POWERPOINT_FOR_VLE - School-Portal.co.uk by zhouwenjuan

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 6

									FILM CENSORSHIP AND CONTROVERSY


      SUMMARY OF THE ACTS
         CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS {ANIMALS}
                    ACT

•   1937
•   THIS ACT MADE IT AN OFFENCE TO DISTRIBUTE OR EXHIBIT A FILM WHOSE CREATION
    INVOLVED ACTUAL CREULT TO AN ANIMAL
•   UNLIKE MORE DRACONIAN LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE 1978 CHILDRENS ACT,
    EXEMPTIONS ARE GRANTED FOR FILM-MAKERS WHO CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY
    WERE UNAWARE THAT DISTRESS WAS BEING CAUSED, AND TO FILMING EVENTS SUCH
    AS BUTCHERY OR RITUAL SACRIFICE THAT WOULD HAVE OCCURRED REGARDLESS OF
    THE CAMERA’S PRESENCE.
•   THIS LATTER POINT LARGELY APPLIES TO DOCUMENTARY PRODUCERS, THOUGH
    SCENES SUCH AS THE CLIMACTIC SACRIFICE IN APOCALYPSE NOW [FRANIS COPPOLA,
    1979] HAVE ALSO BENEFITTED.
•   MANY OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE SIMILAR ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANIMAL CRUELTY IN
    FILMS, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT ENSHIRNED IN LAW. IN GENERAL, MOSE RECENT
    MAINSTREAM PRODUCTIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THE US ARE SUPERVISED BY
    ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS THE AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION TO ENSURE THAT THE
    WELFARE OF ANIMALS IS PARAMOUNT DURING THE FILM MAKING PROCESS

•   FILMS THAT HAVE CAUSED PROBLEMS UNDER THE ACT INCLUDE:
     – ``TOM JONES’’ 1963 WHOSE STAG HUNT WAS MODIFIED AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH
        THE RSPCA
     – VARIOUS ITALIAN CANNIBAL FILMS SUCH AS ``CANNIBAL FEROX’’ 1980 WHICH WERE
        CUT FOR UNSTIMIULATED ANIMAL CRUELTY.
     – ``THE ABYSS’’ 1989 LOST A SHOT OF A RAT APPEARING TO BREATHE UNDERWATER.
        OBSCENE PUBLICAITONS ACT



•   1959
•   INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO RESOLVE ISSUES WHEREBY OBSCENITY
    LEGISLATION COULD ALSO BE APPLIED TO ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE
    WORKS RANGING FROM DISTINGUISHED NOVELS TO MEDICAL
    TEXTBOOKS.
•   TO ILLUSRTATE THIS, THE OPENING DEFINITION OF OBSCENITY
    STRESSES THAT THE WORK `TAKEN AS A WHOLE’ MUST `TEND TO
    DEPRAVE AND CORRUPT’ AND LATER ON, A SEXTION ENTITLED
    ``DEFENCE OF PUBLIC GOOD’’, SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS WORK `IN THE
    INTEREST OF SCIENCE, LITERATURE, ART OR LEARNING, OR OF OTHER
    OBJECTS OF GENERAL CONCERN’.
•   ALTHOUGH THE ACT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED ONLY TO COVER
    LITERATURE- IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE.
•   NO BBFC-APPROVED FILM HAS EVER BEEN SUCCESSFULLY
    PROSECUTED UNDER THE OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT, AND FEW
    SUCH PROSECUTIONS HAVE EVER BEEN ATTEMPED.
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT


