antichrist

On Friday, the BBFC announced their classification for Lars von Trier’s Antichrist and it became an instant news story that the film was to be released fully uncut in the UK. Indeed, Russ Fischer wrote /Film’s report on the matter. For greater context, however, I want to provide a discussion of how the BBFC work, how this is different (and to my mind, better) than the MPAA, and some very specific details of the Antichrist ruling. It is safe to proceed beyond the break, though those of you wary of Antichrist spoilers will want to opt out at the BIG SHOUTY warning below.

The MPAA rating system is, for what it’s worth, voluntary. This amounts to very little, of course, because there’s hardly any cinemas in the US that will screen an unrated movie, at least outside of festivals. In commercial terms, the MPAA rating seems all but essential. In the UK, the BBFC rating system is mandatory for all films given a wide release to either cinemas or on any form of home video. Of course, there’s a loophole which means local councils can grant permission for films without certification to be played in their area to over 18s, or for that matter, for films with certificates to be banned from playing in the region.

The BBFC have a range of options available when classifying films, and many of them are similar to those of the MPAA while just a couple are crucially different. The BBFC’s U certificate is like the G, we both have PG, we in the UK have a 12A which equates roughly to PG-13… and then the systems diverge.

In the MPAA system, the remaining two options are an R rating and an NC-17. The R rating permits children under 17 only when accompanied by a guardian of over 21; the NC-17 prohibits any viewer under 17 at all. Do note that an NC-17 film is unlikely to get anything like a wide scale release. In the UK, the BBFC have 15 and 18 certificates, each of which prohibits the admission of anybody under the given age.

Unlike the NC-17 rating in the US, cinema chains across the UK are happy to screen 18 certificate films. There is no way you could call an 18 badge “the kiss of death”, as many have done for NC-17.

Just a couple of examples to illustrate the point: In the US, one could take a seven year old in to see Hostel, whereas in the UK only those aged 18 were ever allowed to attend; Eyes Wide Shut was released completely uncut in UK cinemas, where US screenings featured only an altered version with CG props and obstructions placed about the orgy scene to hide some ‘action’.

It would seem that the MPAA are rather touchy about sex and sexuality, but aren’t too fussed about relatively strong acts of violence whereas the BBFC consider that acts of violence and sex, even unfaked and explicit sex, are acceptable for movies certificated for adults, but not really appropriate for kids. Somehow, the BBFC classification teams have a reputation as being hardball players but they really aren’t anything of the kind - they actually release almost everything uncut. Infer from those details what you will about the gulf between UK and US society.

Lars von Trier’s infamous psycho shocker Antichrist seems to be the latest, perhaps greatest, demonstration of these differences. While the film is due to get a very limited run in an NC-17 cut, the full UK release will be uncensored. Here come the HARD SPOILERS that will detail the BBFC’s precise reasons for their certification decision.

**MAJOR SPOILERS FOR THE PLOT OF ANTICHRIST FOLLOW**

The film was classified ‘18′ for strong real sex, bloody violence and self-mutilation.

At ‘18′, the BBFC’s Guidelines state that the more explicit images of sexual activity are unlikely to be permitted unless they can be exceptionally justified by context and the work is not a ’sex work’. A ’sex work’ is defined as a work whose ‘primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation’. It is clear that Antichrist is not a ’sex work’ but a serious drama exploring issues such as grief, loss, guilt and fear. The brief images of explicit real sex (sight of a penis penetrating a vagina during a consensual sex scene and sight of the man’s penis being masturbated to climax) are exceptionally justified, in this context, by the manner in which they illustrate the film’s themes and the nature of the couple’s relationship. Their relationship is depicted throughout in a graphic and unflinching fashion, both psychologically and physically. The BBFC has permitted comparable explicit images in a number of previous features at the ‘18′ level (eg L’Empire Des Sens, 9 Songs, Shortbus and Lars von Trier’s earlier film, The Idiots) where it has been clear that the purpose of the work - and the individual images in question - is not simply to arouse viewers but to illustrate characters, relationships and themes.

Antichrist also contains two scenes showing violence towards genitals or genital mutilation. In one case, the man’s genitals are hit heavily (although this is not shown on screen), resulting in sight of blood in his semen when he ejaculates. In the other case, the distraught woman cuts off her own clitoris using a pair of scissors. This act of self-mutilation is shown in close up, although the image is only on screen for a few seconds. The shot in question exceeds the BBFC’s Guidelines at ‘15′, where ‘the strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable’ and where ‘violence may be strong but may not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury’. Even at ‘18′ the BBFC recognises that the scene will be shocking and offensive to some viewers. However, the Board is aware of no evidence to suggest that the viewing of this scene is likely to be harmful to adults. The scene is not presented in an eroticised or attractive manner and is not likely to encourage emulation or arousal. Accordingly, the scene is acceptable at ‘18′ where, in line with the consistent findings of the BBFC’s public consultations, the BBFC’s Guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law.

