Smash hit

Distributors consistently add panels to their advertising stating the consumer advice (CA) allocated by the BBFC. In the case of The Dark Knight, which no one claims is suitable for young children, the CA cautions “contains moderate violence and sustained threat”.

Through last weekend, The Dark Knight was still the most popular film in UK cinemas. Five million people have seen it over the past fortnight. There would have been far more complaints, and frustration in cinemas, had people been denied access to what is clearly a dark fantasy in which a man made up as a Joker takes on a man dressed as a bat.

Mark Batey
Chief Executive, Film Distributors’ Association
London W1

Sir, The BBFC is a voluntary, not-for-profit body funded by the very film studios that submit material for classification. The primary function of the BBFC is the classification of more readily available videos and DVDs, as this is rightly seen as more vital for public protection. Local councils retain the power to overturn any film classification awarded by the BBFC for cinema exhibition. This power has been commendably exercised over the years with the screening of films otherwise denied a certificate by the BBFC. Have any local councils seen fit to intervene in the certification of The Dark Knight?

The BBFC has been advocating a greater freedom for parents to choose what their children watch in the cinema since the lukewarm reception of the 12A certificate in trials throughout Norwich in 2001. It is obvious from the promotional material for The Dark Knight that the film deals with violence and antisocial behaviour. Perhaps more assertive parenting would be the answer to your correspondents’ complaints.

Christopher Last
London N15

Sir, I was puzzled by Charles Sandeman-Allen’s letter (August 5) about the rating of the new Batman film. While agreeing with his overall argument, I don’t understand his argument on the role of the BBFC. Apparently, since “none of the violence is overt”, the BBFC is “forced” to lower the rating. It is “doing its best” being “up against a billion-dollar industry”. I find this mystifying. Why exactly is the BBFC “forced” to terrify or traumatise small children, and desensitise youth to violence?

I was a member of the BBFC children’s viewing panel, and support a review of the ratings system. I would go farther and suggest a review panel that is completely independent of the film industry. The responsibility of raters is to children, not to pacifying the film industry.

I offer psychological treatment to families and children in the NHS, and have daily contact with the realities of parental experience, as well as of the diversity of our population. From this, I draw two conclusions.

First, I find it difficult to understand the purpose of a 12A — how are our parents supposed to cope with it? UK parents should not be saddled with the responsibility of protecting their children from films that they have not seen. Secondly, it is conceivable that the BBFC will defend its action on the ground that there is no hard evidence. Youth violence is multifactorial, and this makes it difficult to isolate the impact of violent films. But do we really need “hard facts” to know that three-year-olds should not be exposed to sights of sadism?

Dr Meira Likierman
Chairman, Tavistock Infant Mental Health Workshop

Explore Letters

• Feedback