Last week, the Video Appeals Committee overturned the BBFC's decision to refuse a rating for both the original and re-cut versions of Rockstar's Manhunt 2 (more here). But, with the bit well and truly between its teeth, the classification board is applying for a judicial review of the decision. From the press release:
The BBFC is contesting the VAC judgement because in the Board's view, it is based on an approach to harm which is an incorrect interpretation of the Video Recordings Act. The VAC judgement, if allowed to stand, would have fundamental implications with regard to all the Board's decisions, including those turning upon questions of unacceptable levels of violence.
You may remember that David Cooke, director of the BBFC, spoke of the game's "bleakness and callousness of tone". However, Fred Hasson CEO of TIGA told the VAC panel that he was, "surprised at how tame it is compared to some very graphical scenes I've seen in other games which have received certification." Although, of course, the head honcho of a developer's association cannot be viewed as a genuinely disinterested party. However, these views were echoed by psychologist, Guy Cumberbatch, who opined, "In my own limited experience of playing Manhunt 2, it's fairly sanitised as a work compared with what you might expect in a film."
So, what does the BBFC mean when it states that the decision is based on, "an approach to harm which is an incorrect interpretation of the Video Recordings Act". It's difficult to comment on this without seeing the VAC conclusion, but 'harm' is an ambiguous concept, which was treated so vaguely in the original 1984 act that a 1994 update sought to clarify the term. This now appears as section 4A(1):
The designated authority shall, in making any determination as to the suitability of a video work, have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with --
(a) criminal behaviour;
(b) illegal drugs;
(c) violent behaviour or incidents;
(d) horrific behaviour or incidents; or
(e) human sexual activity.
The BBFC could be insinuating that the VAC has overturned the 'ban' due to a perceived interpretation of harm as violence against society, and from that perception was unwilling to support the BBFC's decision - connections between game and real-life violence are contentious, after all. But the BBFC's interpretation of harm includes the psychological effects on the viewer themselves. All pure speculation at this stage though. It is to be hoped that the BBFC clarifies its objection over the coming days.
Comments
Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs.
You can register here.
If the BBFC's argument is that it causes harm then surely that is something that is a testable hypothesis? If the BBFC are going down the evidence bases route then their argument may run into problems. Will be interesting to watch.
As crazy as the ban seemed at first (because protecting minors is not the job of censors) I now think it should remain in force to avoid hype-generated sales to the precise demographic that would be harmed by playing it. Also the u-turn "smells of sleaze" to coin a phrase.
pah the only sleaze here is the BBFC's refusal to accept that they are singling out one game for undue censorship for political/popularist reasons.
For me, a tax paying adult, to be *banned* from playing a game because it is "bleak" is simply outrageous.
And the amount of sympathy they get on a guardian blog - supposedly a more liberal branch of the media - is sickening in the extreme. Though I realise no one can be bothered to comment anymore.
The game may be rubbish, rockstar may be doing it to court publicity, but that doesn't change the fact that the BBFC shouldn't be able to bend (their own) rules and regulations simply because mass media or politics has engineered a distorted fear of the product.
The simple fact is that the game is clearly comparable both to other films and other games that the BBFC have had no qualms over.
Worse still the only defence the BBFC seems to have for banning it is seems to be because it may come into the hands of minors. That's right - they want to ban it because *their own system* of ratings has failed. Thus by this logic we should ban all 18 films and games as they may fall into the hands of minors.
But the BBFC won't ban them all - only the ones *erroneously* linked to murders as is the case with manhunt and have thus guarnered undue political and media attention. That's to say if you agree with this, you agree that the editor of the daily mail should decide what you can buy.
@ pH101
how much clout does the BBFC have as to how well their ratings system is enforced? Do they do anything more than rate the game? If not then surely saying that in spite of an 18 certificate kids will still get their hands on it is a pragmatic point of view and not an admission of failure.
Which isn't to say I think it should be banned, just wondering whether the BBFC can be held responsible for the availability of an 18 game to kids, in the same way I would hold the government responsible for a dodgy off licence selling 14 year-olds bottles of WKD.
@SAA
True enough - from the BBFC it is primarily an admission to the fact that their system doesn't appear to work (though I doubt there has been any convincing research on the matter).
But their "pragmatic" response is woefully shortsighted. Do they really know contend they intend to ban *any* game (or film?) that is unsuitable for minors. I suspect not - just the ones singled out by the media or politicians.
However I don't blame the BBFC for the games ratings not working (as they themselves propose without evidence) or for them not being properly enforced.
But the response should be to educate parents and to raise penalties in shops that flout the ratings, so that ratings are taken seriously.
Whether the BBFC has the power to do this - or whether they should be lobbying the government to make it happen I couldn't say. If a body has the power to censor and blanket ban material from the general public - from *me* - they should presumeably have the power to to have some input into how *their own* proposed ratings should be used and enforced.
But a blanket ban is clearly not the solution. The UK hasn't banned alcohol despite the fact it is drunk by (a percentage of) minors and nor should we.
@SAA
True enough - from the BBFC it is primarily an admission to the fact that their system doesn't appear to work (though I doubt there has been any convincing research on the matter).
But their "pragmatic" response is woefully shortsighted. Do they really know contend they intend to ban *any* game (or film?) that is unsuitable for minors. I suspect not - just the ones singled out by the media or politicians.
However I don't blame the BBFC for the games ratings not working (as they themselves propose without evidence) or for them not being properly enforced.
But the response should be to educate parents and to raise penalties in shops that flout the ratings, so that ratings are taken seriously.
Whether the BBFC has the power to do this - or whether they should be lobbying the government to make it happen I couldn't say. If a body has the power to censor and blanket ban material from the general public - from *me* - they should presumeably have the power to to have some input into how *their own* proposed ratings should be used and enforced.
But a blanket ban is clearly not the solution. The UK hasn't banned alcohol despite the fact it is drunk by (a percentage of) minors and nor should we.
i'd have a bit more sympathy with the protecting minors arguement if they hadn't introduced the 12A rating (on the back of spiderman) which in my view undermines the system by admitting parents ignore the ratings and will let kids watch what they like as long as they complain enough
Never mind the 12A for Spiderman, they gave the same rating to Casino Royale where a naked man has his balls whipped with a carpet beater. Double standards?
What's with the holding of comments?
Wasn't the 12A created because of Harry Potter?
Just out of interest, do they ask for ID when you buy an 18 game in the same way they would if you looked underage and were trying to buy some sauce?
A.
@Adamskii
I don't think so. The sauce issue is really high profile and teams of police try to control the sales of alcohol to minors. You also need a license to sell it which is only granted once you've sat an (admittedly easy) exam and had a chat with a local bobby.
I don't think gamestation are worried about losing their license if they sell GTA to a 15 year old. Mind you perhaps if they were the BBFC could focus on doing its job rather than protecting those who its own system clearly can't protect (in a nod to PH101).
Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs.
You can register here.