The film contains other examples of strong violence, including a scene in which the woman drills a hole through the man’s leg with a bit and brace before bolting a large grindstone to the injured limb. Once again, although the scene exceeds the rubric of the ‘15′ Guidelines, it was not felt to be harmful to adult viewers. The film also contains scenes of strong simulated sex, including female masturbation. These scenes exceed the ‘15′ Guideline test that ‘Sexual activity may be portrayed but without strong detail’ but are acceptable at the ‘18′ level.

Antichrist also includes a single use of strong language.

This work was passed with no cuts made.

And I’m so glad it was. I have to say, Antichrist is one of my most eagerly anticipated films in a very long time and to see it (or, for that matter, any other film) bowdlerised for commerical purposes would have left me quite disgusted.

  • BRAVO! This was an amazing comparison between the BBFC and the MPAA, i loved it, my country's rating system is closer to the BBFC and I am glad of it, though, I don't think that Antichrist will reach here and if it does, I don't think I want to watch it because it's not my kind of movie, but still great article Brendon, I liked it.
  • Ditto to that, although it does kind of gloss over the part of the BBFC being run by the government, so the issue of state-run censorsihp of art is still there on the wall. But, I guess that's an argument for another day...
  • poppy
    Get you facts right - the BBFC is independent and NOT run by the government. Honestly the ignorance of some people.
  • Um...after reading that description, IDK if I wanna see it now. :P Holy crap that sounds pretty brutal! How can anyone be so harmful to their genetals?
  • travis
    You should not blame the rating organization, MPAA, over what is clearly a theater owner decision to play or not play a film, regardless of its content. The aggression towards this specific organization seems unjustified and misdirected, as you yourself clearly state that the MPAA rating is voluntary, and in the end it is the decision of both individual theater chains and owners to distribute titles. It is marker of bad reporting to side with any one side of a topic, and in this circumstance your bias has led to completely overlooking the true problem.
  • I wasn't blaming the MPAA for the NC-17, I was blaming them for the R. Most R rated films should really be NC-17, by my reckoning.

    I intended no aggression towards the MPAA for their NC-17 rating at all.
  • Max
    Dude, ust go watch the flick "this film is not yet rated." I mean you could also a bit of research about the mpaa before absolving them of all responsibility but this will bring you up to speed a little quicker. When you do catch up I think you will have a hard time thinking the MPAA, as the organization currently operates, is anything short of a disaster. It's better than the code/censorship of course but its been 40+ years, time to move forward...
  • Casey
    If you've ever seen the documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated", it breaks down completely all the different ways the MPAA is messed up in their rating system and the various flaws it contains. I pretty much agree with you. Even though the system is voluntary it has essentially earned itself a inordinate amount of power over the years in terms of what films get played and how wide the release is, and in some cases what cut of the film people will get to see in theaters, which I think is wrong like many people do as well.
  • Casey
    If you've ever seen the documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated", it breaks down completely all the different ways the MPAA is messed up in their rating system and the various flaws it contains. I pretty much agree with you. Even though the system is voluntary it has essentially earned itself a inordinate amount of power over the years in terms of what films get played and how wide the release is, and in some cases what cut of the film people will get to see in theaters, which I think is wrong like many people do as well.
  • kralbasi
    I think the biggest problem with the MPAA is that the highest rating is 17+, meaning it makes an easy justification for censorship when minors would be allowed in the theater. Maybe if NC-17 was replaced with NC-18, more theaters would be open to screening them.
  • Now i've seen Antichrist, because i live in Denmark. All the things that has been written is much more worse when you see it actually your self.
    It says "This act of self-mutilation is shown in close up" Trust me guys, its much more then "close up" its like "super near close up"
    Thats why i'm also anxious to see what rating it will get by MPAA :D
  • was it worth it though? as in the entire movie?
  • 7abc11
    Why are people in other countries constantly comparing themselves to the US? Just live your life, dude. You don't have to worry about the MPAA at all.
  • Trevx
    They're not exactly comparing themselves to US as much as comparing the US to themselves to show how messed up some things are in the US.
  • As a footnote: after creating cut versions of their films to secure an R or PG-13, studios will often use those cuts for the UK market when, in fact, the uncut original would have been passed.

