Archive for the ‘film censorship’ Category

Time for a reality check – a posting to Shooting People. org

December 14, 2009

Recently two completely different things have been being conflated in these bulletins: productions for which a market exists (e.g. advertising, corporate, training, factual for large niche interest groups, wedding, etc) and which should thus be realistically budgeted; and productions with no access to any markets (short and long narrative fiction, ‘art’) which, if left to their own devices, could, and would, only be made on a spare time ‘hobby’ basis by people with other sources of income (state benefits, bar work, part time teaching, pension).

Access is the key word in the above. Clearly there is a fair amount of interest here in short films, as instanced by the fact that ‘short film nights’ have become a regular feature in many towns and cities. But that isn’t a market because, in its present form, it generates effectively no income.

Now I know that many rather bristle at being referred to by words such as ‘amateur’, or ‘hobbyist’, but that’s what we are.

Right now there is only one market for short fiction: the UKFC – either directly or by proxy through the tiny amounts it gives to its RSAs, or to whatever are the currently fashionable minority groups – largely as a  meaningless exercise in social engineering.

Short film schemes are part of the UKFC’s ‘talent spotting’ – a notion that someone somewhere might make something that Lenny Crookes (New Cinema Fund)thinks is worth watching, who can then be developed by the UKFC. This, of course, is seen as a joke; commissioned work is seriously under-funded and, on completion, put on a shelf to gather dust – they cannot be put anywhere else as they have no access to any markets.

Once in a blue moon someone in London does, as a result of courting nepotism, make it through to UKFC-financed feature film development (the UKFC has recently announced that, in future 25% will go to the regions, which is around about a 4-fold increase). The prospect of the resulting film breaking even is less than one in twenty, regardless of its quality or merit, as it will have no meaningful access to any markets. What’s more the highly-paid arts administrators see it as their duty to ‘train’ the producers of these films in the intricacies of film finance by making their awards dependent on ‘match-funding’. But no one is going to invest in any UK independent feature film by first or second time producers and directors who are Shooting People members. All it adds up to is ‘we’ll give you far less than your film would cost to make, but we’ll only actually give you half of that – the rest you’ll just have to get from deferrals and in kind’.

Does the UKFC do anything to create a sustainable market for British filmmaking?

Do they call for the establishing of theatrical exhibition quotas, which would simply bring the UK into line with most other countries?

Do they call for similar quotas to those regulating most other forms of terrestrial TV programming to be extended to films?

Do they call for broadcasters to restore whatever little support they once gave through regular UK short film seasons?

Do they call for the introduction of an “unrated 18” certificate, again in line with many other countries?

Do they complain to the monopolies and mergers commission about the whole raft of restrictive practices which disadvantage UK filmmaking?

Do they actively promote a UK film festival culture in which a hugely multi-award winning short like Chris Jones ‘Gone Fishing’, would be screened at more than only two ‘British’ festivals?

But, more importantly, do you? Are you an active member of any organisations which campaigns on your behalf on any of these issues? Do you ever even write to your MP or the press?

Or are you nothing more than an ‘amateur’ or a ‘hobbyist’?

Jon Williams

writer/producer Diary of a Bad Lad – http://www.bad-lad.com

The campaign to reform the VRA http://reformthevrauk.blogspot.com/

North-West New Wave – which is dedicated to raising the profile of new underground independent filmmaking, and which has already established itself as a major thread at both the Salford and Pennine Film FestivaLS.

Regular speaker/workshop leader for Manchester-based ‘Future Artists’ which is seriously dedicated to developing and communicating about new models for independent film production, distribution and exhibition.

And a 61 year old with ME and a heart condition…

Indie Filmmakers! If you dont already know this, get ready to copy this now…

November 25, 2009

Greetings brothers and sisters. Here’s the lesson…

Filmmakers, you can make your film, whatever the length, available as a download exclusively from your own site, and you will.

Curators, if you negotiate the permissions you can make compilations of short films, whatever the length, available as a download exclusively from your own site.

And the way to do it is through Amazon.com’s (not co.uk)back room. For really tiny fees you can upload your film/compilation to an Amazon server. You then put the appropriate link on your site and that’s it.

Do a ‘Radiohead’ – open a PayPal business account, create a ‘donate now’ button (which takes as long as it takes to read the very simple instructions) and then copy and paste the code to where you want it to be on the page you’re constructing. Give your visitors some suggestions – price of a coffee, ginsters pie, Tesco jeans, – use your imagination. They go to the donate page, make one, or not, and download your movie from a very reliable service.

Now you go out and start telling the world that they can download your movie exclusively from you and pay what they like.

