Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits. Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in!==Current concerns== The BBFC's current guidelines identify a number of specific areas of concern which are considered when awarding certificates or requiring cuts. These are [[theme (literary)|theme]], language (i.e. [[profanity]]), nudity, [[human sexuality|sex]], [[violence]], [[sexual violence]], imitable techniques, [[horror film|horror]], and [[illegal drug trade|drugs]]. The BBFC also continues to demand cuts of any material which it considers may breach the provisions of the [[Obscene Publications Act]] or any other legislation (most notably the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 and the Protection of Children Act 1978). There is no theme or subject-matter that is considered inherently unsuitable for classification at any level, although more controversial topics might require a restricted certificate. This is in keeping with current practice in most [[liberal democracy|liberal democracies]], but in sharp contrast to the early days of the BBFC when such themes as [[prostitution]], [[incest]] and the relations of [[capital (economics)|capital]] and [[labour (economics)|labour]] were unacceptable in any circumstances. 'Bad' or 'strong' language can earn a film a more restrictive certificate, though BBFC policy states that there are no constraints on language use in films awarded an [[18 certificate]]. It is difficult to compare the BBFC's policies in this area with those in other countries as there are different taboos regarding profanity in other languages and indeed in other English-speaking countries. For example, the use of 'strong' language has little effect on a film's classification in [[France]]. The BBFC's policy proved particularly controversial in the case of [[Ken Loach]]'s ''[[Sweet Sixteen (movie)|Sweet Sixteen]]'' in 2002, which was passed uncut only at 18 certificate, even though its main characters were teenagers who frequently used profanities that the director argued were typical of the social group his film depicted. The film received similar certificates in Ireland (also an 18 certificate) and the [[United States]], but in Australia it was awarded the less restrictive [[Motion_picture_rating_systems#Australia|MA certificate]]. There are minimal restrictions of the depiction of non-sexual nudity, which may be allowed in even U and PG certificate films, but scenes of (simulated) sexual activity are limited to more restricted certificates. With regard to material that is intended primarily as pornographic the Board's policy, as stated on its website is "Material which appears to be simulated is generally passed ‘18’, while images of real sex are confined to the ‘R18’ category." However, for some years depictions of real sex have been allowed in 18 certificate videos which are intended to be educational, and in recent years a number of works such as [[Catherine Breillat]]'s ''[[Romance (1999 film)|Romance]]'', [[Patrice Chéreau]]'s ''[[Intimacy (2001 film)|Intimacy]]'' and [[Michael Winterbottom]]'s ''[[9 Songs (film)|9 Songs]]'' which feature apparently unsimulated sex have been passed uncut for theatrical release. Violence remains one of the most problematic areas, especially where it is sexualised. The Board continues to cut films even at 18 certificate for "any detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts which is likely to promote the activity." This is particularly the case with so-called "imitable techniques". However, the Board takes into account issues of context and whether it considers scenes of sexual violence to "eroticise" or "endorse" sexual assault. In [], the board passed [[Gaspar Noé]]'s ''[[Irréversible]]'' uncut, but less than a month later cut [[Takashi Miike]]'s ''[[Ichi the Killer]]'' by three and a quarter minutes specifically for its alleged sexual violence. Crime techniques which may be imitated may be cut at any level of certification, as may depictions of drug use that might be imitated. Films which "promote or encourage the use of illegal drugs" may also be cut at any level. The issue of imitable techniques is one that does not seem to figure especially highly in the censorship systems of most other countries, but in the UK numerous minor cuts have been made, primarily to films whose distributors want a PG or 12A certificate, to supposedly imitable techniques. For example, in recent months issues involving hanging have become very problematic; [[Ren and Stimpy]] Series 1 (classified PG) was cut for a depiction of hanging which "is presented as comedic, fun and risk free, on the grounds of potential harm to the likely audience" [http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/FE7CB3C02B883B9A8025712900617E02?OpenDocument] whilst [[Paranoia Agent]] Volume 3 (classified 18) was cut to remove the depiction of an attempted self-hanging by a child [http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/F545F349E551DB8F802571450031ED83?OpenDocument]. Summary: Please note that all contributions to the Moviepedia are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) This page is a member of 1 hidden category: Category:Pages with broken file links Retrieved from "https://movies.fandom.com/wiki/British_Board_of_Film_Classification"