BBFC - Image Classification

The final part of my online assignment requires me to respond to and classify the following images as my assigned regulatory body, The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).

Image 1


The bbfc has no jurisdiction when it comes to books but would be slightly concerned that this book maybe overtly blasphemous or religiously offensive.

Image 2


This content is very mild in nature and the bbfc would therefore have very little problem if this image was shown in a film.

Image 3


Again this image is not overtly explicit but it is very sexual in nature. Unfortunately for many, no nipples are on show and this isn't exactly a full frontal shot, so this would probably be acceptable for a '12' classification.

Image 4


"This is a very disturbing image and some viewers may find it distressing" would probably be something along the lines of the official warning the bbfc may give. It is very likely a 12 classification would be given to this image if it were to feature in a movie but the pre-warning would be a requisite.

Image 5


Hanging out with the wang out is probably indicatative of the certain content that would no doubt mean an 18 certificate would be attached to this film. WARNING - CUNTS AND DICKS AND LOTS OF SHAGGING.......well maybe it wouldn't be worded like that!

Image 6


This is explicit but educational, but the erect penis is still an image that would mean a higher age classification. The bbfc would possibly let this one go with a '15' on a good day.

Image 7


The real scenes of the full execution would definitely be banned completely, but in a film, and a fictional hanging for example, a 15 or 18 certificate would probably be applied depending on how graphically it is shown.

Image 8


The bbfc would be very concerned about the controversial nature of this particular piece, but would have have no power to prevent its showing at art galleries. We're keeping out of this one....we'll let the peeps at Media Watch UK worry about this one.

Image 9


Errrrrrrr? What??.........due to its animated, unrealistic nature, this would probably be classified as a 15.

Image 10


18 - explicit sexual content, you know the score..............

Image 11


This game is simply "unacceptable" and shall remain banned in the UK unless there are significant changes made. We feel that "to issue a certificate to Manhunt 2, on either platform, would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors, within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, and accordingly that its availability, even if statutorily confined to adults, would be unacceptable to the public.”

Image 12


Mainly because of its profanity, its unusual depiction of Judeo-Christian themes, and surreal images such as a troupe of tap-dancing Ku Klux Klan members this would no doubt be an 18 certificate.

The bbfc guidelines are as follows............

Consumer Advice: Contains very strong language and strong sex references
Language: Very frequent and very strong
Sex/Nudity : Frequent strong references
Violence: Infrequent, mild
Other:Drugs references

BBFC

THE BRITISH BOARD OF FILM CLASSIFICATION - BBFC

These few short paragraphs contain the words fuck, cunt, bollocks, shit, wanker and donkey-raping, shit-eaters. Of course, if you are easily offended, then you are advised not to read on, however, it is more than likely that the damage has been done and I offer you my sincerest fucking apologies. Now, if this was a film containing the gratuitous swearing you've have just beared witness to, the bbfc would probably be attaching a 15 or an 18 certificate to it. That is basically the purpose of the 'bbfc'. They are the independant, non governmental, regulatory body who have classified all cinema films released in Britain since their formation in 1912. More recently, since 1984 to be precise, they have been in charge of classifying all video recordings offered for sale or hire commercially in the UK too.

In regards to censorship and regulation, it is the job of the bbfc to give the general public the necessary information whereby they can make appropriate viewing decisions for themselves. This ensures that potentially harmful or unsuitable viewing content remains shielded from the vulnerable (ie. kids who shouldn't really be watching someone get ripped to pieces by a man with a chainsaw) and society in general, whilst still allowing room for; "adult freedom of choice". (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about/vsindex.php)

Media content that the bbfc would find particularly problematic would be the use of swearing, violence, sexual content, drug use and gore in films set for release. They have to find the balance between what is acceptable for certain age groups whilst ensuring that they do not alienate a potential mass audience with misguided classifications. Ultimately, their classifications are guidelines and are very often ignored but with the classification set, the finger of blame cannot be pointed at them if someone is affected by the content of a film they are perhaps not old enough to be watching. This only becomes problematic when there is argument that a film should not have been classified within a certain age group but this is relatively rare, and some may argue, the bbfc often lean on the side of caution, which too can be annoying.

An example of 2 classifications is listed below.


GRINDHOUSE
Contains strong bloody violence, gore and brief strong sexual images

Certficate - 18


AZUR & ASMAR - THE PRINCES' QUEST
Contains mild fantasy violence

Certificate - U

All in all, the bbfc is an important and necessary body which is needed to set guidelines to ensure certain content is not viewed by those who should not be viewing it. Although, they are often ignored when it comes to DVD release and suchlike, ultimately, their classifications are just guidelines, and do not infringe on freedom of choice. It then comes down to the parents whether 4 year old Tommy should really be knocking back the pints whilst the watching the 18 rated; Saw 3.