Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Diamonds Are For 12 year Olds - Bond Reclassified
Monsieur_Aubergine
Top of the Eiffel Tower with a fly in my soup!
Hi All,
I noticed recently on BBFC that a recent decision had been made to reclassify DAF from PG to 12.
I thought this a little strange as it has always been a PG...so, being the inquisitve type I emailed the BBFC for decision particulars. Their response has just come back to me and quite cogent it is too. I thought you may like to know the rationale too.
"Thank you for your email.
As you may know, our classification decisions are based on our Guidelines (available on our main website). These Guidelines are a product of extensive and regular public consultations. The most recent revision of the Guidelines was in 2009. It is not unusual, therefore, for older category decisions to change when a work is resubmitted under a different set of Guidelines. A category can be downgraded or upgraded. For example, JAWS was recently resubmitted for a modern classification and was upgraded from 'PG' to '12A'.
With the recent resubmission of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, under the current classification criteria, we judged the scene in which Bond tears off a woman's bikini top and throttles her with it was now no longer appropriate at 'PG'. (This scene is usually removed when the film is broadcast on TV.) Furthermore, under the current Guidelines an aggressive use of 'bitch' and the negative comic stereotyping of homosexual characters were elements also judged more appropriate at a higher category than 'PG'. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER was subsequently reclassified at '12'.
I hope this has explained the situation for you.
Yours sincerely,
J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)"
I wanted to open the floor and see what your reaction was to this and also as a wider discussion, when do you think it is appropriate to watch the Bond movies regardless of the ratings? My little boy is 5 and we watched Moonraker the other day...he loved it! I remember being 9 when LTK came out and my dad was aghast at what direction that movie took. He kept talking over the violence...but I turned out ok...i think!? lol
I noticed recently on BBFC that a recent decision had been made to reclassify DAF from PG to 12.
I thought this a little strange as it has always been a PG...so, being the inquisitve type I emailed the BBFC for decision particulars. Their response has just come back to me and quite cogent it is too. I thought you may like to know the rationale too.
"Thank you for your email.
As you may know, our classification decisions are based on our Guidelines (available on our main website). These Guidelines are a product of extensive and regular public consultations. The most recent revision of the Guidelines was in 2009. It is not unusual, therefore, for older category decisions to change when a work is resubmitted under a different set of Guidelines. A category can be downgraded or upgraded. For example, JAWS was recently resubmitted for a modern classification and was upgraded from 'PG' to '12A'.
With the recent resubmission of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, under the current classification criteria, we judged the scene in which Bond tears off a woman's bikini top and throttles her with it was now no longer appropriate at 'PG'. (This scene is usually removed when the film is broadcast on TV.) Furthermore, under the current Guidelines an aggressive use of 'bitch' and the negative comic stereotyping of homosexual characters were elements also judged more appropriate at a higher category than 'PG'. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER was subsequently reclassified at '12'.
I hope this has explained the situation for you.
Yours sincerely,
J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)"
I wanted to open the floor and see what your reaction was to this and also as a wider discussion, when do you think it is appropriate to watch the Bond movies regardless of the ratings? My little boy is 5 and we watched Moonraker the other day...he loved it! I remember being 9 when LTK came out and my dad was aghast at what direction that movie took. He kept talking over the violence...but I turned out ok...i think!? lol
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I watched all (18) of the films when I was only 7 or 8 and my Dad had no issues with me seeing them, so I don't see what the fuss is. Especially as the flm in question is over 40 years old, who's going to care about something that 'out of date' anyway?!
I am also ever so slightly quizzical about the "negative comic stereotyping of homosexuals" - in that case, Are You Being Served should be an 18!! :-)
Imagine my surprise when DAF was digitally altered so it could be shown on American TV a few years back. The scene in question was when Plenty was thrown into the pool. They digitally painted bra straps across her back. Now here's the thing - you never saw her breasts - these were across HER BACK! Just the *idea* that she was topless was too extreme to show on TV, even though they showed that scene several times when I was a kid.
It's things like that that just make me think that things have gone insane in the last few years. All the people who were killed in DAF - that was fine. But the idea that a girl was topless...
To be honest the movie contains some gruesome moments, more so than DAF.
But based upon the pink tie of SC I would rate the movie 18. :D
I know it is just ridiculous, I used to work in a Video/DVD store and once a woman came in with her teen kids, all below 15, they picked a 15 rated film that was quite violent, all the woman was worried about was wether there was any 'sex' in it! She didn't mind them seeing people getting hurt, shot and killed but something as nice and natural as nudity and sex was a no-no. I ask you. No wonder half the world is f*@ked up!
It's interesting to think can we just do away with classifications? So long as there are descriptors on the films what does the age matter?
I wonder what audience our Bond directors (personally) REALLY intended their films for before they get butchered by the powers that be or regardless of the studios desire to get a release to a certain age group. It begs the question, just how far could you go with Bond?
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/JVF065741/
I don't know. This whole situation is really odd.
I can't believe a film from 1971 has been reclassified. So crazy.
