personally feel that one of the most distructive elements to the british publics taste is the existence and compulsory nature of film certification : there needs to be a body to monitor and protect against extremely offensive or illegal content / practices as reality in films (i.e murder, rape, paedophilia) but this doesnt justify the existence of a body which dictates where tastes can go. as they say, sometimes, rules are followed strictly by idiots and used as guidance by the wise... well, its something like that anyway, but i would say that the need to pay for a film to be certified, the risk of a dead-in-the-water license or a cut film has lead to the public being fed fishes and unable, unwilling or unaware of how theyre limited. the choice in the UK, compared to the USA (which can release uncertified material, but still has bodies that protect that are external and not directly connected to what is released legally) is incredibly limited. we've also allowed the multiplexes to walk in just as the supermarket chains have - setting up camp out-of-town and drawing the business away from independat companies, which also destroys choice whilst portraying itself and providing more : thats a lie, a blatant lie.

still, cuts and certificate contents have become less dominant over the years, you can see the swear words and nudity creeping into the PG films, but until it is banished, i wont be happy...

Let's first all acknowledge the clear difference between censorship and classification.

The prior being destructive and the latter informative.

Personally, I welcome and encourage the classification of films and their content. It allows me to make informed decisions when I go to the movies and lets me know what the general tone may be. Also, rather importantly, it can in some instances communicate what age demographic the piece is actually speaking to. This is an established system which has been proven to be of benefit to the studios and can allow them be free of critcism once they entertain this "disclaimer" of forewarning, so to speak.

Censorship on the other hand is obviously a point of contention in any context and is, in my humble opinion, not neccessary in any way shape or form unless the medium proactively promotes, encourages, furthers or facilitates, in some way, the direct harm and/or persecution of a person(s) or entity sheltered under legally acknowleged rights (human or otherwise).

A person who violates/endangers someones basic right to exist and be who they are, as laid out by modern day society and human rights, must surrender to the censorship of the people whose rights they endanger or challenge. They are not above the protection of the people they endanger, simply because they have an "artistic" comment to make......... however;

If someone submits a piece which shows how the Holocaust was carried out step by step, this cannot be sandbagged as an instruction manual for what ever John Q. Hitler wants to try his hand as a communist dictator. There cannot be any change for the future without acknowledgement of the past and if someone wants to make a slasher pic, they should be allowed without being accused of advocating the behaviour contained therein.

As you say Rich, if extremist censors had their way and had censored all that they didn't want to themselves see, then we'd just have a fascist media full of nuns reading non-suggestive poetry. It wouldn't matter if other people would want to see it. Their right to choose would rank second to some individual's interpretation of what is right.

But I don't think it's fair to say that certification is in any way "destructive" to anything other than a films gross. Artistic integrity can still be maintained by accepting an age certificate, provided the content hasn't been modified against the wishes of the creator. And should the artist still wish to satisfy a more universal age certificate then it is of course their right to change the content to be more suitable, should they deem it neccessary and not detrimental to the artistic statement intended in the first place. Otherwise, live with it.

To demand that certification be "banished entirely" however is just silly. If I had a child and wanted to know what this weeks releases contained in terms of suitable content, I'd thank my lucky stars for certification and would think much less of any parent who didn't.

For instance, I work in a Visual Media Retail Store, which shall go nameless for now. Every time a 40 something parent approaches me at the till with a copy of GTA which has just been passed to them by their child, I guffaw. I then promtly inform the naive "parent" that the game, which their cute little Sally Pigtails or Johnny Freckles has convinced them is harmless, requires that their child (in-game) don a gimp suit and beat cop to death with a double headed dildo.

I have yet to recieve a complaint.
People need certification. Fact!

My two pence.

According to a study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, "it found that films deemed acceptable for younger teens now contain more violent and sexually explicit content than those of a mere decade ago. The study concluded that 'movies with the same rating can differ significantly in the amount and type of potentially objectional content' and that 'age-based ratings alone do not provide good information about the depiction of violence, sex, profanity and other content'.