    The studios' fault, again, but tied in with the screwy MPAA ratings selection.
  • Indeed, fortunately I watch most of my films on DVD in the UK so get to see the film how it was made to be seen (by the director not the studio).
    As much as I don't like the UK rating system because it is so clear cut (on your birthday you can see a film which for some reason you were to immature to watch 24 hours before) I do understand the system and thinks it's better than the US one.
  • This blog is rooted in American cinema, since Brendon is from the UK he's just for us how things are different there. Stop being a jackass
  • No you're right, i dont. But i think MPAA's ratings system is stupid, and i think that everybody should get the chance to see the movie as Von Trier made it, and not get there movie expirence taking away by some people at MPAA.
  • ah living in the states guess I'll have to wait for the dvd release. :(
  • A very interesting article about an interesting issue. But I do have a question: is it ever really dramatically necessary to show penetration? I argue no... That's being done for shock value when it could be implied more subtly on screen.
  • But what if the director wanted shock value for a reason?

    It is a tough one but the easy distinction is if it's intended to give the audience a thrill. Like in porn for example.
  • Sorry I'm not actually replying here, but my computer isn't showing replies so I'm hoping this will bring them up.
  • Sorry I'm not actually replying here, but my computer isn't showing replies so I'm hoping this will bring them up.

    It did not...
  • But what if the director wanted shock value for a reason?The same happened to me hence my late response. I like Brendon's response though why not? Were all adults watching it so if the director sees value it is his right to insert it (zing for the unintended pun) and we can either accept it or be angry for ourselves for watching.
  • Haha, that was a pretty great pun.

    It is certainly his right to keep it in (this could get bad...), but I still don't see how he could come up with a reason other than he wants to show it. Showing it for the sake of showing it just doesn't cut it for me. He wants to show it shock people that he showed it. It should be: he wants to show it, so he can shock people that x and y are z.

    I wrote about it here: theboxofficejunkie.com, but it's kind of a lot of the same ideas.
  • It's a rather tough idea as surely showing anything at all from penetration to the lead character drinking a cup of coffee is there because the director wants us to be led somewhere as a result. Whether we understand why it was done or even if we disagree with what has been done it is all included because it contributes. This can be bad or good but I feel that EVERY time I watch a film I want to see what the director came up with off his own back because I respect the art form.
  • I see your point, and that's fine. The director wants it included, so it's included. But like you said, we might not understand or disagree with its usage, and I still do. I think this film has enormous potential though, so I'll be seeing the (highly edited) version here in the states, if it gets a release...
  • And I see your point so thankfully I shall be seeing the unedited version here in Scotland when it gets a release.
  • I knew this would be the response, but the 'shock' is at seeing penetration in a movie theater. That isn't what the 'shock' in shock value should be. It should be the manner the act is done, the emotions involved, who's doing it, why, etc. etc. etc. based on plot and character, not on a visualization that is guaranteed to illicit a 'shocked' response from someone regardless of circumstance. Again, there is an art to subtlety that a lot of film's throw out because they're 'daring.' But I see very few circumstances that have the necessity to show penetration. If something happens during penetration, some sort of genital mutilation or something that would be shocking for reasons other than "oh, this director is showing penetration. How artsy," that's a different story. But I'm going to guess this is just regular old penetration which is not necessary and is shocking just for the sake of being shocking.
    It will take away from the movie, because it suddenly makes people think. "Can you believe they showed it?" "No, I was sooo shocked," which takes them out of the movie. And do we really need to see a person jack it to the finish? Explain to me exactly what this could possibly demonstrate, and what it could do for 'shock value' that isn't just a cheap gimick? Don't just thumb down me, explain something I might not understand.
  • Why not show it?
  • I don't know...seeing genitalia mutilation up close might be harmful to this adult. Geez!

    That said, if the movie is the vision of the director, then show it. Make it so that adults can see it -- because this is clearly a work for adults -- and let that be that.

