This HTML5 document contains 52 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdf:type

n5:

rdfs:label

British Board of Film Classification British Board of Film Classification

rdfs:comment

The British Board of Film Classification, or BBFC, is an organization that applies ratings predominately for films however all video games must be submitted for classification for the UK market. Whereas other game classifications in the UK are more advisory, the BBFC is covered by the law making it illegal to sell a BBFC rated game to anyone below the age specified. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), originally British Board of Film Censors, is the organisation responsible for film classification and censorship within the United Kingdom. Das British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) (ursprünglich: British Board of Film Censors) ist eine britische Behörde, die Filme, aber auch Computer- und Videospiele, bewertet und erteilt. The BBFC was established in 1912 as the British Board of Film Censors by the film industry (who would rather manage their own censorship than have national or local government do it for them). It began operating on 1 January 1913. Its legal basis was the Cinematograph Act 1909, which required cinemas to have licenses from local authorities. The Act was introduced for safety reasons after a number of nitrate film fires in unsuitable venues (fairgrounds and shops that had been hastily converted into cinemas) but the following year a court ruling (LCC v. Bermondsey Bioscope Co.) determined that the criteria for granting or refusing a licence did not have to be restricted to issues of health and safety. Given that the law now allowed councils to grant or refuse licenses to cinemas according to

owl:sameAs

dbr:British_Board_of_Film_Classification

dcterms:subject

n15: n17: n19: n20: n23: n27: n31: n34: n38: n46: n50:

foaf:homepage

n29:uk n48:

n35:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n36:

n25:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n26: n45:

n12:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n13: n22: n24: n32: n33: n40: n41: n43:

n39:

1912

n44:

David Cooke n49:

n3:

British Board of Film Classification

n21:

NGO Company

n51:

London, United Kingdom

n4:

B

n16:

Film and video game classification

n18:

President Director

n9:

n10: n30:

n42:

United Kingdom

n37:

1912

n47:

