A Criminal Intent to Arouse, Part 2
From the BBFC website:
“Occasionally, a work lies on the margin between two categories. In applying the criteria in these Guidelines in such a case, the BBFC takes into account the intentions of the film-maker, the expectations of the public in general and the work’s audience in particular, and any special merits of the work.”
I am curious by what process the BBFC divines intentions, expectations, who is or isn’t the audience, or what they regard as special merit.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
The BBFC have a magic crystal ball that knows exactly what you’re thinking. Right now…
Seriously, the BBFC have to make decisions which are ultimately subjective but will have been discussed by their examiners and (where there is some dispute) by the senior management. Having followed the BBFC for some time, I will say that as regulators go, they are remarkably friendly and open.
By the way, the BBFC have recently given John Cameron Mitchell’s film “Shortbus” an uncut 18 rating. Who knows, maybe they’d treat Damon & Hunter with the same respect ?
September 19th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
I have no such crystal ball, so I can only go on what I have read about the BBFC, DESTRICTED, and SHORTBUS.
About DESTRICTED Sir Quentin said it was so explicit that it would normally attract an R18 rating but he judged that it was a work of art not intended to arouse. John Cameron Mitchell is on record as saying that although all the orgasms are real in SHORTBUS no one got an erection watching it, at least not in Cannes. (Maybe he had better luck in Toronto.)
I can make no such claims about DAMON AND HUNTER. I made in the sincere hope that people would find it arrousing, and I have heard from several sources that at least in that respect DAMON AND HUNTER is a successful film.