There is a certain irony that this blog is called "Kermode Uncut" and your own use of the F word includes cuts. Perhaps if I watch it tonight after the watershed it won't? ...

Not that this necessarily represents my point of view, but I can see the reasoning being how essential the words are to the plot/message/themes of the film. In The King's Speech, a film I'm yet to t'see, it sounds pretty crucial. In Made In Dagenham, I noticed how...'excessive' the swears could seem in the context of their respective scenes. They didn't necessarily add to the power of the drama (U-language confrontations between the lead married couple were far more dramatic). There's also an argument to be made that the film isn't the most naturalistic, realistic portrayal of 1960s England. In part it takes an affection, nostalgic look at the past. Therefore, Woolley's argument that 'this is how things were, therefore face up to it' falters slightly.



Having said that, I see no reason why Made in Dagenham shouldn't be a 12A. As I say, the Fs didn't stand out particularly and I think that people could very easily miss a few of them. I also think, and call me disgustingly tolerant if you must, that young children don't constantly copy everything they see on a screen. And those who are ready to invest in the themes of Made in Dagenham are more than mature enough to handle a few f-words.



For this same reason, This Is England should have been classed as a 15. (Although this is a film much more likely to be leapt upon and praised...wrongly...by the Nuts-reading Football Factory crowd).

The BBFC recognise the importance of profanity in 'The King's Speech', as the story needs the involvement of such words, while they determined 'Made in Dagenham' wanted to include profanity.



Personally I believe M.I.D's profanity is just as integral to the story, but I don't think the BBFC are 'classist', they're trying to rate a film on whether it needs or wants profanity; or violence and nudity for that matter.



In today's films using 'rude' words should be a lesser priority for a films certificate . Either way, if people are offended by profanity I'd like to say "Grow up you C***"

The Social Network also had two uses of the F-Word and that was a 12A certificate.The BBFC must feel any more usages of F bombs would upgrade it to a 15.I also think Armageddon had two F-Words in it and that was a 12.

Yes Mark they are, and they are keeping alive a French/Norman arrogance to language which says Saxon words are evil compared to their French/Romanic equivalents. Liberate the Anglo Saxon in you; swear at someone with a smile!



PS I wanted to write the words in full but ironically failed the BBC 'Profanity Filter'

I listened to Stephen Woolley's impassioned responses to both the classification of Made in Dagenham and the subsequent reclassification of The King's Speech and I remain mystified by his indignancy. Presumably he knew full well that the frequency of the use of the F word in his film would result in a 15 certificate. If it was so important to him that the film be seen by young girls then he need only have toned down the swearing in the script to obtain the desired 12A. Dramas depicting working class issues from the 60's have appeared on the television regularly, many with important themes, but rarely with really strong language - especially if the audience is meant to include young teens. I can't help wondering if the producer is protesting just a little too much. Maybe it didn't occur to him until after the film was made that it might be important for younger people to see it. Maybe he just lost count of the 'f's'. Either way, I can't see that it's the BBFC's problem.

Simple answer to your question Mark - no.



Made in Dagenham has more uses of the f-word and its use is not integral to the plot as it is in The King's Speech. For this reason even if the films had the same amount of swearing I could still probably understand the BBFC's classification as the swearing in Made in Dagenham is more gratuitous.



I share RevdAl's cynicism as to the motives behind Stephen Woolley's protests and think that in this day and age trying to portray the film as a victim of (cinematically) non-existent discrimination is pretty asinine.

Well from what I have been told by you and Mr Woolley, as I have not seen either film, I agree with the BBFC.



The use of it in the Colin Firth film is being used as not part of conversation or in an aggressive manner but a therapeutic manner. If anything the BBFC may see it as an educational pov, as I have noticed with some documentaries in the past allowing things that may not acceptable in a feature film, I always assumed it was because they were educating us, just like with Colin Firth’s problem in the film.



Made in Dagenham it is being used when in conversation (again I assume this) when it could be avoided or even in the use of like amusing "banter" some may still find that alone offensive.

light amusing "banter" some may still find that alone offensive.







Sorry missed that.

The 12A-rated Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines has two (aggressive) uses of the "F-word"; uttered by Jesus Christ - sorry, John Connor.

