Ren & Stimpy molested by the BBFC
You probably remember my post on the censorial mangling of Ren & Stimpy by the British Board of Film Censors a while back. Since then, Lyris has taken these vandals of modern art to task and has managed to extract a response from the fiends responsible. As usual, they are as duplicitous and weaselly with their replies as a greased eel, but you may find what they said to be of interest.To briefly summarise: the BBFC ordered Paramount to remove the material. No, they did not offer them the option to release the episode uncut with a higher age certificate, because, in their words:
The BBFC classifies video works in accordance with the terms the Video Recordings Act 1984. The Act requires the BBFC to have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to 'potential viewers' by the manner in which a work deals with violent behaviour or incidents. The Act defines 'potential viewers' as any person who is likely to view the video work in question, including children and young people. Although the BBFC accepts that there is a significant adult appeal in the case of Ren & Stimpy, we are also aware that Ren & Stimpy remains a popular cartoon with children. We were therefore obliged to consider children as potential viewers of this work, regardless of what certificate we might award to it.
This, to me, is absurd for a number of reasons, not least the fact that it makes a mockery of the entire classification system. So the BBFC must bear in mind that anyone might see the material in question, regardless of the certificate given? Why, then, I ask, do they bother having different levels of classification at all? It seems to me that double standards are being applied here. Why can '18' rated releases contain generous helpings of the blood and guts, sex and strong language that most people would consider inappropriate for children, but not a light-hearted (not to mention somewhat difficult to replicate) cartoon hanging? Why can Bruce Willis gratuitously slaughter as many human beings as he likes in Die Hard, and yet Abner and Ewalt can't decorate their necks with lassos in Out West?
The work ends on the closing credits. The 'substitutions' [...] make no substantive difference to the work.
Statements such is this simply serve to confirm what has been my suspicion all along: that the people holding the scissors have absolutely no understanding of the material they are defacing. To say that the removal of the hanging scene which concludes an episode whose entire purpose was to show a pair of cowboys desperately trying to find someone to hang "makes no difference" is not only ludicrous, it's completely idiotic and could only have been made by a genuinely stupid person.
I despair of these people, I really do. Dario Argento is right: people like the BBFC, who deface films and TV shows, should be put in prison, just the same as you would if someone went into an art gallery and started cutting bits out of paintings. It's about time people respected film and TV as serious artistic media rather than commodities that can be hacked to bits in the name of "protecting" people who, if they are stupid enough to kill themselves copying what they see in a cartoon, are probably better off that way anyway.
If you want to discuss this matter with the BBFC, who deface art for a living, I suggest you send them an email.
In other, happier R&S-related news, John K has posted the final cover art for the upcoming Ren & Stimpy: The Lost Episodes (in addition to other Spumco-related packaging goodies) DVD release on his blog. Designed by himself and Annmarie Ashkar, who created the concept of web cartoons together, this is some of the craziest, coolest-looking packaging I've seen for a DVD release in a long time - a far cry from the ugly, over-Photoshopped artwork on last year's R&S DVD releases. It bears a copyright date of 2006 and features the usual Paramount legal and technical guff on the back cover, so it looks like this is really going to see the light of day this year. These are easily the best cartoons made in the last decade, so animation fans the world over owe it to themselves to pick up a copy of this set when it is released this Summer.
6 Comments:
Stupid? No. Overwhelmingly hypocritical? Almost certainly.
What else are they meant to say? 'Sorry, but we've had to destroy this cartoon because Daily Mail readers would lynch us if some stupid toddler strangled himself after watching this.' No, far better to say 'Look, it doesn't actually make any difference.'
I think censors are more aware of what films contain now than they were in the past. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily excising what offends THEM - as the 'guardians of society', they have to excise what offends OTHERS.
By Baron Scarpia, at 20:27
The point is that it hasn't seemed to offend anyone in the 14 years it's been airing on TV. To suggest that this scene is more 'harmful' than the countless others that can be found in DVDs and videos of various classification levels, with varying target audiences, is to me completely ridiculous ('stupid' is perhaps not the right word - 'wilfully ignorant' is probably a better phrase).
I guess what angers me the most is that this material is not being allowed at any classification level 'just in case' children get their hands on it and try to copy it. What's so special about this particular scene of this particular cartoon? How is it any different than the countless Tom and Jerry cartoons in which these two incredibly popular characters attack each other with all manner of easily accessible kitchen appliances (and come out of the ordeal completely unscathed)? Have they so little faith in their own classification system that they no longer consider the age rating to mean anything? (And how long before they take it one step further, for example claiming that showing actors who have appeared in material aimed at children in films with 'adult content' is dangerous because children might try to seek them out?)
With this, and the removal of a washing machine from Lilo & Stitch a few years back, it sometimes seems to me that the BBFC are increasingly cutting more and more bizarre things in order to justify themselves.
By Whiggles, at 20:45
Yeah, I'll buy into 'wilfully ignorant'. Actually, better to say 'intentionally ignorant', just to make sure there's no ambiguity.
By the way, how often has R&S been repeated on television? Do you mean terrestial television?
By Baron Scarpia, at 22:41
Yeah, terrestrial and cable. It aired on Channel 4 and then BBC2 at various points throughout the mid to late 90s, and it's been a regular part of the Nickelodeon and/or MTV line-up for even longer.
By Whiggles, at 22:44
Also, if ever there was going to be a case of people claiming this episode caused children to actually try to hang themselves or each other, then it would surely have happened by now in the 'sue everyone' climate of the US. That episode never had any complaints at all, whereas the one that aired immediately before it, Powdered Toast Man was pulled and edited because Nickelodeon received a grand total of two complaints (because Powdered Toast Man burns the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence).
By Whiggles, at 23:00
Well, you can just hear the writers baiting viewers with that one!
By Baron Scarpia, at 18:06
Post a Comment
<< Home