c.Fear of the Dark: Regulating the Film Experience
1
Theresa Cronin
Debates over film censorship, are dominated by those who see it as a repressive
act; an act of cutting out, of excision, of rejection, of exclusion, of freedom of expression
undermined and of subjects forbidden. Within these debates, censorship is conceived as
a problem, and questions revolve around “the extent to which prohibitions on the content
of films constitute a justifiable exercise of power”2. The problem with this „prohibition
model‟, as Annette Kuhn calls it, is twofold: firstly, it suggests that censorship is an act
carried out by a singular empowered person or institution; and secondly, it assumes that
the process of censorship can only be conceived as a „repressive‟ power. As such, the
censor can never hold anything other than a negative relation with the rights and
freedoms of others.
In the UK, the institution responsible for the censorship of film is easily
identified. And although the BBFC may have changed its official title from the British
Board of Film Censorship to the more user-friendly, and less controversial name of the
British Board of Film Classification, nevertheless, film and video releases in the UK
remain “amongst the most tightly-regulated in the Western world.”3 However, it would
be wholly erroneous to suggest that censorship decisions begin and end with this single
institution. The BBFC is thoroughly embedded with a system of social, cultural and
1
This paper was presented as part of the ‘Perspectives on Power’ Conference run by Quest and
sponsored by the AHRC. This article is from Issue 4 of Quest which contains the proceedings of the
conference. It, and the other papers presented at the conference can be downloaded from
http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/QUEST/JournalIssues/
2
Annette Kuhn, Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality, 1909-1925, (London: Routledge, 1988), p. 2
British Film Institute, “The Definitive Guide to Film and TV History: Censorship and Regulation”,
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/445733/
3
historical relations, and as such, the work of the BBFC cannot be considered in isolation,
but as just one part of a wider regulatory apparatus.4
In this context, the regulation of cinema, cannot be considered a singular,
sovereign act of deduction5, but as a network of relations between a number of
interrelated, and frequently contradictory, institutions, practices and discourses.
As
Annette Kuhn puts it
[p]ower…emerges – it is produced – in specific instances, in concrete sets of
relations…Regulation, in consequence, may be understood not so much as an imposition
of rules upon some preconstituted entity, but as an ongoing and always provisional
process of constituting objects from and for its own practices. 6
Censorship then, is always a matter for debate and what is considered appropriate or
necessary censorship is always in tension. Though perhaps more importantly, the work
of these regulatory discourses is never simply „prohibitive‟ or „repressive‟. Rather, as
Foucault suggests, power is always productive in its effects.
And what I want to
demonstrate in this paper, is that as attitudes towards the depictions of sex and violence
on-screen become increasingly liberal, the issue of regulation does not necessarily
circulate around the particular images and narratives that are presented in the text.
Rather, discourses of regulation increasingly concern themselves with the spectator or
viewer of the film.
Adult viewing in particular, is often constructed as problematic with specific
regard to its „experiential quality‟ or its potential for physiological arousal or stimulation.
Indeed, as we shall see, the adult spectator is increasingly constructed as a „material‟
entity: an embodied rather than rational subject. As such, the struggle over the legitimacy
of certain films or depictions, becomes less a struggle over the „meaning‟ of the text or
4
Michel Foucault, „The confession of the flesh‟, in Power/Knowledge, (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980), p. 194
Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: Volume I, translated by Robert Hurley, (London: Penguin, 1979), p. 89
6
Kuhn, (1988), p. 7
5
the appropriate levels of explicitness within the image, than a battle fought over the body
of the film spectator.
Spectatorship and the Law
Since the 1970‟s the codes and practices of censorship bodies on both sides of the
Atlantic have undergone an unprecedented level of liberalisation; forced partly, by rapid
changes in social attitudes that took place in the 1950‟s and 60‟s, and partly by the rise of
post-classical cinema in the early 70‟s which began to provoke serious controversy with
its more challenging depictions of sex, violence and horror. Among this raft of highly
controversial films in the early 70‟s was Bernardo Bertolucci‟s Last Tango in Paris
(1972)7.
