'I suspect I'm a little more squeamish than perceived public opinion, or perhaps I'm a little ahead of it(?)'
Definitely not ahead of it, based on public consultations over the last two decades. The BBFC did its first in the late-90s after James Ferman stopped being president and the generally expressed sentiment at the time was (unsurprisingly) that adults didn't much appreciate censorship.
They were, naturally, all in favour of certification and indeed a tightening up of the rules surrounding certification lower than 18. But they didn't want the BBFC arbitrarily deciding which films adults could and couldn't see. They wanted information, so they could make decisions for themselves. Which seems entirely sensible to me.
Each consultation since then has shown the public to be consistent in these matters. And the BBFC only bans material it believes in its expertise to be in violation of UK laws.
'perhaps I should apply for a job with the BBFC?'
You'd have to work within the framework of the law and the culture and methodologies of the organisation, which wouldn't lead to more films being banned. You'd have to leave matters of personal taste, guesswork based on decontextualised 'snippets', self-confessed squeamishness and suchlike at the door. These matters aren't decided on whims of individual taste.
And I agree with you that the BBFC does good work these days - which is why I was curious about your initial position that you 'weren't sure some of these films should be shown.' I'm still no clearer on why you believe this to be the case when you acknowledge that the BBFC has it covered pretty well. But given that you concede that you do not watch 'these films', cannot name any films that fit your criteria and readily confess that you can't provide evidence of harm, I don't suppose we'll get to the bottom of it.
You do you, as they say.
reply
share