British Board of Film Classification

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC, previously the British Board of Film Censors) is a non-governmental organisation founded by the British film industry in 1912 and responsible for the national classification and censorship of films exhibited at cinemas and video works (such as television programmes, trailers, adverts, public information/campaigning films, menus, bonus content, etc.) released on physical media within the United Kingdom.[1][2] It has a statutory requirement to classify all video works released on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray (including 3D and 4K UHD formats), and, to a lesser extent, some video games under the Video Recordings Act 1984.[3] The BBFC was also the designated regulator for the UK age-verification scheme which was abandoned before being implemented.[4][5]

British Board of Film Classification
Formation1912 (1912)
PurposeFilm ratings, television ratings
HeadquartersLondon, W1
United Kingdom
Region served
United Kingdom
Natasha Kaplinsky
Chief executive
David Austin

History and overview

British Board of Film Censors 'U' certificate for Berlin Airlift (1949)[6]

The BBFC was established in 1912 as the British Board of Film Censors by members of the film industry, who preferred to manage their own censorship than to have national or local government do it for them. The immediate impetus for the board's formation stemmed from the furore surrounding the release in the UK in October 1912 of the film From the Manger to the Cross, about the life of Jesus. The film, shown at the Queen's Hall, London, gained considerable publicity from a great outcry in the Daily Mail, which demanded: "Is nothing sacred to the film maker?", and waxed indignant about the profits for its American film producers.[7] Although the clergy were invited to see it and found little to be affronted by,[7] the controversy resulted in the voluntary creation of the BBFC, which began operating on 1 January 1913.[8]

The Cinematograph Act 1909 required cinemas to have licences from local authorities. The Act was introduced for reasons of public safety after nitrate film fires in unsuitable venues (fairgrounds and shops that had been hastily converted into cinemas) but the following year a court ruling[9] determined that the criteria for granting or refusing a licence did not have to be restricted to issues of health and safety. Given that the law now allowed councils to grant or refuse licences to cinemas according to the content of the films they showed, the 1909 Act, therefore, enabled the introduction of censorship.

The film industry, fearing the economic consequences of a largely unregulated censorship infrastructure, therefore formed the BBFC to take the process 'in house' and establish its own system of self-regulation. By paying a fee of £2 for every reel of film viewed, and by appointing a panel of viewers under a censor, none of whom had any film trade interests, the growing cinema industry neatly created a censorship body which was both self-supporting and strictly impartial, and therefore was not swayed by any sectional interests inside the film trade or outside it.[10] The board's offices were originally at 133–135 Oxford Street, London; the building is located at the junction of Wardour Street, a centre of the British film industry for many years.[11]

Unlike the American Production Code Administration, which had a written list of violations in their Motion Picture Production Code, the BBFC did not have a written code and were vague in their translation to producers on what constituted a violation.[12] However, some clarity would come in 1916 when the then president of the BBFC, T. P. O'Connor, listed forty-three infractions, from the BBFC 1913–1915 annual reports, during the National Council of Public Morals: Cinema Commission of Inquiry (1916), indicating where a cut in a film may be required.[13] These included:

  1. Indecorous, ambiguous and irreverent titles and subtitles
  2. Cruelty to animals
  3. The irreverent treatment of sacred subjects
  4. Drunken scenes carried to excess
  5. Vulgar accessories in the staging
  6. The modus operandi of criminals
  7. Cruelty to young infants and excessive cruelty and torture to adults, especially women
  8. Unnecessary exhibition of under-clothing
  9. The exhibition of profuse bleeding
  10. Nude figures
  11. Offensive vulgarity, and impropriety in conduct and dress
  12. Indecorous dancing
  13. Excessively passionate love scenes
  14. Bathing scenes passing the limits of propriety
  15. References to controversial politics
  16. Relations of capital and labour
  17. Scenes tending to disparage public characters and institutions
  18. Realistic horrors of warfare
  19. Scenes and incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy
  20. Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies
  21. Scenes holding up the King's uniform to contempt or ridicule
  22. Subjects dealing with India, in which British Officers are seen in an odious light, and otherwise attempting to suggest the disloyalty of British Officers, Native States or bringing into disrepute British prestige in the Empire
  23. The exploitation of tragic incidents of the war
  24. Gruesome murders and strangulation scenes
  25. Executions
  26. The effects of vitriol throwing
  27. The drug habit, e.g., opium, morphia, cocaine, etc.
  28. Subjects dealing with White Slave traffic
  29. Subjects dealing with premeditated seduction of girls
  30. "First night" scenes
  31. Scenes suggestive of immorality
  32. Indelicate sexual situations
  33. Situations accentuating delicate marital relations
  34. Men and women in bed together
  35. Illicit relationships
  36. Prostitution and procuration
  37. Incidents indicating the actual perpetration of criminal assaults on women
  38. Scenes depicting the effect of venereal disease, inherited or acquired
  39. Incidents suggestive of incestuous relations
  40. Themes and references relative to 'race suicide'
  41. Confinements
  42. Scenes laid in disorderly houses
  43. Materialisation of the conventional figure of Christ.[13]

In 1926, the BBFC annual report outlined grounds on seven broad categories that justified censorship, including issues related to religious, political, military, social, questions of sex, crime and cruelty.[14] Some decisions from the early years are now subjected to derision. In 1928, the board's examiners report famously claimed that Germaine Dulac's surrealist film The Seashell and the Clergyman was "almost meaningless", but: "If there is a meaning, it is doubtless objectionable."[15][16]

