View Full Version : Raiders, the BBFC and inconsistency...only a PG? WTF?
FlangeMonkey
11-01-2002, 09:07
I know there's a thread concerning Raiders at the moment, but I thought this issue deserved a thread of its own.
I was watching this last night (as many others, no doubt), albeit on my widescreen VHS copy.....I can't stand the BBC's policy to OAR, and was wondering how the heck the movie was only given a PG cert.
Now I'm not complaining at all about the amount of violence/gore etc. and I'm certainly no Mary Whitehouse or similar or trying to "protect" people from what they see, but surely this is one of the BBFC's biggest mistakes in terms of inconsistency in their certification.
In Raiders, as you all know, there are countless scenes of violence/gore:
Bloody fist fights (graphically depicting the wounded parties....eg: the bald german and the plane, although the subsequent death is not seen, it's effects are...lots of blood spurting on the tail fin/cockpit screen.
A person being seen run over by a truck...
Countless people thrown from moving vehicles...
Melting faces...
An gory exploding head...in slow motionBeloch at the climax of the ark opening scene
Skewered, bleeding bodies....
Decomposed bodies...
Lots of violent gunplay...
I could go on and on....
There seems to be no consistency in the BBFCs certification. I understand that there are a certain amount of "fantasy" elements to the violence/gore in parts, but some are blatantly set in realistic environments.
In line with similar scenes in other films I think the film should be at least a 12 (I know the 12 certificate wasn't around when ROTLA was originally submitted) or even a 15.
Where's the consistency here?
If films released today (Tomb Raider, The Matrix) have to be cut to get lower ratings, how the hell was this allowed through as only a PG?
I know there were definitely cuts made to IJ&tToD and this is a considerably darker film, and I'm pretty sure that the US PG-13 rating was specifically introduced for the first time to allow for this.
In summary: The BBFC's consistency makes no sense........discuss.
Have to admit - This one's puzzled me, too. Spielberg has always had a good relationship with them, though, and the BBFC claim that they rate "Fantasy" style violence lower because it's removed from reality. I mean - The Mummy is around the same level of nastyness as ROTLA and gets a higher rating....
tigrr_uk
11-01-2002, 09:29
Let's just hope (and pray) that he doesn't do a ET and tone down the violence when he does the DVD.
FlangeMonkey
11-01-2002, 09:34
Originally posted by Dagada
the BBFC claim that they rate "Fantasy" style violence lower because it's removed from reality.
I know this, but the moments of "fantasy" in ROTLA are few and far between. The gore at the end is certainly in a fantasy reality, whereas the gunplay/violence throughout the remainder of the movie are most definitely not!
I agree about the Mummy.....it's absolutely ludicrous, and to repeat my point from my first post, why exactly was Tomb Raider cut, where to all intents and purposes it's a "poor-man's Indiana Jones", with similar levels of violence.
Originally posted by tigrr_uk
Let's just hope (and pray) that he doesn't do a ET and tone down the violence when he does the DVD.
Indeed, and let's hope the trend that certain directors are taking recently.....Lucas, I'm looking at you...stop "revisiting" their old movies, and cocking them all up for a new audience (I did like some of the extra stuff in ROTJ though :p....he should never have touched the Ice Monster scene in ESB though :().
However, when this is done for seemingly "non-cash in" purposes.....Coppola's Apocalypse Now, this can be most rewarding.
Spielberg seems to be jumping on the Lucas bandwagon with ET though, agreed.
Bapapapa
11-01-2002, 09:39
And what about eating glass....
ChrisAllenFiz
11-01-2002, 09:46
Even more bizzare in my opinion is why Star wars is a U.
I had a mate back when I was about 6 who had nightmares for months after seeing it. His mum wouldn`t ever let him see it again. Soon after that they moved to bakewell, home of the tart.
Have I shared too much? :)
Chris
FlangeMonkey
11-01-2002, 09:47
LOL Baps.....I knew that old chestnut would rear it's head.....but I totally agree, it's one set of conflicting rules against another with their policies on "fantasy" and imitation......what sort of human chimps do the BBFC hire to do the classification?
