Attack of the Clones Cut in UK

MartyJG writes "The British Board of Film Classification has demanded a cut in Ep2 AOTC for a head-butt. I don't know which is more extreme: UK viewers insisting on viewing the US version for 1 second of extra film, or that a 1 second cut means the difference between a '12' (~PG-13) and a 'PG' certificate. For some reason the distributors must think fewer people would see the film if it was a '12'. The film report is on the BBFC website."

Comments

PG vs. 12 certificate

[dazed-n-confused]

For some reason the distributors must think fewer people would see the film if it was a '12'.

My daughter is four, and she's looking forward to the new Star Wars film. So that's one.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[dylan_-]

In the UK, children under 12 aren't allowed to view a 12 rated film, even with an adult. PG (parental guidance) is the rating for "under 12 with adult".

It's kind of interesting that cutting bits off people is OK, but headbutts are out....

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[corian]

> In the UK a 12 means that a kid under 12 cannot go in whether accompanied by an adult or not. So it does matter.

Is this legistlated? I could just see the problems in the US...whether pregant mothers could see a movie or not would come down to a court decision as to when a fetus becomes a child.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[jonathan_ingram]

We're not yet as lawsuit-crazed as in the US.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[Dante_H]

My daughter is two and [...] I don't think a "head butt" is going to scar her.

Jesus, your daughter must be tough. Last time that happened to me I cried like a girl.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[Ngwenya]

I guess they figure that young kids are not that likely to lop somebody in two with a light sabre, but they're pretty likely to stick the nut into some little kiddy's face.

I don't really have a problem with the BBFC's decision. The film makers are perfectly entitled to say "Fuck you, the headbutt stays". It's just that they have to accept a 12 certificate. Which means lower revenue (gee, a whole $20m less that $5b) in the UK.

Now we get to see whether artistic integrity will triumph over filthy lucre...

--Ng

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[Jagen]

Yes it is the law, the certificates for films dictate the ages of those who can watch (in cinemas) or rent films. Unfortunately alot people even in the UK dont seem to realise this, if a cinema lets in a person under the age for that film they can lose their license. I used to work in a cinema and we were always getting parents complaining that their 10 year old kid should be allowed to go into a 15 rated film because they gave "permission".

In response to someone around here who said PG is is for accompanied by adult, thats not true, PG is only an advisory in that its recomended that the parent be aware of the film before letting their child watch it, but they can watch unattended.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[dazed-n-confused]

If they can go down a list and say "Ok, you're two points over the line for a 12. You can take out x laser blasts, x seconds of sabre duel, x punches, or this head-butt to get under the line again", I'm ok with that.

Seems that's how it used to work.

On the 5th of August 1974, Mark Forstater, a producer from Python (Monty) Pictures, wrote the following letter in respect of Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

'Dear Mike,

The Censors' representative, Tony Copell, came along to Friday's screening at Twickenham and he gave us his opinion of the film's probable certificate. He thinks the film will be AA [which is 14 and over] but it would be possible, given some dialogue cuts, to make the film an A rating, which would increase the audience [A being five and above].

For an A we would have to, quote, "lose as many shits as possible, take Jesus Christ out if possible, lose "I fart in your general direction", lose the oral sex, lose "Oh, fuck off", lose "we make castanets out of your testicles".'

He writes further:

'I would like to get back to the Censor and agree to lose the shits, take the odd Jesus Christ out and lose "Oh, fuck off", but to retain "fart in your general direction", "castanets of your testicles" and oral sex, and ask him for an A rating on this basis.

Please let me know as soon as possible your attitude to this.

Yours sincerely.'

I first read that letter 20 years ago. It amused me then and it still amuses me. You'd think it was something the Python team themselves had created, not something their producer had written in all seriousness. The thought of a group of people sitting 'round a conference table, heatedly negotiating these points, is quite bizarre. I mean, how many shits do you have to lose to keep castanets out of your testicles? Exactly how many Jesus Christs is fart in your general direction worth? Or is it a combination thereof? Maybe you can have oral sex for four shits, a Jesus Christ and a fuck-off.

