Film and Censorship

1. Film and Censorship Unit 2735

2. What is censorship? Types of censorship. • Punitive – Reactions to film after the release. • Pre-emptive – A reaction to a film content prior to the release of the film. Pre-empting or predicting public reaction. Self censorship could fall under this category.

3. Film Censorship • Think of film censorship. The examples which spring to mind tend to be of violent and sexual content that has led to outrage and claims that the 'fabric of society has broken down'. However, there are a great many films which have not been banned, but either by a process of self-regulation on the part of the director or studio, or through some cuts on the part of the censor or, and far more commonly, through classification are either released in a form different to the original, or are only released for some of us to see. • Even the record-breaking Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, though not censored raised concerns. It was teachers who warned that a dangerous interest in the occult could be s possible outcome of the film's huge influence over children. As is often the case, it was only the film release that raised any concern (the same was true of A Clockwork Orange and Crash, both acceptable in novel form).

4. Concerns • Below is the list of concerns which must be addressed by the British Board of Film Classification when judging whether film content is acceptable (and acceptable to what age groups) or whether it needs to be cut and censored. The BBFC is neutral and independent (although there are suggestions that, despite this claim, it is accountable to the government). • Sexual violence • Emphasis on the process of violence and sadism • Glamorisation of weapons that are both particularly dangerous and not already well-know in Britain • Ill-treatment of animals or child actors • Details of imitable, dangerous or criminal techniques • Blasphemous images or dialogue

5. Questions • The question that needs to be considered at the beginning of this topic and throughout is simply who decides? • All of the Media Debates and Issues demand an opinion and personal engagement to the degree where you have your own informed view to argue in an intelligent and balanced manner. For instance, what is the cultural value of soap opera etc. The difference with the topic of film censorship is that you probably have your own opinion already, before you learn about the academic perspective. • SOME AREAS FOR DISCUSSION / DEBATE. • What is censorship and why does it happen? • What are the different kinds of self-censorship or what different kinds of material get censored? • Is censorship necessary; are there some kinds of material that need to be censored more than others? • Which kinds of material should be censored to certain groups of people and which banned altogether?

6. The Board • THE BRITISH BOARD of FILM CENSORS / (from 1982 CLASSIFICATION). • This body came into being in 1912 to enforce the Cinematograph Act of 1909. Cinemas were licensed by local authorities and films were classified as suitable for everyone or adults only. • Middle ground was introduced in the 20s, recognising that there were some films which children could see under the supervision of parents. • Horror films were classified separately in the 30s as 'H' films. Shortly afterwards, the 'X' rating was introduced which barred all under-16s. • In the 70s, the X-rating was raised to 18 and 'AA' was introduced for 14 plus only. • In the 80s the framework became U, PG, 12, 15 and 18 and was also applicable to video retail and rental. In 1982 the Board changed its name from Censors to Classification to acknowledge the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, their role was not to prevent exhibition of films, but to control the audience. • Before the 1909 Act, censorship was voluntary in the sense that filmmakers wanted their new medium to be established as a respectable art form. The Act led to the establishment of the BBFC and then films were either cut or banned fairly frequently when they were deemed unsuitable for the public. This notion of unsuitability has always been fiercely contested. Who can say what is suitable, who has the right to judge?

7. Key Areas • Censorship has tended to operate around the following key kinds of examples: • SEXUAL CONTENT Damaged Goods (1919) was not given a certificate. Plot was about a soldier with sexually transmitted disease. • VIOLENCE. Two 1992 films, Reservoir Dogs and Natural Born Killers both fell foul f censor at video release stage. • TASTE. A hard category to define. Many films have been cut for this reason e.g. Night and Fog (1959), contained unacceptable documentary footage of corpses in Nazi concentration camps. • POLITICS. A controversial area. Films were refused certification on fears that political content could lead to public unrest. Fear of revolution led to banning of Battleship Potemkin (1926) because of its pro-communist slant. • BLASPHEMY. Local councils used powers to ban Monty Python's Life of Brian because of its comical treatment of the story of Jesus. • MORAL PANIC. This term describes the hysterical reaction that mainstream society sometimes has to groups of people who challenge conventions and behave in ways that threaten the status quo. Films that offer an insight into such subcultures are often banned or edited lest they serve to encourage people to participate. Example The Wild One (1954) starring Marlon Brando as a Hell's Angel. It was banned as a bad example to the young.

