, this may include isolated use of strong language in trailers at 12A/12.

More than eight in ten (81%) people want a consistent age rating system across cinema, physical media and Video on Demand (VoD)/streaming services. Netflix, which carries BBFC age ratings across its entire UK platform, is now the third most popular source of recognition for BBFC age rating symbols (behind cinema and physical media) and the second most recognised source for content advice (behind cinema).

The findings support that the BBFC and its iconic age rating symbols are highly trusted, well recognised and valued by audiences across the UK.

• 99% of respondents recognise at least one BBFC age rating symbol, with 78% recognising them all
• 97% of people see a benefit to age ratings for some or all audiences
• 90% of parents/caregivers (a 7% increase in the last five years), 91% of teachers, and 88% of teens aged 16-19 trust BBFC age ratings all or most of the time
• 87% of parents/caregivers agree with BBFC age ratings all or most of the time
• 85% of respondents trust BBFC age ratings to accurately reflect the nature of the content they consume

To help parents facilitate important conversations and help increase awareness, the BBFC has created a collection of BBFC Guides that focus on various classification areas such as discrimination, drugs, and sex. Each bite-sized guide provides an overview of how the BBFC classifies different issues, what they mean at each age rating, and a collection of film case studies.

President, Natasha Kaplinsky OBE said: "At the BBFC, we're dedicated to ensuring what we do is responsive to the ever-evolving world around us. Since we last asked people across the country what they thought about our standards, society has changed, and opinions have followed - it's fascinating how this vast body of new research reflects this.

"This is the first Classification Guidelines update I have overseen as President. Not only am I proud and thrilled to launch these findings, but as someone who has always looked to the BBFC for guidance for myself and my family, seeing first-hand the level of dedication and insight that went into this process has been eye-opening and inspiring. Without a doubt, we are truly shaped by you."

Chief Executive, David Austin OBE said: "The effectiveness of what we do relies entirely on trust. To ensure we have that trust, and to get to the heart of what audiences think and feel, we go directly to them. Only by doing this can we ensure we are classifying content in line with the expectations of families across the UK. This is essential to maintaining the extraordinarily high levels of public trust that the BBFC is privileged to enjoy."

Benjamin King, Senior Director, Public Policy - UK & Ireland, Netflix said: "Our members are our number one priority, and as the first streaming service to voluntarily carry BBFC age ratings on 100% of our catalogue, we're proud they can choose shows safe in the knowledge that everything is rated to highly-trusted standards which reflect the expectations of UK audiences. This partnership builds on our wide range of parental controls including PIN-protected profiles, maturity filters, profile locks and viewing history, helping parents make the right viewing choices for their families."
https://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-us/news...r-uk-audiences

[Michael Brooke]

Interestingly, the guidelines on sexual violence seem to be being relaxed at 18, if Indicator's experience with the Jean Rollin titles is anything to go by.

Thus far, they've passed everything submitted, including two titles, The Rape of the Vampire and The Demoniacs, that had previously been BBFC-scissored, the latter in a considerably longer and more sexually graphic version than the one that Redemption had originally submitted. They also waved through, to the label's genuine surprise, some prolonged, unambiguously hardcore footage in one of the extras for The Night of the Hunted that would previously have garnered an automatic R18 and would therefore have been dropped from the release (as Indicator fully expected would be the case).

But, although clearly distasteful to innocent maiden aunts, there's nothing illegal in this footage, and obviously no question of it getting less than an adults-only classification - so there's really no good reason to cut it any more.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

It would be interesting if the guidelines mean films are moved from PG to 12A, 12A to 15, and 15 to 18, but leaving things uncut with 18 certificates.

I hope this wouldn't mean (like with Marvel's The Avengers) studios precut their films for lower ratings, reducing violence for a 12A, for example, meaning one would have to import a release from the US to have the original, uncut version.

[Michael Brooke]

It's not legally possible to release everything uncut without the repeal of such legislation as the 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act or the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and that's basically not going to happen - especially the latter.

