As cinema has become a dominant part of culture audience’s
expectations have begun to change, and consequently there’s been a natural
progression of ratings readjustments. Following the improvement of CGI
technology film studios have been met with a rising demand for ultra-realism
and they have responded with astounding authenticity. But, with the improvement
of film studios’ tech there has come a point where ratings have had to give,
especially with the increasing tendency of films to frequently include strong
themes of violence, sex and profanity. The modern audience is far less likely
to be disturbed by what a film depicts than they were a few decades ago, and
the changes have had a significant impact on the escalating expectations of
audiences and the UK film ratings system.
If you consider the rise of horror films and the backlash
that followed, in the 1980’s, aptly named the ‘Video Nasties’, it’s clear that
things have changed a hell of a lot. When films like Evil Dead and Driller Killer
came bursting onto the scene audiences were shocked by what they saw. Blood and
guts were bursting everywhere and we can never forget that infamous tree rape
scene can we. In just a few short years the notion of the slasher film became a
cult hit amongst younger audiences. But some were not so keen on it, and consequently
a movement for banning these ‘heinous’ exhibitions of violence begun. Contemporary
audiences used to watching films that give us hyper realistic deaths and
massacres probably wouldn’t bat an eye at the unrealistic gore of the 1980s. We
only see pathetically bad CGI and really fake blood, but in their era they were
the height of realism and horror, but at the time the films were the pinnacle
of gore and horror. People apparently even fainted during shows of Evil Dead!
Due to the limited power of the BBFC (British Board of Film
Classification) they were unable to control the access to these films on video
release, because prior to 1984 the certificates on videos weren’t legally
binding and ratings were only really effective for cinema releases. As a result
a moral campaign sprung up in retaliation, which was spearheaded by Mary
Whitehouse of the NVLA (National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association). A list
of films was sent out dictating those films that needed to be recalled and
banned, and it resulted in a lot of confusion. Titles that had received proper
classifications were banned without cause and it resulted in the Video
Recordings Act of 1984. The act imposed a stricter moral code on the release of
films, particularly those that had cinematic releases. In recent years,
however, the emphasis on morality in rating films has relaxed significantly and
we get to enjoy The Evil Dead (the
original, not the remake) in peace.
The initial reaction to horror films was extreme, but as
time has passed gore has become the norm for the modern audience, which has had
a strong impact on ratings today. The gradual acceptance of extreme violence in
mainstream cinema has had a knock-on affect on how other aspects of film are
treated, including graphic sex, violence and language, which is abundantly
clear when considering the negative reaction to the ‘video nasties’ in
comparison to the widely accepted violence in modern day film.
The boundaries between ratings have become slightly blurred
as time has gone on, primarily due to the ability of film editors to decrease a
films rating just by reducing the amount of shots focusing on violence or gore
or by shortening a nude scene. A 12 is described as only permitting ‘moderate’
violence and occasional gory moments, but what justifies ‘moderate’? A 15 is
described as allowing ’strong violence’ as long as it doesn’t dwell on the
infliction of pain or injury, but much of this can be cleverly edited around so
that the level of violence is the same, but the rating isn’t. This is usually
done by reducing the focus on the cause of the injury or by shifting it out of
the spotlight.
Some aspects of ratings are clearer though, particularly in
regards to the viewing of sexual violence, which is only permitted to be shown
discreetly at a 15 and must be justified by its context. The BBFC even take
into consideration the portrayal of behaviour that may be considered dangerous
for teens, but even this can only be policed to a limited extent. The various
criteria that decide the ratings of films are often too fluid to avoid any
controversy, particularly with the changing perception of what’s considered
‘moderate’ or ‘strong violence’. Thirty years ago violence depicted in the 80s
era of horror would have been described as ‘heinous’ and ‘graphic’, but
comparatively a film with the same level of gore and realism in the modern
market would barely warrant a 15.
Audiences have become gradually accustomed to strong levels
of violence, swearing and sex, but when is it too much? Many films have been
criticised for the glorification of violence, most significantly The Human Centipede, and others have
been disapproved of for their gratuitous display of sex and drug use, like The Wolf of Wall Street, which was
still hailed as a critical success despite its highly controversial contents.
The film garnered the record for the most uses of the word ‘fuck’ in a singular
film, and missed a 15 rating in the UK because of it (amongst other things). But,
despite some limited censuring of films in the modern day, there’s one major
issue, and that lies in the description of an 18 rating, which claims that it
will censor anything that may ‘cause harm to public health or morals.’ An admirable
statement, but how exactly can it be moderated? Our morals are ever changing
and I doubt they can be properly quantified to understand exactly how a U, PG,
12, 15 or 18 act against them.
How long will it be until there’s even less difference between
a PG and a 12? Or a 15 and an 18? As realism/technology has developed the
boundaries between ratings have become inconsistent and the expectations of
audiences have shifted drastically. Sex is a pretty commonplace discussion now
and that’s clearly been reflected in film, similarly violence and profanity
have equally become more vividly portrayed across the board. In a world where
those with internet access can find graphic beheadings of ISIS victims people aren’t
phased by what an 18 film can deliver.
Film ratings feel almost pointless at this stage of internet
dominance, because any kid who doesn’t have parental controls can access any
film as long as he can download it. That doesn’t mean we don’t need ratings,
but isn’t there another way we can limit what people are able to see? Graphic
violence is now a normal occurrence in TV programming and films, and the
development of technology can only be blamed for so much of it. Audiences are
always crying out for more, so that they can be shocked once more, in a new and
exciting way.
At the rate we’re becoming acclimatised to strong levels of
violence and sex our ratings system could soon become obsolete, or need a
complete remodel. Audiences have become accustomed to a certain level of
realism, and we’re left with an industry desperately competing to bring a whole
new level of gore to shock and awe an audience incapable of being surprised. With
audiences who complain if things are too extreme or too boring film studios are
at a loss, and the only progression to be had is to try to keep up with the ever-changing
demands of impatient audiences. No wonder films ratings have begun to reflect
the attitudes of audiences; they have no choice but to cater to the erratic
tide or they’ll be swallowed by it.
