Why The BBFC Needs A New Cinema Certificate

Well, I thought that I’d talk about British film censorship today. In particular, why the BBFC probably needs to introduce a new certificate for cinemas. For my international readers, due to a quirk of history – relating to a moral panic about “video nasty” horror films during the 1980s – our film censors actually issue separate ratings (called “certificates”) for films released in cinemas and on VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray/Streaming.

These days, films usually get the same rating for both – and the censors get paid twice – but there is an interesting oddity here: the cinema-only “12A” rating (home media just gets a traditional “12” age limit), which functions in a similar way to the US “PG-13” rating. It was introduced much later – during the early 2000s rather than the 1980s – and is a very different rating in a lot of ways. Which is what I want to talk about today.

Whilst it is, thankfully, more forgiving than the US “PG-13” in some ways (For example, provided it isn’t aggressive, it isn’t too frequent and it makes sense in context, a “12A” film can contain more than just one “F-bomb”), it is…much… stricter in one specific area, and this is why I think that the BBFC need to develop a new certificate for cinemas.

I am, of course talking about “PG-13 horror movies”. With a tiny number of exceptions, these usually get the stricter “15” rating over here. And this is hardly a new trend.

A notable example is the 2002 psychological/paranormal horror film “The Ring”. I saw this at the cinema under-age when I was fourteen, and – yes – it absolutely terrified me. But I don’t regret choosing to watch it. It was memorable. It was so scary precisely because I had less experience with the horror genre at the time. It was “Oh my god, you have to watch this – it’s so scary!“. It was something we teenagers would occasionally reference at the time, croaking out the words “Seven days!” for a laugh. As scared as I was by the film at the time, I’m glad that I disobeyed the censors. My teenage years would have been far less interesting or nostalgic if I’d only stuck to “age-appropriate” media…

The thing is, in the US, “The Ring” (2002) was a “PG-13” horror film. And this rating makes a lot of sense. The film is suspenseful, atmospheric, disturbing and unsettling but it isn’t particularly gruesome or anything like that. It’s a ghost story. It was very clearly marketed as a horror film, so people knew what to expect. It’s also an example of a “PG-13” film which has genuine appeal to both teenagers and adults too – thanks to how well-written and well-made it is. Yet, in the UK, it… officially… isn’t supposed to be watched by anyone below the age of fifteen.

This topic was in the news last October after the release of the film “Five Nights At Freddy’s” (2023), a “PG-13” horror movie which is based on a videogame series which is popular with younger audiences. Of course, over here, a portion of the intended audience – who are already familiar with the games – have been excluded from watching it.

And, yes, people don’t just magically become fans of the horror genre the instant that they turn fifteen. I read my first “edgy” horror novel (an old Shaun Hutson novel) and played my first survival horror videogame (the original “Resident Evil 2“) when I was thirteen but, before then, I was a fan of things like “Goosebumps” and “Buffy The Vampire Slayer”, I think I even tried to read “Dracula” and Poe at one point, I eagerly read magazine articles about horror videogames etc…

Anyway, the news that the BBFC are still shutting out younger horror fans was depressing. Things literally haven’t changed or progressed in the two decades plus since I was a teenager. Yes, the BBFC have historically been stricter with the horror genre – especially during the 20th century – and I get that they’re worried that the “12A” might mean that people much younger than twelve or thirteen could end up watching disturbing psychological horror films.

But excluding teenagers – for a third of their teenage years – from watching milder horror movies seems a bit draconian. A bit over-protective. Again, in the US, someone who is thirteen can officially watch horror movies which the BBFC… still… thinks are too intense for fourteen year-olds. It’s ridiculous.

Another side-effect of the BBFC’s stricter approach to horror movies is that we older horror fans don’t always know what sort of horror film we are going to watch. Whilst a lot of “PG-13” horror movies get a “15”, so do many horror movies which would get a “R” rating in the US too. So, you can end up expecting a more intense horror movie, only to find that it has been watered-down for American teenagers.

Personally, I think that the BBFC should introduce a new cinema certificate specifically for “PG-13” type horror films. It could be like the traditional “12” certificate – a strict age limit – but applied only to horror films. That way, teenage horror fans can enjoy mildly-moderately scary movies but there would be no worries about clueless parents bringing younger children to screenings of them.

A separate cinema certificate for “PG-13” horror films would clearly signpost to anyone buying a ticket that they’re in for a scary movie. It would also show older horror fans what type of horror movie to expect too. It’s an absolute no-brainer. Again, people don’t suddenly magically become horror genre fans the instant that they turn fifteen. So, it seems cruel to bar them from films which younger teenagers in the US can watch without any issues.

———————-

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

BBFC “12” Horror Films – A Ramble

Well, since I was in the mood for talking about the horror genre and film censorship, I thought that I’d talk about the relatively few horror films which actually managed to get the British Board Of Film Classification’s “12” certificate (and/or it’s cinema-only “12A” variant).

Note: This article contains MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS for the “Inside No. 9” episode/short horror film “The Devil Of Christmas” (2016). This short film is best watched completely unspoiled!

