Now everything we view at the cinema, on video or DVD is viewed by the censor. In Britain the job of censoring and deciding classification falls with the British Board of Film Classification. The BBFC was established in 1913, it has no legal power to cut or ban films, this lies with the local authorities that issue cinema licenses. The views of the BBFC are usually followed. There are certain laws however that must be adhered to, in 1937 The Animal Act was passed making it an offence to mistreat any animal on film, surprisingly it was not until 1978 that the Cruelty to Children Act made it illegal to show any indecent images of children.

Film classification must take the following in to consideration, Violence, Nudity, sex, horror, drugs, and bad language. The context of the scene is also taken into account.

When you ask the question, ‘ Do we need Censorship?’ Most people will answer Yes. To protect the young and vulnerable people from potentially damaging, scary scenes. I agree with this view in principle, we must look after the children, but you should also take into account that only 40% of homes in Britain have children. The majority of the population is made up by adults, adults who should have the right to watch whatever they choose.

In society violence in film has been blamed for a lot of things. Copycat crimes have been much reported but never proved. Jack the Ripper reigned terror on the streets of London in 1888, long before films started to deal with serial killers. In 1987 the first two Rambo films were linked to the Hungerford killings. Michael Ryan’s random shootings in a quite Berkshire town were likened to the incessant gunplay of the Rambo films. Michael Ryan never admitted to seeing these films and on further investigation it was found he was not a member of his local video club and was not known of at the local cinema. Even though there was no evidence linking crime and images seen on screen the BBFC now give more attention to the ‘fetishisation of weaponry’.

Censorship can also have the opposite effect on many scenes and films. Straw Dogs in 1971 contained a four-minute rape scene. The censors thought this would have a massive affect on the audience. They asked the producers to reduce the scene. In doing so the scene ended up much more disturbing than it originally was. The rape scene however was not nearly as impacting as the violent scenes at the end of the film. Which the censors didn't touch! Dustin Hoffman kills seven locals using various household and farm implements. If you look at the film in its whole context however you find that Hoffman was only protecting his wife and home from the local thugs who thought he was weak and an outsider.

Another case where the BBFC s’ handling of a film had the wrong affect is with Natural Born Killers 1994. This film was accused of glamorising serial killers Mickey and Mallory played by Woody Harrelson and Julliette Lewis. In the film the press play a big part in glamorising Mickey and Mallory’s’ crimes and at the end of the film, I for one was happy to see them escape prison and the death sentence. When the BBFC deemed the film unfit for release in the UK this had exactly the same affect. The press got hold of it glamorised it and before long most people wanted to see the film. The film was granted an 18 certificate. It turned a film, which was not particularly good and only has one or two ‘disturbing scenes’ into a box office hit.

The fact that many people watched Natural Born Killers and Rambo; which was one of the most popular films of its time. This contradicts that watching such material causes crime. I have seen both films more than once and was not in the least disturbed. I do realise that it was my choice to watch it and that it is perfectly acceptable for you to choose not to, but that choice should be there.

Things do seem to be changing, as far back as 1971, the same censors who demanded cuts to Straw Dogs, passed Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange. Fittingly a film about mans free choice. The fact that Alex played by Malcolm McDowell chooses violence didn't seem to concern the censor but upon its short release did upset the media and the government. The film contains images of rape, and bludgeoning to death with a phallic shaped spear. It was branded "muck in the name of art" by some and "a masterpiece " by others. We were never able to decide for ourselves due firstly to Kubrick’s delaying of release and then by many local councils refusing to show it. It was screened in only one London cinema. Then amazingly in which has been described as ‘Kubrick’s revenge’ he himself banned the film. He owned the copyright and until his recent death it was illegal to show his film anywhere in the UK. The film has been reprinted and is on general release in March 2000, it holds an Eighteen Certificate. We shall have to see whether the BBFC’s decision nearly 30 years ago was the right one.

Buy Movies and Much more at Amazon:- Everything that gets released on film, video or DVD in the UK has a chance of being censored by these scissor happy guys.  Click the link and see!!! http://www.bbfc.co.uk/