Censorship
Who Are The BBFC And What Is Their Role?
The BBFC stands for the British Board Of Film Classification. From the website, it quotes "The BBFC's income is derived solely from the fees it charges for its services, calculated by measuring the running time of films, DVDs/videos and other works submitted for classification. The BBFC is not organised for profit, and its fees are adjusted only as required to cover its costs." This means their role is to control the target audience in films and checking over the film to see if certain scenes are suitable for showing cinemas for their audience. In the BBFC, examiners view the submitted works, write many reports and recommend a category decision, cuts or other actions. Many people across the UK complain about the BBFC's decisions of rating films and what should be cut etc. The American film classification is called the MPAA (Motion Picture Association Of America).
Why Is The Role Of The BBFC Important To The Film Industry?
The BBFC is important to the film industry because it manages the films released in a way that is appropriate for the publics eyes. The public cant be exposed with particular scenes, themes and ideas that come from film directors, as some are too extreme to be published to the world of film.
What Things Get censored And Why?
There are a list of themes that the public shouldn't see for multiple reasons. Themes are collected together which are in a film and then judged whether it should be banned or cut, such as; violence, graphical representation and realism, corrupt the young, controversy and the press, sex and nudity, sexual violence, religion, class, language, shock, drug abuse, culture, race and true events. These themes are too inappropriate for the public eye and can be offensive to the public too, so the public are protected from such shocking and traumatising images.
Difference Between Films Being Cut Or Banned?
For a film to be banned, it is to be taken away from cinema viewing completely due to indecent, harmful or offensive material. But for a film to cut, it is edited or has had scenes taken out of it to make it appropriate for viewing to the public eye.
Forna Vs Kemode Debate, My Own Opinion?
Forna's argument was for censorship, whereas Kermode's argument was against censorship. Forna believed that by things not being censored would make people be influenced by behaviour and actions in the film, for example, in the 1970's-80's, the case of james bulger really shocked the world. The fact that a couple of 10 year old boys was influenced by chucky to go and kill a 3 year old made people realise that films influence peoples actions in todays society. Forna also believed that being against censorship would allow directors to express ideas in a way that's beyond what is classified as 'safe' for the public eye. Kermode's argument was against, and he started his argument with, I quote, "Your an idiot; stupid, weak, impressionable, easily led and unable to distinguish between fiction and reality. If you're and adult you're probably an immature one and if you're a parent your a very bad one". This indicates that whoever gets influenced by fictional films are too immature to watch content at an 18 rate. Kermode believed that having the BBFC censoring films was giving limits for directors with brilliant ideas for films, in fear of freedom in ideas. Also, Kermode believed that cutting or editing a directors finished piece could potentially change the meaning of the film and probably ruin the whole concept of the film. In my opinion, I am for censorship (Forna) because protecting the public from other people being influenced is way more important than maybe having a couple of ideas cut as they are too extreme or offensive to the public. People who are mentally disturbed can watch a film and be influenced so easily, its dangerous for the public.
Conclusion; what have I learnt about film regulation? What Should I Consider For My Thriller?
I have learnt that a lot more films that I ever thought would be censored have actually been cut and banned a lot in the past century simply because a couple of scenes or themes was too inappropriate, harmful and offensive for the public eye. This has made me think about my thriller in a way that I should make a psychological theme to it, making disturbing ideas and thoughts for the4 audience without actually showing content in a disturbing and obvious way.
Why Is The Role Of The BBFC Important To The Film Industry?
The BBFC is important to the film industry because it manages the films released in a way that is appropriate for the publics eyes. The public cant be exposed with particular scenes, themes and ideas that come from film directors, as some are too extreme to be published to the world of film.
What Things Get censored And Why?
There are a list of themes that the public shouldn't see for multiple reasons. Themes are collected together which are in a film and then judged whether it should be banned or cut, such as; violence, graphical representation and realism, corrupt the young, controversy and the press, sex and nudity, sexual violence, religion, class, language, shock, drug abuse, culture, race and true events. These themes are too inappropriate for the public eye and can be offensive to the public too, so the public are protected from such shocking and traumatising images.
Difference Between Films Being Cut Or Banned?
For a film to be banned, it is to be taken away from cinema viewing completely due to indecent, harmful or offensive material. But for a film to cut, it is edited or has had scenes taken out of it to make it appropriate for viewing to the public eye.
Forna Vs Kemode Debate, My Own Opinion?
Forna's argument was for censorship, whereas Kermode's argument was against censorship. Forna believed that by things not being censored would make people be influenced by behaviour and actions in the film, for example, in the 1970's-80's, the case of james bulger really shocked the world. The fact that a couple of 10 year old boys was influenced by chucky to go and kill a 3 year old made people realise that films influence peoples actions in todays society. Forna also believed that being against censorship would allow directors to express ideas in a way that's beyond what is classified as 'safe' for the public eye. Kermode's argument was against, and he started his argument with, I quote, "Your an idiot; stupid, weak, impressionable, easily led and unable to distinguish between fiction and reality. If you're and adult you're probably an immature one and if you're a parent your a very bad one". This indicates that whoever gets influenced by fictional films are too immature to watch content at an 18 rate. Kermode believed that having the BBFC censoring films was giving limits for directors with brilliant ideas for films, in fear of freedom in ideas. Also, Kermode believed that cutting or editing a directors finished piece could potentially change the meaning of the film and probably ruin the whole concept of the film. In my opinion, I am for censorship (Forna) because protecting the public from other people being influenced is way more important than maybe having a couple of ideas cut as they are too extreme or offensive to the public. People who are mentally disturbed can watch a film and be influenced so easily, its dangerous for the public.
Conclusion; what have I learnt about film regulation? What Should I Consider For My Thriller?
I have learnt that a lot more films that I ever thought would be censored have actually been cut and banned a lot in the past century simply because a couple of scenes or themes was too inappropriate, harmful and offensive for the public eye. This has made me think about my thriller in a way that I should make a psychological theme to it, making disturbing ideas and thoughts for the4 audience without actually showing content in a disturbing and obvious way.
A good detailed post again, nice conclusion and showing your own opinion in the Forna v Kermode debate.
ReplyDeleteTo Improve:
- Check for silly errors (spellings / capitals etc)
- Video examples of things that are cut/banned and why?