I know it sounds very, very silly, but this type of negotiation is still going on today and will continue going on while we feel a need to classify films. Which I might add, is something I totally endorse in principle and by 'in principle', I mean except when it comes to my own films.

Source: Watch on Censorship (Australia)

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[Galvatron]

On a similar subject, Trey Parker (one of the creators of South Park) wrote about how unbelievably different it was warding off an NC-17 rating for South Park versus Orgazmo and Baseketballs. For South Park, they got a letter much like the above, and the studio helped them write appropriate responses, and generally negotiated it down to an R. For the other two, they basically got something that said "The MPAA has rated this NC-17." They tried to guess which parts they needed to cut, and were successful for Baseketballs, but not for Orgazmo. So, apparently the larger your budget and more influential the studio you're working for, the easier it is to get more favorable ratings.

I also remember hearing once that some movies that are worried about getting an NC-17 intentionally put in scenes that are way over the top, so that they have things they can cut easily to bring down their ratings. It's a fairly corrupt system all around it seems.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[Happy Monkey]

At least in my mind, the real issue not that the studio capitulated. If they had to, so be it. The problem is that there are people in charge who feel that a head butt is enough to prohibit parents from bringing their kids into a theater. I mean, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles head butted, and they were aimed at a younger audience than Star Wars.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[Dirtside]

I can confirm this story. I saw Trey Parker and Matt Stone at a presentation at the Director's Guild in Los Angeles, where they showed a couple episodes of South Park and then took questions from the audience for an hour. Trey (and he was visibly irritated about it) told the story about how when they did Orgazmo, they asked the MPAA what they should cut to get from an NC-17 to an R. The MPAA told them, "Sorry, we can't tell you that, you just need to guess," but when they did the South Park movie, they received itemized lists of what they would need to cut to get from NC-17 to R.

Re:PG vs. 12 certificate

[Happy Monkey]

Hmm. Apparently the Brit censors are particularily sensitive to head butts. Perhaps they have too many soccer hooligans.

Not the first time

[AmunRa]

This sort of thing is not uncommon in the UK. If I recall correctly, Jurassic Park (1 or 2) had similar cuts. This is mainly due to the rating system in the UK, which is quite different to the states. In the UK, there are 5 certificates:

• U - Any age
• PG - Parental Guidance - If you are under 12, you have to be with a parent to see it
• 12 - 12 yeras or over
• 15 - 15 years or over
• 18 - you get the idea...

These are all legally binding (i.e. the cinema will get fined if they let a 10 year old into a 12 film). Basically, if AotC got a 12 cert, then Lucas would loose all those kids who he seems to be aiming at, and it would be less £££ (or $$$) for George.

Re:Not the first time

[karmawarrior]

They're not actually legally binding for films in cinemas. The system is a little more complicated than that.

Local government has the absolute right to allow or disallow a film to be shown in local cinemas in the UK. To make things smoother, there's a policy that there will be little or no meddling in what films can be shown as long as the BBFC rates them and cinemas agree to restrict access according to the ratings. Cinemas who do not comply risk being unable to show films, either because the local council will withdraw their right to do so, or (more often) because the cinema chain will remove troublesome managers to prevent exactly this kind of showdown from happening.

Occasionally ratings are ignored and censorship goes ahead anyway: many local councils banned Life of Brian and also The Last Temptation of Christ, though generally the public doesn't stand for this kind of thing: bus tours were organised to neighbouring towns and counties where the films were being allowed to be shown. On the flip side, many art house cinemas are able to show films that aren't rated, if they have a liberal enough local council.

The BBFC ratings do have a legal mandate in one area, videos (and DVDs) where during the early eighties, the Thatcher regime responded to a "moral outrage" panic fanned a hysterical press about so-called slasher movies and passed a law making the ratings compulsory for video cassettes, and forcing sellers of video cassettes to abide by the certificates. There's at least one film, The Exorcist IIRC, that isn't available on video because the BBFC refuses to rate it.