And because those revolve around matters of fact rather than opinion ("Was an animal treated cruelly for the purposes of the film?" "Is this an actual recording of a criminal act of underage sexual activity?"), they're very hard to get around.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

It's not legally possible to release everything uncut without the repeal of such legislation as the 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act or the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and that's basically not going to happen - especially the latter.

And because those revolve around matters of fact rather than opinion ("Was an animal treated cruelly for the purposes of the film?" "Is this an actual recording of a criminal act of underage sexual activity?"), they're very hard to get around.

I wasn't thinking of releasing everything uncut because of the reasons you describe, more along the lines of seeing more 18 certificate films that would previously have been released with a 15.

I was a little surprised when I went to see Poor Things and the BBFC insight screen came up with an 18 certificate - I had gone to the cinema without thinking of the certification - and couldn't remember the last film I saw at the cinema that was restricted to an adult audience.

By the end of the film, I completely understand why it had been rated in that way as the sex, language, and violence would have been too much for a 15 certificate film.

[Susan Foreman]

Terry & June gets a trigger warning / Chortle

"It was the epitome of the cosy family sitcom, a byword for sedate suburban comedy.

So fans of long-running show Terry And June have been surprised to see the programme was slapped with a trigger warning on streaming services.

Several episodes of the programme on ITVX and Britbox carry the disclaimer that they ?contain discriminatory language of the period?.

The decision has riled conservative commentators with The Sun?s editorial column today saying: ?The obsessive wokery is funnier than the show ever was.?

However, some scripts feature lines and plot points that would certainly be considered problematic ? if not downright offensive ? by today's standards.

Episodes with trigger warnings include the very first episode from 1979, showing the married couple played by Terry Scott and June Whitfield, moving into their home in Purley, Surrey.

Because it still has a ?for sale? sign outside it, a man of Indian descent calls at the door and inquires about buying it, but after a chat about the property, Scott clarifies: ?It was for sale, but it?s not any longer.?

The caller, played by Tariq Yunus, says: ?I see, is it because of my colour??

Scott stammers in response ?Good heavens no, some of my best friends are awfully coloured.?

The joke is at Scott?s awkwardness, but after their exchange Whitfield asks her screen husband who he was talking to, and he replies: ?Some wo? some Indian chap.?

Later Scott ends up with his head bandaged and a neighbour taunts him: ?What have you come as, Sabu The Elephant Boy??

In another episode Terry?s boss comes to a barbecue wearing Native American fancy dress, with stereotypical accent.

And when Terry stands for the local council, an adviser talks about courting ?the coloured vote? by asking: ?How do you feel about blacking up??

In another episode ? which does not carry a trigger warning ? Terry is at a work conference and puts June's perfume on by mistake.

As X user Paul Phipps-Williams said: ?The entire episode is about how his boss hates gays, and how Terry is terrified about being thought of one. Cue every 70s homophobic comedy trope.'

At one point, the boss says: ?Nobody can say I?m prejudiced against nancy boys, it?s just that my flesh creeps at the thought of them? ? and Terry agrees: ?My flesh creeps too, sir.?

Terry and June ran for 65 episodes until 1987, and was a slightly reworked version of a previous series, Happy Ever After, which ran for six series from 1974.

BritBox said: ?Programming that contains potentially sensitive language has carried appropriate warnings since our launch. We regularly re-examine our historical programming in order to review, re-label, provide context and ensure the right guidance is in place for viewers.""

[gag]

I mean now good majority of stuff you watch in corner is a warning this film contains,

Drugs, smoking, violence, swearing nudity , and occasional alcohol related theme, and you just thing ffs do they have to practically list just about everything.
What?s even worse some of the basic day to day to shows have a voice over warning viewers might find some scenes distressing, then after the show another voice over say, if you was affected by tonight show??.

Have things really got that bad ? It?s pathetic.

And this is a perfect argument of why physical media king.
Cos once you bought something uncut and you own it they can’t censor it.