British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)
Alana Finn 14R
Media Studies
Miss Garry

The British Board of Film Classification, known as the BBFC, was set up in the film industry in 1984. It is an independent regulator of non-governmental body that classify films before they go to the cinema. They are currently based in Soho Square, London, Regulating the UK only and have a requirement to classify videos, and DVDs as well as some video games under the Video Recordings Act (1984), acknowledging and reflecting the UK's diverse cultural society.

Originally set up in 1912 in order to put together rules and judgement on censorship, the British Board of Film Classification was known as the British Board of Film Censors until 1985. The BBFC then changed their name for the reason that they wanted to be known for the much larger role of actual classification that went into the boards work, rather than censorship, also applying the test of 'suitability for viewing in the home'.

In the case of films shown in cinemas, local authorities have the final legal authorisation over who can view a particular film. The majority of the time, legal authorities accepts the Board's recommendation for a certificate for a film. Although there have been some exceptions, particularly in the 1970's when the board allowed films such as The Last Tango In Paris and The Exorcist to be released with an X certificate (18+), but many local authorities chose to ban the films regardless.

The BBFC is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation, and its fees are adjusted only to cover its costs. In order to preserve its independence, the BBFC never receives subsidies from either the film industry or the government. In order to preserve its independence, its income is solely from the fees it charges for its services, calculated by measuring the running time of films or DVDs submitted for classification. The BBFC consults the Department of Culture, Media and Sport before making any changes to its fees.

In order to protect children from unsuitable and even harmful content in films and videos and to give consumers information they might need about a particular film or video before deciding whether or not to view it, the BBFC examines and age rates films and videos before they are released. This independent scrutiny prior to release ensures the highest possible level of protection and empowerment.

Without the regulation of cinema there is no guarantee that any films, banned or not banned will be offence free. This means that viewers aren’t safe from any potential offences that may be caused by a film. Regulation is essential in every form of media to ensure the receiver of the media is protected as much as possible from any form of media that will harm them.

However unfortunately it is believed that regulation in film, by the BBFC goes unnoticed and does not make a difference as to who watches what. This is thought because no matter how films are regulated, people continue to view movies that are not for them.

What is needed to make regulation more superior would be laws that support regulation. These laws will act as a deterrent as many people will be unable to view the movies. Stricter regulation could also make promotion and distribution more difficult as this will mean people will not be as aware of the movies that are not suitable for them.

As said in the BBFC’s mission statement, their goal is to: * Protect the public, and especially children, from content which might raise harm risks * Empower the public, especially parents, to make informed viewing choices * Recognise and respect adult freedom of choice within the law * Respond to and reflect changing social attitudes towards media content through proactive public consultation and research * Provide a cost-effective, efficient classification service within our statutory remit * Work in partnership with the industry to develop innovative service models to provide content advice which support emerging media delivery systems * Provide an effective service to enforcement agencies.

In terms of the complaints process, the BBFC do not have a complaints page. The only way to formally complain is to email feedback@bbfc.co.uk . After sending a complaint you will come back with an individual reply, meaning al complaints can be dealt with one on one, as fast as possible.

Attack The Block is a British horror movie directed by comedian Joe Cornish. It got a rating of 15 from the BBFC in March 2011 after being submitted with no category request. Set in a South London housing estate and follows a group of teen muggers, who form an unlikely alliance with a nurse they have robbed, when aliens attack their tower block.

The film contains recurrent strong language from the start, and under current BBFC Guidelines, only infrequent strong language is permitted at 12A, so the film was then automatically put into a 15 category within the first reel.

Examiners noted there was some contextual justification for stronger moments, as the film is a horror work based on a fantastical scenario. This means that - although there is some focus on tension, threat, characters in danger, chase scenes and injuries - the aliens and monsters have less impact as they are clearly part of the film’s horror world and are the sort of elements audiences expect from horror movies. It could be argued that there are comical elements to the monsters, who are, when they are finally seen, large and hairy with glow in the dark teeth.

There is similarly no sadistic violence - it is all in the context of self-defence. Therefore there seems no problem with containing the violence and gore at 15, where the Guidelines state 'Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable.'

Fireworks are used as weapons in the film, and the BBFC has intervened through cuts in works aimed at young and very young children which feature dangerous firework play. However, in this instance, given the work is clearly for older teens and young adults, it did not affect the 15 classification.

There was some discussion, however, about the portrayal of drug use, drug taking and drug dealing in the film. Attack The Block contains numerous scenes in which characters smoke pot, and several scenes take place in the villains' marijuana growing facility within his own flat.

The BBFC Guidelines at 15 state that 'drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug misuse'. Examiners had to consider whether the volume of drugs references ‘normalise’ drug taking, or merely reflect the world of the film where some characters take drugs and others are more critical of it. Several characters are shown to have their judgement and abilities impaired by smoking joints, and the hero rejects drug dealing and chooses not to smoke anything before an important mission.

Examiners concluded, after discussion with senior examiners and the BBFC’s Director, David Cooke, that the work could be contained at 15, where the film’s appeal lies, and where it sits alongside other works which include reference to drugs and sight of drug use - not least as there are no clear elements that glamorise drug taking for younger audiences.

The film was passed at 15 and the BBFCinsight explained to the public that it contained strong language, violence, gore and soft drug use. It was selected for National Schools Film Week in 2011.

Black Swan presented the BBFC with a whole range of classification issues when it was submitted for an advice viewing in 2010. The story is about a dedicated ballerina - Nina - who is quietly desperate for the role of the Swan Queen in her company's up-coming Swan Lake performance. As opening night approaches, Nina finds her inner Black Swan is out of control and her grasp on reality increasingly fragile.

In terms of the issue of the self-harm seen in the film, BBFC Guidelines at 15 note ‘Dangerous behaviour (self-harm) should not dwell on detail which could be copied’. These scenes in Black Swan were judged sufficiently aversive in nature and therefore unlikely to encourage copying or promotion of such behaviour. The subject of bulimia was so ambiguously treated in the film as to be covered by the 15 rating. Critically, such activities are not shown to relieve or comfort her, but only to exacerbate her problems and state of mind.

The stand out classification issue in Black Swan is that of sex. There are several 'sex' scenes in the film. BBFC Guidelines at 15 note that ‘Sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail’. During a rehearsal, Nina's (clothed) breasts and crotch are groped. Nina is instructed to 'touch herself' to connect with her sexuality, bumping the status up to a 15 straightaway.

However, one scene in particular took Black Swan right to the 15 / 18 classification border: Nina and Lily return home late after a drunken evening out. In defiance of her mother, Nina invites Lily to stay the night. They both embrace passionately and remove each other's clothing. Lily later performs cunnilingus on Nina. It was recognised that the scene was relatively extended and carried an erotic charge. However, the sexual activity is carefully framed and visually discreet; it lacks aggravating strong detail such as genital nudity, close-ups or sustained focus on the nudity or the sexual mechanics and is played off facial reactions. It was also felt that the tone is sensuous rather than salacious or pornographic. The narrative context within which the scene occurs was judged to be an important mitigating factor. Firstly, it demonstrated Nina's emerging personal assertion and awakening sexuality and secondly, her increasing loss of grip on reality. It later transpires that Nina has imagined the entire event. On balance, it was judged that this sex scene could be contained at 15 within Guidelines.

The BBFC insight for Black Swan notes that it ‘Contains strong sex, strong language and bloody images’. The expanded version gives further information on these issues. Black Swan was passed at the same category for its DVD release, and selected for the 2011 National Schools Film Week.