The BBFC vs. UK Independent Labels

[MichaelB]

It was illegal to sell any imported dvd in the UK without a BBFC age classification, except if the classification was E (Exempt - some documentaries, music fitness dvds etc)

We've already established that - this is entirely down to the VRA, and if it was abolished (as it effectively is for the next two or three months), presumably there are no legal barriers to selling imports at the moment?

Book publishers used to divide up the English speaking world for copyright. The USA was one zone. The UK and Commonwealth another. However they have long given up trying to defend this system and they now write contracts with World English Language rights.

When the DVD spec was being drawn up, the Hollywood majors originally wanted Europe carved up into several DVD regions, but EU single market regulations made that impossible - which is why the whole of Europe is the same DVD and Blu-ray region.

[MichaelB]

Intriguingly, I note that it now seems to be possible to sell non-UK DVDs through Amazon Marketplace via Amazon.co.uk - this might be a coincidence, but I certainly recall them telling me that this was impossible when I tried to do it before.

But presumably it's totally legal now, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if Amazon decided to take advantage.

[foggy eyes]

Intriguingly, I note that it now seems to be possible to sell non-UK DVDs through Amazon Marketplace via Amazon.co.uk - this might be a coincidence, but I certainly recall them telling me that this was impossible when I tried to do it before.

But presumably it's totally legal now, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if Amazon decided to take advantage.

Not sure what you mean, Michael - I've done this for years. Same for buying new/second-hand R1 discs, etc...

[Finch]

Michael, I've not had any problems either. In fact, I sold two R1s over Marketplace two weeks ago.

[MichaelB]

Not sure what you mean, Michael - I've done this for years. Same for buying new/second-hand R1 discs, etc...

I distinctly recall trying to sell a R1 DVD via Amazon Marketplace, only to be told that because I was based in the UK that this was legally impossible. But this was probably years ago, so they may have changed their policy at any point in the meantime.

One intriguing quirk, though, is that you can't list a non-UK DVD as being "new", even if it's still in the original shrinkwrapping!

[foggy eyes]

One intriguing quirk, though, is that you can't list a non-UK DVD as being "new", even if it's still in the original shrinkwrapping!

Yes, that is weird, and a completely ineffectual technicality!

[Nothing]

Surely MoC should use this window to release an uncertified title. Even if they had to withdraw it by the end of the year, it would quickly become a collector's item and they could sell off their remaining stock for an increased price as an Amazon marketplace seller from outside the UK

On a more vital note, is there no organisation taking up the banner on this, lobbying against the re-instatement of the act?

[julianw]

On a more vital note, is there no organisation taking up the banner on this, lobbying against the re-instatement of the act?

Have contacted a few European cultural organisations in the hope that they would lobby to have other European Union films exempt to allow free movement of goods as under the EU treaty. None seem to be interested. Also spoke to a film librarian with knowledge on this subject and he believed the age classification system would only change if there was money in it for the big players. Till then the new act will be the same as the old one.

[MichaelB]

The problem is, the existing system suits the majors very well.

After all, most of them didn't really embrace video until after the VRA was introduced, as they were very keen on the BBFC acting as a flak-catcher so they wouldn't have to deal with any legal fallout themselves (given the number of BBFC-approved theatrical releases that had been threatened with prosecution).

And ironically, it was partly because of the absence of mainstream Hollywood releases that the "video nasties" achieved such a high profile in the first place - they'd have been ignored in most other situations.

[colinr0380]

On checking YouTube today I noticed that some kind soul has put up the BBCs 1995 excellent documentary about the history of film censorship in Britain, Empire of the Censors (albeit with some scenes censored!):

Here's Part 1 (1898 to the early 70s) and Part 2 (the 70s up to the mid-90s)

[colinr0380]

Sorry for just using this as a general BBFC thread, but I thought it may be worth noting that the first BBFC podcast is out.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

(1) I'm most happy with that solution, although it might unofficially support filmmakers with the resources and technology to fake it convincingly (e.g. CGI-ing horse trips or bullet shots etc) while demonising the Monte Hellmans of the world who film actual cockfights.

