Teenagers - you cannot stop them wanting it. Why 18 rated films, of course, what did you think I was talking about?
Like many of his peer group, young Kumar Williams, aged fifteen (and a half!) wanted to see DJANGO UNCHAINED in a cinema. He could do what kiddies of my generation did, that is, exaggerate his age to the box office cashier to procure a ticket (or he could book on line and get 10% off through Cineworld). Then he would have to get past the ticket collector and then hope that no member of the audience would have him evicted. The British Board of Film Classification has rated the film 18 for a reason – it contains foul language almost certain to be imitated by kiddies in the classrooms, shops – not many of them left with HMV, Blockbusters and Jessops going into administration in a single week – public transport and the home. It also features extreme violence. How extreme? All I have heard about is the whipping scene but I understand gunplay is involved. Any cinema in the UK caught screening films to under-age kids could have its licence revoked, though in practice I’ve never seen this happen.
But what if you can tell the difference between movie violence and acceptable behaviour and do not habitually use rude words. What then? Apparently, this occurs on one’s eighteenth birthday, but I have heard of a social study that supports this. Perhaps, kiddies would do what young Kumar did, that is, travel to France to see the film, where it is rated 12.
As Kumar would say, the lower classification is out of respect for auteurs. Basically, a film by one of those, and we all know Quentin Tarantino films have signature characteristics – long scenes, bursts of violence, pop and not so-pop culture references and an eclectic soundtrack – is treated as art. The French system distinguishes between pornography (18), violent exploitation (rated 16) and violent popcorn movies. In France DJANGO UNCHAINED has the same rating as JACK REACHER which I think has a moment of violence that raises it above its 12A rating in the UK, where it can be seen by the under tens.
Basically, the UK system has very little link to the social development of young people and is more driven by commercial considerations – though the BBFC vigorously deny this. In order to seem a cut above other STAR WARS movies, REVENGE OF THE SITH was offered – and got – a 12A certificate. I argued (by email in 2005) to the BBFC that the violence in it belonged to the Star Wars universe which is PG at most. The representative of the BBFC countered that it was related to intensity, in particular the burning of Anakin Skywalker’s face. In the end, the best counter-argument that the BBFC could come up with was to ask whether my view represented that of my employer. Well, of course it didn’t, but then I knew I was dealing with people not prepared to listen. There was no evidence that REVENGE OF THE SITH was seen by a different demographic to ATTACK OF THE CLONES or THE PHANTOM MENACE, so to the BBFC I ask, what was the point?
Now, Kumar is terribly lucky to be able to afford the train ticket to Paris – especially on what I pay him. (He is my faithful cameraman, albeit one who doesn’t tell me I have barbecue sauce on my beard.) I did wonder whether, by circumventing the UK’s exhibition restrictions, I had committed a crime. I do not think so. Here’s why.
Classification systems all serve a domestic purpose, to limit exposure to material likely to disturb, harm or deprave. Yet at the same time, people have fairly free access to the internet and rap music – especially though local radio stations. Yet people have different rates of tolerance. I’m scared by anything to do with eyes, yet I can sit through THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE without spilling my tea. I also hear but choose not to use rude language.
Young people do, of course, use such language as an act of defiance. This is only because they have something to be defiant about – poverty, mental illness in the family, the absence of a male authority figure and so on. Society places limits based on its worst cases. In other words, censorship exists to stop the aggrieved from getting even worse ideas.
There is no evidence that it serves this purpose. In any case, in the act of classification, the BBFC makes value judgements about the audience for a movie that are not related to objective criteria but entirely relate to subjective ones.
Take the recent case of SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS. This contains – like KICK ASS before it – the worst swear word you can think of (in English; other languages are available). It also contains strong bloody violence, female nudity, self-immolation and of course the full gamut of cuss words. In the UK it was rated ‘15’. Why? Because it is a specialist movie; one with an element of reflexivity about the whole thriller genre! (Personally, any film that tells us what it is doing isn’t that clever; it is better to avoid rather than anticipate criticism.) Martin McDonagh, the writer-director of SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS, got an easier ride than Quentin Tarantino. I would argue that SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS would have performed better at the UK box office as an 18. Somehow, it came across as, you know, a bit soft.
Racial language is a different matter. There are certain words whose use is not encouraged, even though they have been reclaimed (which is posh for saying ‘these words don’t hurt anymore; it is my word now; my term of endearment’). The ‘n’ word appears a lot, unchallenged in DJANGO UNCHAINED. Yet in the context of the film, the hero rises above it, has love in his heart and sorts stuff out. Positive values – sure. But we the British audience are still sensitive. (The French of course do not have a relationship with the ‘n’ word, unless of course that word is Nazi or ‘nouvelle vague’ – that’s two words.)
There is an argument that DJANGO UNCHAINED contains material to harm or deprave. It certainly contains scenes designed to excite, but then so does SKYFALL. I would say that it offers a less self-censored form of excitement. Yet it does not revel in exploitative tropes. That is why it should not be an ‘18’. It also shows a respect for genre, which has to be good, right?
I think the French have it on the nose. DJANGO UNCHAINED is a film that should not be seen by the very young but certainly those who understand slavery and race relations. These subjects are taught to 14 year olds. As for the language, this can be corrected in the home. I therefore support censorship tourism – see a film where you can, because it opens the mind. We know in the 1920s, Americans travelled to Europe to escape the restrictions on art and literature. This may have given us Henry Miller, who in the movie HENRY AND JUNE was rather boring, but also art critics too. Even better would be an overhaul of the classification system. However, I think people even older and richer than I would say ‘no’.
