British film and video censorship and classification
Origins and the first 60 years
The British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) was founded in 1912 as a trade body,
administered by the
Kinematograph Manufacturers Association, itself formed in 1911,
to avert threats of statutory
censorship. [At that time stage works were subject to pre-production
censorship by the Lord Chamberlain, an officer of the Royal Household, under the
Stage Licensing Act of 1737, which remained in force until 1968.] The local
authorities had been made the de jure licensing and regulatory bodies under
the Cinematograph Act 1909
and could impose their own local restrictions, a right that they were initially
unwilling to relinquish.
Two categories of certificate were
introduced: U (Universal) and A (Public). Although A signified that the film was
more suitable for adults, it was not the intention that children should be
excluded. Officially it was 'without the least implication that it might not be shown to
children' as it was the Board's policy that only films that were 'clean and wholesome and
above suspicion' should receive a certificate.
In 1920 the Middlesex County Council
formally made cinema licensing conditional on screening only BBFC-rated films,
followed in 1921 by the London County Council. The LCC included a stipulation
that children could only gain admittance to A certificate films if accompanied
by 'a parent or bona fide adult guardian'. Exhibitors were not happy at first with
this requirement but when the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association decided
about this time that its members would show only films certificated by the BBFC,
the requirement was generally adopted by local authorities elsewhere in the
country.
The H certificate was introduced by the BBFC in 1932 in response to pressure from local
authorities over concerns about the growing number of horror films being released.
Perhaps surprisingly, it was apparently not the origin intention
that children should be banned from seeing H certificate films, although as the certificate
itself clearly shows, such a restriction was imposed, with a minimum age limit of 16.
In fact, relatively few H certificates are
issued. Whether this is a reflection of changing taste and production genres or the
absence of horror in films submitted to the censor is a debatable point.
In 1948, the government appointed a Departmental
Committee on Children and the Cinema (the Wheare Committee), whose report in 1950 (Cmnd
7945) failed to find any clear evidence of the 'harmful influences' that the cinema
exerted over impressionable young people.
Nonetheless, in January 1951 the BBFC responded to Wheare's recommendation by
replacing the H certificate with an X certificate for films to which children
under 16 would not be admitted. The change was relatively subtle but showed up
over time: the emphasis was no longer on dramatic 'horror' but on sex and
violence.
The next revision in the classification scheme came into effect on 1 July
1970. Four certificates were now to be employed:
U Universal admission;
A Children aged five and over admitted unaccompanied but parents are advised that the film may
contain material they would prefer the children under 14 not to see;
AA No admission for children under 14;
X No admission for children under 18.
The age of majority in the UK was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1970. But although it
could be argued that X now genuinely meant 'adult', youths aged 16 and 17 were
overnight excluded from the most restrictive classification of films. For a film
to be granted an X certificate could henceforth remove it from part of the key
age group for cinemagoing. Saturday Night Fever was originally classified
X but reclassified as A following cuts.
Challenges to the system
Although the ratings applied by the BBFC had been almost universally accepted
for 50 years, there was (and still is) no statutory censorship or
classification of films in the UK. Soon after the new classifications were
introduced, the Greater London Council (GLC) began to issue its own certificates
to allow some films to be seen in the capital that the BBFC had deemed should
not be shown anywhere in the country—and on the
whole they were still not shown outside London. At the end of 1973, for
instance, the GLC Films Committee decided to give an 18 certificate to Jens Jørgen
Thorsen's film Quiet Days in Clichy, which the BBFC had banned. Both the
GLC and the BBC, recognising the changes that had in reality been in the air
since the mid 1960s, conducted surveys into public attitudes to censorship and
the depiction of sex and violence on film and television.
This liberalisation trend did
not go unchallenged and attempts were made to find statutes under which
censorship could be applied. In April 1974 Mrs Mary Whitehouse, the
self-appointed watchdog of morality on television, failed with a private
prosecution under the Vagrancy Act against La Grande Bouffe (Blow Out)
and Edward Shackleton, a retired Salvation Army officer, brought an action under
the Obscene Publications Act 1959 against United Artists for 'publishing' Last
Tango in Paris.
The latter case went forward to the
Old Bailey, where it was held that exhibition in a cinema did not constitute
publication within the meaning of the Act. The only identifiable 'publication'
had been handing the print of the film to the manager of the Prince Charles
Cinema, London, and evidence had not been presented that he had even seen the
film, let alone been 'depraved and corrupted' by it, as would have to have had
to be proved for the action to succeed.
In some instances, local authorities
took more restrictive views than the London-based censor. Two films to which the
BBFC granted certificates, Ken Russell's The Devils (1971) and Walter
Hill's The Warriors (1979), were among films that suffered the fate of
local authority bans.