I grew up in a middle-class enclave of a working class city (Liverpool) and even as a kid I noticed the disparity in speech patterns between the classes. The F-word was used (as Woolley himself said) as a punctuation mark by many people, and I genuinely think they weren't aware of it. In many cases, their "swear words" were ones with religious connotations rather than sexual ones but because we now live in a culture in which those aspects of our lives have largely exchanged their taboo status we react in very different ways to them - exclaiming "Oh God!" is considered to be extremely mild today for instance.



So for me, in a sense both sides are right - which is, of course, a recipe for disaster in an argument!

Of course - the snobbishness of the upper-class fodder (that will be seen by no one but will win a token award) will always have more power in this department.



But then if I'm being honest would either of these films really pull in a significant audience within the age group range mentioned?



I doubt you would get a larger BO if you gave both films a Universal Cert because, well when do you see 12 years olds queueing for films like this?

The point is if parents don't want 12 year olds (or youneger) exposed to swearing then there has to be some way of them knowing a film's content. The publicity about Made in Dagenham would have left no one in any doubt about the amount of swearing and so parents had all the information they needed to make an informed choice. The swearing in MID was fitting for the film and it would have lacked authenticity without it. It is the BBFC rating and lack of awareness of what leis behind it that is the issue (although my knowldge has certainly gone up - maybe this whole controversy was a deliberate pl0y to aviod the quango bonfire!). A sdolution could be to introduce a new 12F--- rating so parents would know where they stood.



PS ironically I tried to use asterisks after the 12F but this failed the blogs profanity filter!!

I'm sorely disappointed that both Made in Dagenham and Heartless both opened this weekend here and yet all our theater got was that crummy-looking Russell Crowe movie.



Also the MPAA gave The King's Speech an R-rating, because you can break limbs and decapitate people in a PG-13 film, but lord help us if our children's virginal ears are exposed to the f-bomb. Double-standards, yay!



What exactly is "therapeutic" swearing, anyway? I consider all of my swearing to be therapeutic.

I can't really see that this issue is elitist - the idea of working class people (or any average civilian these days) using the f-word is hardly revolutionary, whereas a monarch swearing seems a much more controversial subject.



Perhaps because it's such a strange image - can you imagine the Queen blaspheming after a particularly gruelling day doing... whatever she does? - that it doesn't matter as much as the everyday use of the f-word in MID. It's a spectacle, sanitised by the fact that it's such a weird sight, with no connotations of the word's actual meaning; the sense of insult is perhaps more evident in the offhand swearing in MID.

I listened to the pod cast about the classifications of both films - find it hard to see why it is so easy to apply classification rules to one film but yet apply them differently to another ....



Dr K comes to his own censored, and allegedly UNCUT, blog to gain opinions from those who could be banned for truely voicing their fncking points of view (see what I did there...)



Hmmm ...

FFS - my entry was even censored and needed me to edit it before it could be uploaded. End of discussion :(

classisy,yes

classist yes

I've read that films aged at attracting teens need to have a 12 cert.

They do this by having at least 'one strong swear word', usually the F word, in it. This is then put on the parental advisories. (Otherwise teens see the films as being beneath them.)



If there is to be a policy it should be consistent. Once you hear the F word it's in your mind; it doesn't matter how many times it's then said. I also understand words and expression of emotion can have different meanings, according to context.

If you want to hear swearing, stand by a bus stop outside a school. Overuse; but they'll learn in time.



Is the 12 classification for King's Speech fair? Compared to Made in Dagenham? No.



Is their a class bias in this? I'd say yes.



To exaggerate: Proles swear because they don't know any better and have a limited vocabulary.

The upper class only swear for effect, under extremis, or are taught it as therapy. (Having known many of both, nether stereotype is true.)

Oops, looks like I strayed a little. Looking at the two films completely objectively, I see one where the swearing is an actual device used in the plot and one where the swearing is used as a cultural texture. It is possible that they just felt the use of the f-bomb in The King's Speech was more necessary than Made in Dagenham. I assume it is, having not seen either.



However, is it right to censor films based on superfluousness? I seriously doubt that, in either case, there is anything in the language that will cause irreparable damage to younger audiences.

Interestingly, The Kings Speech has just been given an R rating in the states:



https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/11/the-mpaa-cracks-down-on-bad-language-in-the-kings-speech.html



I haven't seen either film so I can't make an accurate comparison. I do, however, think that the BBFC's decision will affect the classification of future releases and hopefully, lead to a restructuring of guidelines regarding language in films.

