The BBFC have just banned 'The Bunny Game'

Post Reply New Topic

This is interesting. From Australia (http://www.refused-classification.com/news/2011-10-21-the-human-centipede-2-review-date-set.html):

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence passed uncut at R18+ in Australia.

Frankly, I think the Australian system is ludicrous. Essentially what happens is that if a controversial film is passed uncut as happened in this case the decision is open to endless appeals by various interested politicians and lobby groups - even after the film has been released!

If the appeal is successful, the film generally ends up being banned without giving the distributor the option of accepting a cuts list in order to be able to sell the film in a censored form. They just ban it outright, leaving the distributor with the option of looking at the film again and trying to guess what constitutes the offending material, removing it as best they can and once again spending money to submit the film afresh.

In the UK these controversial films usually have a cuts list applied to them which is then accepted (or sometimes as with Shameless the distributor enters into lengthy friendly discussions with the BBFC in order to convince them to change their minds) or very rarely, rejected. Only two or three films a year are rejected in the UK but in Australia that figure is considerably higher.

i wish that MPAA and CARA would revise their bulky and antiquated rating system, as it has always been as clear as mud. in the american system there are essentially 4 grades of general admission, with higher ratings bringing additional requirements for parental cautions and adult guidance/accompaniment. if i had any say in the matter, our system would be scrapped and replaced with a simplified 2-rating system, with the option of no rating maintained for adult films if a submitted film were beyond the scope of healthy viewing for older teens. [why else is there concern for movie ratings if not to protect the sensibilities of youngsters and adolescents?] with the NC-17 or X out of the way, the code could be further simplified with a General Admission rating with content descriptors [such as "profanity/vulgarity/limited graphic violence" et al] as parental cautions, something like the old GP rating, equivalent to the pre-1984 PG [USA] rating. as far as PG-13 goes, it would be superfluous in this system because even before its advent, movies made as early as 1975 ["Jaws"] had a subtitled description underneath the standard PG Parental Guidance Suggested placard, which read "some material may be too intense for pre-teenagers." with PG-13 out of the way, the only other necessary rating would be a modified Restricted rating with a sliding age scale [from 12 to 17 and adult accompaniment requirement to allow for "important" films which might make for edifying viewing by school-aged kids, such as "schindler's list"] and content descriptors, such as "unaccompanied viewing Restricted to 15 and above, due to sexually oriented vulgarity, profanity and pervasive graphic violence- adult accompaniment required for younger teens." so in the end there would be just 2 easy-to-understand ratings that nobody with any sense at all could possibly misconstrue.

Auntblabby, you can always come across the pond, you know. You could even bow a knee to the Queen and take citizenship. Why stay someplace that irks you so?

all the commonwealth countries have strict requirements for american immigrants, including-

*high net worth of at least .5 mil$$$$$$
*at least a 4-year college degree in some useful field
*blood relations in country
*squeaky-clean criminal record with no civil judgments against the applicant.

i don't qualify on any count. otherwise, i'd have been a canadian resident long ago.

My oh my, those are rather strict, aren't they? Sorry to hear you're riff raff.

I watched the film 'Irreversible' uncut, subtitled, in an art theater when it first came out.

Not torture-porn, not glamorizing or eroticising of rape, but grim, nasty, degrading, and awfully realistic.

It was a well-made ADULT film, making some psychological points.

I do not think that most young people, teens especially, would 'get it'.

When it premiered at Cannes, a number of people walked out.

As an adult, I chose to see the film, knowing a lot about it.

I do believe that no children should be allowed to see it, and should not be sold a ticket by a theater.

Any game where the protagonist tortures and rapes innocent people is pretty evil-sounding to me.

True, and for that reason, I believe that our rating system is justified.

I believe that some films should not be seen by children, and I want to know if certain elements are presented in a

film, so that I can make an adult decision.

No one needs to take a six-year-old to a 'Saw' movie because 'We couldn't get a babysitter'.

I have been in theaters and watched films where children were inappropriately brought by their parents for that

very reason.

I have heard them say so to the managers, when being warned for the children's sake of the films's content.

Sorry for the necro, but that movie is complete garbage. Just screaming for an hour. Not very disturbing, just tasteless.

Wait what? Britain is still banning films? Its not the 80s anymore! I thought the nasty movement is over!

But its artsy screaming! Its in black and white, so you know the movie is classy.

I found it curious that they totally banned "lady in a cage" [admittedly a nasty film, for its day and today as well] for over 36 years.

Not often. The last banned film, four years after The Bunny Game, was Hate Crime in 2015, due to strong sadistic violence and rape by neo-Nazis on a Jewish family.

does the BBFC advertise if they have banned a film, or does the information leak out?

They have a public database of all their classifications and usually write explanations on the rare occasion that something gets refused classification, but they don't make a big deal out of it - others find them and report on it.

Twenty years ago it was a big thing if the BBFC were banning films. They were banning movies like Straw Dogs and the original The Last House on the Left. After about 2005 though they stopped rejecting films of any serious worth, so the only films that are banned now are stuff you wouldn't want to sit through anyway. We're talking about films where it's literally rape all the way through, or videos of real animal cruelty or real human suffering for a laugh. Basically, pointless stuff.

They stopped banning anything of real merit in around 2005.