Tough to Watch - Extreme Reality Early in the history of film, audiences were drawn to documentaries which promised to show the extremes of human experience - medical operations, attacks on animals and real life executions became popular even as mainstream cinema shied away from on-screen kisses. Ever since, such films have remained cult viewing, from the 'Mondo' films of the 60s to recent ‘shockumentaries’ like Terrorists, Killers and Other Wackos. Extreme documentaries raise particular issues for regulators. The material often seems to have a special relationship with its viewers, affecting them in a more profound way than pure fiction does. They can not say 'it's not real, it's all just pretend'. When the material is especially violent or offensive, the questions become more pressing. Is the work intended to inform or to titillate? Will audiences be educated or damaged by what they see? It is a basic principle of the BBFC's work that adults should as far as possible be free to choose what they see. But when a work may be potentially harmful to viewers or harmful to society through the behaviour of those viewers, the limits of this freedom come into question. Legislation including the Video Recordings Act and the Obscene Publications Act requires the BBFC to assess the likelihood of such harm. With this in mind, when looking at extreme documentary material, the BBFC has to consider whether to require cuts even at the '18' category, or perhaps even to ban the work entirely.
It is fairly easy to consider whether people might imitate specific stunts. More troublesome decisions have to be made in relation to those works that simply seem in their essence to validate and endorse antisocial, violent or illegal behaviour. Take a work like Hooligans, submitted to the Board in 2001. On the one hand, a documentary exploring the reality of organised football violence, using images which can commonly be seen on television news. On the other, a pernicious call to arms using relentless images of extreme violence set to a pounding soundtrack. Hooligans was refused a classification by the BBFC on the grounds that its uncritical, exciting, and sometimes xenophobic portrayal of violence could well encourage violent behaviour in those likely to view it. Still more complex are cases where the 'harm' seems to be not in directly encouraging a particular type of behaviour, but rather in adversely affecting the general attitudes of viewers. This issue often crops up in relation to 'compilation' documentaries. When considering Terrorists…, the critical factor for the BBFC was that its portrayal of human suffering and cruelty seemed designed purely for entertainment, with an often comical soundtrack and 'amusing' captions commenting on the - largely non-white - victims and aggressors. The BBFC felt that Terrorists, Killers and Other Wackos could not be given a classification for release in the UK, on the grounds that it encourages callous and sadistic attitudes on the part of its viewers. The BBFC's decisions in such cases rely on close analysis of the work in question and considerations of its intentions and effects. Where one work is considered trivialising and voyeuristic, another may look like it is asking to be viewed in a different way. Paramedics compiles footage of accident scenes and includes gory detail of human injury. To a certain extent this clearly appeals to our voyeuristic urges, and the work shares with Terrorists... a lack of guiding context, interviews or voice-over. However, each scene in Paramedics is prolonged and detailed, enabling viewers to get a real sense of both the suffering of the victims and the work of the paramedics. The scenes are distressing to watch but are not presented simply as brief curiosities for the viewer's titillation. In the end, only minimal cuts were required to remove close-up lingering shots of injury which seemed salacious and intrusive, with the potential to encourage callous attitudes in the likely audience. Find Out More
|
The question of 'harm' seems clearer in some cases than in others. Recently there has been a huge surge of interest in films and videos which take their cue from the MTV series Jackass but go even further in pushing the boundaries of taste and of safety. In works which have clear appeal to young viewers, the BBFC has taken action when extremely dangerous acts are glamorised and imitation encouraged with no indication of the potential dangers. The UK's Dirty Sanchez series had warning captions put on screen, for instance, where an aerosol spray and lighter are used in a makeshift flame-thrower which is then used on a man's buttocks. The BBFC went further and required cuts to Steve-O – Don't Try This At Home, which features an intravenous vodka injection and potentially fatal stunts involving fireworks which are easily accessible to the young.
The video Terrorists, Killers and Other Wackos, for example, features news and documentary clips including accidents, executions and suicides, strung together without narrative. To many viewers these are intensely shocking and upsetting images. But in a world where fictional, palatable violence is commonplace, shouldn't we encourage works which show violence and its consequences for what they really are? Or should we be on guard against the dangers of 'desensitisation', where viewers become inured to real violence and thereby more likely to be violent?