There's nothing in Licence To Kill that says it should be a 15 to me.
Hahahaha, precisely! Still though, I do wonder why, of all the Bond movies they could have chosen for such an "honor", they picked Diamonds Are Forever. One of the more light-hearted and comical Bond movies for crying out loud! I should think there attention would be focused on the likes of the more serious and violent ones, like OHMSS, FYEO, AVTAK, LTK, GE, and TND.
Thanks Monsieur Aubergine for going to the effort to get these clowns to justify their existence and as usual they dont fail to amuse.
Well for a start JL Green is talking utter crap about the bikini scene. 'This scene is usually removed when the scene is shown on TV'? Where is he talking about - Utah? Because every time I have ever seen the film in England either on TV or VHS or DVD the scene has been intact so passing the blame onto ITV for this wont wash I'm afraid.
And even if his argument is valid it is immediately undermined by Mr Kidd being burnt alive which JL Green doesnt think is even worthy of mention but I have never seen this scene intact on TV and even on some VHS releases. Same goes for the lift fight which I had never seen in its entirety until the DVD UE (PG incidentally).
Secondly 'an aggressive use of 'bitch' ?
Well a) you can see the word bitch used way more agressively on Eastenders or Hollyoaks any day of the week which anyone can watch and b) the way Sean delivers the line and the context of it is played for laughs.
And 'an aggressive use of 'bitch' is out of order in JL Greens world but Sean giving Tiffany a right hander is apparently perfectly fine? Hes winding me up now.
'Negative comic stereotyping of homosexuals? This is simply factually inaccurate. At what point does the film poke fun at Wint and Kidd because of their sexuality? We are laughing with them (‘Mrs Whistler did say she wanted some pictures of the canals for the children.’ – brilliant) not at them but this comedian in charge of telling you what you can and cant watch obviously fails to differentiate. And as someone else points out the likes of John Inman would be doing a 20 stretch in the scrubs on that basis.
Apart from anything else I didn’t even realise that Wint and Kidd were supposed to be gay until I was about 16 and had seen the film about 5 times. Its not exactly overt. Apart from the hand holding at the start you would struggle to know for sure.
And what are these ‘extensive and regular public consultations’ hes blathering on about? Have you ever been consulted? I haven’t. Do you know anyone who has? Or are we still being dictated to by Mary Whitehouse types? I thought we had left all this shit behind in the 80s for christs sake.
I might have to write to JL Green and ask him why The Empire Strikes Back is still a U when you see the main hero get his F*****G HAND CUT OFF right before your eyes. And now in even more detail in BluRay which only came out last year so it must have been resubmitted for that.
I’m not saying that films with graphic content should not be classified but these ‘guidelines’ he speaks of are obviously formulated by repressed church going old virgins who think they know better than everyone else. DAF has many bigger problems than bad language and homophobia going on and JL Green might do better turning his scissors on the plot and characterisastion of Blofeld in this instance.
And before anyone says anything yes I can watch them and still do watch them at home
I can understand the bikini strangulation scene ruffling a few feathers amongst the modern censors. I seem to recall a story in the newspaper at the time where a crazed boyfriend copied the same thing in real life and was on trial for attempted murder. It's an old story so probaby won't appear on any modern websites. I don't know whether anyone else recalls this news story?
I don't agree with the censor's negative comic stereotyping of homosexual characters though. That's just PC nonsense.
This scene was reinstated around 1986 for VHS releases and even the old SE DVD contained it. Did you own any of those formats before? If so, they should have been included.
Every four or five years, the BBFC host a lengthily questionnaire on their website (maybe elsewhere but thats where I've always seen it) that is open to the public. They revise/update their classification guidelines based on these public consulations. I have filled it in a few times. One of their last revisions I remember for 12A/12 was the slight tightening up of the portrayals of horror at that category.
A company chooses when to resubmit a film; they only legally have to do it when new material is included. For example, the Special Editions of the Star Wars films are different from the originals (don't we know it!), so they legally had to resubmit those for classification. But if you wrote to them about TESB, that would throw the "context" argument at you - the strength or impact of an act unto itself cannot be judged based solely on the act itself. The context in which it occurs affects how strongly they rate it. It's why you see headbutts in The Living Daylights and The Fifth Element (uncut PGs) but they removed them from GoldenEye (to get a 12) back in 1995.
Hope that helps!
Fair enough. My only recordings were off the telly and I only got it on DVD after VHS finally bit the dust.
So are you saying that this questionnaire is open to the general public and they can just post their opinions and then this gets acted upon? If so I dont really call this a consultation. It is something tucked away in a corner of government that only people who are interested in film classification will find. And who are the sort of people that are interested in film classification you may ask? The Mary Whitehouse types who think that if they dont like something the rest of us should also be banned from seeing it too.
A public consultation in my book is someone asking a cross section of the population their opinions.
Sorry but that doesnt cut it at all. The word 'bitch' in DAF which they are now banning in the context of the film is used humourously and not in an agressive or misogynistic way. The main things they seem to be objecting to are the bikini strangling and 'bitch' but how is this worse than Bond slapping Andrea about and threatening to break her arm? Or is the outrageous homophobia of two blokes holding hands the thing that tips DAF over the edge?
