|
Sexual violence continues to be a challenging issue for the BBFC and it remains the primary reason for intervention in non-pornographic feature films at the adult level. Its influence is evident in the collection of essays in this journal. The latest version of the BBFC's sexual and sadistic violence policy has been criticised in some quarters, but this is based on a misconception. Because it is cumulative, the evidence base for the policy is stronger than ever. And the policy itself is more nuanced, and brings a more fine-grained set of criteria to bear on either defending non- intervention, or intervening as a last resort where there is a credible harm risk.
|
Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, the BBFC, as the designated authority, is obliged to have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violence behaviour or incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents, or human sexual activity. In terms of the legislation, violent behaviour includes any act inflicting, or likely to result in the infliction of injury, and any behaviours or activities likely to stimulate or encourage that behaviour.
With this in mind the BBFC has long held a strict policy when it comes to dealing with depictions of sexual violence. In large part the basis for its approach for several years has been media effects research. Disputed and criticised though it often is, there has been wider acceptance that it has more credibility when considering content where sexual and violent material is combined.
To supplement the currently available media effects research, the BBFC looks predominantly towards public acceptability with regards to depictions of sexual violence and sadistic violence.
Research carried out on behalf of the BBFC in 2002 and 2012 demonstrates that members of the film viewing public find unacceptable certain depictions of sexual and sadistic violence which, in their view, have the potential to cause harm.
The BBFC carried out its most recent research in 2011 and 2012 to inform a review of its sexual and sadistic violence policy. It began by commissioning Dr Guy Cumberbatch to review the available research literature. This review highlighted the controversial nature of much of the research conclusions. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, the review recommended that the BBFC build on its own earlier, pioneering, research and knowledge to identify where audiences drew the line in terms of perceived harm in 2012. This the BBFC did, considering that an important determinant for identifying potential harm in the viewing of films with sexual and sadistic violence content, to be the insights, opinions and attitudes of the general adult public.
The research undertaken was qualitative, with fieldwork undertaken in May 2012 in London, Bristol and Dundee. 35 participants were selected from across these areas and included a mix of genders, ethnicities and adult age as well as a mix of employment, family and socio-economic status. They ranged from those who view films at least than once a week to less frequent viewers and included a selection of film preferences, although those who would never choose to watch films with violent or sexual content were excluded, since it was felt that they would struggle to watch the content and would have nothing against which to benchmark their reactions)
The 35 participants watched a range of films in the privacy of their own home over a two week period. They were given one film from each of three pre-determined categories: films which had been passed as 18; those passed 18 following recommended cuts (participants were given the uncut version); and films refused classification. They then took part in extended depth interviews. 21 of these participants, seven from each geographic area, were invited back for a follow up workshop to continue the exploration of what might be considered harmful in relation to sexual and sadistic violence content in films. Participants were shown up to 13 short clips from a different set of films, chosen by the BBFC as scenes that portrayed sadistic violence, sexual violence, including rape. By showing clips in isolation of the wider storyline of the individual films, the aim was to explore the degree to which background context of the plot and emotional connection with characters helps shape opinions. Alongside group discussions, participants were given the opportunity to provide personal reflections following each section of the discussion in a personal diary.
The research reaffirmed views that adults should be free to choose what they view, provided it remains within the law and is not potentially harmful. However, there is also concern about young men with little or no relevant life experience, and more vulnerable viewers, accessing sadistic and sexually violent content, which could serve to normalise rape and other forms of violence and offer a distorted view of women.
All participants, even the most liberal, did not believe that children (e.g. A Serbian Film) or pregnant women (e.g. The Human Centipede II) should be portrayed in scenes of sexual and/or sadistic violence because of worry about making such behaviour seem acceptable to even the very few who may enjoy it.
I Spit on Your Grave was generally not felt to promote or glamorise violence but some felt that it could be harmful in its portrayal of the gang rape, including as a bonding activity between gang members.
