Audiences and Receptions of Sexual Violence in Contemporary Cinema
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
British Board of Film Classification 3 Soho Square London W1D 3HD t:020 7440 1570 f:020 7287 0141 http://www.bbfc.co.uk Audiences and Receptions of Sexual Violence in Contemporary Cinema Today, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) publishes a research report into Audiences and Receptions of Sexual Violence in Contemporary Cinema. The report was commissioned from Professor Martin Barker of the University of Aberystwyth and is based on new and substantive qualitative research. In performing its duties as a regulator of the moving image, the BBFC is obliged to balance the right of freedom of expression with the need to protect the public from harm. In the case of ‘video works’, including DVDs, the BBFC has a particular obligation under the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) to have special regard, among other factors, to any harm that may be caused (to viewers or to society) by the manner in which a video work deals with sex, violence, horror, drugs or criminal activity. Scenes of sexual violence inevitably combine two, and sometimes all five, of the potentially harmful elements identified by the VRA and therefore raise particularly difficult issues for the BBFC. Despite a vast amount of media effects research, absolute ‘proof’ of harm, or of the extent of harm, is elusive, not least because of the ethical and practical difficulties involved. The responsible media regulator must therefore exercise judgement in a manner which takes account of the concerns raised by some research studies, but which also acknowledges the limitations of the research and the rights enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Acts 1998. The BBFC’s own large scale public opinion research 1 has consistently shown that a majority of the public believe that adults should be able to choose their own entertainment, within the law. However, this general view often comes with a caveat when sexual violence is considered. In light of this, in 2002, the BBFC commissioned a detailed study 2 of public reaction to six films featuring sexual violence. The results revealed a degree of public concern about adults viewing graphic depictions of sexual violence which contrasted sharply with the attitude to adults viewing graphic depictions of consensual sex or graphic depictions of violence with no sexual context. The 2002 research focussed on the views of a demographically balanced sample in relation to what adults in general should be allowed to view. Respondents were asked to view films which, in normal circumstances, they might never have chosen to view. As such, it revealed the extent of public concern over what impact certain films might have on other people , and relied upon assumptions about how these ‘other people’ might experience or respond to the films . The research did not reveal, or seek to reveal, the actual responses of the people who actively choose to watch such films. To explore the issue further, the BBFC therefore commissioned qualitative research designed to investigate the ways in which naturally-occurring audiences understand and respond to five films – À Ma Soeur , Baise-Moi , The House on the Edge of the Park , Ichi the Killer , and Irreversible – chosen because the BBFC had been exercised over their inclusion of scenes of sexual violence. The central issues for the project were to find ways to explore: how audiences’ understanding and response to the films were affected by the existence of different versions of the films, and the impact of the cuts required for four of the films; how audiences use the idea of ‘context’ as they make sense of the scenes of sexual violence; and how in particular audiences who respond positively to the films are understanding these scenes. The report published today makes extremely interesting reading and underlines the complexity of the issue. The research was not designed to offer simple policy solutions to the BBFC and has, 1 Sense and Sensibility (2000) ; BBFC Guideline Research (2005) 2 Where Do You Draw the Line (2002) President Sir Quentin Thomas Director David Cooke A Limited Company Registered in England Registered Number 117289 Registered office as above quite rightly, studiously avoided doing so. Nevertheless, the research offers some clear and valuable insights into the ways in which real audiences understand and respond to scenes of sexual violence in contemporary cinema and the BBFC is currently considering the implications of its findings for future classification decisions. 9 OCTOBER 2007 President Sir Quentin Thomas Director David Cooke A Limited Company Registered in England Registered Number 117289 Registered office as above EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Summary presents a brief overall account of the main tasks, processes, problems and findings of the research project, Audiences and Receptions of Sexual Violence in Contemporary Cinema, contracted in early 2006 between the British Board of Film Classification and a research team from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, under the direction of Professor Martin Barker. The task of the project was to explore the ways in which naturally-occurring audiences understand and respond to five films – À Ma Soeur, Baise-Moi, The House on the Edge of the Park, Ichi the Killer, and Irreversible – chosen because the BBFC had been exercised over their inclusion of scenes of sexual violence. The central issues for the project were to find ways to explore: how audiences’ understanding and response to the films were affected by the existence of different versions of the films, and the impact of the cuts required for four of the films; how audiences use the idea of ‘context’ as they make sense of the scenes of sexual violence; and how in particular audiences who respond positively to the films are understanding these scenes. The findings in this Report draw upon data and materials gathered by means of: 1 a survey of 243 websites identified as key sites containing online debates around the films. By film, the number of analysed sites were: À Ma Soeur = 89; Baise- Moi = 88; The House on the Edge of the Park = 82; Ichi the Killer = 88; Irreversible = 89; 2 responses from 760 individuals (providing in total 1178 comments on the designated films) via a web questionnaire available online between June – September 2006, and supplemented by 79 completed paper-equivalents from a special screening of one film; 3 20 focus groups, 4 per film, with 50 recruited men and 44 women indicating positive responses to one of the films, recruited at a wide range of locations around the UK, audio-recorded and transcribed. There are strong continuities between the picture of audience responses emerging from our three strands of evidence. Although each draws on a different source, and on talk produced in different speech-contexts (therefore governed by different rules of exchange), the three sets of findings are almost entirely consonant. We believe that this should encourage confidence in our findings. Approaches and Methods employed: This research was grounded broadly within the cultural studies tradition for investigating and understanding audience responses. That tradition emphasises that real audiences are always located socially and historically, and the ways in which they respond to mediated images and narratives will inevitably relate to their sense of self and of their place in their world. It also sees in audiences’ ordinary ways of talking about their media engagements a rich resource for analysis, in the discursive categories, connections and separations which people deploy, and in their languages for describing and communicating their responses. In this research, a range of methods was used, including the following: 1 1. Quantitative: simple counts, using tabulation systems in large searchable websites and databases; cross-tabulations within our questionnaire database of responses to multiple-choice questions; a variety of analyses of materials coded by members of the project team, including coded accounts of websites surveyed. 2. Qualitative: broad surveys of kinds of talk, themes addressed, and languages used in websites; summary portraits of focus groups discussions; semantic modelling of positive and negative responses to each of the five films; close examination of assumptions, criteria, and implicit moves within these models. 3. Quali-quantitative: where possible, we used observed patterns within the quantifiable materials to isolate and then explore qualitative tendencies. This approach was used particularly to explore the relations between judgements on the five films. It was agreed between the BBFC and the Research Team that for the focus groups we would seek in particular to recruit people who had positive responses to each film, in order to explore the nature of their pleasures and valuations. It was also understood that some of the questions to which we were seeking answers (for instance about sexual arousal) could not be approached directly, since audience members either would be unlikely to, or in some instances might probably be unwilling to, answer direct questions. However it was expected that the materials gathered and the methods employed to analyse those materials could throw valuable light on even some of the most challenging topics. This did, however, mean that to a considerable extent the Team had to approach the key topics indirectly, and to be alert to possible ways of capturing and conceptualising emergent aspects of audiences’ responses. We note here three central moves the Team made in these regards: a) From the outset, and in the research design, we worked with a picture of the different likely impact on viewers who respond positively or negatively to the film. We formalised this recognition into a distinction between Embracers and Refusers (with different kinds of Ambivalence in between). Our research design was constructed to allow us to locate and distinguish these positions and explore the different ways in which they responded to the film – with Embracers afforded particular attention in the focus groups, on the working assumption that if there are influences, they are more likely to occur with those who engage most intensively with a film.