An Essay by Katy

It has long been the bane of a producer or directors life to have their precious film cut to shreds by censors. But in today's modern society where television news is often as violent as any film Hollywood could produce, are the censorship bodies relevant?

Film censorship in the UK and USA started in the early 1900's just as the film industry was taking off. Both censorship bodies operated along the same principle, protecting the audience from material that "tends to deprave or corrupt". What is not widely known that these censorship bodies are not state owned (i.e. run but their respective governments) but privately owned and essentially voluntary organisations that filmmakers subscribe to. This system appears flawed as it would be possible for a filmmaker to avoid having their film cut by simply not submitting it to the censorship bodies, and to a certain extent this is true. However, the censorship bodies realised this flaw and passed laws in the USA and UK stating that no film could be shown or sold without a certificate, there are slight differences in the interpretations of this law which will be discussed later.

The censors generally approve most films and it is often the filmmakers themselves who request cuts be made in order to get their film into a lower ratings category so they can reach a larger market (the biggest cinema-going age bracket is the 14-16 year olds). Even if a censorship body bans a film, it is actually up to the local authorities who still have the power to show the film if they wish, and are able to issue their own certificates to films. An example of this was in 1973 in England where the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) - formally the British Board of Film Censors - the banned the film "Quiet Days in Clicky", refusing to grant it a certificate. The Greater London Council's film committee granted the film an 18 certificate allowing the film to be shown in certain London Cinemas.

Proponents of the UK censorship laws were horrified that local councils could ignore BBFC rulings and on subsequent occasions tried to sue the "offending councils" under a variety of unrelated laws, including the "Vagrancy Act". Needless to say these challenges invariably failed. However, this method of BBFC certification and local council certification often worked the other way round. In 1971 with Ken Russell's controversial "The Devils", and in 1979 with Walter Hill's "The Warriors", the BBFC granted both films certificates however local authorities overruled the BBFC and banned both films.

In the USA, the system is slightly different. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) grants rating certificates to films, but will merely suggest cuts be made to get the films into a lower ratings category, unlike the BBFC who can force the cuts. Also, another key factor is that filmmakers technically do not have to submit their films to the MPAA:

"No-one is forced to submit a film to the Board [The MPAA] for rating....Any producer/distributor who wants no part of any ratings system is free to go to the market without any rating at all, or with any description or symbol they choose as long as it is not confusingly similar to the G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17."

Anyone not submitting a film to the MPAA can self apply their own "X" certificate, or indeed any other that doesn't interfere with the current ratings system. In this respect the MPAA is far less restrictive than the BBFC with their own certificates issued as a Guide to movie-goers as to the content. As an example, a filmmaker could decide not to submit their film to the MPAA and issue it with their own "X" certificate, the film could still be shown and sold in the US with this certificate. The filmmaker brings the film to the UK but has to submit it to the BBFC otherwise it cannot be shown or sold. The BBFC suggests cuts are made to bring it in line with their 18 Certificate, if the filmmaker refuses to agree to the cuts the BBFC will not issue a certificate, effectively banning the film.

So why have the MPAA in the USA when filmmakers don't have to subscribe to their rulings and can release a film anyway? These ratings issued by the MPAA act as a guide for filmgoers, especially parents, and provide boundaries for filmmakers, allowing the to tailor films to specific age groups in terms of content. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a film without a standard certificate would contain material unsuitable for younger viewers.

In the UK the BBFC takes a much firmer role in censoring films. However, they very rarely ban films any more, granting David Cronenberg's controversial "Crash" (1996) an 18 certificate, and not banning it as was printed in the press. It was in fact the local authorities who banned it. So really the BBFC serves in an advisory capacity to the general public, although they have more power of control than their American counterparts.

In today's technological age, one has to question the effectiveness of such censorship bodies. People have wider access to films via the internet, cable and satellite television and it is impossible to guarantee a film isn't viewed in a country in an uncensored format. As the technological age moves forward, the role of the censorship bodies, particularly in the UK need to reflect this and act in an advisory capacity rather than as a "Big Brother", telling us what we can and can't see but rather suggesting who the film is aimed at and if they fail to do this then soon there will be no point in there existence.

For more information check Resources on the Film Guild.