Even before the release of the film in the UK, the graphic sexual content of the
film led a public pressure group, „The Festival of Light‟, to mount a campaign to prevent
the film being shown in British cinemas. Although several local authorities responded by
banning the film, the progressive stance of the BBFC, meant that The Board refused to
demand more than one small cut to the film. And so, in 1974, an executive member of
the group‟s committee, Edward Shackleton, mounted a private prosecution against the
film, on the grounds of obscenity.8
The prosecution failed however, when it was found that the Obscene Publications
Act (1959/1964) did not apply to film. When the decision was made to extend the
Obscene Publications Act to include film in 1977, the BBFC used the law not to censor
7
Last Tango in Paris, dir. Bernardo Bertolucci, (1972: USA, United Artists)
See British Film Institute, ‘The Definitive Guide to Britain‟s Film and TV History: Last Tango in Paris’,
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/591898/index.html
8
the film further, but, ironically, to waive the single cut demanded of it. As this example
suggests, the extension of the Obscene Publications Act was not intended to stem the
flow, or even to provide legislative validation for the censorship of these deliberately
provocative films. On the contrary, the decision to include film works within the Act was
taken in order to defend „serious‟ or „artistic‟ films, like Bertolucci‟s Last Tango in Paris,
against the threat of private prosecutions; since the Act, specifically protects works that
may otherwise be considered to be obscene, provided that it can be proven to be “for the
public good on the grounds that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning,
or of other objects of general concern”.9
What this public struggle over Bertolucci‟s Last Tango in Paris demonstrates is
that censorship in the UK is not wholly attributable to a singular institutional body. In
this instance, the BBFC was only one voice amidst many that held competing views as to
the appropriate response to this specific text. The incident not only demonstrates the
social and historical specificity of issues of censorship, and the network of relations that
contribute the public treatment of a film, but the eventual decision to bring film works
within the remit of the Obscene Publications Act also highlights the productive nature of
censorship. Not only insofar as the extension of this regulatory law provided greater
potential for freedom of expression amongst filmmakers, but in addition, I would suggest,
that the decision to include film works within the Act has contributed to a sea-change in
both the BBFC‟s and the British public‟s conception of contemporary censorship issues.
That is, while the Act, was specifically employed in order to protect a range of
films from censorship and deletion on the grounds of their artistry, it also had another,
unintended consequence. More specifically, the test of „obscenity‟ cited within the Act,
9
Obscene Publications Act, section 4(1), (London: HMSO, 1959/1964)
requires the law to consider whether the “effect…[of an article] is, if taken as a whole,
such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely…to read, see or hear the
matter contained or embodied in it.”10 The result of this test has been a
shift from concern about the explicitness of screen representations to a consideration of
their possible corrupting influence. This has been understood more and more in terms of
whether a viewer is encouraged to enjoy the pain of the victims. 11
Or to put it another way, the extension of the Obscene Publications Act has significantly
refocused the regulatory „problem‟ of cinema, from the subject matter of the film itself, to
a consideration of the effects of viewing on the likely spectator.
As a result, in
contemporary cinema, it is the spectator, as opposed to the text, that becomes the focus of
both discourse and of disciplinary practices.
This concern over the effects of film on the potential viewer is also mirrored in
the Video Recordings Act (1984, amended 1993) which requires classification decisions
to be made with “special regard to the likelihood of…being viewed in the home”12 as well
as to consider whether the particular film was “suitable for viewing by persons who have
not attained a particular age”.13 Although, there remains a degree of concern about the
actual content of video works, concern clearly circulates around the likely effect certain
depictions on the viewer. That is, the Act states that exemption is forfeit if a work is
likely to
stimulate or encourage [(a) human sexual activity or acts of force or restraint associated
with such activity] or…[(b) mutilation or torture of, or other gross violence towards,
humans or animals]…[or]…if, to any significant extent, it depicts criminal activity which
is likely to any significant extent to stimulate or encourage the commission of
offences.[my emphasis]14
10
Obscene Publications Act, section 1(1), (London: HMSO, 1959/1964)
Students‟ British Board of Film Classification, „The History of the BBFC: The 1970‟s‟,
http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/student_guide_history1970s.asp
12
Video Recordings Act, section 4(1)(a), (London: HMSO, 1984)
13
Video Recordings Act, section 4(3)(b), (London: HMSO, 1984)
14
Video Recordings Act, sections 2(2) and 2(3), (London: HMSO, 1984)
11
The use of the word „stimulate‟ in this instance is notable.