Participants signalled clearly that context and narrative are important factors. They found The Bunny Game to be lacking in narrative, and hence dismissed the repetitive violent content as being gratuitous. Most participants did not find The Bunny Game to be sexually arousing, although some felt that it was intended to be so. It was perceived to be framing violence in a sexual way, and as such could be harmful to some. Potentially harmful effects were cited as being sexual arousal and triggering the enactment of sexually violent or sadistic fantasies. There were concerns that the film catered to a specific type of audience that would gain pleasure from watching this type of material.
The research showed that the majority of film viewing members of the public continue to support the BBFC's intervention at the adult category, to remove certain depictions of violence on the grounds that they consider them potentially harmful.
In response to concerns raised by the research, the BBFC developed a revised policy on the basis that it must strike a balance between, on the one hand, freedom of expression and the principle that adults should be free to choose what they see provided it remains within the law and is not potentially harmful, and the need to protect the vulnerable from material which may cause harm.
The policy response covers situations of sexual and sadistic violence, where the BBFC is considering cutting, or even rejecting, works aimed at adults and containing violence, in the absence of a specific legal prohibition on depiction of the activity. It also covers both fictional and documentary (for example “extreme reality”) works, which contain sexual and/or sadistic violence.
Intervention is likely in relation to any depiction of sexual or sadistic violence which is likely to pose a non trivial harm risk through, for example:
The BBFC may also intervene in cases where a depiction is so demeaning or degrading to human dignity (for example it consists of strong abuse, torture or death without any significant mitigating factors) as to pose a harm risk.
Material of this nature might also be considered obscene. When considering intervention on the ground of obscenity, the BBFC will take account of the defence of public good and the significance of the overall nature and purpose of the work in establishing whether or not a work is likely to be found obscene.
The BBFC will also take into account the right to freedom of expression established under the Human Rights Act 1988.
The decision as to whether and how to intervene is complex and subject to a number of aggravating or mitigating indicators which need to be balanced out in order to arrive at a decision.
These indicators are listed below and are a guide to assist BBFC Examiners in making recommendations in relation to works which are on the edge of suitability for classification, according to the BBFC’s Classification Guidelines.
The indicators are not designed to be a tick list. No one indicator will of itself necessarily determine the classification of a work. Examiners will balance the indicators and use their judgement when deciding which course of action to recommend – passing the work uncut; passing the work with cuts; or determining that the work is unsuitable for classification. The presence of one or two aggravating indicators will not necessarily lead a work to be cut or even rejected, if the mitigating indicators outweigh them. Nevertheless, if Examiners recommend not intervening, they will highlight any aggravating indicators in their reports and justify why they do not lead to intervention.
Each factor listed below is expanded with possible examples of when the factor might come into play.
Aggravating Factors
Does the depiction make sexual or sadistic violence seem normal, appealing, or arousing?
For example, the perpetrators are characters with whom the viewer might identify. The scene is shot in a way which might invite the viewer to identify with the perpetrator(s). Violence is glamorised in a way which could arouse the viewer. The scene places an emphasis on the sexual pleasure of the perpetrator(s). The sequence offers a “how to” guide on how to perpetrate sexual or sadistic violence. The sequence has the potential to raise concerns about the enactment of sexual fantasies, particularly among vulnerable viewers.
Is the depiction likely to appeal especially to impressionable or vulnerable viewers, including young men and gang members, with the result that it might influence their behaviour or attitudes in a way which may cause harm?
For example, there is a gang mentality at play which suggests that sadistic or sexual violence can be a bonding experience within a group.
Does the depiction perpetuate any suggestion that victims enjoy rape?
For example, the depiction suggests that women may become sexually aroused through being raped or that “no” means “yes”.
Is the depiction of sexual or sadistic violence gratuitous, including in terms of excessive length and/or detail?
For example, the depiction is out of step with what is required by the narrative. The work does not have much of a narrative. Rape features a focus on eroticising detail, such as nudity. The scene wallows in gratuitous violence.
