The document discusses the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) and their process for classifying films in the UK. It focuses on the case of the film 127 Hours, which depicts a real-life event where a climber cuts off his own arm after it becomes trapped. While this scene contains graphic imagery, the BBFC classified the film as 15 rather than 18 because the scene is meant to depict a real-life survival situation rather than gratuitous violence. The author agrees with this decision, as banning the key scene would undermine the film. However, the author also questions the relevance of the BBFC today given most people can access any content online.

1. Clayton Skorski
Film Classification Essay
The British Board of Film Classification is run by aself-governing, non-governmental
organisation which since 1912 has classified cinema movies and videos DVDs since the
passing of Video Recordings Act (1984). Created in 1912; the BBFC and on the 1st January
1913It began functioning. Its legal basis was the Cinematograph Act 1909, which required
cinemas to have licenses from local establishments. The BBFC is not controlled for profit;the
income is used to cover costs. The BBFC's financial affairs are managed by the Council of
Management. Members of the Council are drawn from the manufacturing and servicing
sections of the film industry, banking, corporate accountancy, TV broadcasting and
production and the charity sector.Council of Management members are not able to
intercept with classification decisions and policy making, also there can’t be any biased
perceived conflict of interest within the decisions, simultaneously; members have to
command the confidence of our customers. At this moment of time, there are a list of
names on Council membership, who are, Graham Lee, Steve Jaggs, SonitaAlleyne, Maggie
Carver, Joanne Shaw and Jonathan Teckman.The BBFC covers classifications on many
platforms, which are films, DVDs and video games. According to the Video Recordings Act
2010 it is a must obligation to classify videos. Their main intentions for doing this are for a
simple target, “to protect children and other vulnerable groups from harm through being
exposed to unsuitable material”. Within Britain, Every movie or video game that is set to be
realised,it has to go through the BBFC. The Guidelines of the BBFC are not just decided by a
select few of people with unfair views, fair from it, it is based on the views of over eight
thousand members of the public and that is also including many teenagers; due to now the
BBFC has campaigneda new policy, that is to get the opinion from a wide age range of both
genders; the youngest being as young as 16 to get a broader opinion and views on the
ratings on movies in the UK.The views from the younger members of teenagers’ were taken
from a selection of schools that took part in an online survey, the survey askedabout movies
that related to them that they would know about, movies and games they had seen and
games they had played. The BBFC’s guidelines are the mainguidelines used to rate all films
and DVDs in the UK. Since external issues are affecting the guidelines, such as, realism of
movies, how easy is it to obtain a copy of the game, and obviously violence, sex, language
and drugs ect, for reasons like this they are updated every four years. Other factors that
affect the guidelines are things such as, research into media consumption, law and expert
opinion. Set up in 1912 by the film industry, The British Board of Film Censors is
anautonomous body to bring a degree of uniformity to the classification of film nationally. In
1982 (UK) a term which was called "Video nasty" was used, It covered a number
ofdistributedmovies, the reason they were given this term was due tothe violent content by
the press.
There are many different issues the BBFC must deal with when classifying films. These
include violence, drugs, and language and sex references. These different issues are
evaluated by the BBFC and it determines whether the film will be classified at a U, PG, 12,
12A, 15 or an 18 rating. The case that I have chosen to write about is 127 Hours/The Human
Centipede, the reason I have chosen to do this case is because I feel like everyone has a right
to view what they want if they are over the age of 18, and not what they are told is
“suitable” for them. The way I will be portraying my views across this topic is comparing and

2. Clayton Skorski
contrasting the film classification system. A personal interest of mine is to watch movies,
regardless of the genre or age. Because of this I have seen a vast range of 18+ material, such
as killing, blood, decapitation ect. So having movies like this available to the public, but not
other movies does not make sense to me, if you are going to ban one movie due to
“unsuitable” content, but not with others that are similar, why not ban any period. Even if
you are an adult (18+) it can still even be classed as unsuitable for adults and can get banned
from them also, it will not classify material that is in breach of the obscene publication acts
1959 and 1964. Which has both its upside and downside. The upside to the acts is that it
protects a young audience from these types of movies, and stops them copying them,
protect the public, and especially children, from content which might raise harm risks,
empower the public, especially parents, to make informed viewing choices, recognise and
respect adult freedom of choice within the law, respond to and reflect changing social
attitudes towards media content through proactive public consultation and research,
provide a cost-effective, efficient classification service within our statutory remit, work in
partnership with the industry to develop innovative service models to provide content
advice which support emerging media delivery systems, provide an effective service to
enforcement agencies. However on the other hand the downside to the acts is that it, why
can someone tell you what to watch? Anyone can download it online, which, is actually
temps people even more to watch it due to the ban, and they want to see why it was
banned, which just goes completely against their targets in the first place. Even though there
are some good valid points to why some movies can be banned regardless of the audiences
age, such as people copying what they see, like shooting people and incidents along that line
in my opinion it is ridiculous that someone has the power to tell you what to watch or not to
watch. And it should not be up to someone to tell you that YOU may be offended by the
movie. Having the age range (PG, 12+. 18+ ect) is a great idea because it tells everyone what
to expect given the category, but not even having the option to even watch a movie that is
decided by someone else is just absurd. But everything is done for a reason, and obviously
they people who have thought of this idea thinks it has a positive outcome, so I will be going
into detail about the upside and downside of cases.
The case I have chosen to talk about first is the movie 127 Hours, 127 Hours is a drama
inspired by the true story of a young extreme sports enthusiast who gets injured whilst
‘canyon’ climbing in a remote part of Utah. Having fallen down a crack in the earth,
Aron's arm becomes trapped and he has limited supplies of food and water. After several
days he realizes extreme measures are required if he is to escape with his life. He makes a
decision: to cut off the arm so he can climb for help.
The real concern in this movie is that it is a nervous and frequently horrifying drama that
explores frightening visions of hurt and isolation; however it does also celebrate the human
spirit, power and the potential for strength and creativity.In 2010 the movie was given to the
BBFC without a category request to let them decide, it was given a 15 category from the
examiners, the main reason for this is that there are around fifteen uses of strong language,
However the strong language is debated due to the scene and the movie circumstances, for
example, Strong language was used a few times in a scene when Aron falls and realises he is
stuck; but for obvious reasons there are too many uses to be given a12, only 12’s that have
strong language is a 12 due to the ‘infrequent’ amount of strong language; permitted by the