Whilst “PG-13 horror” has been something of a tradition in the US since at least the release of M.Night Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense” in 1999, the tradition hasn’t really carried over to Britain due to differences in the rules.

The current BBFC guidelines for the “12” certificate at the time of writing in October 2022 actually have a dedicated segment for horror media, which reads: “There may be moderate physical and psychological threat and horror sequences. Although some scenes may be disturbing, the overall tone should not be. Horror sequences should not be frequent or sustained.“

Most “PG-13” horror films get the stricter “15” certificate over here, rather than the equivalent “12”/”12A”. Although this trend appeared to get a bit stricter during the 2010s, following a fuss about even a censored UK version of the horror film “The Woman In Black” (2012) getting a “12”, it certainly existed before then. “The Sixth Sense” got a “15” certificate in 1999, ditto a lot of bloodless Hollywood “J-horror” remakes from the 2000s like Gore Verbinski’s “The Ring” (2002) and Takashi Shimizu’s “The Grudge” (2004) too.

Yet, surprisingly, there are actually horror films which have got the “12” certificate. Although I haven’t seen literally every one of them, and this isn’t an exhaustive list, I’ve seen a few examples over the years. There’s just something inherently fascinating about these films, a feeling that – whilst they might not be the scariest – they’ve somehow “got past the system”. They are oddities and curios. Small rebellions.

One of the more common types of “12” horror films are older 1950s/60s horror films. These were originally rated under another category system, back when censorship was a lot stricter, and their ratings can sometimes get lowered to “12” when there are more modern re-releases. Often, if a horror film looks very dated and is considered less frightening than it used to be, then this can lower the rating.

The most famous example of this is probably Terence Fisher’s 1958 adaptation of “Dracula”, which has an interesting classification history. It was originally awarded an “X” rating in 1958 (which, under the system then, restricted it to those aged sixteen or older), and video releases in 1997 and 2003 actually got a “15” certificate. However, by the time of a cinema re-release in 2007, the BBFC relented and gave it a “12A”/”12”, with this later being extended to video releases too.

This is hardly the only example – although I haven’t seen that many horror films from this time period, other notable examples of vintage “12” horror films are Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr.’s “The Blob” (1958), John Gilling’s “The Plague Of The Zombies” (1966) and Roy Ward Baker’s “Quatermass And The Pit” (1967).

Likewise, some comedy-horror films from the 1980s such Joe Dante’s “Gremlins” (1984) and Tim Burton’s “Beetlejuice” (1987) eventually got their certificate lowered to “12A” for cinema re-releases (but not video re-releases).

Ironically though, the rating of Ivan Reitman’s legendary 1984 comedy-horror film “Ghostbusters” was actually increased to “12A” for a cinema re-release in 2011. Part of this is due to stricter modern rules, but part is because the “12” certificate didn’t exist in 1984 (it was introduced in 1989 for cinemas and 1994 for home video) – and films could sometimes get away with more at the “PG” category back then.

On a side-note: Even older horror films can actually get lower ratings than this – with, for example, Robert Wiene’s 1920 expressionist horror film “The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari” actually getting a “U” certificate (similar to a US “G” rating) and F.W. Murmau’s “Nosferatu” (1922) getting a “PG” certificate.

Interestingly, during the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was actually a time where the BBFC seem to have been a bit more lenient with slightly less intense horror films. Quite a few of the “12” horror films I’ve seen are ones from about 1998-2002 or so.

These include ghost stories like Hideo Nakata’s “Ring 2” (1998), Jan De Bont’s “The Haunting” (1999) and Alejandro Amenábar’s “The Others” (2001), but they also include sci-fi horror movies like Barry Levinson’s “Sphere” (1998) and even Stephen Carpenter’s regrettable 2001 psychological horror/thriller film “Soul Survivors” too. The BBFC still gave “15” certificates to more intense “PG-13” horror films at the time, but they actually seemed to be a bit more lenient with milder ones back then.

Interestingly, since the BBFC are also responsible for rating VHS/ DVD/ Blu-Ray releases of TV shows, you can sometimes find “12”-rated horror media here too. Although each box-set is given an overall rating based on the highest-rated episode in the collection, the BBFC do actually rate each episode individually. For example, back when VHS was actually vaguely current, I remember seeing a “12” certificate “X-Files” video which included both of the “Tooms” episodes (which were sort of sci-fi monster horror/body horror).

One really fascinating modern example of this is the excellent short horror/dark comedy/comedy-horror film “The Devil Of Christmas” (2016) (Dir. Graeme Harper). An episode of Steve Pemberton & Reece Shearsmith’s brilliant dark comedy anthology series “Inside No. 9” (2014-present), I was genuinely surprised to read that this one individual short film actually got a “12”. Even if all of the box-sets have overall ratings of “15” or “18”.

The hilarious thing is that, technically speaking, “The Devil Of Christmas” does actually fit into the ultra-strict modern rubric for horror at “12” perfectly. For the most part, the episode is more comedy-horror than anything else. It initially appears to be a “director’s commentary” track from a DVD release of some obscure low-budget “made for TV” British horror film from the 1970s. It’s ridiculously corny, there are amusing anecdotes from the director etc… and then, in the very last minute, the episode suddenly takes a very sharp turn into serious horror in a way which makes you re-think everything you’ve just seen. It’s a deeply chilling episode!

