Examination of Witnesses (Questions 4960
- 4979)
4960. Could I ask you next to explain the process,
and the conditions required in order to examine films in particular.
(Mr Johnson) It is important that we experience
what the audience is going to experience. It is important that
we can appreciate the details of sound and vision the audience
is going to appreciate and that we appreciate those in the context
in which the audience is going to appreciate them. The impact
that a film has on the audience and therefore on the appropriate
classification is not just about isolated details, it is also
about the tone and the atmosphere that a film develops over time.
For instance, with a scary film it is quite often difficult to
pinpoint an image or a sound that made it scary; it is often an
accumulation of tone and atmosphere through the film, so it is
very important that we are able to engage in the film, as examiners,
in the same way that the audience becomes transfixed in the cinema,
staring at the screen in a darkened environment, without interruption,
without distraction, and most certainly without noise which masks
what is occurring on screen. Anything which detracts from our
ability to hear and to appreciate the atmosphere that is being
generated by the filmmaker in a raft of subtle ways is going to
detract from our ability to gauge accurately the impact that the
film is going to have on an audience, and in particular on a child
audience, which is often spooked by very, very subtle differences
in a film. We have to judge that and, in order to be able to judge
that, we need to experience it in certain conditions.
4961. You mentioned language. Could you take
up the exhibits, the guidelines. As an example, I take page 17,
12A.[6]
We can see under each of these categories that there are various
criteria, one of which is language. How important is it that you
hear individual words used?
(Mr Johnson) Language is absolutely
vital. I think you mentioned in your opening remarks that the
public regard it as one of the most important determinants of
the classification. I think 86 per cent regarded it as very or
quite important in determining a classification of a work. It
is important down to the individual word. It is not uncommon at
all for a single word to affect the classification of a work.
For instance, last year one of the most successful films in this
country was the animation Madagascar, which was clearly
aimed at young children and family audiences. In the original
version submitted to us there was a character—and I will
have to be careful how I phrase this—who had a dialogue
line which included the use of a truncated swear word. You did
not hear the whole thing, but it was very important for us that
we could ascertain exactly how much of that swear word was audible
to an audience, because if a lot of it was audible that would
have placed Madagascar at 15 or above, which would have
completely denied its natural audience and would have completely
ruined its commercial prospects in the UK and prevented a lot
of children from having a lot of fun watching it. Because we have
good listening conditions at the moment, we were able to be confident
that the public would only hear enough to know that a joke was
being made, without hearing enough to be offended, so we offered
the company a PG on that basis. We said to them, "If you
want to remove that whole joke about that language, then you can
have a U, because we think that will be appropriate for everybody
in that case," and the company took the decision to remove
even the truncated language in order to achieve the U and Madagascar
went on to make £22 million in UK cinemas. Certainly achieving
a U was a key part of the company's strategy in distributing the
film, and our hearing, of not even a word but part of a word,
was key to deciding the category of the film in the end. In Robot,
another children's film released last year, comic wordplay based
on a particular character using a particular accent made a word
which would normally be innocent, sound to some ears as if it
was very far from innocent. It sounded like possibly the strongest
swear word we can think of in the English language.
4962. Mr Elvin: A question springs to
mind!
(Mr Johnson) Yes. I think I can tell you without
causing offence that the innocent use of the word was "count",
as in an aristocratic title. We had to listen to that a number
of times. Indeed, it was appealed and it went as far as the director,
whose ears were called into play, so that we could be absolutely
confident that the audience were not going to hear this as other
than "count", because that would have caused a great
deal of offence, especially as the accent itself was being employed
for comic effect, so some people may have thought that bad language
was being used for comic effect. We had to satisfy ourselves that
we were not going to cause widespread offence to family audiences
in the UK through that piece of language. This is a common occurrence.