•   1978
•   THIS ACT MAKES IT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE TO DISTRIBUTE, SHOW OR
    EVEN POSSESS INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN UNDER THE
    AGE OF SIXTEEN, THE DEFINITION OF INDECENT BEING BROAD
    ENOUGH TO COVER IMAGES THAT ARE CONSIDERED INDECENT EVEN
    IF THE ROLE OF THE CHILD IS NOT.
•   PRIMARY PURPOSE WAS TO DEAL WITH THE INCREASING PROBLEM OF
    CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, THE WORDING OF THE ACT ALSO MEANT THAT
    IT COULD BE APPLIED TO ENTIRESEUDO-LY RESPECTABLE FILMS AS
    WELL, AND THE BRITISH BOARD OF FILM CENSORS WAS REQUIRED TO
    TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT.
•   THE ACT WAS MODIFIED BY THE 1994 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, THE
    DEFINITION OF `PHOTOGRAPH’ BEING EXTENDED TO COVER DIGITAL
    IMAGES AND `PSEUDO-PHOTOGRAPHS’ ASSEMBLED BY IMAGE EDITING
    SOFTWARE THAT APPEAR TO SHOW CHILDREN IN SEXUAL SITUATIONS,
    WHICH HAS BECOME AN INCREASING PROBLEM THANKS TO THE RISE
    OF THE INTERNET.
            VIDEO RECORDINGS ACT

•   1984
•   MARGARET THATCHER’S GOVERNMENT INTRODUCED THE VIDEO RECORDINGS
    ACT WHICH WAS PHASED IN OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS .
•   THE KEY AIM OF THE VRA WAS TO ENSURE THAT ALL VIDEO RECORDINGS
    AVAILABLE IN THE UK WERE APPROVED BY A RECOGNISED AUTHORITY.
•   THE FROM SEPTEMBER 1 1985, ALL VIDEO RECORDINGS HAD TO POSSESS A
    BBFC CLASSIFICATION, AT THESE TIMES WHICH WERE, U, PG, 15, 18 AND R18
•   NOT ALL VIDEOS HAD TO BE SCRUNTINISED BY THE BBFC. A VIDEO WAS EXEMPT
    FROM CLASSIFICATION IF IT WAS CONSIDERED EDUCATIONAL OR IF IT
    PROMOTED SPORT, MUSIC OR RELIGION. HOWEVER, THIS EXEMPTION WAS ONLY
    GRATED IF THE VIDEO IN QUESTION DID NOT CONTAIN IMAGES OF HUMAN
    SEXUAL ACTIVITY, UNINARY OR EXCRETORY FUNCTIONS, EXTREME VIOLENCE
    AND TORTURE OR THE DEPICTION OF TECHNIQUES LIKELY TO BE USED IN
    COMMITTING CRIMES.
•   THE SUPPLY OF UNCLASSIFIED VIDEOS WAS MADE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, AS
    WAS SUPPLYING 15 AND 18-CERTIFICATE VIDEOS TO PEOPLE UNDER AGE. R-18
    COULD ONLY BE SOLD IN SEX SHOPS.
                   CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

•   1994
•   THE 1994 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT WAS A WIDE-RANGING AND HUGELY CONTROVERSIAL
    PIECE OF LEGISLATION, AS IT CHALLENGED MANY OF THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING
    BRITISH JUSTICE AND GAVE THE POLICE SWEEPING NEW POWERS OF ARREST AND
    SEIZURE, INCLUDING THE ABILITY TO SHUT DOWN LEGAL RAVE PARTIES.
•   NEW CLAUSES WERE ADDED TO RESTRICT VIDEOS DEPICTING `TECHNIQUES LIKELY TO BE
    USED IN THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCES’’, WHILE THE BRITISH BOARD OF FILM
    CLASSIFICATION WAS GIVEN GREATER POWERS WITH REGARD TO RECALLING FILMS FOR
    RECLASSIFICATION.
•   THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ADDITION TO THE VRA WAS A CLAUSE COVERING POTENTIAL
    HARM `CAUSED TO POTENTIAL VIEWERS OR, BY THEIR BEHAVIOR, TO SOCIETY’ BY
    MATERIAL DEALING WITH `CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR ILLEGAL DRUGS, VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR OR
    INCIDENTS, HORRIFIC BEHAVIOUR OR INCIDENTS OR HUMAN SEXUAL ACTIVITY’.
•   THIS NOTION OF HARM WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE ACT AS A RESULT OF THE 1994
    NEWSON REPORT, WHICH ALLEGED THAT VIOLENT VIDEOS WERE CAPABLE OF CAUSING
    PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE, ESPECIALLY TO YOUNG IMPRESSIONABLE CHILDREN.
•   MANY OF TE BBFC’S MORE CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS
    WOULD BE REACHED ONLY AFTER CONSULTATION WITH PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGISTS.

								
To top