Technically, because this ultra-chilling plot twist only happens in the last minute, it skips the prohibition on the “overall tone” being disturbing. It also isn’t “frequent” or “sustained” either. Likewise, although the final minute of the episode is deeply shocking, a lot is left to the audience’s imagination. You see the scary “build-up” to something incredibly cruel and horrific, but the camera cuts away half a second before it actually happens.

Plus, despite the ultra-dark subject matter of the ending, the BBFC’s usual policy of considering the overall context of everything in a film probably helped here too, given how it is revealed that everything in the episode was part of a police interview (which implies a moral framework, that the criminal has been caught etc...). So, if you want a genuinely chilling example of modern “12” certificate horror at it’s scariest, then watch this short film. I’m amazed at how it neatly fits into all of the rules, whilst still being scarier than you’d expect anything with a “12” certificate to be.

Anyway, I guess I’m just amazed that “12” certificate horror films even exist at all. Despite the extreme strictness, the over-protective “No scary movies until you are fifteen!” attitude etc… the fact that a relatively small number of horror films have still managed to dodge all of this and get a “12” is something that is worthy of admiration. The horror genre always finds a way….

——————

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

 

Do Modern “PG-13” Blockbuster Films Have A Lighter Emotional Tone?

Well, I thought that I’d talk about films today – in particular, whether modern “PG-13” blockbuster films have a lighter emotional tone than older ones. And, yes, I’ll be using the American “PG-13” category (rather than the British “12”/”12A”) here since not only is it more well-known, but it also allows me to cover a wider range of films too. For example, most “PG-13” horror movies get the higher “15” category in the UK. So, I’ll be sticking with the American system in this article.

Anyway, this was something I ended up thinking about after finally getting round to re-watching Steven Spielberg’s 2002 sci-fi thriller film “Minority Report” for the first time in about two decades. It is a film that has aged like a fine wine – some of the CGI effects look a bit old, but the film itself is not only a remarkably prescient piece of dystopian sci-fi, with segments that could almost be about modern things like “predictive policing” algorithms and surveillance capitalism – but it also holds up surprisingly well as both a fast-paced action film and a traditional slower-paced suspense/crime thriller too. Seriously, the balance between these two elements is astonishingly good.

Not only that, being based on a Philip K. Dick story, Spielberg also included all sorts of subtle echoes of Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” (1982) too – whether it is the scenes involving detectives enhancing images, a scene involving eyes, the photo frames littering various surfaces etc… I could go on for quite a while, but one thing that struck me was how mature it was. It was a “PG-13” film that was genuinely aimed at both teenagers and adults. Literally the only clue that it is a “PG-13” film is the bizarre way that one character says “futz” in order to allow the film’s one permitted “f-bomb” to be used in a more dramatic later scene.

When I watched “Minority Report” for the first time at about the age of thirteen or fourteen, I was thrilled by the cool futuristic technology and the dramatic chase/fight sequences. Watching it again two decades later, I noticed all sorts of more sophisticated thematic stuff, I noticed how… dark… the emotional tone of the film was, I noticed how the film actually took the time to include slow-paced world-building etc… It wasn’t a “PG” film with a few mildly edgy elements added to it in order to get a lucrative “PG-13” rating, but a serious and mature piece of sci-fi cinema that was genuinely aimed at both teenagers and adults.

This made me think of another major “PG-13” film from 2002 – namely Gore Verbinski’s “The Ring”. A US adaptation of Koji Suzuki’s 1991 horror novel “Ring“, this was a film that I first saw under-age at the cinema (it got a “15” here) and then re-watched a year or two ago. When I was a teenager, this film absolutely scared the crap out of me but, rewatching it as an adult who has more experience with horror movies, I was still surprisingly impressed with it.

Whilst it isn’t “Citizen Kane“, it is still well-written enough to actually work as a serious piece of drama. Not only that, its slower pacing, the clever way that Verbinski adapts the story to a US setting by focusing more on the western gothic tradition (eg: old farm-houses, bare trees etc…) and the way he also makes use of a cold blue/green palette in order to add an eerie atmosphere still hold up surprisingly well.

The VHS-based elements of the film not only allow it to hold up well in this modern age of “retro horror” media – but are also interesting because, in Suzuki’s 1991 novel, these elements reflected anxieties about the latest modern technology of the time. By 2002, DVDs were really starting to become popular and, whilst VHS was still just about a current medium, it was definitely seen as being slightly old and “second-best”. So, this film is also an interesting early precursor to the modern “retro horror” trend too.

Again, it was a “PG-13” film that I enjoyed when I was a teenager because of how scary it was but, when I watched it again during my early thirties, I didn’t feel patronised by it. It felt like a serious horror/drama film that was complex, fairly well-written and reasonably well-made. A film made for adults that teenagers were also allowed to watch.