Now it’s time for me to come round with the plate… No, there is no link to ‘download Diary of a Bad Lad now’ – why? because we haven’t finished setting up yet and the information was too important to keep to ourselves.

But ask yourself, “How much is this information potentially worth to me?” Is it worth the price of a totally extras laden just released exclusively from our sites Diary of a Bad Lad DVD for an introductory special offer price of just 9.95 including P&P?

Sure I could tell you how amazing the film is (“…shows just what UK independent filmmakers could and should be making../” Ben Blaine), you can google the reviews so far – just avoid the ‘blogcritics’ one, it’s by some rural American college teacher who says he couldn’t get into it and then proceeded to spit feathers and spoilers all over the page…

But if you are of little faith you can watch it for free on http://www.dailymotion.com/renderyardchannel all over this weekend. I’ll even go so far as to say if you then want to buy it and you post a review anywhere on the net, tell me and I’ll let you have two copies for the price of one and you’ve solved a Christmas present for someone.

BTW the trailer has had over 110,000 views now on dailymotion – and we’ll be getting some advertising revenue. You cannot do this on your own, this is all down to Mark Reid at renderyard.com
Mark is a total live wire and a total inspiration who might do the same for you with no strings attached (other than he thinks your film is worth it).

See, not just one piece of valuable information but a bonus bit too.

OK, lesson over, details and links follow. Best, Jonxxx

Amazon Web Services provides software developers with direct access to Amazon’s robust technology platform. Build on Amazon’s suite of web services to enable and enhance your applications. Leverage Amazon’s experience in web-scale computing to build your own applications that can scale on demand to meet your needs. Build your own business using Amazon’s rich store of product data and information about the Internet. Visit our Solutions Catalog to see some of the possibilities:

http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/aws-solutions/

To participate in the Amazon Web Services Program, you will need to follow these steps:

1. Register to become an AWS developer:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aws/registration/registration-form.html

2. Visit the AWS homepage where you will find links to resources that will help you get started:
http://aws.amazon.com

Here’s how the Regional Screen Agencies could support British indie films at no cost!

November 17, 2009

Make a film on little or no money and you don’t qualify for a tax-break. Make it independently of the UKFC and you won’t get any awards either. But here’s a simple way in which around £3,000 could given to anyone producing a feature film, or a collection of shorts on DVD.  And it wouldn’t involve any form-filling at all.

All it requires is for the Video Recordings Act (1984) to be ammended so that it allows films to be released as ‘unrated-18’ – just like they can be in quite a few other countries besides the USA.  At a stroke independent filmmakers would no longer have to pay the BBFC to classify films for theatrical release. And then for a DVD certificate. And then to classify all the extras which, when it comes to audio commentaries, the BBFC claims that these represent different versions of the film and charge accordingly. The bill could come well end up coming to more than the film cost to make.

And then there are all the organisations that have been springing up in towns and cities across the country devoted to screenings short films in anywhere from upstairs rooms in pubs to arts centres. These could be bringing out their own compilations on DVD if it wasn’t for the costs of paying the BBFC.

So, if the RSA’s really want to support British independent filmmaking and new forms of exhibition as well, they should be pointing out to the government the significant and lasting benefits of such an ammendment.

There you are. It wouldn’t even cost a penny!

“When it comes to independent films, what’s the point of the BBFC?”

July 3, 2009

A copy of this post can also be found on http://www.britflicks.com

The BBFC defines its purpose as being to protect children – anyone under 18 – from unsuitable material. This may be all well and good when it comes to films on general release, or on sale at supermarket checkouts. But over 90% of these films are American productions (some with English actors and storylines) and at least six% of the rest are French productions from either Pathe or Gaumont.

   Basically British independent films don’t get  a look in because UK distributors simply can’t afford the marketing spends which the multiplex chains demand before they’ll consider booking a film. The result is that these films only get screened in specialised cinemas and arts centres which under 18s don’t go to, and the DVD’s are mainly sold via the internet to 18+ credit card holders. In short the BBFC is not ‘protecting’ anyone from these films.

   On top of that, when it comes to giving films 18 ratings the BBFC has a policy of not demanding cuts, and that this because of both European freedom of expression legislation, as well as UK public opinion – adults expect to be treated as adults. And when it comes to public screenings they don’t have any power either; local authorities grant licences for film screenings and they generally go along with BBFC ratings, but they’re perfectly happy to see unrated films shown at festivals, regular indie film nights and so on.

   You could say that its powers only apply to DVD’s, rating such material in relation to the Mary Whitehouse/Daily Mail ‘video nasty’ moral panic inspired Video Recordings Act of 1984 and its amendments of 1993 and 1994.  And under the VRA, material designed to ‘inform, educate and instruct’ is exempt, provided that it contains little sex and violence. In point of fact no one is actually obliged to submit anything to the BBFC –  but you’d be in trouble with the law if you were breaching the VRA.

