criterionforum.org

manicsounds wrote:AMEND THE PLANNED CHANGES TO THE VIDEO RECORDINGS ACT petition, sign it Brits!

Just came on to post this link myself. Yes, anyone who can, please support this- 467 signatures and counting so far.

That's very impressive - it had only just hit triple figures when I signed, and that can't have been more than a couple of hours ago.

Would it be bad for non-UK residents to sign it by "lying" about the postcode for residency?

I don't think so, given that it affects people who import these titles as well.

But would it perhaps nullify the petition?

swo17 wrote:But would it perhaps nullify the petition?

Probably only if the BBFC reads your comments here.

[-X

swo17 wrote:But would it perhaps nullify the petition?

What I'm afraid of... but it does seem to be getting signatures pretty quickly.

Done. Now can somebody start one to get snout-in-trough expenses cheat Maria Miller sacked?

Seeing as it's unlikely she'll go, if each of the hopefully 3,000 signatories also chipped in £1.94 each, her problem would be solved and she might even be grateful. Crowd funding in action...

Question:

If small companies put featurettes and making-ofs online instead of on the physical discs, does that still have to be classified by the BBFC?
Also, no one seems to be taking advantage of BD-Live anymore, no small labels have. Do BD-Live extras have to be classified as well? It's not on the physical disc.

Like a lot of old DVDs had DVD-ROM access to official websites, but I don't believe the BBFC ever had to classify the actual website since it wasn't on the disc.

Now passed 3000 signatures. But it's not stopping there! Out of 4,000 is the new goal...

Although it shouldn't be addressed to Maria Miller any more.

(I nearly wrote "the late Maria Miller", but she's not actually dead.)

The latest issue of Sight and Sound has an article about the effect of BBFC changes and charges on independent labels, in which it is suggested that the non-appearance of Out 1 on DVD in the UK may be down to the costs of having a film of that length classified by the BBFC, which seems entirely plausible. It is also suggested that other long films, although shorter than Out 1, such as Wajda's The Ashes, could be affected in the same way.

Although the Out 1 argument predates the recent policy change: it would have cost a fortune to classify at any point since the introduction of the Video Recordings Act thirty years ago.

Indeed, and I wonder if that's one of the reasons it's never appeared in the UK.

With regard to other long films, I suppose Second Run might have a view on whether a release of The Ashes would be viable taking into account the costs of classification.

The article suggests that the BBFC used to operate with a reduced rate for classifying subtitled films. It also argues that that reduced rates could be re-introduced if the initial print run is intended to be below a certain number. Based on the assumption that the UK government is unlikely to legislate to remove the requirement for classification, that sounds like a good idea, presuming it would be practicable.

A Reddit user crowdfunded a ten hour film of literal paint drying in order to afford to submit it to the BBFC in protest of their policies. He is answering questions on the screening here

This has got to be one of the most pointlessly empty gestures in living memory.

First of all, how exactly does giving the BBFC lots of money constitute an effective protest against them? Granted, they have to watch the end result, but I suspect after a couple of days of wall-to-wall hardcore porn and toddlers' videos BBFC examiners will find it a welcome relief.

And secondly, it's a complete waste of money anyway, because BBFC approval wouldn't be required for something like this - even under the recently-tightened documentary guidelines, this footage would be exempt from classification.

In fact, if I was the BBFC I'd call his bluff by simply returning his submission with a note pointing out that it's not necessary.

It certainly has its problems (notably giving BBFC a ton of cash), but I still can't think of a better way to to get news outlets talking about the problem.

domino harvey wrote:A Reddit user crowdfunded a ten hour film of literal paint drying in order to afford to submit it to the BBFC in protest of their policies. He is answering questions on the screening here

That 'Reddit user' is Charlie Lyne, who used to run the blog Ultra Culture, and now writes for The Guardian. He directed the documentaries Beyond Clueless and Fear Itself.

But yes, I agree with MichaelB that the exercise itself is somewhat futile. That said, perhaps the media will take some notice now...and more importantly, the public should be made aware of the debate too.

The BBFC rated it a U.

BBFC wrote:Note: The following text may contain spoilers

PAINT DRYING is a film showing paint drying on a wall.

It contains no material likely to offend or harm.

I suppose it is nice to have that confirmation that the filmmakers used non-toxic paint!

I'm enjoying how people are piling on the BBFC for being "censors", and thinking this was a good idea. Sorry, but I'm with the BBFC on this one. The real issue here is how film classification is applied in the UK, not the BBFC itself.

Now, I fully understand Lyne's complaint, and I think that there needs to be an overhaul of the way BBFC classification is mandatory for even the smallest screening in the UK, largely because the costs are grossly unfair to smaller films and their distributors. This is where I wish the UK would copy the States, and simply offer BBFC certifications as guidelines that local councils and theaters could enforce. So that way, smaller independent films could be shown in limited release and even released on video without BBFC classification, and only the titles from major distributors would have BBFC classifications.

However, the reality is for commercial film distribution, every country wants to have a film classification board, and with few exceptions, the BBFC are probably the best in the English-speaking world. Worldwide, I've always tended to admire the laissez-faire approach of the French and the Nordic countries (I still can't get a bead on the German FSK), but if we tried that on in the English-speaking world, parents (and complaint-enthusiasts) would go ballistic. I do still think we need to alter how UK law mandates dealing with animal cruelty in films, to stop the useless mandatory editing of older and foreign films that were stupid enough to hurt animals, but otherwise, the rest of the blame for film censorship in the UK lies at the feet of the major distributors, who are trying to make money by achieving lower certificates. I'll agree that it's not a perfect system, but when you consider how much more influence the MPAA ends up asserting over films worldwide, or how many films the OFLC/ACB has banned or cut in Australia, then it's hard to fault the BBFC, when they themselves are pretty fair and balanced in what they do.

Having said that, I would have loved for Lyne to have punctuated the atmosphere with random musings, all of which was U material, but then slipped a random "c**t" in there really quick just to see if the BBFC really were watching all 607 minutes of it.

The basic problem is that Lyne's picked the wrong target. Obviously the BBFC has to charge fees for their time - it's always been funded exclusively by the film industry, and how else are they going to pay their staff and overheads?

The central issue isn't the fact that the BBFC does this, it's the fact that the 1984 Video Recordings Act compels all video distributors to pay for BBFC classification. If this was made optional, as is the case in many, many other countries, the problem would vanish - but the BBFC doesn't have the power to do this.

Personally, I'd have no problem at all with a system that gave everything a mandatory 18 certificate for nothing and but offered the option of paying BBFC fees if distributors want a milder classification - after all, most of the stuff I produce isn't aimed at kids or teenagers so it wouldn't make the slightest difference to me, except by freeing up several hundred pounds to be spent on additional disc content.

MichaelB wrote:Personally, I'd have no problem at all with a system that gave everything a mandatory 18 certificate for nothing and but offered the option of paying BBFC fees if distributors want a milder classification - after all, most of the stuff I produce isn't aimed at kids or teenagers so it wouldn't make the slightest difference to me, except by freeing up several hundred pounds to be spent on additional disc content.

And that's my understanding of how it works in most or all of the Nordic countries. You can skip the classification, but then you have to print a mandatory highest classification on the box (which I believe is '15' in all of the countries). Obviously, that's even better, because how many under 15s are going to end up buying films anyway, but the same rationale could easily be applied for most under 18s, particularly nowadays.