I really think context is everything. In a sexual context, it's more vulgar, but women are supposed to be dainty. As you know in the horror genre, they are eternally trying to reclaim their power, and are doing so in every genre, hence why romantic comedies are about the woman winning the man. So, when a woman uses vulgarities, perhaps the BBFC sees is as emasculating; women don't curse or aren't supposed to.

Ive not yet seen these films but,



The idea that both films were classified different solely due to class considerations would require the following to be true; When considered devoid of any class considerations both films are equal in their use of said term.



From what Ive gathered in "The King's Speech" the character utilises the word to overcome a disability. In this sense the meaning of the word is unimportant, its the phonetics that are of importance. Of course the meaning of the word in particular contexts can result in hilarity of revulsion, the important thing is though that the character of the king is relieved of any culpability.



For what its worth, from what I gather "Made in Dagenham" sounds like it was harshly treated. But the movie seems to use the word in a very different way and so to say that class considerations are the reason for such treatment, on the face of it, sounds ill founded.

No, I don't think it's being "classist". Let's say they'd put seventeen uses of the F-word into The Young Victoria as casual banter: the BBFC would still have given it a 15. In the unlikely event that they'd taken the script of The King's Speech and applied it to, say, a bloke from a council estate who had to give a speech: in the absence of any other issues the BBFC may well have given that a 12A for precisely the same reasons.



And I still maintain that Stephen Woolley must have known what was in the script he's been working on for four years. (I know exactly what's in mine.) And he must have known the BBFC guidelines on the subject of strong language.

I don't think they are being "classist" either. They just made the wrong decision.

99% of the time I agree with the BBFC's classification discussions, however, I feel half of these problems would be solved if they just got rid of 12A and brought it back to 12.



Whether the uses of the F word in 'The King's Speech' is integral to the plot or not doesn't stop the fact that people under the age of 12 may see this film and hear the language. I almost certain nobody under 12 would watch this film but that's beside the point.



Films are still given a 12 on DVD as certain parts can be re-watched at home whilst they fly by in the cinema, but I still don't think that's good enough. Personally, after seeing the 'Deathly Hallows' yesterday (which I loved), I certainly wouldn't let kids under 10 watch it, but the BBFC think it's perfectly find for youngsters to watch it because it's make-believe.



'Doubt' was given a 15 certificate due to subject matter involving sexual abuse to children, yet the film contains no explicit imagery, no harmful imagery involving children and little to no swearing. The BBFC's real reasoning behind giving 'Doubt' a 15 was merely because they didn't believe people under that age would have enough interest to watch the movie.



'Made in Dagenham' should have been granted a 12A; sure the language is a little blue, but it's a realistic depiction of a historical period. I know this is a little different, but you don't here parents complaining when their children have watched 'Schindler's List' or 'The Shawshank Redemption' because chances are they saw them in school for 'educational purposes', yet they both contain violence, swearing and degrading sexual imagery.



Funny ol' world we live in isn't it?

In my mid 40's, I am finding myself becoming less tolerant of bad language in films than I used to - and I often feel myself getting 'worn down' in cases where it seems to be little more than a constant stream of abuse.

A thoughtful use of a well-timed F.., S..., C... , B... or whatever can often make a good piece of dialogue into a great one - but a neverending torrent is (in my opinion) a sign of sloppy writing.

Less is more.

Many years ago I had a book about the making of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" which featured a letter from the BBFC about the language in the film. It went something like "we can get an A rating instead of AA if we cut 2 F's and a B". I found this most educational (and funny).

In the case of MID, if Mr Woolley doesn't understand the rules behind BBFC ratings system by now, then he displays a level of naviety that I find surprising in a man of his obvious experience.

I believe that it is important to note that those who exist within "popular culture" (which, from his rationale in the podcast, includes Woolley) tend to erroneously assume that they live in "the" culture, rather than living in a facet of a wider culture.



The BBFC appears to appropriately acknowledge that its task is not simply to make decisions based on the popular culture, but rather to consider all aspects of a wider culture.



Consequently it is not surprising that the BBFC will occasionally make decisions that are unfathomable to a popular culture that believes they are representatives of "the" culture and thus should be the arbiters of acceptability.



It should be noted that while the current popular culture tends to be quite accommodating towards other sub-cultures, this does not appear to extend to class, i.e., those classes that exist outside of the popular culture.