Of course, these are just two films – 2002 also saw the release of Sam Raimi’s superhero blockbuster film “Spiderman”. Two years earlier, there was also the ridiculously immature “PG-13” comedy movie “Dude, Where’s My Car?” as well. So, there were definitely films aimed squarely at teenagers which got this rating during the early 2000s. It wasn’t like literally every “PG-13” film back then was a serious piece of mature drama, but there certainly seem to have been more of them back then.

Yes, during the 2010s, there were still a few “PG-13” sci-fi films which seemed to be genuinely aimed at both teenagers and adults – like “Inception” (2010), “Edge Of Tomorrow” (2014), “Ghost In The Shell”  (2017) and “Ready Player One” (2018). Likewise, there were also obviously “PG-13” horror films and, in the present day, there are apparently at least one or two more “gloomy” PG-13 interpretations of the superhero genre too.

Yet, overall, modern “PG-13” blockbuster films definitely seem to have a lighter emotional tone than older ones. It would be easy to write this off as “The modern world is depressing, people need fun escapism“… but 2002 wasn’t exactly a walk in the park either! If you grew up back then, you probably remember all of the post-9/11 gloom and paranoia of the time. How it felt like things had irrevocably changed for the worse the previous year.

No, it really does seem that – for the most part – the rating has become more aimed at teenagers. Or, rather, different expectations about teenagers. Back in 2002, teenagers were expected to be a bit edgier and culture in general was a bit edgier too. Not only that, social media wasn’t as popular as it is today and mobile phones had limited or no internet access too. Books were also a bit more popular back then as well. There was more “room” for complexity and nuance than there is today.

Not only that, although the “PG-13” rating was invented during the 1980s, it was still relatively new during the early 2000s. There seem to still have been traces of the idea that it was meant for films that were a middle-ground between cartoonish “PG” children’s films and grittier “R”-rated films. Films which were serious enough to appeal to adults, but also toned-down enough to be what a small group of older people (who, theoretically, were teenagers once) considered “suitable” for teenagers.

These days though, the “PG-13” rating is aimed much more heavily at teenagers. The lighter emotional tone of a lot of modern “PG-13” blockbuster films, with wise-cracking superheroes, acrobatic bloodless combat, happy endings and visually-spectacular CGI effects probably plays into this. The stories can often be a little bit simpler, in a way that adults can certainly still enjoy… but would probably traditionally have considered to be mildly patronising.

The higher cost of cinema tickets has probably played a role too – in the past, going to the movies was cheaper. As such, people were more likely to “take a chance” on films outside of well-known series, on mid-budget films and stuff like that. There was room for a wider range of films, and the film industry and cinemas still turned a profit.

However, with more competition from things like “streaming” and social media, Hollywood films tend to aim even more heavily for profits above all else these days. And a “lowest common denominator” film, with a light emotional tone and a simpler story that younger teenagers won’t consider “boring” is probably the safe financial choice these days.

Not to mention that the media landscape is, like US politics, a lot more polarised than it used to be too. There are still mature, sophisticated and nuanced pieces of film-making these days… but they are often relegated to television series, indie films and/or “streaming”. But, it really does seem like there is less of a “middle-ground” in major Hollywood films – they are often either emphatically edgy “R-rated” films OR they are cartoonish PG films with just enough token mild edginess to get a lucrative “PG-13” rating. Large Hollywood films have become more polarised.

Whatever the cause, I’m glad that I was a teenager during the 2000s because – when I look back at the films I first watched back then – there’s a good chance that at least some of the “PG-13” ones will be ones that appeal as much to me as much now as they did when I was a teenager, often for completely different reasons that can surprise me. Because, again, it really does seem like quite a few older “PG-13” films were genuinely aimed at both teenagers and adults.

—————–

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Three British Film Censorship Quirks And/Or Oddities

Well, since I was still in the mood for physical media nostalgia, I thought that I’d talk about British Board Of Film Classification (BBFC) “certificates” (eg: film ratings) today. In particular, I thought that I’d talk about a few interesting historical quirks and/or oddities that appeared during the heyday of physical media.

This certainly isn’t a complete list, and I’ve also focused more on physical media packaging here – which is why, for example, this list doesn’t include some of their more famously unusual policies like how, between about the late 1980s and early 2000s, they didn’t even allow the sight of various weapons (eg: nunchucks, throwing stars, certain types of knives etc..) in any films or videogames released in the UK.

I also won’t be discussing “Uc” ratings or the hilariously patronising Video Standards Council warning videos that used to be play before the beginning of some VHS tapes, nostalgic as they may be.

1) Boilerplate text warnings: One interesting thing, which seems to have been much more common during the 1990s, was the way that the BBFC would sometimes add a boilerplate text warning to the symbols on the back of higher-rated VHS cases (and, occasionally, DVD cases too). And no, I’m not talking about the immediate precursor to the BBFC’s modern-style “consumer advice” – which often came in the form of a chart or table and was still relatively common during the early-mid 2000s. Here are some examples to help you tell these three things apart:

These are examples of: The old boilerplate text I’ll be talking about, the bulky “chart” style consumer advice (which was placed next to the rating symbol on the back cover) and the more streamlined modern-style consumer advice.

Instead of a chart, some older films from the 1990s (and maybe the 1980s as well) that had higher certificates would sometimes carry a small text box with a warning in it. Interestingly, the wording possibly seemed to vary by rating.