In the first few weeks of 2006, a trailer was submitted to us
for Kidulthood, a tale of London school children getting
up to mischief and getting their comeuppance which has achieved
some interest. We have a policy on trailers that we only allow
one use of strong language at 15. Our reason is that research
into public attitudes has revealed some tolerance for occasional
strong language, bad language at 15, but an objection to wall-to-wall
bad language, especially when it comes unbidden in a trailer at
the start of a film—because obviously you choose to go to
see the feature, and what you get before the feature you have
not chosen to view. For many years, we have operated a fairly
simple view, which is that, if you want a 15 for your trailer,
you cannot have more than one use of strong language. This film
had a dialogue track which was quite muffled, it was very pacily
edited, so you had snippets here and there. We were confident
that there was one use of strong language in the trailer and there
was another possible use, but the version they submitted to us
was technically a bit of a rough copy, so we had to ask the company
to submit a cleaner copy of distribution quality so that we could
be clear whether the second use did exist or not. We concluded,
once we had that clean copy, that it did not exist, and that enabled
the Kidulthood to be trailed to the audience for whom the
film was aimed, 15-year olds. Otherwise, it would have been an
18, which would mean it could not have been advertised to its
target audience. So single words in works have an enormous impact
on our classification and in consequently on the possible success
of the distributors' work.
4963. Mr Pugh: At what volume do you
listen to these films? Whenever I go to the cinema and they have
Dolby sound systems, Armageddon could be taking place outside
and I would not hear a word. Do you simulate that sort of experience,
or do you deliberately turn the volume down? What is different
from the cinema-goers' experience?
(Mr Johnson) We mimic the cinema-goers' experience.
4964. It is very loud.
(Mr Johnson) It depends on the film whether
it is very loud or not. Some films use silence very carefully.
Most films use a combination of very loud sound effect in some
parts and very quiet moments in other parts for contrast. Yes,
if you go to see the film Armageddon, there is a lot of
noise going on there and we do listen to that loud. The impact
of that noise on the audience is going to be a key determinant
of whether it is going to scare the life out of very young children,
so we have to have it loud enough in order to hear that. But an
awful lot of films are not all crash, bang, wallop; an awful lot
of moments rely on quiet moments, rely on dialogue, rely on snatched
pieces of overlapping dialogue in which being able to hear in
quiet conditions is very important indeed.
4965. Even with the volume set at very loud,
there would be times during the course of the film where ambient
noise outside would override it.
(Mr Johnson) Absolutely.
4966. Mr Cameron: Mr Johnson, you have
mentioned during the course of your last answer the research conducted
at BBFC. Could I ask you to turn to your exhibit 2, which, if
you have it in the same bundle as I do, is in divider 1—just
to keep us on our toes![7]
There is a table at the top of page 10: "Percentages attaching
degrees of importance to 9 issues in ratings films". Could
you explain where you get your 86 per cent from.
(Mr Johnson) Yes, it comes from
49 per cent regarded swearing and strong language as very important
an issue in rating films, and 37 per cent regarded it as quite
important. If you add those numbers together, you get 86 per cent.
Only 12 per cent thought it was not very important, interestingly.
4967. You think it is important, the public
think it is important. You have explained how you go about the
exercise. What effect would or does intermittent noise have on
the process of film classification?
(Mr Johnson) It potentially has a number of
effects. Firstly, if you are working with video, intermittent
noise would cause you to have to stop and rewind the tape. If
you are dealing with film, obviously you cannot do that, so you
would have to go back and play the whole reel again at the end,
which with the symptom of intermittent noise would be very time
consuming and would result in delays which would have a serious
impact on our clients—we do call them clients, by the way—who
are working to extremely tight deadlines. I have mentioned before
that you can have work submitted on a Wednesday that is going
to be on screen in cinemas on Friday, so even very small delays
can have a serious impact, especially if cuts are required. You
cannot fit delays into the process without causing problems for
our clients. At worse, intermittent noise could cause us to miss
the word entirely, and we would not know that we had missed it
and we would classify the work with language which would make
it inappropriate for the target audience, causing widespread offence
in the UK and undermining the board as a trusted guide to the
moving image, which is what we claim to be. It is also important,
as I think I touched on earlier, that examiners can assess the
tone of the work. The atmosphere that a work generates is really
important. An example is something like The Others which
works by building up atmosphere. All you have is a woman and children
wandering around a house, but it has an effect which is very scary
and unsettling. That sense of foreboding and fear and anxiety
is created incrementally throughout the film. You have to be drawn
into the film in order to appreciate the effect that is going
to have on the public. If you view it in a very detached way,
stopping and starting, you will not get that sense of foreboding.