Informal links, to varying degrees of closeness, have been maintained between the BBFC and the Government throughout the Board's existence. In the period before the Second World War, an extensive but unofficial system of political censorship was implemented by the BBFC for the Home Office. As the cinema became a socially powerful mass-medium, governments feared the effect of its use by others for propaganda and as happened in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany discouraged any expression of controversial political views in British films. This trend reached its climax during the 1930s. Following protests from the German Embassy after the release of a film depicting the execution of Edith Cavell (Dawn, 1928, dir. Herbert Wilcox), intense political pressure was brought to bear on the BBFC by the Home Office. A system of script vetting was introduced, whereby British studios were invited to submit screenplays to the BBFC before shooting started. Imported Hollywood films were not treated as strictly as British films, as the BBFC believed that audiences would recognise American cinema as representing a foreign culture and therefore would not apply any political messages therein to their own lives. So while the Warners gangster films and other 1930s Hollywood films that dealt explicitly with crime and the effects of the Great Depression were released in the UK largely uncut, these subjects were strictly off-limits for British film-makers.

During the Second World War, the BBFC's political censorship function effectively passed to the Films Division of the Ministry of Information, and the BBFC never regained this to the same extent as before the war. The increasing climate of post-war liberalism ensured that from the 1950s onwards, controversies involving the BBFC centred more on depictions of sex and violence than on political expression. There were some notable exceptions: Yield to the Night (UK, 1956, dir. J. Lee Thompson), which opposed capital punishment; Room at the Top (UK, 1959, dir. Jack Clayton), which dealt with class divisions; Victim (UK, 1961, dir. Basil Dearden), which implicitly argued for the legalisation of homosexuality, all involved the BBFC in controversy.

In autumn 1972, Lord Longford and Raymond Blackburn decided to pursue a matter of pornography classification for the film Language of Love[17] at the Court of Appeal before Lord Denning, MR; they failed to obtain a writ of mandamus against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who had refused to intrude upon the BBFC's remit.[18][19][20]

Change of name and scope

In 1984, the organisation changed its name to "reflect the fact that classification plays a far larger part in the board's work than censorship".[21][22] At that time it was given responsibility for classifying videos for hire or purchase to view in the home as well as films shown in cinemas. Home video and cinema versions of a film usually receive the same certificate, although occasionally a film may receive a more restrictive certificate for the home video market (sometimes due to the bonus features), as it is easier for children to watch a home video than to be admitted into a cinema.

In December 1986, the first computer game to be certified by the BBFC was an illustrated text adventure called Dracula, based on the Bram Stoker novel, published by CRL; the game received a 15 certificate.[23] The first computer game to receive an 18 certificate, on 11 December 1987,[24] was another illustrated text adventure called Jack the Ripper, also by CRL, which dealt with the infamous real life murders in Victorian London. The horror in both games came through largely in their detailed prose. Had the game publishers reprinted the games' text in book form, it would not have carried a certificate, as the BBFC has no oversight over print media. Both games had numerous certificate stickers all over their covers to emphasise to parents and retailers that they were not intended for children, as computer games carrying BBFC certificates were previously unheard of.

The first video game to be refused classification by the BBFC was Carmageddon in 1997, however a modified version of the game was later awarded an 18 certificate. In June 2007, Manhunt 2 was refused classification for both its PlayStation 2 and Wii versions, meaning that the game was illegal to sell or supply in the United Kingdom.[25] A modified version was made that was accepted by the ESRB but was still refused classification from the BBFC. The second decision was later overturned by the Video Appeals Committee (an independent body set up by legislation); the BBFC then asked the High Court for a judicial review of the VAC decision.[26] The High Court ruled that the VAC had made errors in law and instructed it to reconsider its decision, the VAC subsequently ruled that the modified version of the game should receive an 18 certificate, which the BBFC accepted.[27]

On 16 June 2009, the UK's Department of Culture, Media and Sport ruled in favour of the PEGI system to be the sole classification system for videogames and software in the UK. This decision would also, unlike beforehand, allow PEGI ratings to be legally enforced much like the BBFC ratings.[28] Initially expected to take effect from 1 April 2011,[29] the legislation was put into effect on 30 July 2012.[30]

Netflix and the BBFC announced an age classification partnership on 13 March 2019 where the former will classify their content in the United Kingdom with BBFC ratings. The partnership came at the time when digital media is on the rise worldwide and when parents are concerned about children seeing inappropriate content on video on demand or online gaming platforms.[31] The implementation of BBFC ratings into Netflix UK content took effect at the end of October 2019.[32]

Responsibilities and powers

The board is a self-funded quango.[33][34][35] Its business affairs are controlled by a council of management selected from leading figures in the manufacturing and servicing sectors of the film industry. This council appoints the President, who has statutory responsibility for the classification of videos and the Director who has executive responsibility and formulates policy. The board, which is based in Soho Square, London, is financed from the fees it charges for classifying films and videos and is run on a not-for-profit basis.


The BBFC can also advise cuts for a less-restrictive rating. This generally occurs in borderline cases where distributors have requested a certificate and the BBFC has rated the work at a more-restrictive level; however, some cuts are compulsory, such as scenes that violate the Protection of Children Act 1978 or Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937. The final certificate then depends on the distributor's decision on whether or not to make the suggested cuts. Some works are even rejected if the distributor refuses the cut.