Are children involved in the sequence?
Participants in the 2012 research felt that the rape of children, or the juxtaposition of images of children with sexual violence to be potentially more harmful than any other form of sexual violence.
Does the depiction amount to an unacceptable degradation of human dignity?
For example, the sequence features strong, including real life, abuse, torture, killing or other violence without significant contextual justification or other mitigating factors to the extent that it offers human suffering as entertainment in itself? Might the sequence be considered significantly to erode viewer empathy?
Mitigating Factors
Does the work make it clear that the violence depicted is not condoned?
For example, the perpetrators of sexual or sadistic violence are punished within a work’s narrative. The narrative is balanced. (For example, it does not contain 80 minutes of graphic rape followed by two minutes of mild rebuke.) The viewer is invited to identify with the victim(s).
Does the work or scene lack credibility in a way which undermines its power?
For example, the work is dated and/or ridiculous. The depiction of sexual or sadistic violence is comic and unlikely to be taken seriously. The sequence is otherwise risible. Low production values can add to the lack of credibility.
Is the scene discreetly shot?
For example, it leaves some detail to the imagination. The scene only as long as the narrative requires it to be. The treatment is in keeping with the narrative.
Is the scene narratively justified?
For example, it is based on a true story or carries a strong anti-rape message. What the viewer sees is necessary to explain character motivation. The work raises awareness of an issue of public concern in a responsible way.
Where there is any nudity is it outside the context of rape?
Most participants in the 2012 research felt that merely combining violent images with nudity, even sexualised nudity, was not necessarily a problem in itself. These viewers drew a clear distinction between rape, where eroticising detail could be potentially harmful, and violence which is shot in a titillating way.
In conclusion, the research and resulting policy reflects the BBFC’s view that there is no ‘one size fits all’ rule for any theme under the BBFC classification guidelines, as long as what is depicted is within the law and does not pose a harm risk. The research shows that public take into account context, tone and impact, and a work’s overall message and that these factors can aggravate a theme, or make it acceptable, even in cases of sexual and sadistic violence. The decision as to whether and how to intervene in scenes of sexual and sadistic violence is complex, but drawing out and applying key aggravating and mitigating factors is helpful in arriving at a decision which balances freedom of expression against public protection.
With this in mind the BBFC has long held a strict policy when it comes to dealing with depictions of sexual violence. In large part the basis for its approach for several years has been media effects research. Disputed and criticised though it often is, there has been wider acceptance that it has more credibility when considering content where sexual and violent material is combined.
To supplement the currently available media effects research, the BBFC looks predominantly towards public acceptability with regards to depictions of sexual violence and sadistic violence.
Research carried out on behalf of the BBFC in 2002 and 2012 demonstrates that members of the film viewing public find unacceptable certain depictions of sexual and sadistic violence which, in their view, have the potential to cause harm.
The BBFC carried out its most recent research in 2011 and 2012 to inform a review of its sexual and sadistic violence policy. It began by commissioning Dr Guy Cumberbatch to review the available research literature. This review highlighted the controversial nature of much of the research conclusions. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, the review recommended that the BBFC build on its own earlier, pioneering, research and knowledge to identify where audiences drew the line in terms of perceived harm in 2012. This the BBFC did, considering that an important determinant for identifying potential harm in the viewing of films with sexual and sadistic violence content, to be the insights, opinions and attitudes of the general adult public.