It appears, to me, quite understandable and consistent for the BBFC to acknowledge that there are parents who would wish to protect their children from the "habitual unconscious swearing" of the popular culture, whilst concomitantly acknowledging that infrequent conscious swearing exists and has value as a non-physical expression of frustration or anger.



Hurrah to the BBFC!

Oops! I meant 'fine' not 'find' on my post!

It is to do with the context - in conversational language (as if it is okay to use the language) or in a 'therapeutic' sense of the word, which doesn't CONDONE the use of it, just that it is neccessary to use in therapeutic measures. I would assume a film about a kid with tourettes would be under the same banner - its not used in a conversational-way, but in a context that in no way condones the use of that language in an everyday setting.



Nothing to do wth class I think.



Simon

www.screeninsight.com

I don't think that the BBFC are being classist. However, I do think that Made in Dagenham should be a 12 certificate film.



I've sort of ruined the argument.



Kind of like when I say I do think we should speak English properly. However, I don't think we should apologise if we don't!

@simon

Was just about to sign in and say exactly what you have expressed so eloquently.

It isn't classist, in the words of the Mighty Boosh "It's all about context" :D

Obviously in The King's Speech it is used for therapeutic reasons, there is no malicious intent behind the swearing. Equally there would be no malicious intent if a working class person were to have therapy in the same way, in a movie.

Daft question Dr K!

I think what we are all missing is that Royalty do not speak the same language as the rest of us. You only have to listen to how they pronounce the words to know they could not be possibly be saying the words that you all seem to think they are.



In this case they are either saying the Swedish word "f_ck" (with an 'a') which means:



1. (one of several) boxes or slots; compartment

2. trade, profession; subject of expertise

3. trade union



https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/



or possibly the obsolete Scots word f_ck (with an 'e') which is the root of the word "feckless" and means effect, value or vigor.



Similarly when a Royal refers to their "trizers" they are not talking about legging apparel, they are referring to their stash.



https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trizer





Well done, BBFC! You got this one absolutley right.

BBFC?



As my dear old gran would say..."silly berks". Ouch.

I rarely find myself agreeing with the Venerable Dr K, but I DO believe there is an element of classism at work here. MID is unlikely to be seen as an award contender in the big markets like the Oscars, whereas TKS is exactly the kind of film that is likely to win an award - because it's consdered more "worthy". Personally, I'd have thought a film that is based on events that led to grounbreaking legislation like The Equal Pay Act ought to be the more award-worthy - but given America's distaste for the working class (in their own country and elsewhere) and anything remotely socialist, that is sadly not going to happen.

That the movie got an R-rating in America, to the ire of Roger Ebert, supports the case that it's a particularly British distinction between the two movies. Made in Dagenham was R there too; while I disagree with the rating, and while the MPAA is worse in many ways than the BBFC, at least it's being consistent. The fact that the BBFC has differentiated between these two British movies in this way is surprising, and unfair.



I agreed with Kermode and Mayo on the show when they said that Woolley shouldn't have been surprised by the rating, but the BBFC has pretty much handed him the perfect argument in his favour.



The BBFC has itself said we're moving towards an advisory system. Here's a thought, off the top of my head. Keep U, PG and 12A, replace the other ratings with either a 15A or a 16A, and preserve the 18 rating for only the movies with graphic sexual violence or extreme images, which will work both to keep kids away and to underline the nature of the content for adults who may wish to see it. Then all cinemas would have to do to make me happy is continue the 18s-and-over screenings, a truly wondrous idea, which in this regime would obviously enforce the recently agreed upon Code of Conduct.

Not 'classist' in the slightest. Though I am pleased in a way that the BBFC don't have a blanket rule for such things, and take the context in which something is presenting into account.

I would like to agree with many of the posts that the BBFC are not classist; as you well know Mark, the censors in this country have changed drastically in the last 20 years, from wanting to ban anything that was remotely offensive to catering for all tastes within the accepted legal parameters.



The BBFC's changes in recent years are down to a realisation that you cannot protect against what might happen, as you have long argued in your campaigns surrouding video nasties. This doesn't just apply to protecting children from 'bad stuff' like relentless swearing or nudity, but is also applies to promoting certain kinds of viewpoints. We have to censor films in a way that it still leaves individuals able to make up their minds about it, rather than the alternative which is to give lenient certificates to films with a 'positive' message and be hard on those which don't fit in with such a cuddly worldview. Regardless of whether or not we think the 15 certificate for MID is fair, it's better than what it would be a system based upon intellectual preference, which would lead to the BBFC becoming more classist.

