A mid-century film that shows how society has an effect on censorship is The Wild One (Benedek, 1953), although this was an American film it caused controversy to censors here. In the 1950s, Britain was experiencing the era of the ‘teenager’ – before this, youth culture had been limited, if barely existent at all. This included the ‘Teddy Boys’, rebellious youths who were ‘often described as gangs and considered to be “ready to rumble”’ (Moore, n.d). The Wild One dealt with issues of anti-social behaviour and violence, although in today’s desensitised society, they seem tame compared to the extreme violence in films such as Saw (Wan, 2004) that we have now become used to. The film was banned in the UK until 1967, which saw it being stamped with an ‘X’ certificate, on the grounds that ‘burgeoning juvenile delinquency and a seemingly increasing lack of respect for authority could only be aggravated by young people seeing this film’ (BBFC, Case Study, n.d). Now, over 50 years after it has been banned, the film has a PG certificate.
In terms of Governmental legislation, although there had been previous involvement, such as the 1909 Cinematograph Films Act, which was passed to aid in public safety in cinemas, the first notable movement towards control of the industry was the Cinematograph Films Act 1927. As stated by Dickinson and Street (1985, p. 5), its intention was to make sure a larger percentage of screen time was dedicated to showing British films, so the industry would benefit commercially. Before this, the majority of films shown in Britain were of American origin. With the passing of the Act, the amount of British films shown did rise, from only 4.4% of all films shown in 1927, to 24% in 1932 (Dickinson & Street, 1985, p. 42), but Hollywood still dominated the market despite British films and stars growing in popularity (Burrows, 1997). The problem with the Act was that it only had a quota on quantity, not quality, which resulted in the production of the ‘quota quickie’, cheaply made, bad quality films (Buy British, 1938), which did not reflect well on the British film industry.
The next big milestone was the formation of the Moyne Committee in 1936, leading up to the 1938 Cinematograph Films Act. The 1927 act was approaching expiry, and the Committee was formed to investigate what changes needed to be made, or indeed if the Act was even still relevant (Dickinson & Street, 1985). They proposed, among other things, a quality test to cut down on the amount of ‘quota quickies’ being made (Fisher, n.d). Also in the Moyne Committee’s reports came the issue of funding, which would end up being a major issue when it came to legislation of cinema. In order to even get close to Hollywood’s domination of the market, the British film industry would need to have more funding. In 1949, The Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act was passed, ‘to make temporary provision for the lending of money to be employed in financing the production or distribution of cinematograph films’ (Fisher, n.d). This resulted in the National Film Finance Corporation, which was one of the first major Government intervention regarding funding the country’s film industry, through giving loans to up and coming filmmakers – with particular favour on a distributing company called British Lion, owned by Alexander Korda (Dickinson & Street, 1985, p. 212), which as a group took ownership of various studios and projects, encouraging further the production of British films. Korda had already experienced success as a director, with a British film abroad, The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933), which at the time (and even now) was a rare thing. British Lion stand out as a successful company, having produced and/or released 349 films in Britain between the years of 1927-1995 (British Lion, n.d). It is quite possible that without the loans given by the NFFC, many of these films may not have been made, showing how Government legislation regarding funding has helped shape the British film industry.
A modern example of the Government’s involvement when it comes to film funding is the UK Film Council. Established in 2000, its key aims as listed on its website are:
‘1. Build a competitive film industry with the creativity and skills to succeed
2. Stimulate greater choice for film audiences
3. Widen opportunities to learn about film and encourage more people to use them
4. Promote UK film around the world’ (UK Film Council, n.d)
The Council, which works with both Government and film industry, gives funding for filmmakers and scriptwriters, to develop the British film industry. It has given funding to films such as This Is England (Meadows, 2006), which went on to become extremely popular. In cases like these, the film being a success means its profit can be fed back into the film industry, which can grow and develop. Without the Government involvement, many British films may never have been made, and this shows the importance of State support for the film industry.
It is clear that both areas of legislation have affected the film industry in various ways. Censorship has seemingly repressed the production of films from a creative point of view, particularly early on in the history of British cinema, with strict regulation on what can and cannot be shown on our screens. Although there has been a lot of change regarding what is considered too obscene for our screens, the BBFC still has purpose; but rather than banning films, it is now perhaps more aimed at the correct classification of films. In comparison to censorship being in some ways detrimental to film production, financial support from Governmental agencies and Acts has been essential to the development of British film, without sources such as the NFFC and the UK Film Council, many films that are considered great British films may not have been made.
Bibliography
Ardolino, E. (Director). (1987). Dirty Dancing [Motion Picture].
Baxter, J. (Director). (1941). Love on the Dole [Motion Picture].
BBFC. (n.d.). Case Study: The Wild One. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from SBBFC: http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudyTheWildOne.asp
BBFC. (n.d.). Timeline. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from SBBFC: http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/student_guide_timeline_view.asp?t=Legislation
Benedek, L. (Director). (1953). The Wild One [Motion Picture].
British Lion. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2009, from http://www.britishlionfilms.com/about_us_films.html
Burrows, M. (1997). BANNED! The Development and Practices of Film Censorship in Britain. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.
Buy British. (1938, April 11). Retrieved January 18, 2009, from TIME: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,759434,00.html
Dickinson, M., & Street, S. (1985). Cinema and State: The Film Industry and British Government 1927-84. London: BFI.
Financial Legislation. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2009, from Screen Online: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/1011995/index.html
Fisher, D. (n.d.). British media inquiries, White Papers and official reports: Film and Cinema. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from TerraMedia: http://www.terramedia.co.uk/reference/law/official_british_media_reports_film.htm#Moyne
Gibson, M. (Director). (2004). The Passion of The Christ [Motion Picture].
Korda, A. (Director). (1933). The Private Life of Henry VIII [Motion Picture].
Meadows, S. (Director). (2006). This Is England [Motion Picture].
Moore, A. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2009, from Rewind The Fifties: http://www.loti.com/then_now/teddy_boys.htm
Robertson, J. C. (1985). The British Board of Film Censors: Film Censorship in Britain 1896-1950. UK: Croom Helm.
UK Film Council. (n.d.). Retrieved January 18, 2009, from UK Film Council at a glance: http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/glance
Wan, J. (Director). (2004). Saw [Motion Picture].