We know, for instance, from research we have done subsequently,
that a film like The Others was particularly scary to children:
they were not worried about monsters and things; it was the unknown,
the creepy atmosphere which got to them. If we are stopping and
starting and getting interrupted, we will not appreciate that.
We will see a pale woman wandering around the house in the dark
and you could pass that PG and result in an awful lot of scared
children.
4968. Mr Binley: Mr Cameron, the Committee
is well aware and most grateful for the work that the board does.
We genuinely are most appreciative but we would like now to move
on to that matter which is at the heart of your particular concern,
what you would like the Promoter to do.
4969. Mr Cameron: Thank you, sir, for
that guidance. Can we move to your premises at 3 Soho Square.
I outlined in a very broad manner the noise effects that the Promoter
acknowledges that Crossrail will have during construction and
then during operation. First of all, can we move to the issue
which is at the heart of the dispute and that is how to mitigate
against the effects of groundborne noise. Can we deal with the
period of construction first and then the period of construction.
The Promoter now is offering insulation against airborne noise
during construction and demolition and, as I understand it, that
would meet your concerns. Is that right?
(Mr Johnson) It would meet our concerns about
airborne noise, yes, that is correct.
4970. The Promoter has suggested that tier 3
mitigation measures be adopted for dust and, as I understand it,
that would meet your concerns about dust during construction.
Is that right?
(Mr Johnson) That is correct.
4971. So we move to groundborne noise during
the construction period and there appear to be two options available:
one, to relocate your activities during construction; and, two,
install an isolated chamber in the basement of the film review
theatre to avoid the effects of groundborne noise. What is your
view on those two suggestions?
(Mr Johnson) Well, the view on relocation is
that it is not clear at all that the suggested isolation of the
escalator, which is, as I understand it, a completely novel and
untested suggestion to isolate an escalator in the manner suggested,
and this is outside my area of expertise—
4972. I think that the difficulties arising
from the operation of the escalator arise during the operation
of Crossrail. By all means, deal with all together, but what I
was going to ask you was about the construction period and then
the period of operation. Are you happy to deal with it in those
two parts?
(Mr Johnson) Yes, that is fine. In terms of
relocation during construction of the viewing theatre, the acceptability
of that to the Board would depend on exactly what relocation would
involve. As we have set out, there are security issues involved
in our operation and many of our clients are very sensitive about
their prints, which, pre-release, are worth millions and millions
of pounds to pirates being handled in premises which are not under
the sole control of BBFC. We have accreditation by the fact that
there are copyright theft procedures at 3 Soho Square and many
of our clients do not allow us to screen their works at other
premises, so a relocation of the viewing theatre during construction
would need to be to a theatre which was under the sole control
of the BBFC and which was in the local area because we have already
explained how important it is for our operation to be within that
business cluster of the film and video industry of the UK and
that is a very important point. It would also need to be of sufficient
size and scale to be fit for our purpose. It would need to be
able to house the specialist equipment that we use to check details
of sound and vision under a cold lamp because that does allow
you to run backwards and forwards. It would need to be able to
house a film bench with film counting facilities because we provide
a detailed measurement of each film as part of the control of
ensuring that the film released is the same one that is classified.
It would also need to have secure storage facilities for at least
72 reels of film and, as you know, those are quite large. All
that would need to be located very close to our existing premises
so that we could have the staff going backwards and forwards between
the two. That is our position on the temporary relocation.