For while the term
„encourage‟ suggests that a film or video work might persuade a person to enact
something they have seen, or that a work might otherwise mould the viewer morally or
ideologically, the term „stimulate‟ subtly shifts the emphasis from a consideration of a
rational and reasoning subject, to a more physiologically defined, autonomic subject.
This shift in emphasis may be subtle, but it is nevertheless important, for two closely
related reasons. Firstly, the text is actually conceived as having the capacity to have a
direct bearing on the autonomic system. And in addition, this change in the conception
of the viewer suggests a spectator who is „subjected‟ to a text, in a way that is quite
outside of their control intellectually, critically or morally.
In the first instance, what the Act‟s emphasis on the ability of depictions to
„stimulate‟ the viewer suggests, is that, somehow, images or depictions can function
„automatically‟; that they need no intellectual work on the part of the spectator; or that
images are in some sense „transparent‟ or „available‟ to the viewer, without the need for
any form of cultural knowledge or understanding. The most obvious example of this
would be in depictions of „human sexual activity‟. On the one hand we might note that
images that are „designed‟15 to „stimulate‟ the viewer sexually are of specific concern. As
such, the Act constructs pornography, as a „problematic physiological event‟. That is, the
„problem‟ of pornography, within the Act, is not the potential exploitation or abuse of the
people who are on-set, but rather, the likelihood that it will stimulate the viewer. Debates
about the legitimacy of this form of intervention into the work of the pornography
industry notwithstanding, we might, on the other hand, question whether even
15
The original wording of the Video Recordings Act in 1984, later amended to read „likely‟
pornography can actually function „automatically‟ without the need for cultural or social
knowledge, or a commensurate sexual desire.
In the context of debates about children‟s viewing, this construction of the
spectator as „vulnerable‟ in face of the image, and somehow „deficient‟ in their ability to
apply reasoned judgement to the text is hardly surprising. Though as Martin Barker and
Julian Petley point out, this debate about children, may well be founded on erroneous
assumptions. As they put it, “this whole discourse is not about real, live children but
about a conception of childhood”16 But what concerns me here, is how this conception of
„the child‟ as a „vulnerable‟ subject, comes to stand in for the spectator more generally,
legitimising the continued censorship of film and video, even when the intended audience
of a work is an adult.
This construction of a „vulnerable‟ or „deficient‟ viewing subject is compounded
by an amendment made in 1994 by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. 17 The
amendment to the Act, in this case, sought to provide a specific test with regard to “harm
that may be caused to potential viewers or through their behaviour, to society”18 The
consideration of the „potential‟ viewers of a video work, means that classification
decisions and censorship decisions must be made with regard to a much broader audience
than may have been intended. Classification decisions must consider the potential that a
video work in particular, may be viewed by the young and „vulnerable‟, and as such,
must enforce stricter censorship on video works, especially with regard to „adult‟
materials.
16
Martin Barker and Julian Petley, „Introduction‟, in Martin Barker and Julian Petley (eds), Ill Effects: The
Media/Violence Debate, (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 5-6
17
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, (London: HMSO, 1994)
18
Video Recordings Act (Amended), section 4A(1), (London: HMSO, 1984/1994)
The notion of harm also reinforces this sense of viewer „vulnerability‟. Within
the Act the definition of harm would appear to be drawn from the Children Act 1989.
Here „harm‟ is taken to mean “ill-treatment or the impairment of health or development
[where] „development‟ means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural
development; [and] „health‟ means physical or mental health”. 19 Of course, while the
question of whether viewing the specific activities listed within the Act, can actually
cause harm to the viewer is still a matter of extensive debate, the term „harm‟ is clearly
deployed in order to suggest that the legislation is intended to „protect‟ the viewer against
psychological injury or impairment suffered as a result of viewing these categories of
incidents on film.
However, this specific definition of harm also brings the physical body of the
spectator into the frame of reference. This notion of a more physical or embodied
spectator, suggested by this legal definition of harm, is reinforced by the emphasis on
„behaviour‟ in the section as a whole.
If we compare this section to the Obscene
Publications Act for example, there is a clear shift in perception as to the damage that
might be done to a spectator as a result of watching certain types of activity on-screen:
from a consideration of the potential for moral corruption to the potential for an
individual to be psychologically or physically „harmed‟, or to be encouraged to enact
„harmful‟ behaviours. The difference may simply reflect the concerns of an increasingly
secular state. But nevertheless, it seems evident that this concept of the „viewer‟ or
spectator is based on a psychological model rooted in „behaviourism‟; particularly insofar
19
Children Act, section 31(9), (London: HMSO, 1989)
it is suggests that watching certain behaviours on-screen might lead the viewer to commit
social harmful acts.