On an “18” certificate VHS tape from 1991, it says: “This film will have an adult theme. It may have some strong scenes of sex or violence or bad language“.

On the other hand, a “15” certificate VHS tape from 1996 carries slightly different text: “This film will have a fairly adult theme. It may have some scenes of sex or violence or some bad language“. Notice how there’s no mention of “strong” scenes and the word “fairly” is also used too, subtly implying a less intense film.

Here is a comparison between the text used for “15” and “18” films. The two 1990s VHS tapes were produced five years apart, so it could also possibly just be a case of updated wording (since the certificate box has also been designed to be slightly shorter/thinner in the later “15” example too). And, yes, I vastly prefer the old-style BBFC symbols. They had a certain banknote-like gravitas to them…

Yet, some VHS tapes from the 1990s don’t include the additional warning text, so I’m not sure if it was optional or not.

Although this was probably a very distant precursor to the “consumer advice” commonly found on modern physical media packaging, I often used to wonder whether it signified that a film was at the upper end of a particular category. This is mostly because, whilst browsing a video shop sometime during the 2000s, I remember stumbling across a DVD of the “12” certificate film “Swimfan” (2002) which contained one of these old text warnings on the back cover. Although I’ve never watched this film and it was possibly just a printing error of some kind, it still struck me as odd to see one of these weird warnings on a “12” film.

2) “12” Rated Films 1989-1994: As British film censorship nerds will know, due to separate legislation governing cinemas and home video, the BBFC still has to classify cinema and home video versions of films separately. They are one of the very few, if only, ratings boards to do this. One of the weird side-effects of this was that, whilst the “12” certificate was introduced for cinema films in 1989, it wasn’t used for any home video releases until 1994.

What this meant was that, for five years, any “12” certificate films released in cinemas often had to either have their rating increased to “15” when released on video or be trimmed for a “PG” video release. Given how over-cautious the BBFC used to be with home video classifications during the mid-late 1980s/1990s (following the “video nasties” moral panic of the early-mid 1980s), this could theoretically result in a film being trimmed to get a “12” cinema rating and either keeping those cuts in the “15” video release or possibly suffering even more cuts for a “PG” video release.

Of course, since the BBFC makes a point of reclassifying films under current standards whenever new physical editions are published, older films that were bumped up to “15” on video can often get a more accurate “12” certificate in modern re-releases. The film “Gremlins 2: The New Batch” (1990) is a good example of this – with older 1990s VHS editions of it getting an increased “15” rating, but DVD releases from 2005 onwards returning to the original “12” certificate the film got when it appeared in cinemas.

On a side-note, this policy also sometimes has the ridiculous side-effect of raising a film’s rating due to modern rules – such as “Galaxy Quest” (1999). This film was originally rated “PG” for both cinema and video. Yet, since 2010, it has been bumped up to a “12” certificate for the most hilariously silly reason ever… namely the very censorship that allowed it to get a “PG” in 1999. In one scene of the film, a line of dialogue has noticeably been over-dubbed/substituted with the words “Screw that!”.

For some reason, the BBFC later started treating “mouthed strong language”, “bleeped strong language” or “implied strong language” as… sort of… being the same as uncensored profanity sometime during the 2000s. Interestingly though, they do seem to allow slightly more bleeped profanity at “12” though – since, whilst researching the next point on this list, I stumbled across some BBFC “ratings info” from 2008 which mentions that: “While there are almost a dozen uses in the documentary, all are bleeped or obscured so that the word is never actually heard. BBFC Policy places this at the same level as one or two clear uses.”

3) “12” Rated videogames: Before 2012, when the stricter Pan European Game Information (PEGI) system was made mandatory, the BBFC used to be responsible for classifying videogames too. One interesting quirk of this was that videogames only formally required a rating if their content exceeded a certain vaguely-worded threshold. As such, many games were released with advisory RSAC, ELSPA or PEGI ratings instead of legally-binding BBFC certificates before 2012.

One interesting side-effect of this vague rule was that, especially during the 1990s, “12” certificate videogames were surprisingly rare things. The only ones I can think of from this time are “HeXen” (1995) and “Area 51” (1996), but there may have been others too. Not only was the rating still relatively new, but it was slightly stricter/more cautious than its modern incarnation. As such, most game publishers probably didn’t consider “12”-level content to meet the vague threshold required for a formal rating.

So what does a “12” game look like? Well the only classification issue in both games I mentioned earlier is violence – most notably, monster/zombie death animations. Although these include some blood and gore, and happen regularly, they are relatively quick pre-made unrealistic cartoon animations that take place in both a self-defence context and involve fantastical non-human adversaries. Unlike similar “15” certificate sprite-based games like “Doom” (1993), these games also lack prominent gruesome background details or a more “edgy” atmosphere/context too.

Yes, “12” certificate games became a bit more common during the 2000s, as the rating became a bit more established, but they are still relatively rare compared to “15” and “18” certificate games. And, given that the BBFC stopped rating games in 2012, there won’t exactly be any more of them either.