4973. The isolated film cinema in the basement,
as I understand, is put forward as a solution to construction
noise and operational noise, so we will deal with that next and
then we will move on to isolating the escalator. If it was possible,
and subject to any advice which you receive on noise, to construct
some chamber within the basement film theatre to isolate it in
order to avoid the adverse effects of both construction noise
and of operational noise, would that be acceptable to BBFC?
(Mr Johnson) Well, my understanding, and events
have been moving very quickly over the last 24 and 48 hours, is
that that would not in any case deal with groundborne noise on
the ground floor and above, so it would leave those issues outstanding.
However, for the viewing theatre, the concern, and we have only
had this proposal really in the last few hours, is that it would
not actually be possible to provide sufficient insulation in the
viewing theatre without reducing the size of that space to a degree
which would require a substantial, significant reduction of the
screen size which would then have a serious impact on our ability
to make a reasonable judgment as to the impact of the image on
audiences, especially child audiences, when it is out in the average
multiplexes. Our screen is currently, we think, just about large
enough in order for us to make a reasonable, professional judgment
as to the impact it would have on a child when faced with a larger
image in the average multiplex. We are very, very concerned that
reducing the size of that screen at all would lead to very great
difficulties in us being able to judge the impact of the experience
on especially child viewers, but also adolescents as well. Just
by way of example, there was a Disney computer-animated film called
Dinosaurs a short while ago in which one of the key issues
in moving that to `PG' rather than the `U', which a Disney film
would normally get, was the sheer scale of the dinosaurs on the
big screen, looming over the audience in low-angle shots, and
you do not get a sense of that from a small screen, so you need
to have sufficient scale in order to be able to make a judgment
as to how the four-year-old or three-year-old sitting in front
of that cinema screen is going to feel when this great big image
looms up over them. You just do not get that on the small screen
and that is really important.
4974. On that point, if it was suggested to
you that the reduction in room size would be 200mm along each
of the room surfaces, and in particular the walls, though I do
not know about the ceiling, but certainly the walls and probably
the ceiling and floor, would a reduction of that order have an
adverse effect on your ability to examine the films?
(Mr Johnson) My understanding is that yes,
it would. The screen occupies the maximum space that it can within
the existing parameters of the room, so any reduction within the
size of the room would result in a reduction in the size of the
screen. That is my understanding at present.
4975. If it was a reduction of that extent,
200mm in each direction, so to speak, would that prevent or inhibit
you from carrying on your examining activities?
(Mr Johnson) Yes, I believe it would. I think
200mm all round would be a very significant reduction.
4976. And if that is the case and if the isolation
would involve a reduction of that extent, would that be acceptable
to the BBFC and could you continue your activities?
(Mr Johnson) No, it would not be acceptable
to BBFC. We would not be confident of being able to make reasonable,
professional judgments on the impact of the viewing experience,
especially on young children. We would be concerned that we would
be guessing too much about what that impact would be with possible
significant results on children post-viewing.
4977. Turning to the other issue which I said
I would ask you about, the escalator, what is offered there is
that the Promoter will ensure that the nominated undertaker, ie,
the contractor who is going to do the works, installs some sort
of isolation mechanism to ensure that the escalator does not have
the predicted adverse effects. Would that solution be acceptable?
(Mr Johnson) I think the difficulty we have
with that proposal is that nobody knows whether such a solution
would actually work. As I understand it, it has never been done
before. Now, obviously if the escalator did not make any noise
or significant noise which affected our viewing, then that would
deal with our concerns. Our problem at this stage in accepting
that undertaking is what happens if it does not work? Are we supposed
to just stop classifying films in the UK for a few months while
we find somewhere else? If it was accompanied with an undertaking
not to bring it into use until the sound levels in our viewing
theatre were at the appropriate level, then that would be acceptable
to us, or if an undertaking was given to move us if it did not
meet those agreed criteria, that would be acceptable to us, but
we are concerned that a novel and untested design solution will
not necessarily achieve what it sets out to achieve.
4978. What is it that the BBFC says is the appropriate
solution to these acknowledged problems?