This is a response to Adam Whyte's post. Some time ago I sent a suggestion to the BBFC regarding a possible change in film categories. I suggested that the film category 15 should be split into two categories.



There should be a 15A certificate which would work in the same way as for the 12A certificate. There are quite a few films which get a 15 certificate for strong language, used in a way that represents the culture of the participants.



There should then be a 16 certificate to include those 15 certificate films which, for their content, are not suitable for those too young.



This is in line with the Irish classifications system.



The BBFC rejected my suggestion saying that it would not be acceptable public expectations and would cause confusion.

Are the makers of Made in Dagenham being classist in thinking that the working class can only be authentically portrayed if they swear ? Not everyone who is working class swears all the time.

This looks like a very similar situation I saw on the recent documentary called VIDEO NASTIES: MORAL PANIC, CENSORSHIP AND VIDEOTAPE. During the video nasties era of the 1980s there seemed to be a class division in which the intellectual / upper classes (mainly those who commented and banned the movies) were unaffected by the movies (ie they didn't become slavering murderers) whereas the lower classes were seen to be the ones likely to be heavily influenced by these films. There is absolutely a class division in the way this type of content is judged. There always has been.

Surely in The King's Speech (not seen either film, sadly), using it in a theraputic context means it's more obvious, thus easier to be repeated? If it's just passed in a sentence, blink (with your ears...) and you'll miss it. If it's used OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER doesn't it become a little obvious? Thus, TKS should be a 15 for "Obvious swearing, despite being theraputic" and Made in Dagenham a 12A for "Historically significant swearing". Either way, the BBFC should have better guidelines on swearing. Just saying, maybe wrongly...

Hey Mark how did you get to work in documentary "Brave New Worlds"? You should of write about that in your autobiography.

After looking up their official stance, I find it interesting to note that the BBFC stated thus:



‘because works from time to time present issues in ways which cannot be anticipated, these criteria [the regulations set aside for limited use of the 'F-word' in a 12A certificate film] will not be applied in an over literal way if such an interpretation would lead to an outcome which would confound audience expectations’.



The BBFC deflecting a crushing blow from the good Doctor this time, but one must then consider Matt Stone and Trey parker unlucky not to have received similar treatment to The King's Speech with their 1999 effort. Do 399 profanities come under the bracket of 'infrequent usage'?

@Stephen Glass - I think with This Is England, there is still the issue of the strong and racist violence, which is what the consumer advice gives as the reason for the 18 certificate.



@21cwh04 - The BBFC wouldn't have given Doubt a 15 just because they thought younger viewers 'woudn't have been interested',if this were the case then any number of other arthouse films would not have been given a U. Rather it would be because the themes of the film, or the way in which the film handles them, would not be appropriate for a younger audience, who would lack the maturity to understand them. This was also the case with The White Ribbon, which similarly contains little to no violence or swearing but has references to child sex abuse.



@ Adam Whyte - With the MPAA, while you could say they are being 'consistent', I say that they are being blindly consistent, or to put it another way, following the letter of the law but not the spirit. It sounds like they've literally totted up the number of swear words and gone with that, rather than considering the actual effect and context of the swearing like the BBFC have.



I think ultimately I have to side with the 'not classist' side here. I've seen no recent examples of classism within the BBFC, it's not an accusation I've seen leveled at it before. I agree that a working class drama about someone having therapy would get the same treatment.



What it comes down to, and what the BBFC have said themselves, is that the issue with swearing is that people do not want it in films for younger viewers because they don't want kids seeing it as normal to swear. I've got to say, as someone who every day has to stand at a bus stop near a school, I don't think the kids need any more encouragement that it's normal or ok to swear all the time. The difference between these two films is so obvious. It is precisely because MID shows people casually swearing as part of everyday conversation that it is likely to encourage or reinforce the idea amongst young people that it's acceptable, or even grown-up, to swear. If anything, The King's Speech does the opposite. It is *because* swearing is supposed to be rude that those scene's make sense. Essentially, an impressionable person might leave MID thinking it's normal or acceptable to swear in normal conversation, whereas they would not do so after The King's Speech. It's really that simple and nothing to do with class.

Whether or not Made in Dagenham deserves a 15 I'll leave until I see it, however the BBFC's distinction between it and The King's Speech does seem sound and seems to absolve it of any kind of class bias. I also agree with folks who say that it's producer could have toned down the language if the rating was so imperative.



