UK Wants More Sex, Less Glue-Sniffing
Filed under: Fandom, Movie Marketing, Cinematical Indie
In the U.S., movie ratings are sometimes "baffling, illogical or just plain outrageous," as Eric D. Snider wrote last year. Greater leniency is granted to blockbuster action movies, as long as the beheadings and other violent acts are not too bloody or explicit, while more peaceful-minded feature narratives and documentaries find themselves saddled with a rating that restricts their audiences because they have one too many 'f-bombs.'
In the U.K., the British Board of Film Classification has issued its latest set of guidelines "following consultation with about 9,000 people aged 16 and older," according to Reuters (via The Independent). "The clear message was that [explicit sex scenes in movies such as Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs] were acceptable at 18." The article notes that "films with an '18' tag are restricted to patrons 18 years of age and older." Greater concern was expressed about on-screen solvent abuse, such as glue-sniffing. Rules have now been stiffened in response, and more restrictive ratings may be issued in the future.
Of those surveyed, the report claimed agreement with ratings given "in 99 per cent of all cases" for films they had watched. Are film rating systems better or worse in other countries? I've never lived outside the U.S., so I'd be interested in hearing from our international readers about their impressions, positive or negative. For those inside the U.S., do you agree with the ratings given to movies you've seen? Or does the MPAA get it wrong more often than right?
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
Peter Jackson Says Spielberg's 'Tintin' is Done Filming, but...
Interracial Harmony: 'Ninja Assassin' vs. 'Blind Side'
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-25-2009 @ 11:37AM
Dan said...
The MPAA system is awful. I find it a sad indictment of America that a toddler can go and see the likes of Hostel if they're accompanied by a parent. The BBFC system is far simpler and fairer, especially in the higher certificates -- 12, 15, 18 = if you're below that age, you ain't getting in. Simple.
I know some people bring up the "nanny state" argument, but do we really want to live in a country where kids are exposed to R-rated horror movies instead of a PG Pixar? Some parents are stupid or irresponsible enough to do that, so laws should be in place.
There is also no equiavelent of the NC-17 certificate in the UK, really. So a lot of NC-17 films released in the UK as 18's are commerciably viable releases. I've never understood why America has such a bizarre ratings system, really.
Also, Americans are missing the little thrill of FINALLY reaching the age of 15 or 18 and getting to see certain films. Or trying to sneak in when you were 13/14 or 16/17.
Reply
6-25-2009 @ 12:39PM
Ron Mexico said...
Three words and one letter:
Breakfast Club: R-rating
The MPAA sucks.
Reply
6-25-2009 @ 12:39PM
Andy said...
I've always found the MPAA system very strange. I think ours makes far more sense, as Dan says. Although I believe we do sort of have an NC-17 equivalent - R18, but this is for 'sex works' (ie porn) only.
Incidentally, is there a rating system for DVD's in the US? Because I can't see how R would translate to the purchase of a DVD.
I think what the MPAA is missing is the middle-ground rating, which here is 15 certificate. The gap between PG-13 and R seems to big to me, and I find it concerning (like Dan) that someone of any age could go and see a film like Hostel or Saw as long as they were with a parent. I've never understood why it's perceived that being with a parent or guardian detracts somehow from what is on-screen.
Reply
6-26-2009 @ 1:59AM
roar said...
DVD ratings are the same as cinema ratings. although a DVD can chose to release a DVD with no rating without economical repercussions (most mainstream theatres will only show a movie if it is rated by the MPAA, and some still will not show NC-17 films.) because most stores will sell non-rated films. what most do, though, is sell both R and non rated versions.
there is also another ratings bored called the Film Advisory Board, which is a little more liberal, in my opinion, and not so secret. I haven't seen a film marked with an FAB rating except for in movie rental stores. the ratings are:
C - Children. Suitable for children ages 9 and younger.
F - Family. Suitable for all ages.
PD - Parental Discretion. Parental discretion is advised .
PD-M - Parental Discretion-Mature. Suitable for years 13 and older
EM - Extremely Mature. Ages 17 and older only
AO - Adults Only. Ages 18 and older only
6-26-2009 @ 2:04AM
roar said...
i just realised i didnt answer your question about the 'purchasing' of a dvd.
Most stores dont restrict the sales of R or non-rated films to 17 or 18 and older, although i doubt a store would sell an R or non-rated film to a 6 year old.
but the ratings system is voluntary, theres no federal law saying a person under 17 cant go see/buy an R movie, and so some cinemas/stores do not enforce this. NC-17 films are enforced i think, i dont know if its by law.
6-25-2009 @ 1:07PM
pete thomson said...
What was that documentary that attempted to expose the hipocrisy of the MPAA? There was a lot of indie directors whose work was overly censored whilst more main stream fair was passed without cuts. The system in the U.K is great, we have a much more relaxed attitude towards sex and nudity - Young Adam- with Ewan Mcgregor being a case in point. I dont think there is a person in Britain who isnt aware of the size of Ewan's winkle, do we care? no! But in the US it had to be censored from the movie. Im glad I live in Britain we have a broader range of British, european an Hollywood movies that get cinema distribution an a ratings system that isnt right wing and patronising. Your cable tv shows like Battlestar, True Blood, The Wire are better than ours though!!
Reply
6-25-2009 @ 5:31PM
Oliver said...
The film was called "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" you can watch it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-559517494445537267
6-25-2009 @ 2:01PM
Midnight13 said...
The simple fact is that the U.S. ratings system count every exposed breast and behind in a movie but do they count how many die in an action movie? Do they count each individual times a character takes a drag from a ciggerate or snorts a line of coke? No. If a movie gets attention for its realistic or explicit portrayal of sex on a film it gets tons of media attention just for the sex and nudity, and rarely if ever gets put into the context that the film is presenting it in. The mainstream media rarely if ever does stories about the realistic portrayal of drug use in a movie. "Requim for A Dream" comes to mind.
Reply
6-26-2009 @ 12:55PM
Robert said...
Good headline, well done interesting article.
http://digg.com/users/robbwindow
Reply