When I was a kid, film classifications made sense, and they didn't give you the kid-glove treatment.You were just expected to know what a rating meant. A U was for kids, a PG might be a bit iffy for some younger kids, and 12s, 15s and 18s were just obvious.
But these days, you get three paragraphs of blurb with every film certification. The first memory I have of this was for the first Lord Of The Rings film, which was 'Rated PG: May not be suitable for under 8s.'
That's just about acceptable because it makes sense to warn about how old a child should be before seeing something rated PG unaccompanied.
But lately, it's getting ridiculous. Take Finding Nemo.
The box for Finding Nemo, a U-rated film, states that the film contains 'mild peril.'
Mild peril.
How impossibly nervous a child must you have to require warning over mild peril? The film is a U for goodness' sake, how bad can it be?
Even stupider was the introduction of the 12A rating around the time The Bourne Identity came out. A 12A was a film in which, if accompanied by an adult, a child under 12 can go see it.
Isn't that basically a more-officially legislated PG? So what's the point?
Despite the thesis-length explanations on the back of our DVDs, however, our film certification will never be as stupid as America's, which is in part hampered by its relentlessly conservative outlook on things.
First, a little bit of background. In America, censorship makes no sense. If you're on at the right time of night, on the right network, with the right censors, you can swear up a storm and probably shoot your own baby in the face without any problems.
But show a bit of boob for less than a second, a boob on which the nipple was covered anyway, and you will experience a world of pain.
This means that while you can say the c-word and show totally naked men and women on British TV on virtually any channel after 9pm, in America even in films you hardly see any of that.
So to the certifications of American films. You have G-rated movies, which anyone can watch. PG is the same as ours, basically.
Then there's PG-13 which means anyone can see it as long as those under 13 are accompanied by an adult.
But then, there's R-rated, which means people 17 and over can see it... and anyone under that age can see it if they're with a guardian. How impossibly stupid is that?
And God help you if you have a film rated higher than an R, because if it is, no one will see it.
Seriously. Thousands of cinemas across America simply won't show your film if it's rated NC-17.
Simply preposterous.
So yeah. A random, shapeless, gibbering rant for your delectation.
(Photos from flickr courtesy of j-fin and phil d)
What worries me more is that no one in Britain seems to care about film certificates.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, the American attitude is more commendable.
There has only quite recently been worrying research in to the effects of watching sex and violence on TV and in films and video games has on young people and yet when I was little I was one of my only friends whose parents wouldn't let them watch a film with a certificate older than my age.
Film certification is getting slacker because society is over exposed to these things and we see it as more acceptable and now society is full of little yobs running the streets thinking they're Vinnie Jones.
The purpose of 12A (which used to just be a straight 12) is three-fold:
ReplyDeleteFirst, it stops 10 and 11 year-olds trying to sneak in to the cinema under-age (with or without parents/guardians) by giving them a legitimate way to see the new Bond film everyone at school is talking about.
Second, it means more access to the film, which means more box office takings - a good thing from the industry's point of view.
Third, a 12A translates to a 12 at DVD release. Have a check of your DVD collection. There won't be any 12As in it, but there may be 12s. That means that, unlike a PG which anyone can buy, you must be 12 to purchase a film released as a 12A, adding a second barrier.
So no, it's nothing like a PG.
On the note about reasons for BBFC classifications, yes, I agree that putting anything about your U film is pointless, but for higher ratings it's useful, so I suppose it's there for familiarity rather than any real need. It _may_ be a legal requirement to have some reason for your rating on the box now. Not sure.
Of course, the accusation that ratings have become something of a formality probably still stands. Watch an 18 from the 80s and compare it with a 15 from last year to see how far standards of acceptability have fallen.