The examiners and the directors of the BBFC are hired on a permanent basis. Examiners are required to watch five hours and twenty minutes of media, to a maximum of thirty-five hours a week. Turnover is low and vacancies, when available, appear on its London job vacancies website.[36]


In the case of films shown in cinemas, local authorities have the final legal authorisation over who can view a particular film. The majority of the time, local authorities accept the board's recommendation for a certificate for a film. There have been some notable exceptions – particularly in the 1970s when the board allowed films such as Last Tango in Paris (1972) and The Exorcist (1973) to be released with an X certificate (essentially the same as today's "18") – but many local authorities chose to ban the films regardless. Thirty-nine local authorities in the UK either imposed an outright ban, or imposed an X certificate, on Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979), which the BBFC had rated as AA (Suitable for ages 14+).[37]

Conversely, in 2002, a few local authorities regraded Spider-Man from 12 to PG, allowing children younger than 12 to see the film. However, the BBFC were already in the process of replacing the 12 rating with a new 12A, which allowed under-12s to see the film if accompanied by an adult, so shortly afterwards, the BBFC reclassified Spider-Man as 12A. The first 12A certificate awarded was for The Bourne Identity.[38]

Video releases

The Video Recordings Act requires that video releases not exempt (music, documentary, non-fiction, video games, etc.) under the Act had to be classified, making it illegal to supply any recording that had not been certified. Certificates could restrict release to any age of 18 or under, or only to licensed sex-shops. The government currently designate the BBFC as the authority for certifying video releases. As the law requires the certificate to be displayed on the packaging and media labels of the video recording, in practice only UK releases can be legally sold or hired in the UK, even if a foreign release had identical content.[39]

Local authorities do not have such power for video recordings. Under the Video Recording Act 1984,[lower-alpha 1] all non-exempt recordings must be classified by an authority chosen by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. This classification is legally binding, in that supply of material contrary to its certificate (recordings that have been refused a certificate, or supplying to someone younger than the certified age) is a criminal offence. However, possession is not an offence in itself, other than in the case of "possession with intent to supply". Since the introduction of the Act, the BBFC has been the chosen authority. In theory this authority could be revoked, but in practice such a revocation has never been suggested, since most local authorities simply don't have the resources needed to do such things as remove cuts, pass films that the BBFC rejected and vice versa, put in place new cuts, etc., regularly.[40]

Video games

The BBFC has also rated some video games. Normally these are exempt from classification, unless they depict human sexual activity, human genital organs or gross acts of violence, in which case the publishers should submit the game for classification. Publishers may opt to submit a game for classification even if they are not obliged to.

Under the Digital Economy Act 2010, the responsibility for rating video games in the United Kingdom has passed from the BBFC to the Video Standards Council using the PEGI system.[41] A game is only submitted to the BBFC if it contains strong pornographic material or if it includes video material that is not directly accessible through the game itself (e.g. a documentary).

Mobile operators

The BBFC also provide a classification service for mobile phone operators. BBFC guidelines for film and video are used to calibrate the filters used by the operators to restrict access to internet content. The default assumption is that mobile phone users are under 18 years of age. The BBFC guidelines are based on public consultations conducted every four to five years.[42]


Under the Digital Economy Act 2017 the BBFC was appointed as the UK's regulator for pornographic websites. As regulator, the BBFC was intended to be responsible for identifying commercial pornographic websites accessible in the UK and empowered to take action against any which did not age-verify their users, including placing restrictions on their payment transactions or ordering their blocking by Internet service providers. This was to be the case regardless of whether the websites were UK-based or foreign-based. The BBFC had been informally named as the likely regulator in 2016,[43][44] and in November of that year it was invited to take on the role and agreed to do so. The formal appointment of the BBFC took place in February 2018. Before the BBFC was due to begin its role, it conducted a public consultation on its draft guidance beginning in March 2018.[45][46] In 2018 the BBFC estimated that five million commercial pornographic websites existed on the Internet.[47]

In March 2019 the BBFC published its guidance, which stated that social media would not fall under the BBFC's jurisdiction, and nor would websites where pornography made up a third or less of the website's material. The BBFC proposed that a voluntary certification scheme should cover age verification providers. Margot James, the UK government's digital minister, said that the government had asked HM Treasury to provide indemnity of up to £10 million to the BBFC to protect it against legal challenges, as the uncertainty surrounding the possibility of such challenges would leave the BBFC unable to get commercial insurance.[48] There were numerous delays to the date at which the BBFC would begin its regulatory role, until in 2019 the UK government announced that the part of the Act dealing with the regulation of pornographic websites would not be implemented.[5]

Current certificates

The BBFC currently issues the following certificates.[49] The current category symbols were introduced in cinemas in October 2019 and on home media since April 2020, replacing the previous ones that had been in place since 2002.[50]

Symbol Name Description Guidelines
Universal Suitable for all. A U film should be suitable for audiences aged four years and over. May contain infrequent very mild language. May contain very mild sex references and mild violence, if justified by the context.[51]

Until 2009, there was also a Uc ("Universal Children") certificate, for videos that were particularly suitable for young children.[52]

General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children. A PG film should not unsettle a child aged around eight or older. May contain mild language (frequent/aggressive use may result in the work being passed at a higher category) or sex/drug references. May contain moderate violence if justified by context (e.g. fantasy). Unaccompanied children of any age may watch, but parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger, or more sensitive, children.[53]
12A Cinema release suitable for those aged 12 and over. No one younger than 12 may see a 12A film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult. May contain adolescent themes, discrimination, soft drugs, moderate language, moderate violence, sex references and nudity. Sexual activity may be briefly and discreetly portrayed. Use of strong language may be permitted based on frequency and how they are used, as well as contextual justification. Occasional strong violence may be permitted if justified by the context.[54]

The 12 category applies to cinema releases from August 1989 to 2002, and home media since 1994. The 12A category has been used for cinema releases since 2002.[52]