8. Examples • The examiner suggests you look for three examples of every type, including current examples. • Examining the discourses of censorship tells us a lot about its functions. The following are all quotes from either censors or other groups, ranging from the 20s to recent years: • The Exorcist (1973): the most shocking sick-making and soul-destroying work ever to emerge from filmland' - The Daily Mail. • The Wild One (1954): 'the police were shown as weak characters and the teenagers did not get the punishment they deserve' - the BBFC. • Straw Dogs (1971): 'if anyone tries to re-enact this, god help Britain.'- The Sunday Times. • Crash (1996): this film is about sexual autoeroticism - a movie beyond the bounds of depravity' - The Evening Standard. • Examine the statements above. What do they have in common? What do they all assume about the viewers and the effects of films on them?

9. The Committee (widely known as the Williams Committee after its chairman, the distinguished moral philosopher Bernard Williams) was a Home Office committee that met thirty-five times from September 1977 to October 1979, heard from numerous people and interest groups and performed extensive research, with the task of examining 'obscene' and 'indecent' material2 (excluding broadcast material, because another committee was looking at that), what people thought of it and how the law dealt with it; and of proposing changes to the law. It had the following members3; Simpson notes that 'though it was predominantly male it had three women!'

10. The Committee • Professor Bernard Williams, moral philosopher • Ben Hooberman, solicitor • His Honour Judge John Leonard QC, from the Old Bailey • Richard Matthews, formerly Chief Constable of Warwickshire • David Robinson, film critic for The Times • Sheila Rothwell, from the Equal Opportunities Committee • Professor AWB Simpson, Professor of Law • Dr Anthony Storr, consultant psychotherapist • MJ (Jessie) Taylor, headmistress • The Right Reverend John Tinsley, Bishop of Bristol • Polly Toynbee, journalist • Professor JG Weightman, Professor of French • Vivian A White, Secretary of the United Caribbean Association; also a youth and community worker

11. The Committee’s Report • The Report of the Committee On Obscenity and Film Censorship runs to 269 pages, with a dark blue cover; according to Professor Simpson the colour was chosen to please the Conservative government, since the Committee had been set up under a Labour government and Bernard Williams was associated with that party. As a Home Office report the document has the royal arms at the top, with the interesting result that the first words to appear on it are Honi soit qui mal y pense4. 'Part 1 - Background' provides an overview of the Committee's methods, and the state of censorship and censorship law at the time. 'Part 2 - Principles' begins with the report's most theoretical and philosophical section, including a rather half-hearted critique of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, before considering whether claims that obscene material leads to harms were borne out by available evidence, then moving on to the themes of offensiveness and art. The rest of the Report (apart from the appendices) consists of 'Part 3 - Proposals'.

12. Report • In accordance with the natural order of things, the Report was partly leaked, provoked a variety of press reactions (Simpson commenting that several Committee members 'were undoubtedly irritated by the low intellectual quality of some of the attacks'), and was kicked into the proverbial long grass and largely forgotten about; it was debated by the Lords but not in the Commons. Simpson quite openly accuses the government of the day of deliberately killing the Report, largely to spare the Home Secretary embarrassment. • The Report, as it turned out, was not quite the 'pornographers' charter' Mary Whitehouse had feared, although its recommendation that there should be no censorship of literature whatsoever raised some eyebrows, and the recommendation in the same document that films should be subject to a more effective system of pre-censorship raised more. The Committee's justification was that it was 'totally unprepared for the sadistic material that some film makers are prepared to produce', and that film 'is a uniquely powerful instrument: the close-up, fast cutting, the sophistication of modern makeup and special effects techniques, the heightening effect of sound effects and music, all combine on this large screen to produce an impact which no other medium can create'.

13. Report • The Report does give the impression that British society in 1979 was more homogeneous than now, or had a more unified self-image; the Committee apparently saw no serious difficulty in recommending the restriction of material 'offensive to reasonable people', and was ready to criticise the 'total emptiness' of most pornography with no apparent sense that someone might consider total emptiness a valid aesthetic. • The Committee recommended that the legal terms 'obscene' and 'indecent' should be retired. Material should be restricted as a public nuisance if offensive to reasonable people, but to be banned altogether material should be actually liable to cause harm, or its production should be harmful. There was to be no 'public good defence'. As for what was harmful, basically material to be banned was either paedophilic or involving the infliction of 'actual physical harm'. Bestiality was fine if you happened to be into it, whereas sadomasochistic films were apparently very sick and dangerous. • Such were the conclusions of the Williams Committee — rendered partially out of date only a few years later by the 'video nasties' scare, followed by the rise of the Internet.