    The problem of course isn't the rating, but the marketing. An NC-17 rating means theaters won't show it since it won't generate the amount of money per showing than giving another screen to G-Force would.
  • Exactly and it's worse in the UK, companies always try to get films a 12A (PG-13) rating so more people can see it and they can maximize profits.
    I think it's a shame, because surely the point of a movie should be to be a good not to make money, but studios don't see it that way.
    Quality films are dyeing out to make way for franchises that kids can watch and make millions at the box office but have no sole.
    I personally don't think any rating system should publish it's guidelines at all!
    That way studios won't know how to make a film a certain rating and will just concentrate on making good movies again, we also won't get those films that deliberately just get in the top end of a rating.
  • bobc
    Here is what is wrong with the British system: it is done by the government.
  • Exactly. They may be more "fair" in rating movies, but it's way beyond the purview of government to censor art in any shape or form. If I lived in a country with a tax-sponsored censorship board that had the power to literally ban movies, I would be furious. Especially in a case like Visions of Ecstasy, which was banned for BLASPHEMY. Again, why is a government organization banning things for religious reasons?
  • so what?
  • trevor
    Get your facts right, the BBFC is an independent body which has been around since 1912 created by the UK film industry to stop government intervention. It remains independent to this day.
  • Clockwork Orange.
  • A Clockwork Orange.
  • Full Metal Jacket?
  • What about it? Was given an 18 by the BBFC. Never "banned" by them. Kubrick personally withdrew it, with no input from the BBFC at all. And when he died, the film reappeared almost immediately.
  • cazz
    a clockwork orange? Do you mean the ban? Imposed by the film MAKER not the government?
  • Nick
    I hate the MPAA, but I continually read in the trivia section for films on IMDb about cuts that are made to films to get certain certificates in the UK. Whether it be small snips for violence or drug use or "animal cruelty," it would seem you're painting a rather rosy picture of the BBFC, who are more often than not a censorship board. Granted, I like the lack of stigma surrounding the 18 certificate, and the more nuanced 12A, and 15, but in the whole both the MPAA and the BBFC are useless, unnecessary, harmful figures in cinema.

    I've long held out a dream of a boycott in America of the MPAA. All it would take would be one director who's film was an un-avoidable moneymaker, say Spielberg and an Indiana Jones sequel, and it might give other filmmakers and studios the conviction to abandone the outmoded ratings system.
  • Nick
    What I meant to include was that a film like that couldn't be ignored by exhibitors and theaters would end up showing it dispite it's "unrated" nature.
  • poppy
    What rubbish you talk - check the bbfc website to see how much they cut - only hard core porn at the sex shop category seems to register and if you read the cuts summaries you would understand why!
  • Yes, the IMDB trivia pages are hardly a trustworthy source.
  • JKW
    The big problem is the imbalance of the MPAA to justify acts of sex (which, if anybody stops to think, is a fairly natural routine in humanity) in a film versus acts of explicit violence. The Hostel example is a perfect one...I still remember reading articles about how Zack and Miri Make A Porno would not be picked up by some theater chains that were still willing to run the Saw movies. I've seen NC-17 movies involving sex before (Lust, Caution), and to say that a film like that, where the sexual activity is contextually important and cinematically well-done, is effectively less permissible by rating guidelines than Hostel or Saw is hilarious. Hurray for the US, we're prudish enough to allow the R for graphic acts of torture but the NC-17 to sex, regardless of its context.
  • CyT
    Ive never understood this. I was never allowed to watch horror or violence in a film when I was a kid. I remember my parents taking me to see the Power of One and I had to spend the whole time with my hands over my eyes. I went to watch it again recently after now being older and happily watching violent movies and understanding the reason for the violence (unless is there is none) and was shocked at how tame it felt now. TV shows show worse violence than that movie did nowadays... I wonder when the shift happened during this time and why it has been allowed? My kids will still be having their hands over their eyes, but the movies they are allowed to see are reducing. Even Priates 2 and 3 were too graphic in my opinion for kids. I just dont understand it .. senseless violence has a place and its called horror. It shouldnt be a mainstream thing.
  • The main crux of the issue is why do the adults in America refuse to go see an NC-17? I mean they can but if takings are that minimal they are not. I mean there's more people over 17 than under it.
  • Great article. I'm glad to be living in the UK where we generally get things uncensored and accessible to the right ages.

    The American system of censorship seems so manipulated by a common Christian moral point of view which can't stand to see explicit sex or nudity, but is happy to see people bleeding and dying all over the place.

    It drives me crazy that something that contains sex is looked on worse than extreme violence. The same happens in video game censorship too, and it scares the writers, directors and games publishers off of producing art that deals with one of the most naturally human acts there is.

    Having said that, I'd rather there wasn't an imbalance, I just wish they would relax the censorship across the board. If we're over 18 we can decide for ourselves how much sex and violence we can put up with. If it's too much, we can always walk out/turn the game off.
  • Great article. I'm glad to be living in the UK where we generally get things uncensored and accessible to the right ages.

    The American system of censorship seems so manipulated by a common Christian moral point of view which can't stand to see explicit sex or nudity, but is happy to see people bleeding and dying all over the place.

    It drives me crazy that something that contains sex is looked on worse than extreme violence. The same happens in video game censorship too, and it scares the writers, directors and games publishers off of producing art that deals with one of the most naturally human acts there is.

    Having said that, I'd rather there wasn't an imbalance, I just wish they would relax the censorship across the board. If we're over 18 we can decide for ourselves how much sex and violence we can put up with. If it's too much, we can always walk out/turn the game off.
blog comments powered by Disqus