Skip to main content

BBFC- Film Regulation

1)The BBFC are responsible for giving films an appropriate age certification; they provide families and children guidance to choose what is appropriate for them to watch and what isn't. Also, they are there to prevent offence to the public caused by sex/ nudity, violence, bad language or decency. The council sorts out the BBFC's financial affairs and is responsible for senior appointments however, they aren't involved with age rating.

2)Compliance officers watch many films during their working day. They usually watch DVD's and episodes from TV series that are aimed at young childeren of which are already broadcasted on TV alone; this is called 'solo viewing'. Films for cinema release are classified by teams of two as well as controversial or extreme content. This creates a range of opinion. The compliance officers watch films in the BBFC's cinema in order to experiemce the whole effect that imagery, editing, sound levels and special affects will have on a cinema audience. with all of the comtent that they watch, the note down the general theme or context, the plot, characters, the outline of indicidual scenes, timings of key moments, type of camera shots/ angles, bad language, drug references and sex/ violence.

3)The BBFC needs to be aware of the age rating that they give films as it could creat controversy within the public, resulting in the BBFC getting into trouble. They need to consider the harm that could be created by potential viewers as well as moral harm. Also, they have to decide what is/ could be problematic, resulting with controversy.

4)The age rating of 'Dark Night' generated a large amount of media coverage as some members of the public believed that there was too much violence throughout the film therefore the age rating should have been higher. I agree with the 12A certification to an extent. Voilence is almost normalised in today's society therefore, it isn't a shock to children. Also, it is the parents' choice to let their children watch it but they will be with them so if they let their child watch it with them, it means that they think that it is appropriate for their child.

5)In a rated 15 film, dangerous behaviour should not focus on anything that could potentially be copied. If weapons are involved, it will be a 15 depending on context of the scene, setting and realism. The content musn't endorse discriminatory language or behaviour. However, there may be discriminatory themes or language in the film. Drug use is allowed to be shown although, it can't encourage drug misuse. If the misuse of easy accessible and dangerous substances is clear, it is unlikely that it will be shown. Strong language is allowed and depending on the frequency and the manner in which the language is used in/ uses it, very strong language may be permitted. All nudity is allowed to be shown however, if it contains very strong detail, it will be made brief. Sex can be portrayed but not in string detail. Strong verbal references to sexual behaviour is allowed unless it is repeated and of a pornographic nature are unlikely to be acceptable. Verbal references to sexual violence is acceptable apart from references about sexual violent topics such as rape must not be detailed or prolonged. Strong focuses on sexual threat is unacceptable for a 15 rated film. A strong nature of threat and horror is permitted but a strong focus on sadistic threat is unlikely to be acceptable. Violence can be strong yet it musn't dwell on pain, infection or injury; the strongest, gory images are likely to be unacceptable, just like strong sadistic violence.

6)Chicken was given a 15 rated certificate based on language and violence. Frequently, the film uses strong/ very strong language throughout. Also, the scene when Richard is beaten up by is brother is obviously violent but not graphic- the scene refers to child abuse.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

TV index

1) Introduction to TV Drama 2) Capital: Case study 3) Capital: Marxism and Hegemony 4) Capital: Applying Marxism 5) Deutschland 83: Case study 6) Deutschland 83: Close-textual analysis notes 7) Deutschland 83: Postmodernism 8) Industries: The rise of foreign-language TV dramas 9) Industries: The impact of new/digital media on television 10) TV: 750-word exam question

CASE STUDY: capital

REVIEWS AND FEATURES: 1)POSITIVE POINTS- -"a complicated and brilliant portrait of London life" The Guardian. -"strong performances from a superb ensemble cast" The Telegraph. -"its far more gripping than a drama about the property market sounds" Evening Standard. 2)CRITICISMS- -"an overly schematic tangle of under developed plot lines populated by underwritten characters" The Telegraph. -"it was a disappointment" The Telegraph. 3) 4)The writer says that 'the average house price in London hits £500,000 as Capital's housing market shows no sign of losing steam'. 5)-"housing market and increasing rate of gentrification across London means that Capital's ideas still stand. Reflecting the times, the setting has changed from Clapham to Balham." Standard. -"Capital offers a microcosmic metaphor for London at large." Standard. -"This drama shows an eternal London, riven by inequality and...

CHICKEN- case study

Funding: 1) The budget for chicken was £110,000. 2)Stephenson raised money through investment by individuals; could be rich friends or contacts. 3)The budget is much lower than a popular film as it used less equipment and scences therefore it was cheaper to film unlike an expensive film to make. 4)The BFI Film Fund uses National Lottery funds in order to develop and support original UK filmmakers and films and to increase the audiences. 5)I think that 'Chicken' failed to secure funding from the BFI Film Fund as the topics within the film could potentially make the audience feel uncomfortable therefore, they wouldn't make much money from it. Production: 1)The weather made it difficult to film as most of the shots were filmed outside. 2)The film took 19 days to shoot. 3)The most difficult shots to film were the outside shots. Distribution: 1)In 2014, the film failed to secure a distribution deal due to the BFI not funding the film; it suggested that the film woul...