bbfc Tagged Articles at Cinematical

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?

Back in May, our Eric D. Snider made clear a common complaint regarding the latest Narnia offering, in that it was far too violent -- with or without blood -- for its given PG rating. The film went on to under-perform at the box office, for a litany of other reasons, but it was hard to ignore the potentially dominating influence of family-friendly Disney and their little Christian parable/looming blockbuster sequel on the decision.

Now, after stateside concerns along the same lines, come reports from the UK that box office behemoth The Dark Knight has merited a record number of seventy complaints in its first week of opening regarding the 12A equivalent from the British Board of Film Classification, which itself admitted to facing a modicum of pressure from studios who want lower ratings that in turn draw younger and wider audiences.

As someone who has seen that film more than once, in audiences that more than once had a parent shielding their child's eyes from the very badly burnt likes of Two-Face (um, spoiler?), it's obvious that the caution of a PG-13 (and the relative intensity of predecessor Batman Begins) failed to steer them away from the draw of the Caped Crusader.

So let's play the old-fashioned game of Point the Finger:

• Are we to blame the MPAA and BBFC for their lenient judgments?
• How about the parents who so willingly dismiss the ratings that actually are appropriate?
• For our more responsible readers, what measures do you take before allowing your children to see certain films? Do you see a film before they do and determine what's A-OK? Do you rely on reviews or websites tailored to providing custom criteria regarding a film's content?
• Sex, violence, or language: which of these factors will most likely send your child and the world at large on a moral decline from which we may never recover?