In January 1975 the GLC debated a
motion to abolish film censorship altogether, and such was the interest that the
debate was broadcast live on both London's local radio stations. The motion was
lost by the relatively narrow margin of 44 votes to 50, but with a marker to
review the situation a year hence. One can only speculate about the consequences
had the vote gone the other way; one result could well have been statutory
national film censorship.
A Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill had been before parliament but had
not completed its passage by the time of the General Election on 28 February
1974. In June 1974, The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, had ruled that films
could be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act, regardless of any
decision by the BBFC. This was a controversial judgment that allowed the case
again Last Tango in Paris to proceed but, as already indicated, Lord
Widgery's view was not supported by the Central Criminal Court. The Obscene
Publications Act was amended in 1977 to include the distribution and exhibition
of films. Cinema clubs, showing films to members only, were not exempt, even
though they were in practice not required to comply with any other film
regulations.
With opinions becoming more polarised,
the government set up a committee, chaired by the philosopher Bernard Williams,
to 'review the laws concerning obscenity, indecency and violence in
publications, displays and entertainments in England and Wales, except in the
field of broadcasting, and to review the arrangements for film censorship in
England and Wales'. Appointed on 13 July 1977, its report was published in
November 1979. Its recommendations were not followed up by the new Conservative
government of Margaret Thatcher.
The first censorial move by the
Thatcher administration was to bring cinema clubs—which
of course were mostly showing porn films—within
the scope of the licensing regulations. A private member's bill, the
Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, was introduced in 1982 but, as was pointed out in
a letter to The Times by David Fisher, the editor of Screen Digest
(OK, it was me), the bill was so loosely worded in terms of exhibition of moving
pictures for commercial gain that it could equally apply to such things as
training films and point-of-sale video displays. It was argued that it had never
been the intention of the bill to extend to other activities—but
experience tells us that it is the letter of the law, not the
spirit, that counts. [An Act intended to ensure that only qualified midwives
delivered babies, as opposed to unqualified midwives, had just been used to
prosecute a man for delivering his wife's baby at home without medical assistance.] The bill was hastily redrafted
and was passed (and not without a mention in both Houses of Parliament of that
letter to The Times and its writer).
Revisions to the classification scheme
Meanwhile, cinema classifications were changed from 1 November 1982
U Universal admission;
PG Parental guidance: children admitted but parents are advised that some
scenes may be unsuitable for young children;
15 passed for audiences aged 15 and over;
18 passed for audiences aged 18 and over;
R18 passed for screening only in specially licensed
cinemas to which audiences aged under 18 are not admitted.
The previous ratings and restrictions still applied to films that had already
been classified before 1 November 1982.
Statutory censorship of moving pictures was
finally introduced into the UK by the Video Recordings Act 1984. This Act made
the BBFC—which changed its name to the British Board of Film Classification—the
statutory censorship body for video recordings intended for viewing in the home.
Its role as film censor remained on a non-statutory basis.
The ratings applying to video as from 26 July 1985 were as follows:
U Universal: suitable for all viewers;
Uc Universal: particularly suitable for children;
PG Parental guidance: parents are advised that some
scenes may be unsuitable for young children;
15 suitable only for viewers aged 15 and over;
18 suitable only for viewers aged 18 and over;
R18 may be sold only in licensed sex shops to persons aged 18
and over.
The most recent change was the addition of a further age band on 1 August 1989:
12A suitable for cinema audiences aged 12 and over; children
apparently under the age of 12 must be accompanied by an adult.
12 video may not be bought or rented by a child under 12; it is the
responsibility of the accompanying adult whether a child under 12 views the video.
Recent decisions: maintaining a balance, protecting the young
Although British law gives local authorities powers of film censorship, as
has already been described, the basis of the classification system remains
self-regulation—voluntary and non-statutory. Case law has grown up around BBFC
decisions, however. In November 1996, the European Court of Human Rights upheld
the BBFC decision to ban the film Visions of Ecstasy, about the life of
St Teresa of Avila, on the grounds that is could be blasphemous. (The concept of
blasphemy became a debating point in Britain for a while during the 1990s.)
Around the same time the BBFC
published the results of a survey of the British public, requested by the Home
Office. Although 15 per cent of respondents disagreed with classification
decisions, half thought the classifications were too lenient, half too
restrictive. In the background was also the recurring question of how much
children's access to video could inspire them to violence, a topic that has
arisen most poignantly two years earlier when
two 11-year-old boys had been convicted of murdering a two-year-old.
Only one per cent of those questioned believed that video was the most
important factor in inciting violence.
In May 2000, the High Court was asked
by the BBFC to conduct a Judicial Review of the decision by its own Video
Appeals Committee to issue R18 certificates to seven sexually explicit videos.
The Court ruled that the Committee was entitled to judge that the risk of such
videos falling into the hands of children—the fear expressed by the BBFC—was
insignificant.
British feature film classifications.
British Board of
Film Classification. The website includes a searchable database of individual films
and their classifications.
Page updated 7 October 2006
