Why You Can’t Watch the Life of Brian in Glasgow
The British Board of Film Classification is the kind of quango I can live with. For a start, it doesn’t cost the taxpayer a penny - it is paid for by the film companies and distributors. It seems a relatively modest outfit in terms of size and budget. And it is pretty conservative (with a small “c”) in its aprroach to films, as well as being innovative at the appropriate time.
One fascinating fact I learned is that while the BBFC classifies films, it is up to individual local authorities to give permission for them to be shown. You may remember a few banned David Cronenberg’s film of Julian Barnes’s novel “Crash”. But the top spot must go to Glasgow City Council which banned The Life of Brian - and still bans it! If I was a council leader, I would use these powers much more often - after all what real power have local authorities really got nowadays. How about a go ahead council leader banning, as a matter of principle, all American films? Or taking a small but determined stance against the march of Harry Potter? It would create the most enormous row - but it would make local voters take their councils seriously again.
In case you are wondering whether this is relevant to my constituency, Sue, no sooner had I been to the BBFC than I got a letter from a constituent complaining, with some justification, about the nature of some adverts shown during films aimed at children.
Sue said on November 8th, 2007 at 11:26 am:
I’m not sure whether to be excited that I’ve had my name mentioned for the second time in one of your blogs; or to feel embarrassed because I now “get the point”; or upset because I feel like I’ve been told off in public!!
By the way, I was serious about you coming to see the state of my house nearly 4 months after the flood.
canvas said on November 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm:
Do you really think the banning of films is helpful or right?
I certainly don’t. However, I am always amazed at the number of really young children who seem to watch ‘15′ rated films on a regular basis. Will Labour make children take biometric ID cards to the cinema in the future?!
Tizzy said on November 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pm:
Banning films: it only draws attention to the film and, as pirated copies are easily available, is a pointless exercise.
ID cards: coming soon, all births, marriages and, yes, deaths onto the ID card system. When? April 1, of course. However, we know this isn’t a joke given this humourless, useless gvt. Perhaps the saving grace is that they have messed up on just about every computerised system they’ve bankrolled.
Gaz said on November 11th, 2007 at 9:17 pm:
What i found amazing in local government, is their perpetual desires to take on more responsibilities, yet entirely unwilling to exercise properly the powers they have, i was responsible, at full council for putting forward the first ever use of Councils licensing power, to change the classification for a film (it was to make a film an accompanied film for 12 or under, instead of a 12 and over)….
Blasphemy - Ceroc Scotland Forum said on November 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pm:
[…] Blasphemy On looking at articles surrounding the Teddygate tragedy, I began thinking along the lines of this maxim: "It is impossible for a society to call itself civilised, for as long as it has blasphemy laws". Now a blasphemy law is a blunt restriction on open debate, and you can’t be civilised without open debate. No? Can anyone out there provide a justification for a blasphemy law? Subnote: it seems I live in one of the few places in the developed world where it is still technically illegal to show Life of Brian in a cinema. I’m going to contact the local arthouse cinema now, to get them to organise a showing as a publicity stunt. In a double bill with "The Passion of St Tibula". __________________ My blipfotos […]
Charles Barwell said on December 26th, 2007 at 12:48 am:
The Life of Brian was banned by our chaplain when I was at school at Malvern College in the early 80’s as well. How amusing that Glasgow City Council should have been in league with the morality police at one of England’s leading Publci School! Eventually the Chaplain relented (I think we may have had a silent chapel in protest - i.e. we all refused to sing one morning) Perhaps, if they feel strongly, Glaswegians should have a silent protest too! And perhaps the protest could start with the Speaker of the House of Commons. Now that would be a great New Year’s resolution!