Michael Brooke
11-01-2002, 09:59
I think if <I>Raiders of the Lost Ark</I> had been submitted today - or at any point in the last decade - it undoubtedly would have been given a 12 certificate, but the fact is that the 12 didn't exist back in 1981, and the film wasn't considered strong enough for a AA classification (the equivalent of 15, which was introduced the following year).
But it's worth noting that <I>Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom</I> was one of the key titles that led to the creation of the PG-13 rating in the US and the 12 certificate over here - there was an outcry over its graphic violence that led ratings boards on both sides of the Atlantic to take action.
I started to watch it last night while my 4 year old was around - quickly had to switch it off when there was the image of Indy's "helper" skewered on the trap right at the beginning.
You watch a film through different eyes when kids are around, and I'd forgotten how scarey the opening sequence was.
It is all because Mr Spielberg paying off the BBFC as nearly all his movies are underclassified:
Saving Private Ryan = 15 rating??
JP 1, 2 and 3 = PG???
ROTLA = PG????
Jaws = 12???
There is no way any other director could get these movies through on those certificates! :D
THANKS TO DEAR MR ECHO FOR HIS INFO ON JAWS!
Jaws = 12 (or was it a 15?)
Pretty sure jaws is a PG, the swearing on the extras made it a 12.
Dear Mr Echo
11-01-2002, 12:32
The DVD for Jaws is a 12. It was an A certificate on its original theatrical release which was for 12's and over.
Andrew
Jaws is a PG.
Temple Of Doom - This was PG too - Came out WELL before the 12 certificate was introduced....
Panavision
11-01-2002, 12:42
It was Batman (1989) that finally got the BBFC to produce a 12 cert, right??
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
I think if <I>Raiders of the Lost Ark</I> had been submitted today - or at any point in the last decade - it undoubtedly would have been given a 12 certificate, but the fact is that the 12 didn't exist back in 1981, and the film wasn't considered strong enough for a AA classification (the equivalent of 15, which was introduced the following year).
Undoubtedly, but it raises the very pertinent question why the BBFC haven't forcibly reclassified the film. If it's bascially carrying the wrong certificate, due to it being released under their old guidelines, sure for consistancies sake, it needs to be re-rated in line with "the public mood"? It's hardly an obscure title -- when the DVDs (finally!) get released, it's going to be topping the best sellers list for quite some time.
Then again, that would require an awful lot of titles to be recalled, including the episode of The Sopranos, rated 15, where Uncle Junior screams into his girlfriend's face: "You stupid ********** blabbermouth [slang monosybilic term for female genitals, begins with "c")." Yet the Bridget Jones's Diary DVD is going to be recalled due to an utterance of the word in the film during the commentary (saying it in the commentary track itself in exactly the same context is fine apparently) at very considerable expense to Universal.
Hate to say it, but "micky mouse" much?
tj_director
11-01-2002, 12:47
Originally posted by Panavision
It was Batman (1989) that finally got the BBFC to produce a 12 cert, right??
nearly there, i think Batman Returns was the first. I remember clearly 'cos my Dad said i wasn't allowed to watch Batman, as it was a 15, and i was about 10, we would have to wait till VHS.... granted, the wait was worth it!!! :)
Michael Brooke
11-01-2002, 12:53
<B>It was Batman (1989) that finally got the BBFC to produce a 12 cert, right??</B>
No, it was the now-forgotten John Schlesinger film <I>Madame Souzatska</I>, which opened in early 1989. <I>Batman</I> was the first general-release film to get a 12 certificate, though, so you're partially right.
<I>Batman</I> was a 12 in the cinema but a 15 on video, since the 12 certificate wasn't extended to cover video classification for a few years - which I suspect is what TJ Director is thinking of.
<B>Temple Of Doom - This was PG too - Came out WELL before the 12 certificate was introduced....</B>
As I said above, this film led directly to the creation of the PG-13 rating in the US, as the MPAA realised that more and more films were being made that were just too violent for small children but too childish for adult audiences. This in turn led to a whole rash of American films in the late 1980s that were essentially "strong PG" - often with just one deliberate use of the f-word in order to guarantee a more commercially attractive PG-13! - so the BBFC responded by introducing the 12 certificate.
