The blogosphere was buzzing all yesterday after Iain & Duncan Smith’s letter to the Times concerning BBFC’s decision to give The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan’s followup to Batman Begins, a 12A certification, rather than the possibly more appropriate 15.
I went to see the film myself over the weekend, and will spare you yet another review of how chillingly brilliant the late Heath Ledger’s portrayal of The Joker was. The film in its current form should possibly have been given a 15 certification, but the real issue is with the 12A certificate itself. 12A was brought in 6 years ago for cinematic releases1, placing the responsibility for deciding if a film was suitable for under 12s on parents. Unfortunately this has largely been regarded as a green light to allow very young children to see films that are almost definitely unsuitable for them to watch.
This issue arose earlier in the year with The Other Boleyn Girl. While carrying a 12A certification, the film has a historical setting and ties in well with primary school children learning about the Henry VIII. Unfortunately, the film is most definitely unsuitable for children under 12, containing as it does scenes of “moderate sex and language. It also contains implied execution scenes and references to incest” (they missed out rape). There were certainly kids in the cinema when I saw The Dark Knight who looked far too young to watch a psychopath extolling the virtues of killing people with knives because “guns are too quick: you can’t savour all the little emotions”.
The certification system appears to be misleading people into believing films are suitable for 8-year-olds when this is far from the case. I think a possible solution is to re-implement the 12 certificate, but turn the 15 into a 15A. This would send a much clearer and more appropriate message. While allowing parental authority is admirable, we shouldn’t allow confusion over what is and isn’t appropriate for an 8-year-old kid to watch. I think there’s a far greater difference, in terms of emotional development, between an 8-year-old and a 12-year-old than there is between a 12-year old and a 15-year-old. The Other Boleyn Girl and The Dark Knight could both have been given this 15A certification without anyone batting an eyelid.
In addition, greater parental responsibility is needed (this phrase is cropping up everywhere nowadays) in deciding what films you allow your children to watch. BBFC run an excellent advisory site called PBBFC which gives detailed information on the contents of films to allow parents to make the best possible decisions. In fact you might say they give a little too much detail on the content of the film. Before you take your kids to the cinema, have a read through what they say, and make an informed decision about what’s acceptable for your family.
- An interesting aside is that the first full release film to carry a BBFC 12 certificate was Tim Burton’s Batman, largely in reaction to the fact that there was too great an age gap between PG and 15. [↩]
Tizzy
August 8th, 2008 | 11:57 pm
Why aren’t the Royal Shakespeare Company forced to put ratings on the majority of its plays? Is it because it’s cultcher?
I snuck in with my friend to see Disney’s Blackbeard’s Ghost though we were officially underage (a different rating system was in place at the time). Don’t think it’s done me any long lasting harm. The cinema staff certainly knew we were underage, as did my (quite strict) parents.
Now some book publishers have taken it upon themselves to advertise age guidance. Authors such as Jacqueline Wilson are refusing to take part, rightly so – it will die a death.
I checked out the BBFC comments on Lolita, setting out reasons why it gave it an 18 go-ahead. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/news/press/19980320.html Included is this sentence:
“Indeed the film-makers had played safe by using a 19-year-old body-double for all questionable scenes.”
So that’s all right, then; the actors were safe. Hmmm. Not sure that’s what we want from you, BBFC.
Stu
August 9th, 2008 | 12:29 pm
Why aren’t the Royal Shakespeare Company forced to put ratings on the majority of its plays?
Technically the films aren’t forced to go through the certification procedure. The BBFC is an independent entity run by a board of film directors and such. Their classifications are not mandatory, cinemas and local authorities can provide different certificates if they wish, or ban films which the BBFC is approved. The BBFC system works because everybody agrees it is important. Plus, many stage plays are deemed unsuitable for children and the theaters disallow under 18’s from entering – as with many concerts. Oh, and music with bad language and such carries a sticker, don’t forget.
As for your experience watching a Disney movie while underage, I don’t think that quite compares to, for example, an 8 year old watching films like Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting or Alien. There are some images, concepts and situations that we rightly protect young children from. I think the cinema ratings system has its place.
Back on The Dark Knight, an interesting comment from BBFC was that “a 15 certificate would have denied an important part of the superhero’s fan base the chance to see the film. Younger teenagers would not have been able to see it, and they are the very people who are going to love it.”
I think that supports my idea that the 12 certificate should be tightened up, but the 15 certificate being given a more ‘advisory’ status.