Posts in the extra reading series are just that: extra reading. They are further information on a key topic that might have interested you more than the others. At GCSE, they are information you don't need to know for your exam. At A-Level, they're there to broaden your understanding of a topic you're interested in.
Over two posts, I've taken you through who the BBFC are, what they do and some specific examples of films they've rated and even certificates that they've adapted or created to react to the changing landscape of film. The BBFC's work is generally well-received. I pointed out that parents in particular value and trust the BBFC's certification system to protect minors from unsuitable or even harmful content. So trusted and respected is the BBFC's work that Netflix has adopted it wholeheartedly into their UK offering. At the time of writing, two recent (by which I mean in the last five years) case studies have come to my attention that highlight how not everybody has welcomed or praised the BBFC's systems or judgements.
Case Study 1: Flash Gordon, 1980
I know I said 'recent', so bear with me: Flash Gordon was indeed released in 1980. It is itself a remake of the 1936 adventure series Flash Gordon, itself based on a 1934 comic strip. The 1936 series is significant to the history of film as it inspired a wave of sci-fi directors in the 1960s and 1970s, not least of all George Lucas when he made Star Wars - the famous yellow opening crawl of those films is a direct homage to the openings of the 1936 series.
While the 1936 series has been preserved in the National Film Registry of the US Library of Congress for its cultural significance, the 1980 film occupies a stranger place in film history. The film's production values and muted critical reception have contributed both to a disappointing box office performance in 1980 and the film's becoming a cult classic in some circles, as happens in particular in the B-movie and sci-fi genres.
So what does this have to do with the 2020s? Well, in 2020 itself, the film was given a limited cinema re-release for its 40th Anniversary. In 1980, the film received what would be the equivalent of a PG today, and later releases of the film on home media indeed bore PG certificates on their cases. The BBFC needed to re-evaluate the film given that it was being shown again in cinemas...
...and they reclassified it up, from a PG to a 12A. The BBFC's notes give greater clarity, but remember that the BBFC uses several content descriptors to rate films, and it was on discrimination in particular that the film was deemed in need of reclassification:
"An alien character is coded as 'Asian' due to his hair and make-up, although he is portrayed by a Caucasian actor. The character derives from the film's dated source material, but some viewers may find the depiction offensive." - Source: BBFC, Flash Gordon (1980)
The BBFC was referring to the casting of Swedish-French actor Max von Sydow in a role that then relied on stereotypes of Asian people. Given that the film is seen as a cult classic by a niche audience only, both the re-release and re-classification flew under the radar until about six months later when they were discussed on a podcast. This then went viral and generated significant discussion on the internet and social media. 27 individuals took the next step of making formal complaints to the BBFC, the majority of which were to protest the raising of the certificate. These plaintiffs felt aggrieved by the viewing of a 1980 film through the lenses of society 40 years later.
It reminds us of a much wider discussion around changes in attitudes and responses over time and what becomes acceptable or unacceptable in mainstream society. That we are able to preserve and recall media over increasingly longer stretches of time only further fuels such discussion.
Importantly, they missed the point that the film's distributor was seeking to profit from the film's 40th anniversary by putting the film not onto a collector's DVD or Blu-ray but onto cinema screens in front of a 2020 audience, any of whom under 40 would have no recollection of the 1980s or the different social landscape of that time - your Media and Film teacher included. Where the original 1980s audience may be more forgiving of the film being 'of its time,' consideration has to be (and was) paid by the BBFC to responses of audiences seeing it for the first time in 2020.
Case Study 2: Paint Drying (2016) While the bulk of the BBFC's complaint load stems from audiences feeling they've misclassified a film, that is not the only avenue from which the regulator has faced criticism. As the BBFC is an independent regulator, it doesn't receive government funding. That means it has to charge filmmakers when they want their films certified - and remember, if you want your film to be shown on a UK screen or sold on home media in a UK shop, you have to have a certificate.
The BBFC as an indepdenent body can, in itself, can seem curious - given that you have to have BBFC certificate to show a film in the UK, you'd expect the BBFC to be a government organisation. Of course, by being independent, the BBFC cannot become embroiled in allegations of certifying films to align itself with the values of the government of the day.
For this case study, let's assume we are trying to certify a 120 minute (2 hour) film for cinema release. At the time of writing (October 2021), the BBFC charges £110.64 to certify such a film for plus £7.71 for each minute of footage submitted for review. Those prices exclude VAT, which is applied separately for business transactions to make it easier to track in contrast to VAT being baked into the price when we buy goods and sevices as individuals on a day-to-day basis.
This separate tracking is particularly helpful as groups like the British Film Commission are currently offering relief and rebates on VAT to attract filmmakers to the UK. Remember that a film can create jobs in its production and that film productions can buy and use local products and services. When a film is released, it can boost a location's tourism and economy if it becomes successful. For this example, we'll assume that there is no such relief available.
So, our two hour film works out to a fee of £1243 all told. Let's round that down to £1200 for ease of maths.
Now, let's say we're getting Spectre (2015) certified. Official figures vary but - again for ease of maths - Spectre's budget was somewhere around the £200-million mark and it made almost £650-million at the box office. Almost £100-million of that was made in the UK alone (pointing to the importance of the UK market!)
Let's scale that down for a moment: imagine that you had £20,000 and needed to spend 12p of it on the promise of then making another £10,000 later - you'd spend the 12p without a second thought, wouldn't you?
The point is that the BBFC's fees are mere formality for big film studios, representing tiny fractions of a percent of the film's overall budget.
Now let's imagine instead that we are Christopher Nolan in 1998. We've just finished our directorial debut, Following. The film's entire budget was just £3,000 and the final piece was 70 minutes long. To certify it for cinema release today would cost £780.40 - for ease of maths, let's say £750, fully 25% of Following's total budget.
It was a cost that Nolan was able to absorb, with the film classified as a 15. It's just as well, as not only did Following make back over eleven times its budget, but without it we wouldn't then have The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar or a director that the typical cinemagoer could probably name alongside Steven Spielberg or James Cameron. The point? The BBFC's flat charging structure has drawn criticism for the financial barrier that it can present to aspiring film makers who might go on to become household names one day. It was a point that Charlie Lyne was very keen to make in 2016. You might have heard the expression 'like watching paint drying' for something long and boring. Well, Lyne made a 14-hour film of just that - some paint drying. I can already hear you running the numbers! Lyne actually started a crowdfunder, raising almost £6,000. Enough, at the BBFC's 2016 rates, to submit just over ten of the fourteen hours of footage for classification. Since BBFC officers are limited to 9-hour shifts, they had to watch the film in two sittings. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the film earned a U. Do check out the BBFC's notes on it - I particularly enjoyed being warned of spoilers and the BBFC's very matter-of-fact plot summary! Lyne's stunt highlighted the unlevel playing field that UK film regulation presents, but it's also important to point out that the BBFC is a not-for-profit organisation. £6,000 to watch some paint dry for 10 hours might seem like easy money, but you have to remember that at least two BBFC compliance officers who'd been through a rigorous and costly training programme also had to be paid an hourly wage to sit in a facility that cost money to build, light, heat and power. As absurd as it sounds, the BBFC would not have pocketed any of that money after the doubtlessly boring experience of, well, watching Paint Drying!
