CAN WE TALK ABOUT?

RATINGS RUMBLES

DOES THE BBFC REALLY NEED TO TIGHTEN ITS GUIDELINES?

Modern attitudes have resulted in new rules for film certifications

‘WHAT EMERGES MOST STRONGLY FROM THE UPDATE IS ASENSE OF SELF-JUSTIFICATION’

The British Board of Film Classification has repositioned itself in the headlines lately. Reports on ratings for films from 1964’s Mary Poppins (which was rereleased in March) to 2024’s Poor Things have stirred, in BBFC-speak, ‘mild’ debate. Now, the institution has drawn attention for its half-decade guidelines update, which suggests tighter restrictions on representations of sex and violence.

Drawing on consultations with 12,000 participants by the group We Are Family, the BBFC – under president Natasha Kaplinsky – notes that ‘people’ are concerned. Not about ‘cannabis use and solvent misuse’ – the report notes relaxed attitudes there. They are concerned about sexualised or misogynist terms like ‘bitch’ or ‘dick’. They’re concerned about sexual content at the 12A/15 border, whatever that might be, though less so on the 15/18 borders if said content occurs in ‘comic contexts’. Images of suicide, self-harm and sexual violence also stirred consideration, as did representations of ‘particularly intense or impactful’ violence that ‘may cause harm to public health or morals’.

The finer details of how on-screen violence ‘may cause harm’ are unclear, though recent ratings reports for new releases and resubmissions stir doubts about the institution’s thinking. In 2022, generational tentpole Watership Down (1978) went from a U certificate to a PG partly because a gull tells a bunny to ‘piss off’. Straw poll: anyone scarred by the gull? Thought not. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) also went from U to PG due to ‘mild’ this and ‘mild’ that, as if anything so ‘mild’ needs noting. Responding to complaints from young Bat-fans, the BBFC justified a 15 rating for 2022’s The Batman by noting a ‘pervasive… brooding, bleak’ tone, which kind of comes with the cowl.

What emerges most strongly from the update is a sense of self-justification, a reminder of the BBFC’s existence mounted on a declaration of its responsiveness to shifting opinion. Fair enough, perhaps; consistent and recognisable ratings guides may have value. But perhaps more detailed information about who the participants were, what they were asked and how they answered is needed – beyond the soundbites on the reports that, rather uniformly, applaud the BBFC’s decisions – if we are to fully understand what exactly the BBFC is responding to.

Otherwise, even if we don’t fear a return to the bad old years when the BBFC was run by James Ferman’s firm hand, talk of tightened ratings and moral safeguarding might elicit ‘mild’ shudders of recognition.