—————-

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Horror Films Designed For A Lower Rating – A Ramble

Well, I thought that I’d talk about horror films designed for a lower rating today, because it is an interesting – if complicated – subject. I ended up thinking about this after watching the director’s cut version of Lamberto Bava’s 1986 film “Demons 2”. This film is the sequel to Bava’s excellent 1985 splatterpunk zombie film “Demons” and it keeps a lot of elements from the original film, although – according to Wikipedia – the lavishly “over the top” gruesomeness was toned down in the sequel to get a lower rating in Italy.

Whilst the second film is a reasonably good film, with an excellent mixture of dark comedy and some well-placed gruesome special effects, it lacks a lot of the anarchic and rebellious punk atmosphere of the first film – and a lot of this is due to the relatively lower levels of gruesomeness and greater focus on weird body horror sequences instead. Interestingly, the soundtrack also mirrors this lack of “edginess” by including more post-punk music, in comparison to the wonderfully badass heavy metal and punk music found in the first film.

Anyway, this illustrates one of the issues with lower-rated horror movies. If a franchise is known for gruesomeness or “edginess”, then toning this down just for the sake of selling more cinema tickets to younger teenagers can ruin the quality of the film as a whole. Putting commerce before art is rarely a good decision. A good cautionary example of this is probably the 2004 film “Alien vs Predator” which, despite being based on two “serious” sci-fi horror franchises aimed at an older audience, toned down a lot of the more famous elements of both series (such as the chest-bursting alien creatures) in order to get a “PG-13” rating in the US. Needless to say, it was not exactly a well-liked film upon release.

Another issue with making horror films aimed at a lower rating is that it will often only work in one country. “Demons 2” might have got a “14+” rating in Italy, but – in the UK- the BBFC initially gave it exactly the same “18” rating as the first film (with the rating for “Demons 2” only eventually being lowered to a more appropriate “15” rating in 2010). Likewise, “Alien Vs Predator” may have got a “PG-13” in the US, but it got exactly the same UK “15” rating as it’s much better, and more gruesome, sequel did in 2007.

Britain is a good example of this problem, given the BBFC’s ridiculous reluctance to give almost everything in the horror genre anything below a “15” rating these days. This was partially due to a moral panic about the censored “12A”-rated 2012 film adaptation of “The Woman In Black” and this fuss led to a bit of a knee-jerk reaction when the BBFC updated their guidelines in 2014. And, lest you think I’m exaggerating here, their current rules (at the time of writing) about “12”/”12A” rated films exclude all but the very mildest of horror movies: “[…] Although some scenes may be disturbing, the overall tone should not be. Horror sequences should not be frequent or sustained“.

Still, even before this, the BBFC were often stricter with horror movies than the US censors. Yes, there was the occasional “12” rated horror film released before 2014, but many “PG-13” horror movies still ended up getting a “15” rating here. So, yes, different countries can have wildly different – and sometimes ridiculous – rules about lower-rated horror movies.

Yet, despite my criticisms, horror movies can actually work surprisingly well at lower ratings if they are designed around this. An excellent example of this is probably all of the Hollywood remakes of Japanese horror movies that were released in the early-mid 2000s, like “The Ring” (2002) and “The Grudge” (2004). These films were aimed squarely at a “PG-13” rating in the US and they actually manage to be surprisingly scary because they focus a lot more heavily on things like psychological horror, suspense, story, jump scares and atmosphere instead of gruesomeness.

Likewise, “The Ring” also sidestepped the problems of the other sequels/spin-offs I mentioned earlier because both Koji Suzuki’s original novel and an earlier late 1990s Japanese film adaptation also use very similar types of horror to the remake – so it did not confound fan expectations or leave audience members feeling cheated.

In addition to this, horror aimed at a lower rating works best when it is a new and original series. A great classic example of this is the “Gremlins” comedy horror series, whose first and second instalments both got lower ratings in the US (“PG” and “PG-13” respectively). Because there were no “R-rated” Gremlins films before these films, audiences could see them and appreciate them on their own merits without any worries about the films being watered-down for commercial reasons.

But why do lower-rated horror movies even exist at all? Surely any self-respecting director would want to make their horror movie as intense as possible? Well, I’d argue that these films are there as a way to gently introduce new fans – of any age – to the horror genre. Likewise, some types of horror story – like ghost stories – often lend themselves well to a more subtle presentation too. There is also – as I hinted earlier -a commercial element to it too, with studios officially being able to sell the film to a wider audience too. Yes, dedicated teenage horror fans will usually be more interested in finding ways to watch higher-rated horror films, but a good lower-rated horror movie can at least be a nice gesture of inclusivity to younger fans nonetheless. Well, in everywhere except the UK at least….

So, in conclusion, horror movies can certainly work at lower ratings if they focus more on psychological horror and, more critically, aren’t sequels to higher-rated horror films. However, aiming a horror movie at a lower rating is a very limited strategy because it will only be tailor-made to the requirements of one censorship board.