12 Video release suitable only for 12 years and over. No one younger than 12 may rent or buy a 12 rated video work.
15 Suitable only for 15 years and over. No one younger than 15 may see a 15 film in a cinema. No one younger than 15 may rent or buy a 15 rated video work. May have fairly mature themes. May contain (frequent) strong language, strong violence, strong sex references, nudity without graphic detail and hard drugs. Sexual activity may be portrayed but without any strong detail. Sexual violence may be shown if discreet and justified by context. Use of very strong language may be permitted based on frequency and how it is used, as well as contextual justification.[55]
18 Suitable only for adults. No one younger than 18 may see an 18 film in a cinema. No one younger than 18 may rent or buy an 18 rated video work. Films under this category do not have limitation on the foul language that is used. Portrayals of illegal drug misuse are generally allowed, and explicit sex references along with detailed sexual activity are also allowed. Scenes of strong real sex may be permitted if justified by the context (Sex works containing explicit images of real sex cannot be classified at "18"). Very strong, gory, and/or sadistic violence is usually permitted. Strong sexual violence is permitted unless it is eroticised or excessively graphic, in which a work will require compulsory cuts where possible.[56]
R18 To be shown only in specially licensed cinemas, or supplied only in licensed sex shops, and to adults only. R18 video works may not be supplied by mail order. Works under this category typically contain explicit images of real consenting sexual activity, strong fetish material, explicit animated images, or sight of certain extreme sex acts. There remains a range of material that is often cut from the R18 rating: material in breach of criminal law (including the Obscene Publications Act 1959), material likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity, non-consensual sexual activity, any type of physical restraint that would prevent the withdrawal of consent, real or simulated acts in a sexual context that are likely to cause serious physical harm (including penetration by foreign objects), and sexual threats and humiliation that do not clearly form part of a consenting role-playing game.[57] More cuts are demanded in this category than any other category.[58]

Material that is exempt from classification sometimes uses symbols similar to BBFC certificates, for example an "E" certificate. There is no legal obligation, nor a particular scheme, for labelling material that is exempt from classification.[59] On the BBFC's online classification database, material that has been refused a classification uses an "N/A" symbol in place of a rating symbol.

Age-verification certificate

As part of the implementation of the Digital Economy Act 2017, the BBFC and NCC Group were planning to introduce an age-verification certificate (AVC or AV Certificate), a voluntary, non-statutory certificate awarded to Internet age-verification providers who meet standards of privacy and data security. Plans to mandate online age-verification to deny those who do not prove they are aged over 18 access to pornographic website content were subsequently abandoned.[60][61]

Attitudes to censorship

Historically the Board has faced strong criticism for their perceived overzealous attitude towards censoring films. Prior to the liberalising decade of the 1960s, films were routinely and extensively censored as a means of social control. For example, Rebel Without a Cause (1955) was cut to reduce the "possibility of teenage rebellion". Ingmar Bergman's 1955 comedy Smiles of a Summer Night was cut to remove "overtly sexual or provocative" language.[62]

The BBFC's attitude became more liberal during the 1960s, and it concentrated on censoring films that featured graphic sex and violence. However, some Board decisions caused controversy in the 1970s when it banned a series of films that were released uncut and were popular in other countries (such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Last House on the Left), or released other controversial films, such as Straw Dogs and A Clockwork Orange. However, under recent presidents Andreas Whittam Smith and Sir Quentin Thomas, guidelines were relaxed again, allowing the release, usually uncut, of these previously banned films on video and in cinemas. Some films from the 1970s remain unreleased.[63] However, many of these titles remain banned primarily because their distributors have not chosen to re-submit the films to the BBFC, almost certainly for commercial reasons; if re-submitted, they would be likely to receive a more sympathetic hearing than 30 to 40 years ago. Two notable examples from this period include the 1969 film Love Camp 7, rejected in 2002, and Women in Cellblock 9, released in 1977 and rejected in 2004. Both films contain substantial scenes of sexual violence and have remained completely banned following a re-submission since 2000.

In general, attitudes to what material is suitable for viewing by younger audiences have changed over the years, and this is reflected by the reclassification of older films being re-released on video. For example, a 1913 film given the former A rating could very probably be rated PG today. An extreme example of this is the rating of the horror film Revenge of the Zombies, with a U certificate upon its video release in the late 1990s, whereas, when it was first examined as a film in 1951, it was given one of the first X ratings. The Bela Lugosi horror film Island of Lost Souls was refused a certificate when first submitted in 1932, was granted an X in the 1950s, and a 12 for home video release in 1996 – when submitted for a modern video classification in 2011, it was re-classified as a PG.

The BBFC are also known to cut the words "spaz" and "retard" from U certified films and videos on the grounds of discriminating against disabled people. One example of this was when Marmaduke was passed U after the word "spaz" was removed. The uncut version would have been rated 12. They also award higher ratings to films that contain potentially imitable and dangerous behaviour; this includes all four Jackass films being passed 18, and Fred: The Movie being passed 12. They are also serious about suicide themes, references, or attempts, and will either cut them or award a higher rating. An example of this was in 2010, when the Board cut the Hindi film Anjaana Anjaani by two minutes and thirty-one seconds to remove references to and sight of someone attempting suicide by asphyxiation so the distributor could get a cinema 12A certificate. In its uncut form the film was released on home video with an 18 certificate. The Hunger Games (2012) was assessed before formal classification, with the film's studio wishing to obtain a 12A for financial and marketing reasons. To get this, seven seconds of footage was cut and blood splashes were digitally removed to reduce emphasis on blood and injury, as an alternative to the uncut film being rated 15.


