I'm not entirely sure about that... In extreme cases I have to agree, but the vast majority of parents, even the really thick ones, don't aspire to make a crap job of it, and will use advice given to make an informed decision for both their children and for themselves.streetrw wrote:Mr Bill wrote:... A vast amount of material ...
(6) points in reponse:
... No amount of legislation and no amount of labelling will ever stop dumbasses being bad parents.
By way of throwing the BBFC a bone after being so mean about them earlier, we now enjoy more advice and specific content guidance on films than ever before, and as a result, phrases like 'strong injury detail', 'sexualised nudity', and 'mild peril' have entered our collective understanding in a meaningful and helpful way. This is all part of the BBFClassification's legitimate role to helpfully inform potential viewers putting them in a position to make up their own mind. It is also evidence of just how far we, and they, have come since the Karate Kid mishap Ian mentioned, but all this helpful consumer advice from the BBFC, that could inform and educate a nation of responsible film viewers and parents, is jeopardised if the BBFCensorship still choses to cut or censor (admittedly very few) high profile films that have allready been accepted by broader international consensus. If the BBFC cultivates an alarmist or excessively cautious reputation, then more and more people will dismiss them as "the same bunch of idiots that banned all those video nasties which never did me any harm when I was fourteen" and log straight onto the internet, where they can find ASF uncut, Human Centipede 2 and much worse besides.
Education makes things better, prohibition makes things worse- This is what the BBFC claimed to understand when they changed their name and with it supposedly their approach. If you teach people to 'drink aware' they will live longer and get in fewer fights, but if you ban alcohol again they will go blind drinking bathtub gin while organised crime profits.
People in a free society respond well to guidance, but badly to control.
I'm going to try and resist responding as fully as I would like to the rest of Richard's points, partly because I think I've taken up too much room on this thread already, and very few people enjoy reading my 2000 word posts, but also because I tend to agree and disagree with each of Richard's comments in almost equal measure. So here (mostly for streetrw's benefit) are the broad and possibly flippant strokes.
(1)Ferman's comments are interesting, but given that his oppinion and approach has not endured, no matter how technically/legally sound at the time, I'm struggling to find the relevance.
(2)As the internet and multicultural values make the world a smaller place, I think Duval's comments and the varied responses of our European neighbours are rather more relevant, they might be different cultures but not that different and I'll never be proud of being one of the more prudish nations without even being able to blame it on Catholicism.
(3)The cost of BBFC classification (I don't even need to check Richard's figures to be sure they're correct) is quite sensible, but not negligible, and although a drop in the ocean for big films, is over ten times the budget for Brit-zombie-hit Colin for example. Centipede 2 obviously won't help our national debt, but could help some associated small businesses (like mine) survive the recession, It would certainly make a difference to Tom Six and the film's distributors- I think it's unfair to ignore that.
(4)The Video Nasties Farce, was exactly that; a farce, surrounded by so much smoke and mirrors on both sides of the debate, that it is little wonder specific facts and especially figures have become a matter of myth and contention. As always, I'm sure Richard is right about almost all 72 films being ruled as obscene at one point in time, but (I think?) only 39 were still on the list by 1990, and at present all but 10 have been given a BBFC, and those 10 are more forgotten than "banned", so I stick to my "lessons from history" arguement when applying the Nasty epoch to the present.
(5)I understand the "monkey see" arguement is more one of "dangerous pervert see, dangerous pervert get aroused, dangerous pervert do" but again, I'm not a dangerous pervert (and you have no proof otherwise, assuming that superinjunction is still holding!) and if I was, I'd allready be cruising bit torrent sites looking to download Centipede 2 alongside all manner of obscene and possibly illegal porn. So what does this achieve other than lumping the responsible and irresponsible together in a way that I personally resent?
I really could debate the minutiae of this subject with Mr Street for a very long time indeed, but I sincerely feel doing so would only draw more attention to our differences in attitude and temperament, while simultaneously neglecting our mutual interest and common ground on the subject.
Besides, my inner geek just exploded all over the Wikipedia link to the full breakdown of international certification, the nerd in me will be picking that awesome multicoloured table appart for at least a week!
Thanks again streetrw.