   So how do you know if you need to submit or not? If, like me, you try contacting the BBFC they’ll tell you that it’s not their job to interpret the law; but if you send it they’ll classify it – and find a way of charging you for it even if it is clearly exempt. But, at the same time, they will tell you that a director’s or producer’s commentary, which you’d be forgiven for thinking was there to ‘educate and inform’, was actually a different version of the film which they’d have to classify at their standard rate of around £500 per hour.

And you better pay because you might be running the risk of a £5,000 fine, or two years in jail, maybe both.

   But who enforces the VRA. Are you going to get in trouble with the police? No. Actually you’d only be in trouble with ‘Trading Standards’, and only then if someone had made a complaint. So I contacted a wide cross section of Trading Standards offices asking for clarification as to exactly what was exempt and what was not. And just about every reply said something different, but they all agreed that it wasn’t really their job, it was up to a judge to interpret the law.

   This is a complete farce. You could say that BBFC ratings benefit Hollywood as audiences make decisions partly by classification, and the cost for them is a drop in the ocean.

   But it’s really annoying if you’re an indie filmmaker who’s made a two hour long 18 rated film, and put a lot of effort into constructing a ‘DVD extras disc’ that’s full of the sort of added value that audiences look for, and your distributor tells you that they’re going to have to cut all the audio commentaries because each one is going to add yet another £1,000 onto the BBFC bill in order to protect people who aren’t going to see the film in the first place. This is nothing more than a punitive tax on indie filmmakers and distributors!

   There are other parts of the world with more enlightened and more sensible policies. Films can be release unrated and treated as a ‘18’ in such as the USA, Norway and Germany. In Denmark an unrated film counts as a ‘15’, and Sweden is planning to introduce the same ‘unrated 15’ category within the next twelve months.

   And then there are countries such as Canada, Austria and Malta which treat DVD’s exactly the same as CD’s, books, magazines and any other media, by not rating them at all.

   On top of that, as in New Zealand recently, many media businesses have started complaining about how censorship and certification fees, just as in the UK, disadvantage niche markets. And it’s about time that more of us started complaining here as well

In its own words, when it comes to “18”, just what is the point of the BBFC

June 22, 2009

The BBFC has passed Lars von Trier’s ANTICHRIST uncut. Their line is that it isn’t a ‘sex work’, but a serious piece of filmmaking. 

They go on to point out that the film is  “acceptable at ’18’ where, in line with the consistent findings of the BBFC’s public consultations, the BBFC’s Guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law.”

Yes, you read that correctly, read it again just to make sure: “adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law.”

Video Recordings Act UK (1984) – Exempt Material

June 17, 2009

I posted the following on today’s Shooting People.org bulletin. It questions whether this act – strangely passed in 1984…and amended in 1993&4 – and therefore several years before the advent of the DVD, is being applied by the BBFC to DVD extras material which could well be exempt, or presented in a way which would make it so, under the terms of the act. But the draconian penalties – a maximum 2 years in prison and unlimited fines means that none of the small distributors are prepared to challenge the BBFC. But there is something we can all do.

Read on:

Material designed to educate, inform and instruct is exempt under the Video Recordings Act of 1984 and its ammendments (1993 & 1994), with certain provisions regarding sexual and violent content or instruction in criminal activity.

As most DVD extras material is designed to educate and inform – and such as ‘deleted’ scenes can be put into this context if accompanied by explanation, I contacted the BBFC about such material.

I’ll paraphrase their reply. It is not up to the BBFC to decide whether material is exempt or not, it is up to the distributor/supplier. If anyone sends material to the BBFC they will classify it – and charge hundreds/thousands of pounds for so doing – regardless. In fact, they comment, many distributors like having exempt material classified(!) They then referred me to the VSC where I could find a summary of the Act.

So I went and read their summary which did suggest that most ‘extras’ material was exempt, or could be edited/presented in ways which conformed to both the letter and spirit of the law.
But, as the penalties are horrendous – up to two years in gaol, £5,000 fines and so on, I needed further clarification.

The Act is enforced, not by the police, but by Trading Standards. So it’s all down to how Trading Standards officers interpret the law (if they can; and if, since the introduction of European Human Rights legislation, R18 and so on, they can be bothered.

The trouble is though, this is down to individual officers in individual boroughs. But the law gave them the power to ‘cross over the states line”, so to speak, and enforce their judgements in any other officer’s territory. So Trading Standards in Manchester could say youhave no need to bother with the BBFC, just stick an ‘E’ on your extras disc, and you end up getting busted by someone in jackboots from Tunbridge Wells.