Gary Couzens
11-01-2002, 12:58
Originally posted by tj_director
nearly there, i think Batman Returns was the first. I remember clearly 'cos my Dad said i wasn't allowed to watch Batman, as it was a 15, and i was about 10, we would have to wait till VHS.... granted, the wait was worth it!!! :)
Not quite - a 12 had been on the drawing board at the BBFC for a while. Two films, <i>Madame Sousatzka</i> and <i>My Left Foot</i>. played in 1989 with Westminster Council 12 certificates (15s elsewhere), as experiments to test the acceptability of a new age rating. <i>Batman</i> was the first film with a national BBFC 12 certificate. However, a few councils hadn't ratified the new certificate in time, so in those areas <i>Batman</i> played as a 15.
To add to Byron's point, the very first film to be given a 15 certificate back in 1982, <i>An Officer and a Gentleman</i>, would presumably get an 18 on the <i>Bridget Jones</i> principle, were it to be resubmitted today.
It was <I>Batman</i> not the sequel that was the first to get a 12 cert. <I>Batman Returns</i> was the first to contain a Dolby Digital track. :p
Hey Byron,
Do you collect films with the word cahnt in?! :p
<I>Withnail and I</I> contains it and it's a 15 cert.
Originally posted by Garry Cowell
It was <I>Batman</i> not the sequel that was the first to get a 12 cert. <I>Batman Returns</i> was the first to contain a Dolby Digital track. :p
Hey Byron,
Do you collect films with the word cahnt in?! :p
<I>Withnail and I</I> contains it and it's a 15 cert.
With nearly 60 DVDs, most of an adult nature (no, not the kind of "adult" Michael Brooke so adeptly reivews ;) ), it's inevitable the word in question's going to pop up occasionally. I also resolutely opose government censorship of any kind, on any media (with very rare exceptions, ie, child pronography and the like), so obviously aren't that enamoured with the BBFC or infinitely less so with the legislation that makes them the de-facto state video censors. (Though to their credit they a helluva lot better than some of the alternatives; with many "serious" titles, such as Baise Moi, its hard to believe it's the same organisation orchestrating the Bridget Jones fiasco running things. I cringe at the thought of the shambolic and unacountable MPAA ever gaining some kind of similar official remit stateside.)
The Withnail and I example (one of my all-time favourite films) is an excellent one to illustrate the BBFC's "context" argument. "Monty you terribe c -" is directed from one man to another, so isn't in the BBFC's eyes as demeaning as Bridget Jones's Diary's "You ham-fisted c -" Now personally, I certainly don't think there's any reason to prevent teenagers of 15 and over from hearing either, considering they know and use every Anglo-Saxon noun and verb in existance on a regular basis, but hey, that's just me.
Tony Keats
11-01-2002, 15:43
As mentioned earlier, It's the lack of consistency that makes a mockery of the whole process.
Example:- As most of you know, The Matrix and The Mummy Returns both had to remove head-butts from scenes in order to gain a lower rating. In both cases, an uncut version could have been released (one rating higher for each), but the distributors main concern was potential custom so they agreed to the cuts. Right away there's a question mark as to exactly why Mummy would have been allowed a '15' (with head-butts) wheras Matrix would have been pushed upto an '18'. I know that the content of the two films isn't quite the same, but we're just talking about a few head-butts for heavens sake (how can it possibly add 3yrs to a rating on its own anyway?).
Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt on the above two classifications, they're still making plenty of unfathomable decisions elsewhere. Spy Kids has a scene of a child head-butting another child for instance (well, a child robot in actual fact), but that film is a 'U'!. As they're supposedly worried about imitable scenes, I don't think a head-butt intended to cause as much injury as possible should be allowed in a 'U' (and that's just based on the logic of their remarks in the past). Spy Kids is a fantasy film, so I assume that they looked on it as 'cartoon' violence, but surely The Matrix and Mummy Returns are equally un-real and fantastical? (arguably more so).
Shingster
11-01-2002, 16:46
The BBFC cut Matrix & Mummy Returns because they already featured more violence than Spy Kids, The Mummy, Father's Day, etc. Even without the headbutts, they're more violent films, so the BBFC thought that, with the inclusion of the headbutts, the films had to be rated 18. Personally i think the BBFC are mentally retarded to cut these films at the 15 rating.