Incidentally, on your rather specific definition of PG: PG is a voluntary code in more ways than one - there's no requirement that a parent accompany the child, and I recall seeing films when I was below that age without needing a parent to come with me. It was assumed that my parents had given me the necessary "guidance". This may have changed in the last 20 years, but I'm pretty sure I'd have heard if it had.

Re:Not the first time

[karmawarrior]

There's also the highest rating:

R80: Restricted 80. Basically you can't get in unless you're over 80, and accompanied by both parents.

How nitpicky can they get?

[Black Aardvark House]

All those over a one-second headbutt? I wonder how many British children are exposed to professional wrestling? They'll see loads there.

But even on the other side, this is one of those things where ignorance is bliss. If this was never reported, no one would have complained, since one second is a trivial amount of footage.

I'd have to side with leaving the footage in. After all, there's much worse violence than a lousy head-butt.

Re:How nitpicky can they get?

[Schnapple]

Actually, what probably happened is they were told that they had too many violent images to get a PG rating and they had to cut at least one - best to cut the least interesting/important one (light saber to the face = important, head butt != important)

I'm just glad to be in the USA where movie ratings aren't enforced by law.

Re:How nitpicky can they get?

[iapetus]

I wonder how many British children are exposed to professional wrestling? They'll see loads there.

Maybe so. But perhaps it looks realistic in the film. :)

No Spoilers!!!

[JHromadka]

Argh! Now I know there is a head butt in AOTC! Please no spoilers please! Next thing you know someone is going to go around telling everyone that Yoda is Luke's uncle.

Re:No Spoilers!!!

[dylan_-]

I guess I'd better not mention that Anakin becomes Dar....oops!

Kids are impressionable

[rde]

It's all very well cutting out Head-butt (who was much funnier than Beavis, IMO), but what happens when a bunch of impressionable six-year-olds watch the movie and emulate the language of their heroes?
I can just picture them reciting their twelve-times-tables in class...

Four times twelve, forty-eight is
Five times twelve, sixty is

This is a much more egregious assault on our children than a guy with a lightsabre quoting Ezekiel 25:17 as he pops a photon in a bot's ass.

Does anyone else find it interesting...

[InterruptDescriptorT]

...that while a movie that shows graphic violence, including decapitations, disembowellings and other acts of torture and sickness that turn viewers' stomachs can still a 'PG-13' or 'R' rating in the US, while just about any sort of hint of sexual acts, both heterosexual and homosexual, will merit at the very least an 'R' or an 'X' rating?

American censors and the film ratings boards seem to believe that it's OK for people to see violence because it won't affect them at all. Hey, the country was founded in a pit of blood during the Revolutionary War. But it's a hell of a lot better to have that on screen than it is to see two people who love each other show it intimately. Better that we have teenagers running into their school brandishing easily-purchased assault rifles than it is to have them falling in love with someone and spending time with them.

I'm just curious when the culture of violence and hate that the United States pushes on its citizens will finally become tiresome or offensive to them. Look at crime rates in Europe, where guns are near impossible to get hold of and where there are no restrictive anti-sex laws on television. Is it any wonder that their crime rates per capita are significantly lower than the US?

Let's keep producing more violent movies and glorifying war, like Platoon, Saving Private Ryan and all the Rambo movies do. That'll make everyone safer...

Re:Does anyone else find it interesting...

[Peyna]

I think you could almost say that Saving Private Ryan glorified war. Sure it tried to make us vomit and puke, but it's very easy to say "oh, it's just a movie, big deal" and pass it off. (personally I like conan's PG'd version of Saving Private Ryan where the guy is holding a Daschund like a rifle).

I always found All Quiet on the Western Front to be so much more terrifying and really helping me to realize what war is more than any movie. I think that being a book, plus written by someone who was there really made a big difference, and some of the scenes he describes and takes you through are much more horrendous than just severed limbs.

Re:Does anyone else find it interesting...

[First Person]

Actually what I find even more stupid is that (in the US) full frontal female nudity is perfectly okay for a R, but any full frontal male scenes and you are talking NC-17 or X. For the nearly all male movie executives and ratings board members, it's not like this should be anything they haven't seen before. Right?