3. Clayton Skorski
BBFC Guidelines.Also there are some “friendly” sex references within the movie, a scene
that has an example of this is when Aron is trapped and then fantasises about things that
have happened in his life leading up to the present where, trapped and alone with no-one
aware he is missing, he thinks about how he would like to have relationships in the
future.And with this, there is also a scene in a car in which several young people appear
semi-naked, exposing their skin to the snow.That however is not the main issue with relation
to the BBFC; the main problem is within a scene that generated a lot of controversy when it
was reviewed in the U.S, prior to its UK classification, the main issue was described as tough
to watch. The sequence that caused this issue was at 74 minutes that includes strong, gory
detail, asAron finally decides to chop off his own arm with a relatively blunt penknife.As
examiners noted, it is detailed, clear and strong visuals of Aronhacking of flesh, some
bloodletting, and also the view of Aronbreaking his own bone and a clear shot where you
can see him cutting a nerve (CSI-style)and given this it is understandable that the viewing
experience is certainly likely to be intense for audiences.
Just from the off you can understand why there has been complaints with the scene as
seeing a person cutting flesh can be unpleasant and very disturbing. So you would expect a
movie like this to be an 18 due to the obvious, as not only does it protect younger audience
from these types of scenes which can have traumatic effects, and can even result into
physical effects, such as them coping the actions. However, the context of the scene was
considered carefully, which I agree completely. Yes, in a different context I would
understand why there would be problems to this type of scene, for example, horror movies,
if it was just to have gory scenes just because it meant to scare the audience. But in this
case, there is no malicious intent to the bloody scenes; it was a realistic outcome to the
problem Aron was in.It was ether cutting his hand of to escape and live, or to die. It isn’t a
horror image which relishes or invites pleasure in the gore or injury. In fact, while it shows
and suggests violence and also technically self-harm, it is not gestured as a bad thing, yet a
representation of skilled improvised surgical technique, that was undertaken in the most
extreme of circumstances and is required to save a life.
The event takes place while the man is exploring, which promotes ideas of survival,
creativity, independence and comfort; which in most eyes portrayed as heroic actions then
most people may have had to result to doing so if they were in a similar issue. Having these
contextual arguments were taken into account in reports and discussions which concluded
that though this is a strong gory image, it would be an over-literal reading of the guidelines
to confine the work to the adult category, given its possible appeal to a slightly younger
audience, and its clear points of difference from stronger violent films and horror works
passed at 18. A downside to this is that audiences under the age of 18 have never seen or
experienced a possible predicament, and if they later in life see a scene like this that is in
context of conflicting pain or blood, they will be shocked and may cause issues, but having
seen a bloody scene that has no importance of conflicting self-harm may be easier to watch
as it is done for a reason. However it then changed into an age 15 to given the potential for
the scene to be ‘difficult to watch’, and CA and ECI were created, although care was taken
not to completely spoil the scene for those viewers coming to the film unaware of the
details of the story. CA noted that 127 Hours contained 'one scene of strong gory injury and
strong language'. The ECI described the scene: "Aron's predicament, as he suffers the effects

4. Clayton Skorski
of thirst, hunger and cold, becomes increasingly tense and desperate and begins to take a
toll on his mental state. Realising that he is likely to die in the ravine, Aron makes a
desperate decision which offers him the only means of surviving. The outcome presents a
scene which places a focus on self-inflicted strong gory injury. The BBFC's Guidelines at 15
state that 'Violence may be strong but should not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury.
The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable'. The injury is not the result of
violence as such, but is self-inflictedout of necessity and although there are moments of
graphic detail in the scene, they are not dwelt upon for sensationalist reasons but to show
the real-life extremes to which an individual had to go in order to survive. Those intending to
see the film are advised that the scene carries the potential to cause distress and physical
discomfort." This in my opinion is a great awareness of the BBFC as they didn’t have to cut
the scene out as it would have ruined the movie completely, and also they understood that
the scene was not intended, and states. Aron makes a desperate decision which offers him
the only means of surviving, with a real-life outcome.
Is the BBFC relevant? In today’s media most people who use the internet also download
there media illegally. So that gives them the option to download any movie they want, when
they want. Movies like 127 hours and The Human Centipede and others that got banned for
a scene that may have controversy, temps people to watch the movie to see what the big
deal is about. Just like if a child is told not to hit a red button, or touch the pan because it is
hot, there first reaction is to do the opposite. And movies that get slammed in the media
have the same effect, they will want to watch it, so it goes completely against the BBFC’s
intentions and they do not achieve what they are set out to do. So really, BBFC banning
movies is not relevant at all.
In conclusion I think BBFC did make the smart and well thought out choice, as it is a movie
that shows a real life problem and a good story based on real life, it would not be right to cut
out the part where he does cut his arm off, as it was will be an emotional part of the movie
(even though it may be hard to watch) and most of the audience knew that cutting of his
arm would be the obvious outcome given his situation. I do agree with the fact to why it was
discussed to be classed as an 18 due to the scene, but as it is not intended to be the
highlight of the movie, it was right to leave it in and let the audience experience the real life
journey the person went through.