As David Gauntlett20 persuasively argues, the study of media effects, even within
the „science‟ of psychology is far from „value free‟, and in making such a clear link
between the viewing of certain behaviours and the later enactment of harmful behaviours
by the viewer, the Act suggests a model of behaviourism that closely resembles B.F.
Skinner‟s theory of operant conditioning, whereby all human conduct is wholly
explainable in terms of a pattern of stimulus and response.21 What this model does, is to
explicitly suggest, that a viewer‟s desires, beliefs, interpretations or perceptions are
ultimately irrelevant in judgements over whether a film or video work causes harm. As
such, this 1994 Amendment to the Video Recordings Act further erodes the rational,
reasoning moral subject asserted by the Obscene Publications Act, and supplants it with a
subject who is constituted in law, as both vulnerable and deficient; a subject who is
spoken about rather than spoken to.
The BBFC Guidelines
As one might expect the Guidelines22 published by the BBFC in 2005 mirror the
concerns set out in the legislation. As such, concern within the Guidelines is focussed
less on the explicitness of the text and more on the potentially corrupting or damaging
20
For an overview see David Gauntlett, 'Ten things wrong with the "effects model"', in Roger Dickinson, Ramaswani
Harindranath & Olga Linné, (eds) Approaches to Audiences – A Reader, (London: Arnold, 1998), and for a fuller
account see David Gauntlett, Moving Experiences: Understanding Television's Influences and Effects, (London: John
Libbey Media, 1995)
21
See, for example, B.F.Skinner, Science and Human Behaviour, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953)
22
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005), a copy of the guidelines can be found at
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Guidelines/BBFC%20Guidelines%202005.pdf
influence of screen representations on the spectator. To reiterate, the BBFC themselves
suggest, „problematic‟ texts, especially those which present scenes of violence, and
sexual violence in particular, are interrogated with regard to “whether the viewer is
encouraged to enjoy the pain of the victims”23. The result is a change in the definition of
obscenity. In that, the BBFC “began to consider scene that glamorised rape or violence,
rather than explicit sexual details, as obscene.”24
To put it another way, the question of whether any given representation rape or
violence is acceptable to the Board circulates around the presumed pleasure of the
spectator. The question of acceptability then is not a question of its explicitness, its
duration, or even its brutality. Rather, the acceptability of the depiction is a matter of the
quality of the experience available to the spectator within the text. Censorship and
classification issues therefore, not only rely on some pre-given model of spectator-text
relations, but decisions made with regard to these relations, hinge on the presumed
experience of the spectator when watching.
Once again, we might note the fear, and perhaps also the hope, that underpins this
form of regulation. That film functions as a form of operant conditioning. That is, that
human behaviour can be accounted for with reference to a set of conditioned responses
that are reinforced through a process of repetition and reward. 25 In the case of film, the
suggestion is that, if the socially, morally or ideologically unacceptable behaviours
represented on-screen also contain the possibility of the spectator‟s enjoyment, that
spectators will respond to this positive and rewarding stimulus, with a behavioural
23
Students‟ British Board of Film Classification, „The History of the BBFC: The 1970‟s‟,
http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/student_guide_history1970s.asp
24
Students‟ British Board of Film Classification, „The History of the BBFC: The 1970‟s‟,
http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/student_guide_history1970s.asp
25
See B.F.Skinner, Science and Human Behaviour, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953)
response of their own.
To put it simply, watching violent films will lead to the
commissioning of violent crimes, (as opposed to the findings of Gerbner and Gross that
viewing violence is more likely to lead to heightened fear and anxiety about personal
safety.26) As such, if those issues, which are judged to be socially and ideologically
unsound, are to be represented on-screen they must more closely resemble a form of
aversion therapy, and the violence depicted must be accompanied by the spectator‟s
displeasure.
