Council of Europe —~—— ---Conseil De L

COUNCIL OF EUROPE —~—— ---------------- CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE Strasbourg, 19th May 1967 DPC/CORC(66)5Final COE042297 SMALL COMMITTEE OF RESEARCH WORKERS "Influence of the cinema on juvenile delinquency" Film censorship codes in Europe by C. BREMOND The following notes does not purport to give an exhaustive picture of the film censorship codes in force in the member countries of the Council of Europe. Despite the wealth of valuable information assembled (l) our knowledge of such codes is still incomplete; for if we rely solely on official texts defining the principles which are to guide censorship decisions, these seem to us, as a rule, too broad to allow a research study to "bite"on. Moreover, we know from the replies themselves that there is frequently a considerable gap between the letter of such rules and the spirit in which they applied. On the other hand, if we attempt to deduce the practice of - censorship bodies by analysing the decisions reached in particular casus, we come up against the opposite difficulty and find that the considerations which dispose the (l) Cyclo-styled documents containing replies by member States to the Council of Europe Questionnaire. 6065 05.2/56.37 censors to leniency in one case and to severity in another are complex., so confused, often so largely intuitive as seemingly to defy analysis and hence any attempt to generalise the two types of difficulty are in fact inter-connected: the reason why official regulations are couched in general terms lies in the difficulty of generalising the grounds on which decisions are in fact taken. The censor lacks a- conceptual instrument to serve as an accurate- yardstick for judging the film itself and at the same time to give him criteria of the moral, social, political, ac-sthetic and cultural values involved, in differing degrees, in his judgements. Be it noted in passing that if this categorisation of censorship judgements remains nebulous, the fault lies with neither the censor nor the jurist, but in the backwardness of the social sciences, especially -in the branches of psychology, sociology, semiology and filmology concerned with investigating the audio-visual message. This deficiency explains the exploratory character of the present study. Rather than attempt a systematic description of the spirit and operation of European censorship codes, we are trying to determine the main areas for future research. We have used the information supplied to the Council of Europe by member countries but we have also drawn partly on documents from unofficial sources (such as the Office Catholique Francais du Cinema) in order to get a rough idea of the answers to the following questions: - What types of message do the various conscrship bodies in Europe regard as dangerous in the films they are called upon to examine? - To what sort of audience, and more particularly to which age group, are they regarded as being dangerous? - What are the grounds, stated or implied, on which the censors' decisions and recommendations are reached? ~ In what circumstances io the alleged harrrfnl e ffect of a film- seen to he mitigatoci, or aggravated? In this study of the main catc-gories involved In censorship action we shall successively consider various leveln of the film message which present different problems not as a rule clearly differentiated. First, a distinction is drawn beteen the sub neet matter of the film and the director’s treatment of i3T. The treatment itself is looked at from two angles, content and form. Content is discussed from two aspects: first, the development of the theme by way of a plot, or story, which in its unfolding and the very manner of its telling portrays material of social or ideological significance; secondly, the internal arrangement of episodes and individual shots, tiieir inter-relationship and integration into the overall message of the film. Under form we enquire into the effects due to the adoption of a "tone" by~the director and those deriving from the stereotyped character of various categories of films. This gives us six sections: Io Subje ct-matter. We shall endeavour in each instance to establish a foderanee scale, covering subjects more or less recommended, more or less disapproved, or banned either completely or for exhibition to certain age groups. II. Story. We shall attempt to classify plots into those which can on the whole be regarded as positive in sentiment (likely to promote moral, patriotic, social, religious values and so on) or negative (pessimistic and destructive of the sense of values, or subversive and encouraging false values). III. Sequences and individual shots. The two problems to be ' considered are: (a) the acceptability or absolute unacceptability of certain sequences or shots in themselves, irrespective of the context, in relation to different audiences; (b) the conditions in which certain sequences or shots, in themselves more or less permitted or more or less censured, become either unacceptable or acceptable in their context. IV. Tone. Here we shall try to define the censor’s approach to the various possible tones of a film for example, serious (indignation, factual) or imaginative (poetic, humorous) - in relation to the subject and to see where a given tone appears to a greater or lesser degree,to be approved or disapproved in the treatment of a given subject. V. Types of films. We shall enquire how far, in which cases and in relation to what audiences the stereotyping of the film medium (into westerns, thrillers, horror films etc.) is seen as neutralising or, conversely, „as aggravating the harm fulness attributed to the content. VI. ^esthetic, cultural and documentary significance. Insofar as the censor takes account of the film's aes'chetAc, cultural or documentary ~alue cr lack of value in mitigation or reinforcement of his judgment of it; we shall consider how far, in which cases and. in regard to what audiences sb,ch factors enter into the assessment. I. TOPICS AND SUBJECT-MATTER The conceptions of "topic" and "subject-matter" are about as •■■ague as can be. To say that a certain kind of subject-matter cr a certain topic is danger :-us may mean Ofie of two things: either that there are matters which should on principle be excluded from the world of the cinema, even though they exist in the real world, or that certain plots developing those themes in a story should bo ruled out because of the tendentious conclusions they suggest. In the first case the subject is banned out of handj in the second, its narrative treatment is ccnae-mned. Let us lock first at the former case. Arc there still subjects that are strictly taboo, so that chey cannot be handled in any form in a film destined for any audience whatsoever? European censorship authorities are increasingly reluecant to formulate this kind of ban. Uhere the law does so, it is usually a matter of applying co ohe cinema laws and regulations of a very general nature, which can in practice be applied with greater or less severity, according to the political climate. Then again, prohibitions bearing on subject-matter aro often, in law or m fact confused with censure of the ideological attitude adopted in the treatment of the subject- matter: merely to speak of certain things is often regarded as subversive in itself. The Turkish central film control board, for example lays down a series of rules which in effect lead tc the elimination of any topic with political, social or religious overtones. In Belgium, programmes must not include "scenes or films about or containing allusions to birth control". In France the notion of a public entertainment potentially detrimental to law and order (de nature à troubler l'ordre public ) similarly leads in practice tc the suppression of certain subjects. A project for a film on La Guerre d'Algérie elicited the warning that,"however circumspectly and tactfully those pictures of the Algerian tragedy, which is still so fresh in our memories and has left such deep marks on our minds, may be presented, "he presence in Franco of people who experienced it and suffered through it (repatriates and Muslims from Algeria) makes it inevitable that the showing of such a film even were it authorised by the- censorhsip board, would entail serious problems". So there ares and doubtless always will be* some subjects that are politically taboo. This apart* one may say that today European censorship authorities tend as a whole to consider that no subject is bad in itself: a film is not tc be condemned for depicting evil but for depicting it evilly. The Norwegian answer to the Council of Europe- questionnaire is explicit in saying chat no subject is banned on principle* provided it is handled in an acceptable manner. In view of changing mores* adds the same document, a subject like homosexuality is moro readily tolerated today than it was fifteen or twenty years ago. • This development is particularly clear in the Scandinavian countries. It is less noticeable in the Latin countries* where the -influence of the Catholic Church and other pressures keep alive the traditional attitude that some- subjects are immoral and "unhealthy" in themselves. What arc these subjects? Examination of the morality ratings awarded by thee,Office Catholique Franqais du Cinéma, shows ' their field'to be restricted to abnormal manifestalions of sex: for example "even chough a character in the film is converted to normal sexual behaviour* this film (le quatrième sexe) must be categorically rejected by reason of its very theme* female homosexuality". Similarly* one should not go to see La fille aux yeux d’or in which "under the pretence of holding a mirror to life* homosexuality in women is depicted.

Load more