An M18 Movie Rating's reasons behind...
Image via Wikipedia
NOW YOU KNOW WHY THAT FILM WAS GIVEN AN M18 RATING
--------------------------------------------------
IN WHAT is believed to be the first move of its kind, the Media Development Authority (MDA) has released its films classification guidelines to the public, ending speculation over the years about how film content is evaluated.
The move has been welcomed by industry players - even as they say such openness was "long overdue".
The guidelines published on MDA's website earlier this month, outline the Board of Film Censors (BFC) general principles and major content concerns.
More significantly, details have also been released as to how much nudity or coarse language is allowed under a certain classification of a film.
For example, a film for general viewing is not allowed to show any sexual activity or sexual reference, and treatment of horror should be non-threatening.
An M18 film is allowed to have full frontal nudity with moderate details if justified by context, and prolonged and/or intense sequences invoking fear is also allowed.
However the MDA cautioned that the document "is not intended to limit in any way the Board's exercise of functions under the Films Act". The BFC also reserved the right to "classify any film in such manner as it deems fit".
The document reveals six general principles the BFC considers in its work. They include the "evaluation of (a film's) impact", "national interest" and "generally accepted social mores".
increased transparency
Industry players have given the thumbs-up to the increased transparency into the BFC's work.
"Film-makers and producers can tailor their scripts to fit the ratings they desire," said film-maker Martyn See.
"Seasoned local film-makers would not be too surprised at the published guidelines. We've known it all along. But for the first time it is spelt out in black and white."
However, he wondered if international investors would reconsider investing in "productions that may run afoul of these guidelines" and if local filmmakers "self-censor themselves even more" since some guidelines were "broadly framed".
Documentary film-maker Ho Choon Hiong felt the guidelines may spur him to "be more hardworking" to ensure the terms he uses do not affect, say, cultural sensitivities. But if he is "passionate" about a story, he will likely "make a film on what I think I want the characters to say" and only decide what to cut out after his film has gone to the BFC.
Playwright Tan Tarn How, who has been involved in the arts community's engagement with the Censorship Review Committee (CRC), said releasing the guidelines made "eminent sense" if regulation is "aimed at informing people so they make better choices" and this could encourage dialogue on societal standards.
Film-maker Tan Pin Pin also called for the trend of transparency to continue. For instance, "explicit reasons" should be given as to why certain films are banned, and reasons for each cut the BFC asks for, she said.
Ms Tan, who feels the ban on dialects should be lifted, pointed to some "inconsistencies" in the guidelines. She questioned why is dialect content allowed in some films, but not others.
Meanwhile, two databases have also been put online, allowing interested parties to search the rating of an arts performance or film. However, Mr Tan felt more information is needed in the databases - for instance on how the decision for a rating is reached.
The release of the film classification guidelines come ahead of the CRC report which is expected to be completed by mid-2010.
From TODAY, Monday, 22-Feb-2010
----------
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6fbe3a69-be56-4530-b406-815e3fa4c93c)
0 comments:
Post a Comment