There has been considerable relaxation since 1999. The relaxation of guidelines has also made hardcore pornography widely available to adult audiences through the R18 rating. Films with this rating are only legally available from licensed sex shops, of which there are about three hundred in the UK. They may also be seen in specially licensed cinemas.

There are also examples of films with stronger sexual content, some including real images of sexual intercourse, being approved at "18" level. Recent examples include the passing of Irreversible, 9 Songs, Antichrist, and numerous other films uncut for cinema and video viewing. Despite this trend towards liberalisation, anti-censorship campaigners are still critical of the BBFC. It has attracted criticism from conservative press, in particular the Daily Mail, on the grounds that the release of sexually explicit and violent films was corrupting the nation. The newspaper's most famous clash with the BBFC came in 1997 when the board released the David Cronenberg film Crash without cuts. The following day (19 March 1997) the Daily Mail led with the banner headline "Censor's Yes To Depraved Sex Film".[64] Westminster City Council imposed its own ban on the film after the decision, although anyone wanting to watch the film in a cinema only had to walk along to the non-Westminster half of Shaftesbury Avenue, which is in the neighbouring borough of Camden.

Current concerns

The BBFC's current guidelines identify a number of specific areas considered when awarding certificates or requiring cuts:

  • Depictions of cruelty and harassment based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability, and/or discrimination
  • Adult themes and situations that may be considered too distressing for younger or more sensitive viewers
  • Offensive language (i.e. profanity and use of racial and ethnic slurs)
  • Nudity in a sexual context
  • Sexual content (including scenes of sexual activity and spoken/visual references to sex)
  • Violence
  • Gore and injury detail
  • Sexual violence (particularly rape and forced disrobing)
  • Dangerous actions that can easily be imitated by younger, more naive viewers (certain combat moves [ear-claps, headbutts, and neck-breaking] in particular)
  • All visual and verbal references to suicide, particularly if it involves hanging oneself or slashing one's wrists
  • Detailed criminal acts, such as breaking into a house using a credit card to jimmy the lock or hotwiring a car
  • Actions that result in injury or death in real life, but are almost always shown in the media (especially on shows aimed at younger audiences, such as cartoons) with no negative consequences, such as hiding in appliances that can trap and kill small children (i.e. tumble driers and old refrigerators), ingesting or misusing common household chemicals, or creating dangerous objects from common household items (such as a flamethrower from an aerosol can and a cigarette lighter)
  • Scenes of horror, threat, and danger and their intensity on audience members
  • Drug abuse being condoned or glamorised

The BBFC also continues to demand cuts of any material it believes breaches the provisions of the Obscene Publications Act or any other legislation (most notably the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 [which forbids the depiction of animals being abused or in distress] and the Protection of Children Act 1978 [which, as amended, forbids the depiction of minors engaged in sex or in sexually suggestive poses or situations]). In 2009, 2% of cinema films had material cut, and 3.6% of videos. Most cuts actually occur in videos rated for 18 or R18, rather than videos intended for viewing by under-18s. In 2009, 16.8% of 18 videos, and 27.3% of R18 videos, had material cut.[58]

There is no theme or subject matter considered inherently unsuitable for classification at any level, although more controversial topics may drive a movie to be given a more restrictive rating. This is in keeping with current practice in most liberal democracies, but in sharp contrast to the early days of the BBFC in which such adult themes as prostitution, incest, and the relations of capital and labour were unacceptable regardless of the rating.

"'Adult" or "strong" language can earn a film a more restrictive certificate, though BBFC policy states that there are no constraints on language use in films awarded an 18 certificate. It is difficult to compare the BBFC's policies in this area with those in other countries as there are different taboos regarding profanity in other languages and indeed in other English-speaking countries. For example, the use of "strong" language has little effect on a film's classification in France. The BBFC's policy proved particularly controversial in the case of Ken Loach's Sweet Sixteen in 2002, which was passed uncut only at 18 certificate, even though its main characters were teenagers who frequently used profanities that the director argued were typical of the social group his film depicted. The film received similar certificates in Ireland (also an 18 certificate) and the United States. Shane Meadows' film This Is England was also passed uncut only at 18 due to its repeated use of racist terms, and the climactic scene where Combo becomes irate and pummels his friend Milky while insulting him. On the other hand, some films feature strong language but nevertheless do not carry particularly restrictive certificates. The King's Speech was passed for a 12A rating despite its repeated use of the word "fuck" in two scenes, which would normally raise the rating to a 15 certificate; the BBFC justified its decision, saying that the profanity was "in a speech therapy context". As of November 2021, the word "nigger" should not be classified lower than 12 unless in an educational or historical context.[65]

There are minimal restrictions of the depiction of non-sexual nudity, which is allowed in even U and PG certificate films (for example, The Simpsons Movie—which was given a PG-13 rating in the US – was given a PG certificate in the UK, leaving the sequence where Bart skateboards naked through town and his genitals are shown through an open space in a hedge unedited), but scenes of (simulated) sexual activity are limited to more restricted certificates. With regard to material that is intended primarily as pornographic the Board's policy, as stated on its website is "Material which appears to be simulated is generally passed "18", while images of real sex are confined to the "R18" category." However, for some years depictions of real sex have been allowed in 18-certificate videos intended as educational and, relatively recently, a number of works such as Patrice Chéreau's Intimacy (2001) and Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs (2004), which feature apparently unsimulated sex have been passed uncut for theatrical release.

