Mary Poppins film age rating raised

GoldenEraGuitars

Disneys “Enchanted” should definitely be a 15 at least surely?

30 seconds or so in “get the fuck atta there!”

https://youtu.be/rmUNOK3VL8E?si=nNxBszFfNbjFkvMU

english_bob

Cols said:

I do wonder what’s actually required for an 18 cert these days.

The website for the British Board of Film Classification is really good, and very clear about what they do and how (the American equivalent body, the MPAA, is nowhere near as open).

The overall process for classifying a film is here: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-classification

I was all set to praise the transparency and clarity of the BBFC's certification guidelines (which are excellent at all lower age ratings), but the 18 certificate is explained thus:

No one younger than 18 may see an 18 film in a cinema. No one younger than 18 may rent or buy an 18 rated video work. Adults should be free to choose their own entertainment.
Exceptions are most likely in the following areas:

• where the material is in breach of the criminal law, or has been created through the commission of a criminal offence

• where material or treatment appears to us to risk harm to individuals or, through their behaviour, to society. For example, the detailed portrayal of violent or dangerous acts, or of illegal drug use, which may cause harm to public health or morals. This may include portrayals of sadistic violence, rape or other non-consensual sexually violent behaviour which make this violence look appealing; reinforce the suggestion that victims enjoy rape or other non-consensual sexually violent behaviour; or which invite viewer complicity in rape, other non-consensual sexually violent behaviour or other harmful violent activities

• where there are more explicit images of sexual activity in the context of a sex work (see right) In the case of video works, which may be more accessible to younger viewers, intervention may be more frequent than for cinema films.

Sex works at 18
Adults should be free to choose their own entertainment. Exceptions are most likely in the following areas:
Sex works are works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation. Sex works containing only material which may be simulated are generally passed 18. Sex works containing clear images of real sex, strong fetish material, sexually explicit animated images, or other very strong sexual images will be confined to the R18 category. Material which is unacceptable in a sex work at R18 is also unacceptable in a sex work at 18.

So at the upper end, it would need to be some seriously messed up stuff that turned the stomach of at least two (probably more) assessors, or outright pornography to be denied a rating at all. At the lower end it would need to exceed the guidance for what's acceptable for a 15 rating: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/rating/15

For new cinema releases the BBFC issue reasonably detailed (but mostly spoiler-free) summaries of how they arrived at the classification they did for the film.

Here's their summary of the relevant content in a recent 18 rated film:

https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/poor-things-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc0xmdeymtgy

If you want to read about the specific content that informed the decision, scroll down to "content advice" and switch to the "more info" tab.

english_bob

GoldenEraGuitars said:

Disneys “Enchanted” should definitely be a 15 at least surely?

30 seconds or so in “get the fuck atta there!”

https://youtu.be/rmUNOK3VL8E?si=nNxBszFfNbjFkvMU

"Get that bus outta there".

A solitary "fuck" will probably squeak through as a 12A.

Jaycee

Bellycaster said:

The word is used in Shakespear's Sister song "I don't care" as well. I had no idea what it meant until now. I guess Radio Stations will be bleeping it out from now on.

Wouldn't affect me I rarely listen to Radio 4

english_bob

EricTheWeary said:

Go even further back and see what was X/18 rated is more or less tea time viewing now. Victim (1961)was X rated for depicting gay men. Not gay sex, just gay men. It's a 12 now. 
Very few film makers want an 18 certificate now. Horror films wanted X or 18 to convey how horrific they were so often have a bit of bare bosom in order to ensure they got that rating and seem scarier than they actually were. But the cinema going audience now is families and teenagers so 18 is the kiss of death to ticket sales, hence you rarely see them. Different on streaming where there is still an 18+ audience or under 18s who don't care. 

The BBFC sensibly hold regular consultations with the public to gauge what's generally acceptable and what isn't. Naturally, some of those things have changed in the sixty-some years since Victim was first released, so some of the goalposts have- quite correctly- moved over the years. Likewise, "a bit of bare bosom" in isolation might not get you an 18 certificate any more.

Most of the big studio releases now (Marvel, Star Wars, etc) aim for a 12A certificate to attract the widest possible audience- it means that children of any age can see the film in the cinema with their parents, but adults who would be seeing the film without kids won't be put off by the "kids' film" stigma of a lower rating. The studios can arrange "advice" screenings with the BBFC prior to submitting the film for official classification so the assessors can advise on what to add in or take out to secure the rating they want.