The research undertaken was qualitative, with fieldwork undertaken in May 2012 in London, Bristol and Dundee. 35 participants were selected from across these areas and included a mix of genders, ethnicities and adult age as well as a mix of employment, family and socio-economic status. They ranged from those who view films at least than once a week to less frequent viewers and included a selection of film preferences, although those who would never choose to watch films with violent or sexual content were excluded, since it was felt that they would struggle to watch the content and would have nothing against which to benchmark their reactions)
The 35 participants watched a range of films in the privacy of their own home over a two week period. They were given one film from each of three pre-determined categories: films which had been passed as 18; those passed 18 following recommended cuts (participants were given the uncut version); and films refused classification. They then took part in extended depth interviews. 21 of these participants, seven from each geographic area, were invited back for a follow up workshop to continue the exploration of what might be considered harmful in relation to sexual and sadistic violence content in films. Participants were shown up to 13 short clips from a different set of films, chosen by the BBFC as scenes that portrayed sadistic violence, sexual violence, including rape. By showing clips in isolation of the wider storyline of the individual films, the aim was to explore the degree to which background context of the plot and emotional connection with characters helps shape opinions. Alongside group discussions, participants were given the opportunity to provide personal reflections following each section of the discussion in a personal diary.
The research reaffirmed views that adults should be free to choose what they view, provided it remains within the law and is not potentially harmful. However, there is also concern about young men with little or no relevant life experience, and more vulnerable viewers, accessing sadistic and sexually violent content, which could serve to normalise rape and other forms of violence and offer a distorted view of women.
All participants, even the most liberal, did not believe that children (e.g. A Serbian Film) or pregnant women (e.g. The Human Centipede II) should be portrayed in scenes of sexual and/or sadistic violence because of worry about making such behaviour seem acceptable to even the very few who may enjoy it.
I Spit on Your Grave was generally not felt to promote or glamorise violence but some felt that it could be harmful in its portrayal of the gang rape, including as a bonding activity between gang members.
Participants signalled clearly that context and narrative are important factors. They found The Bunny Game to be lacking in narrative, and hence dismissed the repetitive violent content as being gratuitous. Most participants did not find The Bunny Game to be sexually arousing, although some felt that it was intended to be so. It was perceived to be framing violence in a sexual way, and as such could be harmful to some. Potentially harmful effects were cited as being sexual arousal and triggering the enactment of sexually violent or sadistic fantasies. There were concerns that the film catered to a specific type of audience that would gain pleasure from watching this type of material.
The research showed that the majority of film viewing members of the public continue to support the BBFC's intervention at the adult category, to remove certain depictions of violence on the grounds that they consider them potentially harmful.
In response to concerns raised by the research, the BBFC developed a revised policy on the basis that it must strike a balance between, on the one hand, freedom of expression and the principle that adults should be free to choose what they see provided it remains within the law and is not potentially harmful, and the need to protect the vulnerable from material which may cause harm.
The policy response covers situations of sexual and sadistic violence, where the BBFC is considering cutting, or even rejecting, works aimed at adults and containing violence, in the absence of a specific legal prohibition on depiction of the activity. It also covers both fictional and documentary (for example “extreme reality”) works, which contain sexual and/or sadistic violence.
Intervention is likely in relation to any depiction of sexual or sadistic violence which is likely to pose a non trivial harm risk through, for example:
- making sexual or sadistic violence look appealing
- reinforcing the suggestion that victims enjoy rape
- inviting viewer complicity in rape or other harmful violent activities.
The BBFC may also intervene in cases where a depiction is so demeaning or degrading to human dignity (for example it consists of strong abuse, torture or death without any significant mitigating factors) as to pose a harm risk.
Material of this nature might also be considered obscene. When considering intervention on the ground of obscenity, the BBFC will take account of the defence of public good and the significance of the overall nature and purpose of the work in establishing whether or not a work is likely to be found obscene.
The BBFC will also take into account the right to freedom of expression established under the Human Rights Act 1988.
The decision as to whether and how to intervene is complex and subject to a number of aggravating or mitigating indicators which need to be balanced out in order to arrive at a decision.
These indicators are listed below and are a guide to assist BBFC Examiners in making recommendations in relation to works which are on the edge of suitability for classification, according to the BBFC’s Classification Guidelines.