Violence remains one of the most problematic areas for censorship in the UK, especially when it's in conjunction with sex or likely to sway more impressionable viewers into thinking the violence depicted is "glamorous" or "fun" and "risk-free." However, the Board takes into account issues of context and whether it considers scenes of sexual violence to "eroticise" or "endorse" sexual assault. In 2002, the board passed Gaspar Noé's Irréversible uncut, but less than a month later cut Takashi Miike's Ichi the Killer by three and a quarter minutes to remove scenes of sexual violence. A Serbian Film (2010) suffered forty-nine individual cuts by the BBFC, which totalled four minutes and eleven seconds of cuts. The cuts were made to remove "portrayals of children in a sexualised or abusive context and images of sexual and sexualised violence which have a tendency to eroticise or endorse the behaviour" as the Board's website states.

Criminal and dangerous acts that can be easily imitated, as well as scenes condoning, glamorising, or showing clear instruction of how to abuse drugs have also been the subject of UK editing. The issue of depicting dangerous acts that can easily be imitated in real life is one that does not seem to figure especially highly in the censorship systems of most other countries (though the US has done this on occasion, often as the result of public backlash, as seen on the MTV shows Beavis and Butt-head and Jackass). In the UK, numerous minor cuts have been made, primarily to films whose distributors want a PG or 12A certificate, to scenes of characters performing acts that would be considered dangerous, criminal, or harmful if done in real life. For example, in 2006, issues involving suicide by hanging became problematic; The Ren & Stimpy Show Series 1 DVD set (classified PG) was edited to remove the song "The Lord Loves a Hangin'" because the song implied that hanging is "comedic, fun, and risk-free".[66] Paranoia Agent Volume 3 DVD set (classified 18) was also cut to remove the depiction of a child nearly hanging herself for the same reason.[67]

The requirement to have films classified and censored can cost film producers up to thousands of pounds. The North West New Wave, a blanket term recently used by both film makers and local press to describe independent filmmakers in the Northwest of England, is currently campaigning for the introduction of a voluntary 'Unrated 18' classification in the UK.[68]

On 6 June 2011, the BBFC refused a classification for the horror film The Human Centipede II. The previous film in the series was passed uncut at 18, but due to a shift in context and focus, the BBFC judged that the sequel could fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act.[69] The film was eventually passed 18 after cuts were made.[70]


Presidents of the BBFC

Directors of the BBFC

During James Ferman's time, the title of the chief executive officer at the BBFC changed from "Secretary of the Board" to the current "Director". With David Austin's appointment in 2016 however, this title reverted to CEO.[73] At the same time, the title card displaying a film's certificate, which opens all theatrically screened films in the United Kingdom, stopped carrying the chief executive's signature. The President's signature is now used instead.

  • Joseph Brooke Wilkinson (1 January 1913 – 15 July 1948) (died in office)
  • A. T. L. Watkins (26 July 1948 – 23 January 1957)
  • John Nicholls (23 January 1957 – 30 April 1958)
  • John Trevelyan (22 May 1958 – 1 July 1971)
  • Stephen Murphy (1 July 1971 – 18 June 1975)
  • James Ferman (18 June 1975 – 10 January 1999)
  • Robin Duval (11 January 1999 – 19 September 2004)
  • David Cooke (20 September 2004 – 10 March 2016)[74][75]
  • David Austin OBE (10 March 2016 – present)[73]

See also


  1. The Video Recording Act 1984 was discovered in August 2009 to be unenforceable until the act was re-enacted by the Video Recordings Act 2010.[39]