DB1

Philly_Q said:

I was aware of the word Hottentot, I had probably read it in an old book somewhere.  I thought it was a term for a particular ethnic group and didn't realise it was considered offensive... but I know now.  So fair enough, Mary Poppins gets a PG.  That's preferable to censorship.

Just a thought @Philly_Q - you were a fan of the Greyfriars/Bunter books, weren’t you (as am I, of course)? Might you have read it there? In one of the stories that I can remember, someone is covered in soot and runs down the stairs, with Mr Prout (I think) asking if it was a mad (or escaped) Hottentot. That’s where I first heard the word, and I can’t really recall hearing it since. Much of that series of Cassell/Charles Skilton books was a copy and paste from earlier Magnet editions, so I suppose that it could have been originally published at any time between 1908 and 1940.

strtdv

The BBFC isn't set up as a mortality police, they try to reflect the general views of wider society on what is and isn't acceptable for a given audience. 

Presumably the people that are outraged by this are those yearning for  simpler and more racist times (I dislike the term "gammons" but it does spring to mind here).

Heartfeltdawn

Timcito said:

Utterly absurd. By the the time they've finished cleaning up and canceling the films from the past that fail to meet exacting present-day wokeist standards, there'll be bugger all left. 

This bizarre fiction you present is way wierder than any scenes involving dancing penguins and chimney sweeps. 

TimmyO

I think it’s entirely appropriate to revisit things as society gets more inclusive/less shitty. 

I got a bit of a shock reading Tin Tin books when my eldest was about the ‘right’ age for those. Noped out of those pretty smart. 

I’ve noticed some things on TV being announced as having been “made when attitudes on certain topics were very different than they are today” or somesuch and that seems like and honest way to tackle some things.

As for this - it has far more effect as a headline generating/culture fight stirring topic than any negative impact on the ability of parents to watch the film with their children.

rlw

The film is supposed to be set over 100 years ago when attitudes were different.   People ought to be able to handle that without being offended, including kids.

"they try to reflect the general views of wider society on what is and isn't acceptable for a given audience"

But is this the view of wider society or the view of a small group of concerned individuals who feel the need to protect us from ourselves.

ToneControl

Quite a deep discussion on N-WORD here

fretmeister

Cols said:

It’s a funny thing.  While films are getting age ratings bumped up at the lower end of the scale (Bedknobs and Broomsticks should now also be approached with caution, apparently), the exact opposite is happening at the other end.

The Terminator, for example, was rated 18 on release.  Understandable really - in the first 5 minutes Schwarzenegger punches clean through a man’s torso while clothes shopping, and later performs a bit of DIY surgery on himself including popping out a damaged eyeball.

However, these days it only merits a 15 rating.

And Life of Brian - banned or widely suppressed on release, featuring Terry Jones’s tackle, Graham Chapman’s knob and Sue Jones-Davies in all her glory - is now downgraded from the original 18 to a mere 12A.

I do wonder what’s actually required for an 18 cert these days.

That's true.

Dredd definitely deserved it - as do most Tarantino films, but they are obviously aimed at that bracket anyway.

Jaws has been re-rated s few times.

A on release, then 12A, then PG.

There's less violence / death in it than Harry Potter. In fact Harry Potter is full of murderers - other humans doing each other harm rather than the arguably natural behaviour of a shark.

english_bob

rlw said:

But is this the view of wider society or the view of a small group of concerned individuals who feel the need to protect us from ourselves.

I don't suppose the BBFC asked specifically about the term "hottentots" when they last consulted with the general public, but I suspect they're looking for wider trends. 

The guidance for the PG rating says:

Discrimination
Discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly disapproved of, or in an educational or historical context, or in a particularly dated work with no likely appeal to children. Discrimination by a character with whom children can readily identify is unlikely to be acceptable.

...so the message they're taking from the public is that they don't want films aimed at younger children to feature discriminatory language or behaviour generally ("unless clearly disapproved of"). It's then for the BBFC to apply this wider principle to specific scenes in specific films. I doubt this was quite what anyone had in mind when the guidance was last updated, but them's the rules. 

The film is still available to see in its original form. It's still rated in such a way that anyone can see it. All that's happened is that the BBFC have highlighted one aspect of the film that falls foul of their guidance. It's then for parents to decide whether exposing their child to the word "hottentots" is a problem for them. The vast majority will never be aware of the "issue", or not care. Some might end up having a "mummy, what's a hottentot?" conversation after the film because kids are weird like that. For the overwhelming majority this is an absolute non-story and the world keeps turning.