...and as a result, Cockfighter is effectively undistributable in Britain. Even the Edinburgh Film Festival (where the BBFC has no influence) had to withdraw a planned screening after it was pointed out that the cinema was risking its operating licence by announcing its plans to screen a film that unarguably breached the Animals Act. It wouldn't even require a formal prosecution to get the cinema effectively closed down - just a complaint to the local authority would do the trick. And since animal rights activists have never been shy about making their views heard, it's not a risk that's really worth taking.

At the risk of raking over old coals the recent MoC twitter thread made me go back to Hellman's commentary track on Cockfighter where he expressly states that all the fights were faked with rubber spurs and sometimes even the birds 'faked' their own death by being held upside down for a while. Wouldn't this be enough testimony to satisfy the requirements of the Animals Act? Also as to the statement that Hellman filmed actual cockfights. This was only for audience reactions not the fights themselves.

[MichaelB]

At the risk of raking over old coals the recent MoC twitter thread made me go back to Hellman's commentary track on Cockfighter where he expressly states that all the fights were faked with rubber spurs and sometimes even the birds 'faked' their own death by being held upside down for a while. Wouldn't this be enough testimony to satisfy the requirements of the Animals Act? Also as to the statement that Hellman filmed actual cockfights. This was only for audience reactions not the fights themselves.

I get the strong impression (which has been getting stronger in recent years thanks to decisions on titles like Cannibal Holocaust, recently passed with just one 15-second shot of unquestionable and indefensible animal cruelty removed) that the BBFC is currently bending over backwards to be lenient in such situations, and it's by no means certain that Cockfighter wouldn't get through unscathed.

In fact, I've just checked the BBFC website, and there's no record of any formal submission - so this hasn't actually been put to the test. (Unless of course it was shown privately to Stephen Murphy or James Ferman and they advised that there might be problems).

The Edinburgh situation came about because thanks to the lack of BBFC approval and uncertainty over possible Animals Act infringement the festival was unable to indemnify the venue against any possible legal repercussions arising from screening the film - if I'd been the cinema manager, I'd have taken the same decision too, albeit reluctantly.

[GaryC]

At the risk of raking over old coals the recent MoC twitter thread made me go back to Hellman's commentary track on Cockfighter where he expressly states that all the fights were faked with rubber spurs and sometimes even the birds 'faked' their own death by being held upside down for a while. Wouldn't this be enough testimony to satisfy the requirements of the Animals Act? Also as to the statement that Hellman filmed actual cockfights. This was only for audience reactions not the fights themselves.

I get the strong impression (which has been getting stronger in recent years thanks to decisions on titles like Cannibal Holocaust, recently passed with just one 15-second shot of unquestionable and indefensible animal cruelty removed) that the BBFC is currently bending over backwards to be lenient in such situations, and it's by no means certain that Cockfighter wouldn't get through unscathed.

In fact, I've just checked the BBFC website, and there's no record of any formal submission - so this hasn't actually been put to the test. (Unless of course it was shown privately to Stephen Murphy or James Ferman and they advised that there might be problems).

The Edinburgh situation came about because thanks to the lack of BBFC approval and uncertainty over possible Animals Act infringement the festival was unable to indemnify the venue against any possible legal repercussions arising from screening the film - if I'd been the cinema manager, I'd have taken the same decision too, albeit reluctantly.

It's been a long time since I watched the DVD (and reviewed it) but IIRC Hellman says in the commentary that in at least one cockfight (in a hotel room) one of the cocks died. The bird that was intended to win was wearing steel spurs, the losing one rubber ones. I could be wrong, without checking, but my DVD copy isn't easily accessible right now.

There's also a scene where Warren Oates decapitates a bird in medium-long-shot with an axe, though that might well get through as a "clean kill".

As you say, things may have changed. Claire Denis's No Fear No Die used rubber spurs and has a clear notice just before the end credits that no birds were harmed, but the intending UK distributors were advised in no uncertain terms by the BBFC that there was no point in submitting it to them.

[colinr0380]

By the way, I recently noted that according to the BBFC website Carlos was trimmed by eight seconds for similar shots of cockfighting.