Re:Does anyone else find it interesting...

[Loligo]

>Let's keep producing more violent movies and
>glorifying war, like Platoon, Saving Private
>Ryan

Uh... You honestly think Platoon or Saving Private Ryan "glorif[y] war"?

Have you SEEN Saving Private Ryan? Have you actually WATCHED Platoon? There's nothing in either of those movies that glorifies war. They both attempt to portray war as the horrible nasty hellish nightmare that it is.

After the release of SPR, military recruiters all over America reported a drop in inquiries. This from a nation that was ALREADY largely apathetic about military service. This was almost exclusively in response to the opening D-Day scenes.

If you're looking for a movie that glorifies war, go find a copy of The Longest Day (B&W, please, none of that Turnerized colorized crap). Watch the Omaha Beach landing sequence. Compared to SPR's, it's about as violent as an episode of Seinfeld.

For a more modern movie (yet set in an older war...), go get Mel Gibson's "The Patriot".

Neither SPR nor Platoon try to be "feel good" movies. Neither is a chest-thumping rah rah "we kicked their sorry asses" movie.

Oh, and I can't let this one go...

>Look at crime rates in Europe, where guns are
>near impossible to get hold of

That kid in Germany sure seemed to have his share. I won't mention terrorist groups like the IRA, Red Brigade, ETA, 17 November, or any of a hundred splinter groups...

-l

Re:Does anyone else find it interesting...

[smagoun]

It's not that the execs haven't seen it before, it's that they're jealous...

Re:Does anyone else find it interesting...

[Loligo]

>Please, don't judge us poor Europeans by the
>behaviour of those of us who make the headlines
>across the pond.

And we Americans would appreciate the same courtesy.

-l

Re:Does anyone else find it interesting...

[vidarh]

Actually, the idea that 1984 promotes communism is not that strange. Orwell always belonged to the left, even to the extent of fighting for a Marxist group during the Spanish civil war. However he came out strongly opposed to Stalinism.

From "Spilling the Spanish Beans" (september 1937) "The logical end is a régime in which every opposition party and newspaper is suppressed and every dissentient of any importance is in jail. Of course, such a régime will be Fascism. It will not be the same Fascism Franco would impose, it will even be better than Franco's Fascism to the extent of being worth fighting for, but it will be Fascism. Only, being operated by Communists and Liberals, it will be called something different."

Orwell likens regimes like the USSR to a fascist regime with a different ideological mythology, run by people at least in name claiming to be communists.

1984 and Animal Farm are anti-fascist. They are also anti-USSR. But they are not anti-socialism, and only anti-communism to the extent that communist ideology and symbolism has been used (or abused, depending on your view) to legitimise a regime that for all intents and purposes share the traits of a fascist regime.

If anything, 1984 and also Animal Farm makes a strong point about societies divided by class, whether by default (the farmers in Animal Farm) or by a coup d'etat shrouded in symbolism drawn from socialist and communist ideology (the pigs in Animal Farm, or the ruling party in 1984).

This is really the core of why some people considers 1984 as a work promoting communism: It underscores Orwells position that class divide was bad regardless of what name was put on the regime it is found in. This is something even Marx argued

That is also what made many stalinists join the choir and complain about Orwell being anti-communist: He pointed out that class divide is class divide whether it is between the working class and the bourgeoisie or between the working class and a party claiming to work for the interests of the working class.

Socialism and "real" Marxist communism has at it's core the goal of abolishing the class divide, and with it the classes, and a major part of the stalinists hold on the left was that they pretended that what had happened in the USSR was somehow better than the class divide in capitalist countries.

Clearly the USSR and the stalinist "Communist" parties didn't do anything to get rid of the class divide, and Orwell was one of the extremely few well known socialists that had the guts to not only criticize the right but also criticize dangerous tendencies on the left.

To finish with another quote from Orwell himself: "Indeed, in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country. [...] And so for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the Socialist movement." [CEJL vol. 3 p. 458]

(Note: The USSR claimed to be socialist, not communist, but with the goal of developing into a communist society)

Re:Over a headbutt?

