Judges of Movie Morality . . . but You Are Not Allowed to Know about Them; AS SICKENING SEX-AND-WRECKS MOVIE GETS THE GO-AHEAD, FOCUS ON THE `ORDINARY PEOPLE' BEHIND AN EXTRAORDINARY DECISION

Daily Mail (London), December 23, 1996 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Judges of Movie Morality . . . but You Are Not Allowed to Know about Them; AS SICKENING SEX-AND-WRECKS MOVIE GETS THE GO-AHEAD, FOCUS ON THE `ORDINARY PEOPLE' BEHIND AN EXTRAORDINARY DECISION


Byline: SEAN POULTER;JASON BURT

THE 13 examiners of the British Board of Film Classification are supposed to be `ordinary people' who `accurately reflect the moral climate and judgment of the nation'.

Yet the public is allowed to know virtually nothing about the censors who decide what it can and cannot see in cinemas. Their backgrounds and qualifications are all kept secret.

The BBFC will disclose only their names. And although it released a list of former occupations, it refused to say which examiner used to do which job.

The board insists it is under no obligation to say anything else about its censors - who earn between [pounds sterling]22,000 and [pounds sterling]30,000 for appointments which last a maximum of five years - because it is a private company.

Director James Ferman has said: `I don't want the examiners scrutinised, that's what I get paid for. They may be involved in the public arena, but they do not set standards, they implement guidelines laid down by us, the management. I carry the can.'

Critics say the panel is almost entirely Mr Ferman's own creation after a major purge some two years ago, which followed a number of controversial decisions.

The newcomers were recruited through newspaper situations-vacant columns, in advertisements requiring them to have `direct experience of parenting or a knowledge of child development, a lively and informed interest in current affairs and an understanding and love of film'.

It was also suggested that applicants `may also have relevant work experience in such fields as the law, teaching, the magistracy, social welfare, psychology, research, public relations or leisure software'.

The new intake - Janet Burgis, David Cotson, Deborah Courtnell, Rosalind Hodgkiss, Imtiaz Karim, Ferdinand Lau, Rebecca Mackay, Graham Meaghan, Michael Vizard and Gianni Zamo - were among more than 1,000 applicants.

The list was whittled down to 30, who were called in to the BBFC for a test which involved viewing three films and videos.

They joined the three survivors of the purge, headed by Richard Falcon PhD, a bachelor in his 40s, who taught film studies at the Centre for Extra Mural Studies at Birkbeck College in London. He has also written a book on censorship.

Mr Falcon, a liberal, is known to have criticised a decision not to allow the horror film The Exorcist a video release. He also complained that cuts in the children's film Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were too severe.

The two others who escaped the purge were Sylvia Denham, a 43-year-old mother of two young children, a translator by profession and a former member of the Hongkong censor board, and Maria Moustaka, 44-year-old theatre director from North London.

More than half of the reconstituted panel come from a public sector background - there are two teachers, a lecturer, two probation officers, a social worker, a clinical psychologist and a television regulator.

The others are a theatre director, a marketing manager, a journalist, an audio-visual production manager and a Parliamentary assistant.

Several of the group are members of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance trade union. Their ages range from early 30s to 57.

Despite the evidence of their occupations, Mr Ferman insists they are from a wide social background.

`We don't want them all to be the same,' he said. `We want a range of backgrounds, people who can understand film and analyse what is required.

`We want people who notice everything, anything that is problematic in terms of plot, images or four-letter words. They must be able to describe what is and isn't acceptable and how it might be taken out.

`They also must be able to relate issues in films to issues in society, for example films which might glamorise handguns and combat knives.'

The BBFC is a private company, managed by film industry executives, which draws its income from a levy on companies wanting to screen movies.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Judges of Movie Morality . . . but You Are Not Allowed to Know about Them; AS SICKENING SEX-AND-WRECKS MOVIE GETS THE GO-AHEAD, FOCUS ON THE `ORDINARY PEOPLE' BEHIND AN EXTRAORDINARY DECISION
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?