Philly_Q

DB1 said:

Philly_Q said:

I was aware of the word Hottentot, I had probably read it in an old book somewhere.  I thought it was a term for a particular ethnic group and didn't realise it was considered offensive... but I know now.  So fair enough, Mary Poppins gets a PG.  That's preferable to censorship.

Just a thought @Philly_Q - you were a fan of the Greyfriars/Bunter books, weren’t you (as am I, of course)? Might you have read it there? In one of the stories that I can remember, someone is covered in soot and runs down the stairs, with Mr Prout (I think) asking if it was a mad (or escaped) Hottentot. That’s where I first heard the word, and I can’t really recall hearing it since. Much of that series of Cassell/Charles Skilton books was a copy and paste from earlier Magnet editions, so I suppose that it could have been originally published at any time between 1908 and 1940.

@DB1 it's entirely possible!  I'm pretty sure I've read it elsewhere as well, though.

breakstuff

Hottentots sounds like something Mary Berry would bake.

TimmyO

rlw said:

The film is supposed to be set over 100 years ago when attitudes were different.   People ought to be able to handle that without being offended, including kids.

"

I get you - and in principle I’d probably have agreed before I started having some experiences myself of catching snippets of old TV episodes and genuinely wincing and thinking “fuck, did we used to just laugh along to that?” and that’s without me being true subject of those attitudes or language (ie I’m not female or a person of colour) 

crunchman

english_bob said:

The guidance for the PG rating says:

Discrimination
Discriminatory language or behaviour is unlikely to be acceptable unless clearly disapproved of, or in an educational or historical context, or in a particularly dated work with no likely appeal to children. Discrimination by a character with whom children can readily identify is unlikely to be acceptable.

Young kids aren't going to know it's discriminatory language.  I didn't even know what a Hottentot was until this story blew up.  A 6 year old kid is definitely not going to know.  It's not a word you hear in use.

I do think it's important for kids to know what things were like in the past.  We used to sing the original version of eeni meeni mini mo in the playground.  I didn't even know what the N word meant.  Things have changed a huge amount in the last 40 or 50 years.  I think we need to leave history as it was and not skirt around it.  for instance, I think it's better to leave the Dambusters dog name as it was historically, and explain that times have changed, than to airbrush history.

 Not on the same scale, but I read the Famous Five books to my daughter a few years ago.  You have all the stereotypes there, with things like the girls always doing the cooking and cleaning, and the boys out gathering firewood.  Being able to have a conversation about how things have changed was actually good, and gives her a lot more awareness than not reading them at all.

Heartfeltdawn

rlw said:

The film is supposed to be set over 100 years ago when attitudes were different.   People ought to be able to handle that without being offended, including kids.

People also should be able to handle a film going from U to PG without decrying it as some gross sanitisation of society. 

Shrews

I guess re-classifications are needed for all films on the back of this decision.

The Exorcist - head spinning around would actually kill that ventriloquists dummy. Kids nowadays laugh at such ridiculousness. Completely insulting to their intellect. PG at worst, unless it mentions the word hottentot, then 18.

Emanuelle - teatime viewing for the Pornhub generation. PG again. But hold on, did she mention hottentot whilst being groped on that airplane seat by a stranger (never happens)? If so, a clear 18.

Up! - sexual innuendo, concerning an old bloke who clearly can't get it up any longer. Also, takes a balloon ride with a minor and fails to contact the authorities. A clear 18, possibly banned altogether if it mentions the word hottentot.

Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone

"Now, once you've got hold of your broom, I want you to mount it… And grip it tight, you don't want to slide off the end”

More innuendo, and even 5 year olds can see through it nowadays. 18 for sure, and I'm sure Hagrid mentions hottentot too. I actually fear for the franchise based on this. 

Kung Fu Panda - just a panda kicking the fuck out of everyone. Violence never hurt anyone. The rating needs relaxing, unless of course it mentions the word hottentot. 

Seriously, I guess more people are offended that such a charming film which has delighted millions, has needed a reclassification than a tiny minority (any?) who have been offended. My fear is that parents will be put off introducing their kids to this wonderful film, and that, in my mind, will be such a terrific shame.

Actually, on the back of this, the new word currently about to explode within the school bullying population of the UK is the word hottentot, with bullied kids cringing everywhere. 




 

Kurtis

Am I the only one that thought it was crap?