150

n11:abstract

The BBFC was established in 1912 as the British Board of Film Censors by the film industry (who would rather manage their own censorship than have national or local government do it for them). It began operating on 1 January 1913. Its legal basis was the Cinematograph Act 1909, which required cinemas to have licenses from local authorities. The Act was introduced for safety reasons after a number of nitrate film fires in unsuitable venues (fairgrounds and shops that had been hastily converted into cinemas) but the following year a court ruling (LCC v. Bermondsey Bioscope Co.) determined that the criteria for granting or refusing a licence did not have to be restricted to issues of health and safety. Given that the law now allowed councils to grant or refuse licenses to cinemas according to the content of the films they showed, the 1909 Act therefore enabled the introduction of censorship. The film industry, fearing the economic consequences of a largely unregulated censorship infrastructure, therefore formed the BBFC in order to take the process 'in house' and establish its own system of self-regulation. Some decisions from the early years are now subjected to derision. In 1928, the Board's examiners report famously claimed that Germaine Dulac's surrealist film The Seashell and the Clergyman was "Apparently meaningless" but "If there is a meaning, it is doubtless objectionable". Informal links, to varying degrees of closeness, have been maintained between the BBFC and the Government throughout the Board's existence. In the period before World War II, an extensive but unofficial system of political censorship was implemented by the BBFC for the Home Office. As the cinema became a socially powerful mass-medium, governments feared the effect of its use by others for propaganda and as happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany discouraged any expression of controversial political views in British films. This trend reached its climax during the 1930s. Following protests from the German Embassy after the release of a film depicting the execution of Edith Cavell (Dawn, 1928, dir. Herbert Wilcox), intense political pressure was brought to bear on the BBFC by the Home Office. A system of script vetting was introduced, whereby British studios were invited to submit screenplays to the BBFC before shooting started. Interestingly, imported Hollywood films were not treated as strictly as British films, as the BBFC believed that audiences would recognise American cinema as representing a foreign culture and therefore would not apply any political messages therein to their own lives. So while the Warners gangster films and other 1930s Hollywood films that dealt explicitly with crime and the effects of the Great Depression were released in the UK largely uncut, these subjects were strictly off-limits for British film-makers. During World War II, the BBFC's political censorship function effectively passed to the Films Division of the Ministry of Information, and the BBFC never regained this to the same extent as before the war. The increasing climate of post-war liberalism ensured that from the 1950s onwards, controversies involving the BBFC centred more on depictions of sex and violence than on political expression. There were some notable exceptions: Yield to the Night (UK, 1956, dir. J. Lee Thompson), which opposed capital punishment; Room at the Top (UK, 1959, dir. Jack Clayton), which dealt with class divisions; Victim (UK, 1961, dir. Basil Dearden), which implicitly argued for the legalisation of homosexuality, all involved the BBFC in controversy. In 1984 the organisation changed its name to "reflect the fact that classification plays a far larger part in the Board's work than censorship". At that time it was given responsibility for classifying videos for hire or purchase to view in the home as well as films shown in cinemas. Home video and cinema versions of a film usually receive the same certificate, although occasionally a film may receive a more restrictive certificate for the home video market (sometimes due to the bonus features), as it is easier for children to watch a home video than to be admitted into a cinema. The Board is an independent, non-governmental organisation. Its business affairs are controlled by a council of management selected from leading figures in the manufacturing and servicing sectors of the film industry. This council appoints the President, who has statutory responsibility for the classification of videos and the Director who has executive responsibility and formulates policy. The Board, which is based in Soho Square, London, is financed from the fees it charges for classifying films and videos and is run on a not-for-profit basis. In the case of films shown in cinemas, local authorities have the final legal authorisation over who can view a particular film. The majority of the time, local authorities accept the Board's recommendation for a certificate for a film. There have been some notable exceptions – particularly in the 1970s when the Board allowed films such as Last Tango in Paris and The Exorcist to be released with an X certificate (essentially the same as today's "18") – but many local authorities chose to ban the films regardless. Conversely, in 2002, a few local authorities, apparently under pressure from distributors and cinema chains, ignored the BBFC's ruling that Spider-Man receive a 12 rating, and allowed children younger than 12 to see the film. However, the BBFC were already in the process of replacing the 12 rating with a new 12A, which allowed under-12s to see the film if accompanied by an adult, so shortly afterwards, Spider-Man was reclassified as 12A. The first 12A certificate awarded was for The Bourne Identity. Local authorities do not have such power for video recordings. Under the Video Recording Act 1984, all non-exempt recordings must be classified by an authority chosen by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. This classification is legally binding, in that supply of material contrary to its certificate (recordings that have been refused a certificate, or supplying to someone younger than the certified age) is a criminal offence. However, possession is not an offence in itself, other than in the case of "possession with intent to supply". Since the introduction of the Act, the BBFC has been the chosen authority. In theory this authority could be revoked, but in practice such a revocation has never been suggested, since most local authorities simply don't have the resources needed to do such things as remove cuts, pass films that the BBFC rejected and vice versa, put in place new cuts, etc., regularly. The BBFC has also rated some video games. Normally these are exempt from classification, unless they depict human sexual activity, human genital organs or gross acts of violence, in which case the publishers should submit the game for classification. A publisher may opt to submit a game for classication even if they are not obliged to. In December 1986, the first computer game to receive a 15 certificate from the BBFC was an illustrated text adventure called Dracula, based on the Bram Stoker novel, published by CRL. The first computer game to receive an 18 certificate, on 11 December 1987, was another illustrated text adventure called Jack The Ripper, also by CRL, which dealt with the infamous real life murders in Victorian London. The horror in both games came through largely in their detailed prose. Had the game publishers reprinted the games' text in book form, it would not have carried a certificate, as the BBFC has no oversight over print media. Both games had numerous certificate stickers all over their covers to emphasise to parents and retailers that they were not intended for children, as computer games carrying BBFC certificates were previously unheard of. The first game to be refused classification by the BBFC was Carmageddon in 1997, however a modified version of the game was later awarded an 18 certificate. In June 2007, Manhunt 2 was refused classification in both its PlayStation 2 and Wii versions, meaning that the game was illegal to sell or supply. A modified version was made that was accepted by the ESRB but was still refused classification from the BBFC. The second decision was later overturned by the Video Appeals Committee (an independent body set up by legislation); the BBFC then asked the High Court for a judicial review of the VAC decision. The High Court ruled that the VAC had made errors in law and instructed it to reconsider its decision, the VAC subsequently ruled that the modified version of the game should receive an 18 certificate, which the BBFC accepted. Several films rated 'PG-13' in the US by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), generally most equivalent to the '12' and '12A' classifications, have received the more restrictive '15' classification in the UK. Recent examples include W., Couples Retreat, Easy A and Devil. Also, several films rated 'PG-13' in the US have received the less restrictive 'PG' classification in the UK. These include When in Rome, Whale Rider, Princess Mononoke, Tales from Earthsea and School of Rock. The 2008 film Meet The Spartans was passed 12A for its cinema release but it was classified 15 on video due to the gag reel outtakes on the special features but the film itself remains with a 12 certificate for video release. In 2009, the Japanese horror film Grotesque was refused classification, making it illegal to sell or supply on a physical medium in the UK. The 2011 horror film The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) was also denied classification, before being heavily cut for an 18. On 16 June 2009, the UK's Department of Culture, Media and Sport ruled in favour of the PEGI system to be the sole classification system for videogames and software in the UK. This decision will also, unlike beforehand, allow PEGI ratings to be legally enforced much like the BBFC ratings. Initially expected to take effect from 1 April 2011, the legislation was put into effect on 30 July 2012. Das British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) (ursprünglich: British Board of Film Censors) ist eine britische Behörde, die Filme, aber auch Computer- und Videospiele, bewertet und erteilt. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), originally British Board of Film Censors, is the organisation responsible for film classification and censorship within the United Kingdom. The British Board of Film Classification, or BBFC, is an organization that applies ratings predominately for films however all video games must be submitted for classification for the UK market. Whereas other game classifications in the UK are more advisory, the BBFC is covered by the law making it illegal to sell a BBFC rated game to anyone below the age specified. On 16 June 2009, the UK's Department of Culture, Media and Sport ruled in favour of the PEGI system to be the sole classification system for videogames and software in the UK. This decision will also, unlike beforehand, allow PEGI ratings to be legally enforced much like the BBFC ratings. BBFC will no longer rate video games (as of July 2012).