The indicators are not designed to be a tick list. No one indicator will of itself necessarily determine the classification of a work. Examiners will balance the indicators and use their judgement when deciding which course of action to recommend – passing the work uncut; passing the work with cuts; or determining that the work is unsuitable for classification. The presence of one or two aggravating indicators will not necessarily lead a work to be cut or even rejected, if the mitigating indicators outweigh them. Nevertheless, if Examiners recommend not intervening, they will highlight any aggravating indicators in their reports and justify why they do not lead to intervention.
Each factor listed below is expanded with possible examples of when the factor might come into play.
Aggravating Factors
Does the depiction make sexual or sadistic violence seem normal, appealing, or arousing?
For example, the perpetrators are characters with whom the viewer might identify. The scene is shot in a way which might invite the viewer to identify with the perpetrator(s). Violence is glamorised in a way which could arouse the viewer. The scene places an emphasis on the sexual pleasure of the perpetrator(s). The sequence offers a “how to” guide on how to perpetrate sexual or sadistic violence. The sequence has the potential to raise concerns about the enactment of sexual fantasies, particularly among vulnerable viewers.
Is the depiction likely to appeal especially to impressionable or vulnerable viewers, including young men and gang members, with the result that it might influence their behaviour or attitudes in a way which may cause harm?
For example, there is a gang mentality at play which suggests that sadistic or sexual violence can be a bonding experience within a group.
Does the depiction perpetuate any suggestion that victims enjoy rape?
For example, the depiction suggests that women may become sexually aroused through being raped or that “no” means “yes”.
Is the depiction of sexual or sadistic violence gratuitous, including in terms of excessive length and/or detail?
For example, the depiction is out of step with what is required by the narrative. The work does not have much of a narrative. Rape features a focus on eroticising detail, such as nudity. The scene wallows in gratuitous violence.
Are children involved in the sequence?
Participants in the 2012 research felt that the rape of children, or the juxtaposition of images of children with sexual violence to be potentially more harmful than any other form of sexual violence.
Does the depiction amount to an unacceptable degradation of human dignity?
For example, the sequence features strong, including real life, abuse, torture, killing or other violence without significant contextual justification or other mitigating factors to the extent that it offers human suffering as entertainment in itself? Might the sequence be considered significantly to erode viewer empathy?
Mitigating Factors
Does the work make it clear that the violence depicted is not condoned?
For example, the perpetrators of sexual or sadistic violence are punished within a work’s narrative. The narrative is balanced. (For example, it does not contain 80 minutes of graphic rape followed by two minutes of mild rebuke.) The viewer is invited to identify with the victim(s).
Does the work or scene lack credibility in a way which undermines its power?
For example, the work is dated and/or ridiculous. The depiction of sexual or sadistic violence is comic and unlikely to be taken seriously. The sequence is otherwise risible. Low production values can add to the lack of credibility.
Is the scene discreetly shot?
For example, it leaves some detail to the imagination. The scene only as long as the narrative requires it to be. The treatment is in keeping with the narrative.
Is the scene narratively justified?
For example, it is based on a true story or carries a strong anti-rape message. What the viewer sees is necessary to explain character motivation. The work raises awareness of an issue of public concern in a responsible way.
Where there is any nudity is it outside the context of rape?
Most participants in the 2012 research felt that merely combining violent images with nudity, even sexualised nudity, was not necessarily a problem in itself. These viewers drew a clear distinction between rape, where eroticising detail could be potentially harmful, and violence which is shot in a titillating way.
In conclusion, the research and resulting policy reflects the BBFC’s view that there is no ‘one size fits all’ rule for any theme under the BBFC classification guidelines, as long as what is depicted is within the law and does not pose a harm risk. The research shows that public take into account context, tone and impact, and a work’s overall message and that these factors can aggravate a theme, or make it acceptable, even in cases of sexual and sadistic violence. The decision as to whether and how to intervene in scenes of sexual and sadistic violence is complex, but drawing out and applying key aggravating and mitigating factors is helpful in arriving at a decision which balances freedom of expression against public protection.