Well, it has been a while since I last wrote an article criticising mandatory film censorship in Britain. Despite being in the second half of my thirties, this is still one of those issues that I feel strongly about. Yes, Britain isn’t the only country which formally requires films released in cinemas or on physical media to be passed by a ratings board, or gives those ratings some level of actual legal weight, but I know more about the British system than I do about anywhere else.
And, yes, I understand… some… of the arguments in favour of it. It’s a way for studios and viewers to know that a given film contains nothing illegal and it also serves as a rough guide to how intense a film will be. Yes, I also understand that content warnings are a useful tool for anyone choosing what to watch. But the British system goes beyond being a mere advisory content warning (which I have no problem with) and is actually a formal mandatory system – which, in my opinion, is undemocratic.
Yes, the British Board Of Film Classification conducts research every five years or so to adjust its guidelines in line with what it considers to be public opinion and it doesn’t ban or cut films anywhere near as often as it did during the 20th century. But the fact remains that having one central body that not only decides which films are allowed to be released, but also who can watch them, isn’t something that is compatible with a democratic country in my opinion.
Leaving aside how, like the omnipresent pictures of the dictator in some dictatorships, the little symbols on every DVD or Blu-Ray case serve as a reminder of “We control what you can watch“, there’s also the mandatory nature of the system as well.
Again, I have no problem whatsoever with purely advisory content warnings. But about half of the British film ratings aren’t advisory. In theory, they are strict legal limits for shops and cinemas. Yes, in practice, virtually everyone in this country has seen at least one “15” or “18” film before they were officially “old enough” to. This is pretty much a rite of passage for British teenagers, a national tradition.
I have no clue what it is like today but, twenty to twenty-five years ago, it was a tradition of “acting older” at the cinema ticket booth, of setting up the VCR and/or staying up late to watch whatever films were shown on late-night TV, of stocking up on horror movie DVDs during a holiday to France (their rules are much less strict...), of asking an older relative to buy a VHS or DVD for you, of watching films at the house of whichever of your friends had the most relaxed parents etc…
And, yes, as a way of teaching teenagers to question and/or rebel against authority, mandatory film ratings are actually a pretty good system. Especially since all of the coolest films – the most thrilling action movies, the funniest comedies, the gnarliest horror movies etc… – usually get the highest ratings. This system both encourages teenagers to “break the rules” and rewards them with cool films for doing so. Someone really didn’t think this whole thing through…
Still, whilst I can possibly understand some sort of warning system for parents of younger children, the fact that this system is one that virtually everyone in my generation bypassed and/or defied at some point during their teenage years – and yet we haven’t all turned into slasher villains or gangsters or whatever – shows how silly and artificial the whole thing is. How overblown a lot of the arguments about the so-called “dangers” of films actually are.
More than that, it’s an unelected board – with its own quirks and sensitivities – telling everyone else what they can and cannot watch. Yes, the film censors aren’t as bad as they were during the 20th century, but having one central point of control still carries a lot of potential for misuse, control or bias. And, whilst this might sound like a theoretical thing, all it takes is the wrong government. And, sometimes, it doesn’t even take that. Given how our tabloid newspapers have interpreted “Freedom of the press” as “We can bully and scaremonger with total impunity“, all it could take is a few newspapers deciding to whip up a scary-sounding moral panic. It isn’t like they haven’t done this before….
And the world won’t suddenly descend into chaos if there isn’t a mandatory film censorship system. Just look at novels. After a series of legal reforms in the late 1950s and censorship trials in the 1960s (eg: “Lady Chatterley”, “Last Exit To Brooklyn” etc…), novels were freed from the chains of official censorship in Britain. In fact, one of the reasons why I read so much when I was a teenager was because I didn’t have to go through the dystopian ritual of “Your papers, please!” at the bookshop counter. Novels were an oasis of freedom and civilisation in a fearful and restrictive country.
Yes, novels are different from films and – once again – I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with purely advisory content warnings. But the fact remains that having one central point of control for all films released in this country poses a risk to democracy. The censors may be relatively relaxed these days, but the apparatus is ready and waiting for anyone who wants to oppress everyone. Not only that, the fact that virtually everyone in this country has disobeyed the censors at least once when they were younger, and we haven’t all turned into monsters, puts the lie to the idea that this system is there to “protect” anyone…
————-
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