Having a classifications system is beneficial, but parents should still be careful sending off their children to films deemed as suitable for 12 years old when its clearly not. Like M:i:III is rated as 12A here in the UK, I know many 12 year olds but I will not recommend it to them even if I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Even animated films may seem harmless, but what is the language being used, are there violent scenes not suitable for kids. Parents use the tv to babysit for their children, but they might inadvertently taking them in the wrong direction.

I say be more informed, making sure everything is covered before sending the children to watch films on their own.

Very good point actually!

There's always room for improvement, that's one thing.
But some certs are just appalling. They really do need to earn the trust of the people they claim to be helping and not succumb to the gauding of those who want to sell more tickets, even if it is to kids who shouldn't see the film.

I'd be well pissed if, as I said, I wanted to protect my child from such content and a system which I trusted to help me, failed miserably. Accuracy and fair representation is paramount. Maybe a more clear and accessible definition of what is contained in the picture.

I'm not talking about listing the curse words or counting the number of times nudity appears but just something to tell parents exactly why a film gets the rating it does and what this means.

For instace, I watched the Director's commentary for LOTR:FOTR and they talked about how the age certification was in danger because they hadn't edited or shot the headbutt in the Aragorn/Lurz fight properly! Crazy how it can get so specific.

I suppose with tv it's a bit easier, I dont know where you live Rynndar but in the UK before a film/program is shown, there is a brief warning that says, 'this film contains foul language, extreme violence', so on and so forth. Now if youre the type who cant stand the sound of cursing, you have the option to continue watching and obviously try to switch off pretending not to hear it or merely flick the channels and look for another suitable program. I know someone who after hearing the word F word 3 times within 10 minutes of the program, gets the remote and looks for another show to watch. Having a tv guide can be handy, so always have one. As for film arent there online reviewers specifically for what children can and can't watch?

Oh and off topic, how do you bold/italicize your posts? I have been wanting to do that for a long time now!

Yeah, I'm in Ireland and they are usually a lil' more conservative and occasionally err on the cautious side of a rating and bump it up by one degree for good measure. But let's say, I don't know, like a definition in the back page of every Theatre Time Sheet as to what's the worst that could be contained in say a 12's movie you know?

Not all people might have the internet and we should really try and accomodate for that fact. Information is a right, not a privelage. At least in most cases anyway!

Maybe some cinemas have that laready. Ever seen anything along those lines?

Oh yeah;

Some basic HTML tags you can insert to your posts can be found here;

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Web/basictags.html

and here;

http://boards.1up.com/zd/board/message?board.id=comments&message.id=9033

You may have to register for the second one but it's worth it. Nice guide. Not sure which one's work actually. Have to ask Richard. I tried hyperlinking but it didn't work, but I've since seen other do it. And underlining didn't work either. Try messing around with the tags and just preview your posts till you get it right. I believe in you!

As a parent of a soon to be 10yr old daughter I find the US rating system beneficial when she and I are trying to decide on a movie to watch.

I'm a bit liberal as a parent when it comes to the movies I'll allow her to view, so anything PG-13(not recommended for those under 13) or below she can normally watch. She's grown up watching movies with me and so I have a strong opinion of what is appropiate for her. I wouldn't use the same rules on some of her friends or other kids, but I know what is fine for my own child.

Of course, there are always exceptions such as comedies that I know will have too much sexual content or horror movies, which I doubt I'll allow her to watch until she's well into her late teen years.

Her favorite types of movies are fantasy and action films, so needless to say MI:III is on her list, but we won't catch it till DVD. Voilence on the small screen is much different than when it's larger than life, so I always keep this in mind when making a movie decision.

Cheers for that Rynndar! I will surprise you one of these days!

I suppose the censorship and classification thing is much difficult to impose on the theater, unless a review mentions it. I say if you are not sure, go see it yourself first, then spread the word.