I always understood that the headbutt in GE was cut because it was violence against a woman which is frowned upon (us guys can get nutted all night though - thats fine) which seems to be consistent with their policy on the bikini but then the example of Andrea shows them up as usual to be idiots.
And as for TESB this is the key dramatic moment of the entire series when evil guy reveals he is actually the heros father and then begs him to join him on his path of eveil and when he doesnt hacks his goddam hand off in full view of the camera. Sorry but thats no way a U.
Still think theyre a bunch of clowns but thanks for your input GavSalkeld.
There may be public questionaires conducted elsewhere, but I have only seen it online. But its entirely open to anyone to answer. I am sure their website has more info on how they do it, though.
I agree with you on the 'bitch' thing; it is humorous and not aggressive at all. But DAF is, or was, a strong PG. I think the bikini thing is that uneasy thing about mixing sex/violence. There is a brief flash of breast, after all. If it was a guy/guy confrontation, it would have been differently rated for sure.
Headbutts, throat chops, rabbit punches and neck breaks were always cut (even from 18s) for fear of imitability. The rabbit punch Bond gives Xenia was reshot for the BBFC, but they included it in the US version because they didn't see the need to do two versions. I never understood this, because the director reinstated most of the other violence for the US/international cuts.
But with regards to headbutts, there's a number of headbutts in the final fight, and they are pretty vicious. There is a built-up tension towards the confrontation that adds a stronger tone to it. Having said that, I still think GE could be an uncut 12, however. They downgraded TND to a 12 and I fully agree with that.
Well, if I put myself in their shoes, "my" (their) argument, I think, would go something like:
a) The act is brief
b) The act occurs in a fantasty context
c) The perpetrator is a villain who we are not encouraged to side with, and therefore we condemn his act
d) There is no sight of blood or gore
e) There is a positive resolution right afterwards and we see the hero is better/healed
That's how they look at something, using the context of the scene. That's just my opinion, of course, of how they would probably rate it. But I do think the PG ratings suit the Star Wars films better. The Phantom Menace is a really strong U, and I think it should definitely have been a PG. The U rating in the 70s was much broader than it is now (Watership Down, anyone?), and I am surprised that in later years the BBFC stuck with it for the original trilogy.
Still seems very much that the onus is therefore on the public to seek it out and the only people likely to do this are the do gooder brigade.
Youre not wrong about the breast thing. Exactly one frame where you can see everything. And trust me pausing VHS on the exact correct frame is not easy. kids dont know theyre born today with DVD.
Yeah but Xenia nutting Natalya is the only one that was ever cut. I think Alec v Bond has always been intact.
Sorry to hammer the point home but - someone gets their hand cut off right before the camera! And they are saying that 'this film is suitable for all' be it the smallest child, the most conservative christian whatever. Theres nothing in this film that anyone could find cause to complain about is what I assume U to mean.
Youre right about the fact that they used to be more lenient. I take that as just a product of our more wishy washy society and the fact that the government thinks they know better than parents what they should let their kids see.
Raiders was a PG (actually still is according to Amazon for the 2008 release) which is an absolute joke. Youve got the guy getting speared at the start, then the guy with all the darts in his back, the fight in the bar where someone gets shot in the face, a very bloody fight and then a final splurt of blood from pat Roach when the propellor hits him, Indys arm fountaining blood when he gets shot in the truck and the finale which is a) pretty scary for young kids and b) you see peoples faces melt and Bellocqs head explodes.
I would say theres stuff in Raiders which is worse or on a par with LTK but Bond gets stitched up whilst a film in which Lucas has a hand once again gets generous treatment. Is George paying these people backhanders?
Lol, agreed!
No, every headbutts was removed. A lot of stuff is still missing from the film, actually, both BBFC and MPAA cuts. I did a write up on it last year:
I know, but if you emailed them (and they do welcome and answer emails from the public) they would say pretty much what I just said lol. They just won't have it.
Well the BBFC isnt funded by the government. Its a common misconception.
Oh yes, the Indy films are most definitely a joke. They should all be re-rated. Far too violent. I think they should be re-rated for the Blu-rays, and they very well will be. Back then, there was no 12 (TOD was the reason the MPAA introduced a PG-13), so PGs were more violent. Spielberg does seem to get away with more, Minority Report is pretty violent IIRC. But Jaws also just got uprated to a 12, which I think is more fitting.
Why can't EON produce special uncut versions of DN, FRWL and GF for the 50th as it really doesn't matter what classifications the oldies get anymore? Are you listening, EON?
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/hitscr.htm
For Goldfinger, it says that one of the cuts was the extended electrocution death of Capungo. While the whole footage is probably lost, I managed to find a little bit of it hidden within the end credits. Since this bathroom fight scene is played again during the end credits, if you watch closely enough, there a few shots that are not present when we see it the first time, one of those being an extended shot of Capungo's body laying dead in the bathtub.