[MichaelB]

It's been a long time since I watched the DVD (and reviewed it) but IIRC Hellman says in the commentary that in at least one cockfight (in a hotel room) one of the cocks died. The bird that was intended to win was wearing steel spurs, the losing one rubber ones. I could be wrong, without checking, but my DVD copy isn't easily accessible right now.

There's also a scene where Warren Oates decapitates a bird in medium-long-shot with an axe, though that might well get through as a "clean kill".

That probably would, but the hotel room scene you mention sounds legally problematic. Regardless of the filmmakers' good intentions, if that scene captures genuine animal cruelty, however inadvertently inflicted, it would almost certainly have to be removed to stay within the law.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Gary is correct the hotel room fight is for real involving the death of Warren Oates ' bird. On the commentary Hellman comes clean and says it was rigged in favour of the other bird with steel spurs and that's also why they could not specify that no animals were harmed. However my previous note was due to only viewing the first 15 minutes or so where Hellman states that no actual fights were filmed so in this respect he seems to have contradicted himself and we're back with the problematic I guess.

[MichaelB]

This may well be why no-one's submitted it to the BBFC - if it's painfully obvious that a fairly important scene (I haven't seen the film, but I've read the book) will have to be cut to ribbons to stay within the law, why bother paying the fee?

[TMDaines]

The BBFC and extras.

[John Robertson (MoC)]: There are fewer extras on a lot of our releases because of the certification costs.

Source: Clicky

[David M.]

Region coding.

JR: It’s another barrier. How European machines now cannot often play NTSC

Eh? I've not seen a European machine since the LaserDisc days that can't play NTSC? Is this a typo?

[TMDaines]

What a strange question on the BBFC survey:

"As you may know, films and DVDs carry classification ratings. Which of the following classifications do you usually watch nowadays, either on your own or with children?"

Does anyone choose what to watch based a film's certificate? I have literally no idea what the certificate is of the bulk of the stuff I watch. The only time I know is because I've just listened to a podcast or because I've just been told at my stewarding briefing. I guess I tick all but R18, but it's not as if I'd let that put me off.

[David M.]

They way they are partaking in extra promotional/branding activities and positioning themselves as an information service for concerned parents makes me wonder if they're preparing for the day when their ratings are made optional. Can only hope...

[zedz]

What a strange question on the BBFC survey:

"As you may know, films and DVDs carry classification ratings. Which of the following classifications do you usually watch nowadays, either on your own or with children?"

Does anyone choose what to watch based a film's certificate? I have literally no idea what the certificate is of the bulk of the stuff I watch. The only time I know is because I've just listened to a podcast or because I've just been told at my stewarding briefing. I guess I tick all but R18, but it's not as if I'd let that put me off.

That's a dangerously loaded question, along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?," since it gets very close to presupposing that classification ratings are an important criterion for selecting films to watch (something the BBFC will be desperate to provide 'objective statistical evidence' for in order to justify their existence and funding). In my opinion it would be worth writing in an answer to the effect that it's not a criterion you consider or are particularly aware of, if you feel that way and if you can do so on the form they've provided (and I bet you can't).

[McCrutchy]

What a strange question on the BBFC survey:

"As you may know, films and DVDs carry classification ratings. Which of the following classifications do you usually watch nowadays, either on your own or with children?"

Does anyone choose what to watch based a film's certificate? I have literally no idea what the certificate is of the bulk of the stuff I watch. The only time I know is because I've just listened to a podcast or because I've just been told at my stewarding briefing. I guess I tick all but R18, but it's not as if I'd let that put me off.

It was also weird to see a question about actively participating in a religion, as if they want data on how certain religious groups perceive film appropriateness.

And as for the other question, I simply ticked them all. I find the classifications valuable to let me know what kind of content is in films, but I've never gone to or refused to see a film based solely on its certificate--unless of course, the film was cut to achieve that cert.

And speaking of the cutting of films and compulsory cuts, that was left entirely off the survey, as well. I'd love to see the results of the question: Do you think films should still be cut in line with the requirements of the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937?" (elaborating on that, obviously), because if people are smart, they know that does SFA.

[eerik]

Does anyone choose what to watch based a film's certificate?

Yes, I bought Antonioni's La signora senza camelie only because BBFC rating said "contains mild sex", I was very disappointed because all I got was just a few kissing scenes.