2. films, videos, DVDs and certain video games, advertisements and trailers under the video recording act (1984)
3.funded through the fees it charges to those who submit the films and video works for classification (its a non-governmental body)
4.video recording act (1984), the human rights act (1998), the obscene publications act (1959 and 1964), the protection of children act (1978), the criminal justice and immigration act (2008), the public order act (1986), the animal welfare act (2006), coroners and justice act (2009) and the cinematography film (animals) act (1937)
5.films that are given to the BBFC are put through their system at the reception by the facilities department. the information services department takes on the task of any research that needs to be done for a work, which is when the technical department times the DVD and checks the quality of the disc. the projectionist measures the duration of the film during the viewing. the information system department measures video games and are responsible for internal information including websites. the distribute the gets a bill, which they have to pay to the accounts department. aq schedule is devised which has all incoming DVDs that the bbfs needs to check. infmtion services also handle all customer quiers and ensure that they are informed of our classification decisions. the archive deparment maintain an archive of every single video and DVD work that has been submitted to teh Board, as this is a legal requirement.
- information services
- technical/archive
- information systems
- accounts
- facilities
An interesting history accompanies Stanley Kubrick's grim view of the future. The BBFC was initially shown a screenplay based on Anthony Burgess's novel in 1967 and advised the distributors that a film showing 'an unrelieved diet of vicious violence and hooliganism' would be unlikely to be acceptable.
However, when the finished film was submitted to the BBFC in 1971 (by which time the age bar for seeing an X film had been raised from 16 to 18), it was passed at X with no cuts. At the time, the BBFC's Secretary, Stephen Murphy, defended the film by stating that:
"Disturbed though we were by the first half of the film, which is basically a statement of some of the problems of violence, we were, nonetheless, satisfied by the end of the film that it could not be accused of exploitation: quite the contrary, it is a valuable contribution to the whole debate about violence".There was nonethless a strong body of press and public opinion that the criminal and anti-social actions of the film's main character, Alex, would be copied by young people, inspired by his charismatic example to break the law. Indeed, reports in the papers suggested that some attacks now occurring were inspired by the film. In fact, however, no such behaviour by anyone over the age of 18 was ever reliably established as being related to the film.
In 1973, allegedly concerned about reports of copycat violence, and threats made to the safety of himself and his family, Kubrick withdrew the film from circulation in the UK. This was in spite of the fact that the film had been judged by the BBFC to be acceptable for public viewing for adults over the age of 18. At no time did the BBFC reject the film - although this is a common misconception - and it continued to be available throughout much of the rest of the world.
It was not until after Kubrick's death that his family agreed to permit the release of the film again. It was submitted to the BBFC in 1999 for a modern classification certificate and received an 18, without cuts, to replace its old X certificate. There was a muted response from the public, and the video version of 2000 was also rated 18 uncut.
In 1989 this short film was submitted to the BBFC. It contains a fantasy scene in which the figure of St Teresa of Avila caresses the body of the crucified Christ and apparently has sex with him.
The BBFC, having taken legal advice, judged the film to be potentially liable to prosecution under the common law offence of blasphemous libel. Because cuts would have removed about half the work (which is only 19 minutes long) the only viable option was to refuse a classification. There was much debate in the press about whether or not the film was a serious experimental work and about whether the offence of blasphemy had any place in a modern society.
visions of ecstasy
Nigel Wingrove, the film's director and distributor, appealed against the BBFC's rejection to the independent Video Appeals Committee. This Committee was established by the Video Recordings Act in 1984 to hear appeals from distributors who felt that the BBFC's decisions on their works were too restrictive.
After hearing evidence from both sides, including a defence of the film by film maker Derek Jarman, the Committee upheld the BBFC's original decision, being satisfied that a reasonable jury was likely to convict. Indeed, only 10 years previously, Gay News had been successfully prosecuted for blasphemy after publishing a poem by James Kirkup describing a Roman soldier's sexual fantasies about Christ.
The distributor then took his case to the European Court of Human Rights, who delivered their verdict in 1996. Although the Court did not consider whether or not the video itself was blasphemous (since that was a matter that could only be decided under UK law) it was asked to consider whether the existence of a law of blasphemy was consistent with the right of Freedom of Expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In their conclusion they stated that: “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. As paragraph 2 of Article 10 expressly recognises, however, the exercise of that freedom carries with it duties and responsibilities. Amongst them, in the context of religious beliefs, may legitimately be included a duty to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to objects of veneration, gratuitously offensive to others and profanatory”.
In 2008, the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.
In 2012, the film was resubmitted for classification and the BBFC considered the film in terms of its current Guidelines. With the abolition of the blasphemy law, the film was no longer likely to be considered illegal under any current piece of UK legislation. Nor was the film likely to be harmful to viewers under the terms of the Video Recordings Act. Although the Board recognised that the film retained the potential to offend some viewers, there were no longer any sustainable grounds to refuse a classification and Visions of Ecstasy was therefore classified 18 without cuts. To ensure that prospective viewers are fully aware of the content of the film, the BBFCinsight reads 'Contains nudity and sex involving religious images'.
7.cabin in the woods (2012)
8. US movie rating system was created in 1968, The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) joined forces with the National Association of Theater Owners and the International Film Importers & Distributors of America to jointly devise a rating system, members of the US board work for the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA), an independent division of the MPAA,
