The censors have been rethinking their movie certificates. Well, I have some ideas of my own
Not having children, I can only imagine what they're like from what I read in the newspapers. It seems they're low-maintenance companions, these days: happy to amuse themselves by spending long hours on the internet, watching hardcore porn and cyber-bullying each other. This must be relaxing for parents, freeing up plenty of time for sleep and gardening.
With the joys of unlimited sex and violence available at the tap of a keyboard, I wonder if children still feel excited at seeing 18-certificate films underage? I suppose they don't.
It's a shame. One of my happiest memories is of being allowed by my parents, as a 15th birthday treat, to impress my visiting friends by hiring Dressed to Kill (18) from the video shop.
One of my least happy memories is actually watching it. The hiring part was the highlight. The film itself was horrific. I couldn't switch it off, as this would have revealed to my friends (and by "friends" I mean "people I feared") that I was uncomfortable with the orgy of sex and death unfolding before us. So: on it went, slashing and shagging and bleeding and screaming for 105 ghastly minutes.
I had nightmares for months. I restricted myself to PG films for… well, ever since, really. And at the risk of spoiling a surprise for anyone who's planning to watch Dressed to Kill this evening, I developed a lifelong fear of lifts.
Does that mean the British Board of Film Classification was correct in its 18 certification? In a way, yes: I was too young for that film. But, in a way, no: I think I still am. I'd be as disturbed by it today as I was then, and I've long said goodbye to 18. The problem was sensibility, not age.
This is why I think it's a red herring, despite the attendant press alarm, that the BBFC has announced a series of small rearrangements to its certificating rules.
For example: a 12A film has historically been allowed to include "infrequent" use of swearwords, but will now be allowed to use them frequently, if appropriate in context.
12A is a mealy-mouthed certificate anyway. It means that children of any age may see the film, but if they are under 12 then they must be accompanied by an adult. So it's up to the adult to decide.
It's as though the honourable members of the BBFC feel it's not for them to dictate what a seven-year-old should or shouldn't watch – not when there are perfectly good parents, older friends and siblings who could be making the ruling.
Fine; but if you feel that way, why become a film censor? The whole job is deciding what children should or shouldn't see! If you don't want to decide, do something else! Be a greengrocer! (I have recently noticed there aren't enough greengrocers in my area.)
If that lone certificate devolves the decision-making away from centralised control and into the hands of small local government, ie friends and relatives, then the difference between frequent and infrequent swearing is far too vague to be a helpful guideline.
Once changes are being made, there is an opportunity to be super-specific when it comes to obscenity content. For example, a certificate of "12F, 1C" would give us a pretty clear idea of what we're in for. (Or, in the case of the record-breaking Wolf of Wall Street, "506F, several C".)
Come to think of it, greater specificity could be the future of the whole certification system. The old principle, whereby BBFC representatives sit through hours of dross in order to create certificates that might protect children from filthy language or behaviour at the cinema, is redundant when kids can watch these films (or far worse) online anyway. What a waste of those poor, reluctant censors' time. Besides, as above, I think that shock, disgust, nightmares and emotional damage have always been more about sensibility than age anyway.
Once they're sitting through everything before we do, the BBFC representatives could use their time far better in coming up with creative new certificates that offer a wider range of notes about a film's prevailing spirit. Forget the lost battle of juvenile protection. This could help all potential viewers to know if a new movie is likely to be their cup of tea.
You might say that is the job of a reviewer, but many people avoid reading reviews in advance, for fear of discovering too much about the plot. The following list of new certificates would be enormously helpful to audiences, without spoiling any twists at all.
15, no ATeenagers may only see this film without an adult present, as it contains love scenes that would be far too embarrassing to view while sitting next to your parents.
12cA kids' cartoon that adults would love – but may only watch at the cinema if accompanied by one of their own children, as if they go alone it will look weird.
12 Years a SlaveRefers to any gruelling historical film that you're tempted to see because everyone says it's brilliant, but is actually better avoided because you'll only come out depressed.
18éLong, ambitious, foreign language film to which undergraduate students should invite girls in order to impress them. Good chance of snogging during the dull bits (all of it).
15 againThis film features Bruce Willis in a macho role for which he is now too old and wheezy, but will make you feel pleasantly nostalgic about his younger days and yours.
15% ABVThis film is funny if you're drunk.