One film whose classification has always irked me is The Dark Knight, a 12A. Really? A film that includes death by pen, death and near death by immolation, scenes that I'd call 'sustained peril'.



Go figure!

In my opinion and experience the higher the film rating the more a young teenager will want to see it.

When I was 8 I was seeing 12's, when I was 12's it was 15's and 15 it was 18's.

Unless the cinemas make showing ID mandatory the rating will not stop children from watching the movie.

Even now at 20 I find that I must watch an 18 even if it doesn't look good. I also have a great distain for 12's and would not think of watching a PG or U in the cinema. Maybe it is my mindset but in my opinion the higher the rating the better the movie, I can think of lots of 12a's which would be made better with a 15 certificate. eg Killers, Knight and Day etc.

As for the ratings as they are I do think each BBFC reviewer (or whatever the job title is) has a different view of what is acceptable or not as some movies should be rated differently.

Though nothing annoyes me more than hearing that XYZ had to have scenes cut to get an NC-17 in America rather than an R.

Just leave it be please.

I think the BBFC should stop telling us what we should and should not allow children to see.

They should just advise us, but that's all.

If I wanted to take my 13 years old child to see a 15 rated movie because I think he should see it, I think I should have the last word.



Incidentally here's my review of the King's Speech.

https://wp.me/p19wJ2-2X

@liquidcow - just to be clear I wasn't defending the MPAA, an organisation that makes me feel rather proud to have the BBFC. Neither of these movies should be an R, but I don't think either ought to be a 15 either, and parents who think it suitable ought to be able to take their 12-year-olds.

I've stumbled across this blog whilst trying to find Kermode's review of Due Date- the only film I've seen at the cinema apart from the 1/2 term visits for Toy Story etc with the children for about five years. I sometimes listen to the Mayo show with Dr K (is he a PhD in films or is this a honorarium for his pre-eminence amongst Radio 5 film reviewers?) and wondered whether his views line up with mine. Having read the above though I thought I'd chip in my tup'penny worth.



My comments would be that swearing is neither, big, clever, or intrinsically artistic- rather it is plain vulgar. Of course people swear when in appropriate company. I do playing golf with pals or watching sports in a bar etc, but I certainly wouldn't swear in front of my children or dare I say it in front of my wife or in other female company, and nor would they expect me to. In my view, most films gain nothing by putting on screen typical 'real' language where the aim is to entertain and even perhaps instruct and where children might be expected in the audience. There may be times when a 'truer' depiction of real life might be required and will add value and context to the story being told, but in that case it seems reasonable that access is controlled and the current certification system seems the right way for that to be done. Some may be happy to bring or allow their young teenage children to be exposed to such language, but most parents I know would not expect to be suddenly confronted with coarse and vulgar language when sitting with their children, and would depend on the certification system to avoid such situations. I would go further and suggest that such exposure has some role to play in the degradation of modern British society.



By the way, could some-one point me to the review for Due Date?

I find the censorship of swear words pucking fathetic and as some comments have already pointed out, rather bizarre when compared to the violence that is allowed past. A large number of kids play games consoles that will subject them to far worse in the visual department nowadays, lets try and catch up with reality and modern life - there's no need for such rigorous application of the rule. It's all a bit of a James Blunt and I'm kunted if I can do anything about it.

soon-to-be-mrsburns wrote



"Though nothing annoyes me more than hearing that XYZ had to have scenes cut to get an NC-17 in America rather than an R.

Just leave it be please."



It's actually the other way around. The NC-17 rating is the one that requires a minimum age of seventeen whereas the R rating only requires all children under 17 to be accompanied by a parent. There are virtually no NC-17 rating films anymore that are not edited to get the R rating (It took 6 attempts to get an R rating for Saw 3D).

doccam wrote:

"I certainly wouldn't swear in front of my children or dare I say it in front of my wife or in other female company, and nor would they expect me to."



Thanks for your medieval chivalry but, speaking for this demographic of womanhood, there's no need to censor yourself around me. I'm a grown up. I've heard swear words before and I survived without resort to smelling salts.



I think the director of MID is being somewhat literal in his objection to the BBFC's rating. Surely not every use of the F word in his film (haven't seen) is so integral to character development and plot that he couldn't have cut a few down to get the rating. I certainly sympathise with the view that there is not a 12 year old in existence (unless they're being raised tied to a chair in a cupboard) who is unaware of the F word but surely there's no point including swearing in a film just for the point of including it.