There’s only one solution – to get the opinion from as many local Trading Standards offices as possible. Just Google, go to the right page, fill in your post code and you’ll get the email address for you local one.

I’ve just emailed mine with a detailed account of the confusion and a set of specific examples. Anyone who would like to use this as a model letter and copy and paste it to theirs is more than welcome to contact me.

Oh yes, please forward their replies to me as I will be publishing a summary of the results.

The BBFC – more dissent….

June 12, 2009
Recently I emailed the BBFC asking them why they were charging filmmakers for classifying purely factual DVD ‘extras’ such as interviews with cast and crew, director’s commentaries, and so on; when under the 1984 video recordings act such material is exempt unless it contains a considerable amount of explicit sex and violence. I cc’d this to a number of my filmmaker contacts, and I’ve decide to post it here, along with a reply from Charles Wood (www.salsatap.com) which I’m reprinting here with his permission.
 
To: the BBFC

I am contacting you on behalf of New Wave North West, which has as its members most of the region’s no/micro-budget feature filmmakers, for clarification when it comes to an ‘extras’ DVD.
 
Under your explanation of the ‘E’ classification and the 1984 act (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/faq/index.php), work is exempted if it is designed to inform, educate or instruct provided that there is no significant sexual or violent content.
 
From this it would appear that ‘extras’ content, such as
 
1. interviews with cast and crew informing and educating the audience about the film and its production are exempt.
 
2. a director or producer’s commentary again informs and educates the viewer as is thus exempt.
 
3. such as deleted scenes when placed in the context of a ‘mini-documentary’ in which the filmmakers explain the reasons why certain content ended up on the cutting room floor, is also exempt.
 
but
 
4. deleted scenes and other similar material, if presented without a context which informs, educates and instructs, would not be exempt.
 
Is it correct then that, under the provisions of the act, only material such as that listed under 4 above is to be submitted? As you state:
 
“Under the Video Recordings Act, the onus is on the distributor to decide whether or not a video work is an exempted work, and distributors have tended to put an ‘E’ symbol on tapes as guidance to the public.

The Board does not examine exempted works and does not decide whether or not a work is exempt.”

Thanking you in advance
 
Best wishes
Jonathan Williams
Co-ordinator, New Wave North West
and regular contributor to MovieScope Magazine

 
 
Nice one Jon.
 
In my view, the BBFC is simply acting like any other government organisation in order to pay its employees and maintain their work and jobs. This has nothing to do with, or any benefit for the viewing public. This is especially so when it comes down to matters such as covers and so on…they are simply using the “letter” of the law to extend their provenance…a typical strategy of government employees in these circumstances. It is not that they themselves are setting out to be corrupt, but they end up acting corruptly because of the consequences of their actions.
 
What they will say, is that the scope of the work “as a whole” has to be certificated, and unless the “whole work” is educational then , as the majority is not, they would have to follow the “letter” of the law, not its intention…which was to protect viewers from certain types of performance.
 
It becomes even more ludicrous when you watch a TV channel such as one of the freeview music ones, were the whole aim of many of the videos is to use sex to sell the song. When it becomes the whole aim of the visual I object to it like any other person, on moral grounds. However the BBFC gets round this by saying they have strict guidelines, and “moral” is not one of the tests…it is not their place to be a moral judge. So for example: blatant misrepresentation of Fidel Castro as a drugs baron  is acceptable (in all seriousness), be it true or blatant political propaganda. Yet they will charge you as a film maker to be sure you are not doing the same thing within the context of a drama that involves sex or violence.
 
The modern media. beyond all other place’s is the battleground between the Nobility in charge of our society and the ordinary persons right to a free and unencumbered life.
 
I am not sure one individual or a poor group of people can change this, as those in that power group change the rules to fit their needs at a whim.
 
But it is good to try, and beyond that, I think your statements are accurate as a reflection of the intention of these extras, they are indeed educational, and that is precisely what should be excluded by their own clear statements. That would be if interpreted by a sane judge looking at the intention of the legislation, not of a civil servant trying to make money for his department, in this case the BBFC, who have a vested interest in extending their powers. It is after all, easy money.
 
Charles Wood
www.salsatap.com

Sweden considers scrapping madatory film censorship

June 11, 2009

At the moment Sweden has four levels of compulsory film classification: ‘all ages’, 7+, 11+ and 15+ (note ’15’ and not ’18’). But a government backed inquiry proposes that this is changed to a voluntary scheme provided that film companies label non-submitted films as ’15+’. Such films will, of course, still be subject to Swedish law when it comes to depictions of extreme forms of violence, sexual violence and coercion.

If the Swedes can do it, why can’t we?

For more details see: http://www.thelocal.se/19976/20090609/