[minus9]

What do you guys do when the Big Show wrestles on RAW?

Turn the TV over or possibly off.

Re:that extra second.

[minus9]

I suggest that the purists wait until the cut second is about to come up shout 3..2..1.. and head butt the person in the seat in front. Audience participation could bring the film to life.

Re:Not the first time - The Matrix

[gowen]

Large hunting knife in the forehead, yes, headbutt, no.

That (and I'm not saying I agree) is to do with "imitative behaviour". The idea being that its easier for kids to copy their heroes laying the Liverpool Kiss on one another than hacking limbs/skulls with knives/lightsabres.

Excuse me!

[El Camino SS]

"Excuse me! Can I say something?"

(RAISES HAND IN THE BACK)

SHORT GUY IN THE BACK: "Look, I understand that a headbutt might be a little violent for you raters out there... I UNDERSTAND. Real quick though, why is it you object to the headbutt, but wholesale chopping off of limbs with a lightsabre is totally okay?"

THE BOARD: "Oh, sit down! We judge the morals around here!"

Re:The real weird part for us crazy Americans

[karmawarrior]

One of my first wierd experiences as a Brit living in the US was watching "Airplane" on network TV. Roughly 50% appeared to be missing. The most bizarre cut I recall went like this:

Original: Pilots are discussing problems. One turns to other: "When McCruskie hears about this, the shit's really going to hit the fan!"

Cut to shot of fan. A large brown mass hits it and slops to the bottom.

Cut to McCruskie and rest of film.

Network TV version: Pilots are discussing problems. Then are silent for a few seconds.

Cut to shot of fan. Nothing happens. "WTF is the significance of the fan?" asks audience.

Cut to McCruskie and rest of film.

I recall watching this, open mouthed, wondering how anyone can be that conservative. Then I got to know my collegues better, and while most are as liberal as the people in the UK, it's not uncommon to find an extremist in their twenties who will refuse to watch a film because it has a rude word in it. It's even more bizarre when you consider the standards being set: Beat the crap out of someone, and it's standard TV. Show crap, or use the word "crap", and it's controvertial.

This is one of the potential benefits of the V-chip. As the V-chip becomes more prevalent, the censors will have no excuse. Network TV should be able to show what it wants, safe in the knowledge that those who would normally whine and complain can be answered with the line "Well, we tagged it, if you'd set your V-chip properly you wouldn't have seen it. You only have yourself to blame."

Here's hoping.

Re:I totally agree

[Kintanon]

ARggh! I can't complain enough about Darth Maul losing to that chump Obi-Wan!!! In the ENTIRE fight scene Maul outclasses Obi-Wan and Quigon in every possible way. He's a better fighter, he's faster, he's stronger, and he has better makeup. And that little pansy Obi-Wan manages to cut him in half... GRR! Anti-climatic fight scene! They should have let Maul escape, and had older Anakin kill him to take his place beside Palpatine. Would have been so much better in my opinion.

Kintanon

Re:The real weird part for us crazy Americans

[radish]

Not that weird, it's just that our film classifiers (recently anyway) have been much more bothered about violence than nudity/sex. They did a public survey a couple of years back which basically said that the vast majority of adults want to be able to watch whatever they like, and parents are far more worried about violence than sex.

In the UK (and europe to an even larger extent) nudity (particularly toplessness) is seen as nothing special. Full frontal is common on network TV, and as you say (some) tabloid newspapers have topless page 3 girls. In the summer you'll see girls in the park topless (more in europe than the UK, it rarely gets warm enough!), and on beaches it's derigeur.

As a non (but prospective!) parent, I would have no problem at all with my son/daughter checking out the naturist magazines at any age. I'd be a lot more concerned with them picking up the latest guns & ammo, or even worse, some WWF crap :)

Lucas - most violent director in history

[Animats]

Lucas was the first, in 1978, to blow up an inhabited planet on-screen. That was the most violent, genocidal mass murder in the history of motion pictures.

Few objected, because it wasn't "graphic violence".