The problem here, as we have already noted, is that this formulation of spectatortext relations appears to function automatically, outside of the will of the spectator;
precisely in terms of stimulus and response. The spectator‟s perceptions, interpretations
or moral stance with regard to the text, in this instance, are simply deemed to be
irrelevant. Indeed, not only does this model undermine the concept of the spectator as a
thinking, rational subject, but it also suggests universal and deterministic relations
between the spectator and the text.
That is, that the way in which an activity is
represented on-screen will determine the spectator‟s perception of it, and furthermore,
that the spectatorial position offered by the text will be taken up by those viewing the
film.
As a long history of film studies has shown this is simply not the case. Viewers
are not the „blank sheets‟, or even the „black boxes‟, suggested by this model of operant
conditioning. Viewers come to a text as socially and historically located subjects, and
their relations to, and interpretations of, any given text with be influenced at least as
much, if not more, by their own identity and life experiences as by the intentions of the
filmmaker, or the textual address of the film. One might easily suggest that in viewing a
26
G. Gerbner and L. Gross, „Living with television: The Violence Profile‟, Journal of Communication, 26, (1976)
screen representation of rape for example, that it is likely that the perceptions,
interpretations and perhaps even the responses of men will differ from those of women.
Without slipping into over-generalised, essentialist ideas about gender difference, we
might still hold open the possibility that men may respond to such depictions with anxiety
or disgust, while women may be more likely to respond with fear, for example.
This model of behaviourism of course, is deeply „materialist‟. In that, it no longer
deals with mental states, or the inner world of the subject, but collapses the subject‟s
psychology onto observations of the physical body. And so, if we can conclude that the
„problem‟ of film circulates around the experience of the spectator, and that spectator is
constituted in behaviourist terms, then the problem of spectatorship is likely to circulate
around the physical body, particularly in the case of „adult‟ films, and with specific
regard to those films that depict scenes of sexuality and violence.
Of course, we must be careful not to over-generalise. Our discussion so far about
the repetition and reward/stimulus and response model that underpins the BBFC‟s
handling of scenes of violence and sexual violence applies specifically to adult viewing,
as these sorts of depictions are unlikely to be passed at lower age categories. Here
concern is more likely to revolve around protecting younger viewers from the fear,
anxiety, distress and general displeasure that these films are required to attempt to
provoke. Nevertheless, the behaviourist model is clearly present in the constitution of
these age categories, and by extension in its construction of the child spectator. „Imitable
techniques‟ for example, particularly for younger age groups, must not portray
“potentially dangerous behaviour which young children are likely to copy”27 and nor must
27
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005), p. 13 and 14
the film „glamorise‟ realistic or easily accessible weapons.28
The stimulus-response
model is clearly at work here. And the concern to prevent the glamorisation of weapons
is clearly an implicit statement about the regulation of the child‟s experience, with regard
to the association of pleasure with the wielding of a weapon.
Similarly, with regard to „horror‟, the BBFC asserts that
The Board does not simply cut films because they alarm or shock. Instead, it classifies
them to ensure that the young and vulnerable are protected from too intense an
experience.29
Here the Guidelines clearly acknowledge a debate over both the purpose and the
pleasures of the horror genre. But while this section of the Guidelines might finally
acknowledge and legitimate the „experience‟ of horror for an implicitly adult audience,
the BBFC make it clear that this experience remains a problematic one, particularly for
younger age groups, and specifically on account of their „vulnerability‟.
While there
may or may not be some justification for these strategies for very young viewers who
have yet to acquire critical skills and media literacy, the concern over imitable techniques
and the glamorisation of weapons persists within films aimed at those 15 and over.
However, my concern here is not to debate the legitimacy of these constructions
of „childhood‟ or to dispute the notions of child development that underpin it, but to look
at the ways in which this particular social and historical construction of childhood
contributes to the constitution of adult spectatorship, and legitimates the censorship of
adult film. In this instance, we should note the BBFC‟s stricter treatment of works on
DVD and video, which is justified with specific reference to the „potential‟ for under-age
viewing in the absence of a cinema box office who are legally required to monitor and
28
29
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005), p. 14
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005), p. 11
„police‟ entry to age restricted films.
This increased regulation by the BBFC is
demanded by the Video Recordings Act, but nevertheless demonstrates how the cultural
construction of „childhood‟ can be mobilised in order to justify censorship of materials
aimed at the adult population.