  1. Nelmes, Jill (2003). An introduction to film studies. Routledge. p. 41. ISBN 0-415-26268-2.
  2. "BBFC Video ratings". BBFC. Archived from the original on 27 May 2016. Retrieved 11 June 2016.
  3. "welcome to the bbfc". bbfc. Archived from the original on 20 November 2009. Retrieved 6 February 2010.
  4. at 11:17, Rebecca Hill 17 Oct 2018. " to press ahead with online smut checks (but expects £10m in legals in year 1)". Archived from the original on 22 March 2019. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
  5. "UK's controversial 'porn blocker' plan dropped". BBC News. 16 October 2019. Archived from the original on 17 October 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  6. Berlin Airlift Archived 14 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine. National Archives. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
  7. Wood 1947, p. 167.
  8. Conrich, Ian (October 2003). "Film Classification and the BBFC" Archived 18 August 2020 at the Wayback Machine. BBC. Retrieved 20 September 2012.
  9. LCC v. Bermondsey Bioscope Co., [1911] 1 K.B. 445
  10. Wood 1947, p. 168.
  11. "133–135, Oxford Street, Westminster" Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine. British Listed Buildings. Retrieved 8 July 2015.
  12. Aldgate, Anthony. (1995). Censorship and the Permissive Society: British Cinema and Theatre, 1955-1965 Archived 27 July 2020 at the Wayback Machine. Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198112419
  13. "1912-1949: The early years at the BBFC". BBFC. Archived from the original on 19 June 2020. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
  14. Petrie, Duncan J. (1991). Creativity And Constraint In The British Film Industry. Palgrave MacMillan. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-349-21473-0.
  15. Robertson, James Crighton (1993). The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action, 1913–1975. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-415-09034-6. The film is so cryptic as to be almost meaningless. If there is a meaning, it is doubtless objectionable.
  16. Low, Rachael (1970). History of British Film. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-415-15451-2.
  17. Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs – Constituencies beginning with "K" (part 2)
  18. "Raymond Blackburn". The Herald. 5 November 1991. Archived from the original on 16 June 2014. Retrieved 1 September 2012.
  19. Burns, Peter (1975). "Private Prosecutions in Canada: The Law and a Proposal for Change" (PDF). McGill Law Journal. 21: 269. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 May 2014.
  20. "[1973] 1 Q.B. 241 (C.A.)" via United Settlement.
  21. Briggs, Adam; Cobley, Paul (2002). The Media: An Introduction (second; illustrated ed.). Pearson Education. pp. 480. ISBN 978-0-582-42346-6.
  22. Caughie, John; Rockett, Kevin (1996). The Companion to British and Irish Cinema (reissue, illustrated ed.). Cassell. pp. 35. ISBN 0-304-34158-4.
  23. Reed, Kristan (26 October 2007). "Bram Stoker's Dracula Review • Reviews • Retro •". Archived from the original on 10 March 2014. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
  24. "Jack The Ripper classification". British Board of Film Classification. Archived from the original on 6 March 2012. Retrieved 14 January 2011.
  25. Staff (19 June 2007). "Censors ban 'brutal' video game". BBC News. Archived from the original on 30 July 2017. Retrieved 13 July 2009.
  26. "Censors battle for Manhunt 2 ban". BBC News. 18 December 2007. Archived from the original on 27 January 2009. Retrieved 13 July 2009.
  27. "Manhunt 2 Receives 18 Certificate from BBFC". Gamers Hell. 14 March 2008. Archived from the original on 7 July 2009. Retrieved 13 July 2009.
  28. Fahey, Mike (16 June 2009). "PEGI Triumphs Over The BBFC". Kotaku. Archived from the original on 20 July 2009. Retrieved 13 July 2009.
  29. Parlett, Ben (15 July 2010). "PEGI ratings delayed until 2011". MCV. Archived from the original on 18 July 2010. Retrieved 15 July 2010.
  30. Towell, Justin (30 July 2012). "PEGI becomes the sole age rating system for UK games. But is there any point when so few people look at them?". gamesradar. Archived from the original on 30 July 2012. Retrieved 20 September 2012.
  31. "BBFC and Netflix announce new age ratings partnership as parents demand greater consistency across video on demand and online games platforms". BBFC website. 14 March 2019. Archived from the original on 27 July 2020. Retrieved 6 May 2020.
  32. Ross Kelly (30 October 2019). "Netflix Becomes First Streaming Service to Use BBFC Classifications". Archived from the original on 27 July 2020. Retrieved 6 May 2020.
  33. "About the BBFC". British Board of Film Classification. Archived from the original on 26 June 2015. Retrieved 17 June 2015.
  34. Petley, Julian (2011). Film and Video Censorship in Contemporary Britain. Edinburgh University Press Series. Edinburgh University Press. p. 35. ISBN 9780748625383. In its statutory role the BBFC will become a large quango accountable to no one but the Secretary of State.
  35. Franks, Suzanne (14 June 1984). "Britain in Europe – sovereignty or union?". The Listener. British Broadcasting Corporation. 11: 5. The BBFC (in its role of video censor) will become a quango, accountable to no one but the Secretary of State, undemocratic and secretive.
  36. "London Job Vacancies". British Board of Film Classification. Archived from the original on 13 September 2009. Retrieved 29 August 2009.
  37. "Monty Python's Life of Brian". BBFC. 24 August 1979. Archived from the original on 12 October 2019. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
  38. Chrisafis, Angelique (30 August 2002). "Spider-Man seizes the under-12s". The Guardian. UK. Archived from the original on 26 August 2013. Retrieved 13 July 2009.
  39. "Loophole over DVD age rating law". BBC News. 25 August 2009. Archived from the original on 20 November 2020. Retrieved 29 August 2009.
  40. "Local Authority Decisions". Students' British Board of Film Classification. Archived from the original on 4 July 2008. Retrieved 13 July 2009.
  41. "PEGI ratings become UK's single video game age rating system". The Association for UK Interactive Entertainment (Ukie). 30 July 2012. Archived from the original on 5 April 2019. Retrieved 31 October 2019.
  42. "Mobile Content". BBFC. Archived from the original on 7 January 2014. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
  43. "BBFC Tapped as New Porn Age-Verification Regulator". xbiz. Archived from the original on 15 October 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2016.
  44. "Britain's First Official Internet Censor Is... The BBFC". Sex and Censorship. 12 October 2016. Archived from the original on 16 October 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2016.
  45. Damien Gayle (12 March 2018). "Porn site age checks are delayed to make sure officials 'get it right'". BBC News. Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 13 March 2018.
  46. Colin Drury (13 May 2018). "Newsagents to sell 'porn passes' to visit X-rated websites anonymously under new government plans". The Independent. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 11 June 2018.
  47. Billy Perrigo (20 August 2018). "The U.K. Is About To Regulate Online Porn, and Free Speech Advocates Are Terrified". Time. Archived from the original on 23 September 2018. Retrieved 17 September 2018.
  48. Hill, Rebecca (17 October 2018). " to press ahead with online smut checks (but expects £10m in legals in year 1)". The Register. Archived from the original on 22 March 2019. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
  49. "Classification". British Board of Film Classification. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
  50. "Industry – BBFC age rating symbols user guide". British Board of Film Classification. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
  51. "U | British Board of Film Classification". Archived from the original on 17 October 2019. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
  52. "History of the age ratings symbols". British Board of Film Classification. Archived from the original on 11 January 2013.
  53. "PG | British Board of Film Classification". Archived from the original on 18 October 2019. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
  54. "12A and 12 | British Board of Film Classification".
  55. "15 | British Board of Film Classification". Archived from the original on 18 October 2019. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
  56. "18 | British Board of Film Classification". Archived from the original on 18 October 2019. Retrieved 30 October 2019.
  57. "BBFC Classification Guidelines" (PDF). British Board of Film Classification. 2019. Retrieved 12 October 2021.
  58. "BBFC Statistics". British Board of Film Classification. Archived from the original on 20 November 2010. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
  59. Staff. "What does the 'E' symbol mean, and it is an official category?". British Board of Film Classification. Archived from the original on 16 May 2012. Retrieved 13 July 2009.
  60. "AV Certificate". Archived from the original on 22 April 2019. Retrieved 22 April 2019.
  61. Waterson, Jim (16 October 2019). "UK drops plans for online pornography age verification system". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 17 October 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2019.
  62. "Smiles of a Summer Night". British Board of Film Classification. 17 September 1956. Archived from the original on 16 May 2012. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
  63. "BBFC Banned Cinema Films". Melon Farmers. Archived from the original on 9 June 2011. Retrieved 15 June 2011.
  64. Petley, Julian (17 May 2011). Film and Video Censorship in Modern Britain. ISBN 9780748688357.
  65. "UK film classification board tightens up on N-word and racism". 30 November 2021.
  66. "The Ren & Stimpy Show – Fake Dad rated PG by the BBFC". British Board of Film Classification. 6 March 2006. Archived from the original on 9 July 2009. Retrieved 29 August 2009.
  67. "Paranoia Agent rated 18 by the BBFC". British Board of Film Classification. 3 April 2006. Archived from the original on 9 July 2009. Retrieved 29 August 2009.
  68. "North West New Wave Campaigns". North West New Wave. 19 December 2009. Archived from the original on 11 February 2010. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  69. "The Human Centipede sequel just too horrible to show, says BBFC". The Guardian. UK. 6 June 2011. Archived from the original on 10 March 2014. Retrieved 11 June 2011.
  70. John Underwood (7 October 2011), "The Human Centipede II is passed for UK release", Best For Film, archived from the original on 17 October 2011, retrieved 7 October 2011
  71. "BBFC Announces New President" (Press release). British Board of Film Classification. 17 October 2012. Archived from the original on 12 January 2013. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
  72. "BBFC announces Natasha Kaplinsky OBE as new President" (Press release). British Board of Film Classification. 28 September 2022. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
  73. "BBFC welcomes new Chief Executive Officer" (Press release). British Board of Film Classification. 11 March 2016. Archived from the original on 20 March 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
  74. "BBFC announces New Director" (Press release). British Board of Film Classification. 30 June 2004. Archived from the original on 6 July 2009. Retrieved 10 June 2009.
  75. "David Cooke reflects on high profile classification decisions from his tenure as BBFC Director" (Press release). British Board of Film Classification. 22 February 2016. Archived from the original on 26 March 2016. Retrieved 18 March 2016.