One of the best uses of the F word I've ever heard in a film is Sarah Miles in White Mischief. The camera pans over a visually stunning vista of dawn in the Kenyan landscape. Sarah's character gets up to greet the day and drily comments "ohhhh noooooo...not another gloooorious faaaaarking day".

My decision would be based on the fact that 'The King's Speech' acknowledges the taboo and in fact the whole point is to break the taboo while in contrast 'Made in Dagenham' treats the F-word as a normal part of speech.



Living in a country where film ratings are taken as merely a suggestion I would welcome the strictures of the BBFC. Watching 'Trainging Day' with hoardes of noisy, bored 12 year olds packing the front rows was an experience the nearly put me off cinemas permanently.

Thanks antimode. Sounded real ignorant there didnt I lol. There you go learn something everyday.

I don't know Mark. I think you could equally argue that the BBFC are being sexist by allowing men to swear and women not to, which is a bit far.

The issue is probably more focused on the issue that 'Made in Dagenham' is an antiestablishment film that inherently suggests confrontation (be it for a good cause), whereas 'The King's Speech' is a non-confrontational piece of work, but, as you said, therapeutic.

I wouldn't say that the BBFC are classist, I'd say that they are pro-passifism.

Protecting children from exposure to expletives is a bizarre act of denial; a bit like pretending that young people won't be interested in sex before they're 16. Children are capable of making decisions about what language they use in what context, and just because they see a film which features repeated swearing, that doesn't automatically mean they will begin swearing against their wills. It's mystifying that we want make children's films a kind of cleansed version of reality by removing 'bad' language. What do we imagine will happen to these children if exposed to the f-word more than a set number of times?



Incidentally, the entire Bourne triolgy is rated 12. So, it's perfectly fine to watch people being killed in various ways, but if Jason Bourne had said too many 'f's, it suddenly becomes inappropriate?

Alina wrote:

"...but surely there's no point including swearing in a film just for the point of including it."



Did you see Eddie Murphy's "Harlem Nights"? One of the worst films ever (if I forgot to include it in the list of films to go in the attic, I should be thoroughly ashamed of myself). Harlem Nights would be considerably shorter if they removed all the completely gratuitous F-words (it would still be one of the worst films ever, though).



I would also argue that the use of the C-word in Kickass was completely gratuitous; not funny, not shocking, just pointless except for the point of doing it.



I'm not against the use of swearing when it makes sense and is done well, especially in something like the brilliant "The Thick of It".



Anybody else look at the initials BBFC and think about tmesis or is it just me?

#51 doccam wrote Dr K (is he a PhD in films or is this a honorarium...)



Dr K is probably too modest or busy to answer this, so I'll just refer you to Wikipedia, which is easy to get to and probably accurate. It is a real PhD, and it's also mentioned in his IMDb bio.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kermode

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0449417/



#59 antimode: You may be the only one who thinks about tmesis, but there are probably loads of others who employ that particular figure of speech in this instance.

In My opinion, it's about time swearing gets a certain certificate whatever the word, that way film makers know if they add the offending words, it will be rated at whatever is decided by the BBFC. A new 12s certifcate could help.(My new un-copyrighted certificate rating)

Here in the States in 1976 "All the President's Men" got a PG rating (parental guidance) despite using the "F" word and in 1979 Woody Allen's "Manhattan" got an "R" (under 17 must be accompanied by parent or adult guardian) whilst also using the "F" word. The ratings board justified the distinction because, in the former, "F-up" meant to have ruined something where, in the latter, it had a sexual meaning ("F-off"). Apparently in American film if you say it you get a PG, if you mean it you get an R, and if you do it you get an X.

One day, the C word will be acceptable.



Anyway, I agree with #12.



Here is my response to #12's comment (#64) in an entry that's now closed: Jennifer will, indeed, play a lesbian in a film. It's called Wanderlust and she has a three-way sex scene. It seems independent.

I find it interesting that the BBFC give The King's Speech a 12A but they gave a Great film Made in Dageham a 15 which I find the BBFC a bit contradictive. Why one rule for one but not the other. They both films about the change of British history, in my opinion Made In Dageham should be a 12A as that film is a inspiration for school education. To teach school pupils the history of women fighting for equal pay.