Indeed, despite the official stance of the BBFC that “adults should as far as
possible be free to choose what they see, providing that it remains within the law and is
not potentially harmful to society”.30 The censorship of „adult‟ viewing is occurring on a
large scale within the UK. So while the number of „18‟ and „R18‟ films cut before
release in the cinema in 2006, stands at an impressive 0%, this figure masks the real level
of censorship that is occurring. This 0% represents a total of only 52 „18‟ films released
into cinemas in 2006, while no films were submitted for cinema release at „R18‟. If we
compare that figure to cuts made to video/DVD in the same year, we see that 25.4% of
the 1031 „18‟ videos required cuts before release. While, of the 1217 „R18‟ videos
submitted, 24.1% required cuts before release.
Setting aside the issue of „R18‟ films, which are defined as a work “whose
primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation”31, (that is, an entire category of
particularly problematic as well as controversial films that is defined with specific
reference to its effect on the viewer. Adults in the UK, can hardly be considered to be
“free to choose their own entertainment”32. Rather, adult viewing is severely delimited
on the grounds that it could potentially be viewed by those who are „under-age‟.
30
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005), p. 8, gained as a result of a public
consultation exercise conducted in 2000, Pam Hanley, Sense and Sensibilities:Public Opinion and the BBFC
Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2000)
31
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005), p. 21
32
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005), p. 21
But further, what is at issue, in the case of DVD and video, is that it is not subject
to the same degree of monitoring and control and a film shown in cinema. This is clearly
about the loss of the box-office as a gatekeeper and barrier to entry for younger viewers,
and the possibility that once a video work reaches the home parents will not exert an
appropriate level of monitoring and control over the viewing habits of their children.
But in addition to this problem of the increased accessibility of adult works within the
home, the BBFC Guidelines also express a significant concern over the appropriate use of
those works.
On the one hand, the Guidelines suggest that classification decisions with regard
to video works will be stricter because they may be “viewed out of context”.33 In this
instance regulation is clearly intended to compensate for the loss of control over the
narrative flow of a film outside of the cinema. As I have already suggested, the extension
of the Obscene Publications Act to cover film means that the BBFC must judge a film „as
a whole‟. Individual scenes considered on their own may well be considered to be
obscene within the terms of the Act, but which may be excused with reference to the lofty
intentions of the film narrative. To put it another way, individual scenes may be excused
from charges of obscenity provided they are „recovered‟ ideologically within the
narrative of the film. Outside of the cinema, this narrative is no longer enforced by the
institution, but becomes optional for the viewer, who may or may not choose to use the
film in this way. Appropriate spectatorship, in this sense, is constructed as a specifically
passive spectator who is subject to the narrative flow of a film. The viewer‟s increased
control of this narrative flow, invites the possibility of inappropriate uses.
33
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005), p. 9
This point is emphasised with regard to the BBFC‟s policy on depictions of rape
or sexual violence, where it is stated that “the Board may require cuts at any classification
level. This is more likely with DVD or video than film because scenes can be replayed
repeatedly.”34 What is clear that the concern that underpins this section of the Guidelines
represents more than an attempt to ensure that particular scenes are ideologically
recovered by the text „as a whole‟. There is an implicit suggestion that these cuts will be
specifically required in order to prevent their use as a masturbatory aide. In this case, the
problems presented by a film‟s potential to „arouse‟ or „stimulate‟ the viewer reaches its
apogee.
As we have already noted with regard to R18 films, the potential for a film to
arouse or stimulate is, in itself, in some sense, „problematic‟. That this arousal might
occur in the context of sexual violence is more particularly troubling. But the implicit
suggestion that someone, somewhere may use this kind of scene for their own sexual
gratification, elicits the spectre of a potentially violent sexual deviant. The problem
however, is not confined to the issue of masturbation to inappropriate material, nor yet,
simply the possibility that such a repetition and reward „system‟ might engender a greater
propensity to towards acts of sexual violence, rather, it reflects the additional concern that
images may also be used as grooming tools. In the case of the French film A Ma
Soeur!35, for example, the scene depicting the rape of an underage girl was cut for video
release, on the advice of psychologists, for this very reason. The result however, is that
appropriate levels of censorship with regard to adult viewing are being defined, not on
the basis of its being viewed by the „reasonable‟ adult contained within the Obscene
34
35
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005), p. 11
A Ma Soeur!, dir. Catherine Breillat, (2001: France, Filmmuseum Distributie)
Publications Act, but with specific reference to those who are constructed as „vulnerable‟,
lacking in critical faculties, or potentially „deviant‟.