Further reading

Earlier writing on the BBFC

  • Aldgate, Anthony (1995). Censorship and the Permissive Society: British Cinema and Theatre, 1955-1965. Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198112419.
  • Baron, Saskia (writer and director) Empire of the Censors – two-part TV documentary, pc. Barraclough Carey, prod. Paul Kerr, BBC2, tx. 28 & 29 May 1995
  • Knowles, Dorothy (1934). The Censor, the Drama and the Film. London: George Allen & Unwin.
  • Hunnings, Neville March (1967). Film Censors and the Law. London: Allen & Unwin.
  • Lamberti, Edward, ed. (2012). Behind the Scenes at the BBFC: Film Classification from the Silver Screen to the Digital Age. London: British Film Institute/Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Mathews, Tom Dewe (1994). Censored. London: Chatto & Windus.
  • Petrie, Duncan J. (1991). Creativity And Constraint In The British Film Industry. Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 978-1-349-21473-0.
  • Richards, Jeffrey (1981). "The British Board of Film Censors and Content Control in the 1930s". Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. 1 (2): 95–116. doi:10.1080/01439688100260101.
  • Richards, Jeffrey (1982). "The British Board of Film Censors and Content Control in the 1930s". Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. 2 (1): 39–48. doi:10.1080/01439688200260031.
  • Robertson, James Crighton (1982). "British Film Censorship Goes to War". Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. 2 (1): 49–64. doi:10.1080/01439688200260041.
  • Robertson, James Crighton (1985). The British Board of Film Censors: Film Censorship in Britain, 1896–1950. London: Croom Helm.
  • Robertson, James Crighton (1993). The Hidden Cinema: British Film Censorship in Action 1913–72. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-09034-6.
  • Wood, Leslie (1947). The Miracle of the Movies. London: Burke Publishing Co.

Writing on the BBFC in the 21st century

  • Barker, Martin. (2016). ‘Knowledge-U-Like’: The British Board of Film Classification and its Research. Journal of British Cinema and Television, 13(1), 121–140.
  • Barker, Martin, Mathijs, E., Sexton, J., Egan, K., Hunter, R., & Selfe, M. (2007). Audiences And Receptions Of Sexual Violence In Contemporary Cinema. University of Wales.
  • French, Philip, & Petley, Julian. (2007). Censoring the moving image. Seagull Books.
  • Kapka, Alexandra. (2017). ‘Cuts are not a viable option’: The British Board of Film Classification, Hate Crime and Censorship for Adults in the Digital Age. Journal of British Cinema and Television, 14(1), 77–97.
  • Kenny, Oliver. (2022). British Film Censorship in the Twenty-First Century. In S. Choe (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Violence in Film and Media (pp. 143–168). Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Petley, Julian. (2011). Film and video censorship in contemporary Britain. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Pett, Emma. (2015). A new media landscape? The BBFC, extreme cinema as cult, and technological change. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 13(1), 83–99.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.