The fact that the BBFC is inconsistent is nothing new at all, for years studios, directors, and generally anyone with a bit of influence have managed to sweet talk the BBFC or MPAA into giving their films lower ratings. Spielberg is remarkably good at this though! ;)
Uncle Spanky
11-01-2002, 17:49
Jaws was indeed an A certificate on it's theatrical release, which is the equivalent of today's PG rating.
My dad took me to see it on account of me being very interested in Sharks, and I was only 5 years old.
As an aside to this ratings thing, I think I jump more now at the stuff in Jaws than I did at the cinema as a primary schooler !
Davester
11-01-2002, 19:35
There was also a headbut in LOTR
Michael Brooke
11-01-2002, 19:35
On the subject of "lack of consistency", the problem with a classification system that's based on context as much as content is that you're always going to get anomalies - but I ultimately think that it's a better system than a laundry list one based purely on content, where certain images and ideas get censored automatically.
That's rather closer to how the MPAA operates, and I agree with Byron that they're far worse - not least because all too often we get the MPAA-censored versions over here! To cite a very good example of MPAA hangups, <I>A Room with a View</I> had to be released unrated in the US because apparently the frontal male nudity was too much for them - whereas in Europe I don't think there was a single country that gave it anything stronger than a PG, which I think is absolutely the right classification.
By contrast, the BBFC are prepared to bend the rules if they feel the film's artistic merit justifies such rule-bending - for instance, they recognised that the gang rape in <I>Man Bites Dog</I> was absolutely essential to the fundamentally serious point that the film was making, and left it intact (much to our surprise: I worked on its UK release and I remember the reaction!). By contrast, in the US the distributors cut it out altogether, rendering the film literally incomprehensible!
I too saw Jaws at an early age, I was 8 and an A rating meant any age could see it.
However some cinemas had a policy of having to be accompanied by an adult for A rated films. Not a problem at that age, as I needed someone to drive me to the cinema!
tj_director
11-01-2002, 19:43
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
<I>Batman</I> was a 12 in the cinema but a 15 on video, since the 12 certificate wasn't extended to cover video classification for a few years - which I suspect is what TJ Director is thinking of.
so it most likely wasn't a 15 in my cinema, my Dad has much to answer for!! :rolleyes:
he can pay me back by buying me a ticket for LOTR!! :cool:
On the subject of "lack of consistency", the problem with a classification system that's based on context as much as content is that you're always going to get anomalies - but I ultimately think that it's a better system than a laundry list one based purely on content, where certain images and ideas get censored automatically.
I’d readily concur that context is of vital importance, and should always be taken into account. But there does come a point where the disparity between the strength of content allowed due to “serious” context as opposed to a more “frivolous”, entertainment becomes somewhat incongruous, and appear unintentionally supercilious. For example, allowing Salo through without cuts, but then insisting cuts remain to an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer due to that programmes “teenage audience”, and the belief they’d emulate what they saw on screen. If taken too far, and not applied as the exception rather than the rule, it can end up intimating that some people (ie, arthouse crowd) can “handle” strong content better than others; that some films are not “worthy” of being uncut as they’re not a director’s magnum opus, but purely for entertainment value.
This is not to say I don’t see the BBFC’s point – the content of Salo is artistically infinitely more justifiable than the sadistic gratuity of, say, the Rambo films. But it comes down to, for me, whether said gratuity would “harm” society. Personally, I don’t think it does. It can be downright entertaining in it’s sheer excess, and I honestly don’t see the evidence for adults emulating such content to an extent which would pose a considerable risk to society at large (children are a different case, obviously). That’s not to say I don’t find some films repugnant -- but I can honestly say I wouldn’t want anything that none of the participants were harmed in the making of banned.
Despite the fact I find any state censor an anathema, much of the enmity I felt towards the BBFC itself, which is after all only doing the job its required to by law, vanished along with James Farmam. The draconian and illogical cuts imposed on films under his tenure, and the entire Exorcist fiasco to name but one banned film, have lead to me holding him in a very dim view. However, Andreas Whittam Smith appears to be doing a far better job thus far; it’s just a shame farces like the latest Bridget Jones matter and the insane “no higher reclassifications” rule continue to open the board to ridicule.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.