—————-

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

“Silly Rules” By C. A. Brown (Back To The 1990s – Short Story #4)

Stay tuned for the next 1990s-themed short story tomorrow at 9:30pm GMT 🙂

‘The thing I really can’t understand is why you ever wanted to be a film censor, of all things.‘ I laughed, before taking a sip of my drink. ‘I mean, you of all people!‘

Gary grinned at me: ‘Well, how else am I going to watch all of the banned movies?‘

‘Please don’t tell me you actually said that in the interview.‘ I chuckled, almost snorting wine onto the table. It probably didn’t help that someone had got to the jukebox and had started playing that ridiculous “Vindaloo” song that had been all over the radio for weeks. Half the time, I wanted to laugh at it and the other half of the time it was stuck on repeat in my mind.

‘Oh god, no. I was the picture of diligence.‘ Gary said proudly as he rolled another cigarette.

‘The picture of diligence?‘

‘Oh yes, I even did research and everything. I even quoted some of their sillier rules to them.‘

‘Silly rules? Like what?‘ I asked.

‘You can show a criminal machine-gunning ten people to death, but you can’t show him brandishing a flick knife. You can show two people bashing the living daylights out of each other with their fists, but there mustn’t be any headbutts. You can show a ninja hacking someone to pieces with a samurai sword, but you can’t show him swinging nunchucks or using throwing stars. I could go on.‘ He lit his cigarette and blew out a weary puff of smoke.

‘Huh? I always thought that they were more interested in what people got up to in the bedroom.‘ I finished my wine and thought about ordering another.

‘Oh god, there are tons of silly rules about that too!‘ Gary laughed ‘But, they’re pretty much what you would expect.‘ He put on a posh voice ‘We can’t have the British public getting too imaginative, you know. It just isn’t the done thing‘.

I tried not to laugh too loudly. Finally, I got up and went over to the bar for more drinks. Even though it was a quiet night, “Vindaloo” was still playing loudly in the background. When I got back to the table, I handed Gary another pint and said: ‘You do realise that you’d probably just have spent every day sitting in an almost empty room and writing down rude words, between weekly meetings with the local vicar.‘

‘That’s another silly rule!‘ Gary stubbed out his cigarette and got started on his pint.

‘You actually have to see a vicar every week? I was only joking about that.‘ I raised an eyebrow.

‘What? No.‘ He laughed ‘I meant, you can still actually get a film banned for blasphemy. There’s some short film , one with nuns, that is still very much banned to this day. It’s the the nineteen-nineties for heaven’s sake!‘

‘Get out of here! We still have ye olde blasphemy rules?‘ I laughed, before taking another sip of wine. ‘Anything sillier than that?‘

‘Oh yes! A film actually has to go past the censors for a second time when it’s released on video, where a stricter set of rules apply. For some reason, the censors actually think that people constantly rewind and rewatch fight scenes. I mean, you’d be shocked at the number of action movies that have been hacked to pieces on video just because they were worried about some hypothetical sad act rewatching a fight.‘

‘Oh my god, that’s too funny!‘ I almost spilled my wine. ‘No wonder you didn’t get the job. I just wouldn’t be able to keep a straight face.‘

‘Oh no, I kept a straight face.‘ Gary deadpanned ‘But I had a bit of a cold. For some bizarre reason, asking the censors if they keep a box of tissues nearby is a quick way to get booted out onto the street.‘

Today’s Art ( 8th December 2016)

Well, here’s the final comic in my “Damania Regrown” webcomic mini series. I’ll post a full retrospective later tonight, in case you missed any of it. If you want to catch up on the previous seven mini series, links to them can be found in the “2016” segment of this site’s comics index.

Wow, it has been way too long since I last made a cynical comic about film censorship in the UK. So, since I couldn’t think of another idea, this seemed like the obvious subject to finish this mini series with. Originally, this comic was going to feature two additional examples of absurd film censorship (and they’ll still appear in the line art if I remember to make a line art post), but they were cut at the last minute for pacing/ legibility reasons.

As usual, this comic update is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.

[CLICK FOR LARGER IMAGE] “Damania Regrown – BBFC” By C. A. Brown

My Thoughts On The New BBFC Guidelines

First of all, let me say that although I’m absolutely fascinated by film censorship, I’m also strongly opposed to it on free speech grounds.

If I had my way, the BBFC would be a purely advisory body with no legal powers whatsoever (kind of like the MPAA in America). The idea of legally-mandated censorship and/or classification of an entire art form (eg: film) is fundamentally undemocratic and anti-creative in my opinion.

But, since the BBFC are the people who get to decide what films (or, more likely, what versions of a film) we do and don’t get to watch and also what films the next generation of artists, writers and film-makers will get to watch, they need to be held to a high level of scrutiny.

Which is why I thought that I’d do my bit and offer my thoughts about their new classification guidelines which will come into force later this month.

For all of my many criticisms of the BBFC, they are at least one of the most transparent film classification boards out there and, every five years, they update their classification guidelines. These are the list of criteria they use to determine what certificate a film gets.

Every time that they update their guidelines, they conduct a survey beforehand, to gauge public opinion about what should and shouldn’t be changed. So, at least it isn’t completely undemocratic.

On the whole, the new guidelines are fairly similar to the old guidelines – with about two major changes which I’ll talk about in detail here.