(Mr Johnson) On the basis of the information
currently available, there is rather a lot of uncertainty and
a lot of concern over the operation of the escalators once in
service. That is the long-term problem. We believe that the answer
must be relocation because even if the temporary construction
problem was sorted out, that long-term problem of the escalators
would remain. We believe that relocation is the appropriate solution
because it would also solve at a stroke the problems that arise
from the conflict between our operation and Crossrail's works
during the construction work, so we think it is a simple and total
solution to both the problems that will arise on Crossrail's own
case from the construction and demolition work and also from the
operation of the railway and, in particular, from the operation
of the escalators.
4979. On that issue, can I ask you to turn to
your exhibit 3, which is in divider 2, I think. It is minutes
of a meeting held on 1 December 2005 and that is the Finance Committee
of the British Board of Film Classification, and then there is
a minute from the Council of Management of 8 December 2005.[8]
Can you just explain what these minutes are and what the Board's
position is on accommodation?
(Mr Johnson) The Council of Management
is the part of the management of the Board which is concerned
with business affairs, so obviously they deal with things like
accommodation conditions and finances. The first minute is from
a Finance Committee meeting, which is a sub-committee of the Council
of Management, which was looking at accommodation issues. There
are a number of issues which have arisen recently not least because,
as was mentioned earlier, we have had a vast increase in our workload
over recent years and we have engaged in works to adapt the building
to accommodate that, and there is also the question of the digitisation
project. Now, this project, firstly, it is not certain that it
will go ahead at all yet, although we are out to tender and we
expect to go ahead, but even if it goes ahead, we have not yet
reached a decision on whether it should be done in-house or contracted
out. Now, if it goes ahead and if it is done in-house, then we
will need to house it somewhere and the discussion of the Finance
Committee looked at whether we might need additional sites in
order to do that, and that if that was looking like the solution,
then it might be preferable to relocate the Board rather than
operate from three sites. However, that is simply a discussion
of options and no decision has been made. As you can see from
the minutes, all that has been recommended is that a strategic
committee be set up to look into the matter and to look into the
options available to the Board. In the next minute, which is from
the subsequent full Council of Management meeting, you can see
in the final sentence that it was noted that accommodation continued
to be pressing and it was agreed that a working group be set up
to look at the possibility of relocation. For us, it is merely
a possibility at present. We do not know whether accommodation
issues from the workload will continue to press. In particular,
the curve of DVD submissions has been a quite steeply rising curve
in the last few years, but that rising curve has been caused because
of a new format coming into being and a format which the industry
fears will not have that long a shelf-life. The major players,
the major Hollywood companies who provide most of our submissions,
have been mining their back catalogues aggressively, so they have
been going through all the works they own going back decades and
decades and decades, pulling out all the ones that they think
they can make money on in DVD, submitting them to us for classification
so that they have got those there and out while DVD is still a
runner, with the fear that it may be overtaken by video-on-demand
in the future. We have had this great upswell of work over the
past few years, but some of those companies now tell us that they
have now finished mining their back catalogues and their future
submissions are going to be lower. Others are at a slightly different
stage. We think that we are probably near the peak, so we expect
at some point in the not too distant future for that curve to
start on a downward trajectory, so it may be that the pressures
from workload which are causing us to consider accommodation may
ease off actually quite quickly in the near future and we are
looking carefully at that. As I said, the digitisation project
may or may not go ahead and may or may not be done in-house, so
the pressures on accommodation arising from that may also not
come to pass. We are only looking at our options at the moment
and we have not made any decisions at all.
6 Committee Ref: A58, British Board of Film Classification
Guidelines (WESTCC-14805-008). Back
7
Committee Ref: A58, British Board of Film Classification Guidelines
(WESTCC-14805-018). Back
8
Committee Ref: A58, British Board of Film Classification Minutes
of Finance Committee Meeting, 1 December 2005 (WESTCC-14805-022),
and Minutes of Council of Management Meeting, 8 December 2005
(WESTCC-14805-023). Back
|
