British citizens are entitled to know about decisions of the BBFC which affect their freedom to see the films and videos of their choice. For that reason, the Board will make a point of publishing its decisions and the thinking behind them from time to time, particularly those in which there is likely to be a significant public interest.
The film LOLITA, directed by Adrian Lyne, has this month been classified '18' uncut for the cinema. This is the second film adaptation of the novel by Vladimir Nabokov, which was first published in the United Kingdom in 1959 and has since been reprinted many times.
The film, which follows the book closely, is a study of the sexual obsession of a middle-aged man, Humbert, played by Jeremy Irons, with a precocious under-age girl. The relationship is clearly shown to be destructive of Humbert, of the girl and of others who become involved.
In arriving at its decision, the BBFC was concerned to ensure that the film would not offend against any test of British law. We received the opinions of the police and of leading counsel that the film contained no photograph which was indecent in the meaning of the Protection of Children Act 1978. Indeed the film- makers had played safe by using a 19-year-old body-double for all questionable scenes.
The Board also consulted two distinguished child psychiatrists, one a specialist in child sexual abuse, who both agreed with the Board's legal advisers that the film was unlikely to encourage paedophile behaviour or put children at risk.
The Board also had to judge whether the treatment of the theme would cause widespread offence. In fact the film, like the book, abounds with indications that the breaching of what is a necessary social taboo is wrong and brings many ill-consequences in its train. While the film establishes that the relationship between Humbert and Lolita is a physical one, the relevant scenes are presented with restraint.
The Board has naturally had in mind the public's revulsion at the widespread incidence of paedophile behaviour. Nonetheless we feel able to rely upon a classification of '18' as an effective method of restricting viewing in the cinema to adults only. In the Board's view, the new LOLITA is a challenging and compassionate treatment of an established literary classic which adult cinemagoers have a right to judge for themselves.
Three videos have been refused a certificate so far in 1998. Two were serial killer films in which sex is linked with the pleasure of killing. In one of those films, MANIAC, a series of defenceless women are stalked, terrorised, attacked and murdered, while being photographed in a deliberately sexualised way. The film is one of a genre known as 'stalk and slash', and here each stalking and killing is protracted, sometimes ending with the scalping of the victim. When the police eventually catch up with the killer, he survives, leaving us to anticipate that the stalking and mutilation will begin again. The pleasures on offer here seem to the Board to be unhealthy and dangerous because of the way that the killing of women is linked with the sexual arousal of men.
The Board has also refused a certificate to FRISK, a first person narrative of the exploits of a gay serial killer. The work is set in an erotic world of sado-masochism and portrays the sexual appetites of a young man for whom killing and engorging the victim become the ultimate thrill. The treatment is cold, lacking remorse, deliberately without moral standpoint. It plays with the idea that these killings are a part of the fantasy world of the protagonist, but the viewer is invited to share that world by experiencing the killings as both realistic and the peak of sado-masochistic pleasure. The harmful effect of the video derives from its repeated juxtaposition of sex and gross physical assault, which could have a disturbing and dangerous impact on vulnerable viewers.
In recent years, the video industry has traded increasingly in the use of hidden cameras to capture the private behaviour of ordinary people in situations in which they had the right to assume that their privacy would be respected. The pleasures offered by such videos are those of voyeurism since they purport to be, and frequently are, filmed without the knowledge or consent of those whose intimate behaviour is being captured on film. An instance of such videos is an American series filmed in a men's changing/shower room in which men are recorded going through the commonplace but private rituals of washing, drying and changing. They are, in effect, 'Peeping Tom' videos. One of this series was classified '18' a year ago at a time when the Board had been advised that there was no law of privacy in Britain. Since that decision, it has become increasingly clear that the exploitation of such material in this country could in fact constitute a breach of confidence if the privacy of a British subject were being invaded without his consent, since no defence based on the public interest would be relevant. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Britain is a signatory, guarantees a right to privacy, and the Convention is now being incorporated into British law. Given these developments, the BBFC has decided to take a stand on the issue of voyeurism and human rights, in consequence of which the Board has refused a certificate to another in the same American series, CHANGING ROOM EXPOSED, in which a hidden camera is used to film unsuspecting men as they change, shower, walk around without their clothes on and dress. BBFC policy will no longer accept the classification of works which breach people's privacy without there being a public interest in so doing. It is one thing for individuals to choose to participate in the making of such videos, but it is entirely another when their private life has been unknowingly and covertly filmed solely for purposes of voyeuristic curiosity.
Two controversial titles have been classified '18' on video after a careful look at the issues. CRASH is the video version of the film whose expected arrival in British cinemas last year generated controversy to the extent that some local authorities would not permit cinemas in their areas to exhibit it. Once the film had become publicly available, however, the controversy died away and the film had a modest run without raising any further comment about its supposed dangers to society. CRASH concerns a couple who are unable to find sexual satisfaction inside or outside marriage and fall in with a group of people who associate sexual excitement with car crashes. The Board remains of the view that the film, whether in the cinema or on video for viewing in the home, is unlikely to harm or offend potential viewers or encourage anti-social behaviour. The BBFC has therefore classified CRASH '18' without cuts.
The Board has also classified KISSED '18' uncut. This video version of a Canadian film which concerns a girl whose obsession with death and the rituals of burial develops into a sexual fixation when she grows up and works in a mortuary. Again, controversy about the theme of necrophilia died away almost as soon as the film could be seen in British cinemas, where its responsible treatment was acknowledged by the press, who conceded that its exploration of necrophilia was done in a non-exploitative, unsensational manner. No anxiety was generated about its subject matter amongst cinema audiences, and the Board was therefore confirmed in its view that KISSED is not a harmful work for adults to see in the cinema or on video.
Further press statements will be issued from time to time about significant BBFC decisions.
Andreas Whittam Smith, President
James Ferman, Director