Conclusion
What I hope to have shown in this paper, is that as attitudes towards the
depictions of sex and violence on-screen become increasingly liberal, the regulatory
discourses of film have increasingly focussed their attention on the spectator or viewer of
the film. The problem, as we have seen, is often constructed with respect to a film‟s
ability to arouse or stimulate the viewer, or to provide an „enjoyable‟ experience
alongside socially reprehensible acts. In this case, the „experiential quality‟ of a film may
well become the determining factor in issues of censorship, particularly in discussions
about the representation of sexual violence.
Since the 1970‟s then, the spectator, more frequently referred to as the „potential
viewer‟, has become absolutely central to the censorship debates. But what I have tried
to demonstrate is that the assumptions that underpin both classification and censorship
decisions are not necessarily rooted in research on actual audiences, but is informed by
socially constructed categories inhabited by „deficient‟, „vulnerable‟ and possibly
„deviant‟ others. This reference to criminals, rapists, paedophiles or even „children‟,
enables a stricter form of censorship than might be tolerated under the Obscene
Publications Act. That is, both the Video Recordings Act and its amendment, have
systematically eroded the concept of the spectator as an „average, rational person‟,
offering instead, a filmic subject who is truly at the mercy of the image.
Devolved from his or her critical faculties the spectatorial subject is not in a
position to judge for him or herself whether a particular image may cause harm. The
harm that may be caused, in this view, may well be entirely outside of the control, or
even the perception of those viewing the film. The spectator therefore, is constituted as
being not only vulnerable in face of the image, but also deficient in his or her capacity to
rationalise or even reject the ideological messages being presented on-screen.
However, what I hope to have shown overall, is not only that regulatory practices
are increasingly focussed on the regulation of spectatorship. And that as the „problem‟ of
film is conceived more and more in terms of the spectator‟s „experience‟ of it,
specifically with regard to its capacity to arouse, to stimulate, or to provoke
inappropriate enjoyment, the spectator is increasingly conceived in physical, material, if
not physiological terms. As such, the struggle to regulate certain depictions or genres of
film becomes less focussed on the issue of censorship and excision, and more on
controlling, regulating or normalising the responses of the viewer. In short, the issue of
the regulation of contemporary cinema is not a matter of „prohibition‟, but as I suggested
at the beginning of this paper, it more closely resembles a battle fought over the body of
the film spectator.
Bibliography
Publications
Martin Barker and Julian Petley (eds), Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate, (London:
Routledge, 1997)
British Board of Film Classification, Guidelines, (London: BBFC, 2005)
Children Act, (London: HMSO, 1989)
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, (London: HMSO, 1994)
Roger Dickinson, Ramaswani Harindranath & Olga Linné, (eds) Approaches to
Audiences – A Reader, (London: Arnold, 1998),
Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: Volume I, trans. Robert Hurley, (London:
Penguin, 1979)
Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge, (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980)
David Gauntlett, Moving Experiences: Understanding Television's Influences
and Effects, (London: John Libbey Media, 1995)
G. Gerbner and L. Gross, „Living with television: The Violence Profile‟, Journal of
Communication, 26, (1976)
Pam Hanley, Sense and Sensibilities:Public Opinion and the BBFC Guidelines, (London:
BBFC, 2000)
Annette Kuhn, Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality, 1909-1925, (London: Routledge,
1988)
Obscene Publications Act, (London: HMSO, 1959/1964)
B.F.Skinner, Science and Human Behaviour, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1953)
Video Recordings Act, (London: HMSO, 1984)
Video Recordings Act (Amended), (London: HMSO, 1984/1994)
Web-based Resources
British Film Institute, “The Definitive Guide to Film and TV History: Censorship and
Regulation”, http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/445733/
British Film Institute, ‘The Definitive Guide to Britain‟s Film and TV History: Last
Tango in Paris’, http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/591898/index.html
Students‟ British Board of Film Classification, „The History of the BBFC: The 1970‟s‟,
http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/student_guide_history1970s.asp
Films
Last Tango in Paris, dir. Bernardo Bertolucci, (1972: USA, United Artists)
A Ma Soeur!, dir. Catherine Breillat, (2001: France, Filmmuseum Distributie)