These changes relate to how the BBFC deals with horror and profanity in films. Generally speaking, there are some problems with both of these changes.

————

Horror: Historically, the BBFC has never had a particularly great relationship with the horror genre and, just as I thought that they were finally starting to understand this wonderful genre and treat it sensibly, they bring out these regressive new guidelines.

Thankfully, the new guidelines don’t really seem to affect proper 15 and 18 rated horror movies – but their implications for 12-rated horror films are, quite frankly, horrifying .

Although 12-rated horror films are something of a rarity in Britain (and most horror movies which get a PG-13 rating in the states get a 15 certificate here), they do exist. In fact, the current (2009-2014) guidelines about horror in 12-rated films state: “Yes, some horror films are passed at this category. Moderate physical and psychological threat is permitted at 12 or 12A as long as disturbing sequences are not too frequent or sustained.”

Yes, this means that 12-rated horror films probably aren’t going to be that scary – but at least it means that they can exist.

However, the new guidelines seem to hint at a blanket ban on 12-rated horror movies (emphasis mine): “There may be moderate physical and psychological threat and horror sequences. Although some scenes may be disturbing, the overall tone should not be. Horror sequences should not be frequent or sustained.”

And, before anyone says “this isn’t a blanket ban” – name me one ‘serious’ live-action horror movie whose overall tone wasn’t intended to be disturbing….

So, why am I concerned about this? After all, I’m more than old enough to buy decent horror movies or watch them at the cinema. But I wasn’t once.

And, well, the next generation of young horror fans (and the next generation of horror authors, film-makers, comics writers etc…) deserves something much better than this stiflingly regressive policy.

Yes, any self-respecting teenage horror fan will find a way to see horror movies anyway (and, if they have any common sense, they’ll probably ignore anything which would have got a 12 certificate under the old guidelines and go straight for the good stuff instead). But, it’s the principle that matters here.

The idea that a whole genre of drama should be off-limits to anyone under the age of fifteen is absolutely unconscionable in any society which claims to have freedom of speech. Shame on you, BBFC.

———

Profanity: On the whole, the BBFC gradually seems to be getting more sensible in this area and the new guidelines are possibly more lenient than the old guidelines. But, at the same time, they’re also chillingly vague too.

For example, their current (2009-2014) guidelines about profanity in a 12 or 12A-rated films are: “The BBFC’s Guidelines state that there may be strong language (eg ‘f***’) at 12 or 12A, but it must be infrequent. The context of the strong language is important. Aggressive uses of strong language may result in a film or DVD being placed at the 15 category. There is some allowance for puns on strong language at this category. There may be moderate language (eg uses of terms such as ‘bitch’ and ‘twat’ at 12 or 12A).Any discriminatory language will not be endorsed by the work as a whole. Aggressive discriminatory language (for example homophobic or racist terms) is unlikely to be passed at 12 or 12A unless it is clearly condemned.”

Yes, these guidelines are slightly on the strict side in my opinion, but at least they are specific. At least they set out clearly what the BBFC do and don’t consider to be acceptable in a 12A film. Generally speaking, these guidelines meant that (with a few exceptions like “The King’s Speech”) a film-maker could use the word ‘f**k’ about 3-5 times in their film before it would get a 15 certificate.

Now, let’s take a look at their upcoming guidelines about profanity in 12/ 12A-rated films: “There may be moderate language. Strong language may be permitted, depending on the manner in which it is used, who is using the language, its frequency within the work as a whole and any special contextual justification.”

This could mean that they’re getting stricter, but it could also mean that they’re becoming more liberal. There is, quite simply, no way of telling and, well, this scares me a bit.

Not only that, the other part of the new guidelines that is equally chilling is the part about “who is using the language”.

The idea that, somehow, one character swearing is any “better” or “worse” than any other character swearing is absolutely ridiculous. And, to be honest, do we really want the BBFC making these kinds of artistic and personal moral judgements about a film on our behalf?

On the plus side – the BBFC seem to be taking a slightly more relaxed and enlightened attitude towards “very strong language” in 15-rated films. Their new guidelines about “very strong language” in 15-rated films mirror the vague guidelines for strong language in 12-rated films.

This is a slight improvement over the old rule that very strong language was only permitted to be used up to about 3-7 times (provided it was used in a light-hearted or matter-of-fact way) in a 15-rated film.

And, hopefully it will also mean that films which are set in Scotland, Northern Ireland, The Republic Of Ireland and northern England (where “very strong language” is far less shocking than it is in southern England) can include realistic dialogue without fear of excessive censorship.

But, the idea of there being any restrictions at all on swearing in 15-rated films seems absolutely ridiculous to me – given that most 15-17 year olds already know what all of these words are and probably use them on at least a semi-regular basis, just like anyone else. Still, at least these new rules for 15-rated films are a small step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no mention of any changes to the BBFC’s absolutely ludicrous policy of treating bleeped and unbleeped profanity as being pretty much the same thing in these new guidelines.

———–

All in all, the new guidelines have a few slight improvements over the old ones – but the fact that they are chillingly vague and the fact that they might pretty much ban 12-rated horror movies outweigh any of these small improvements.