Poster for Gaspar Noé’s film “Love”Gaspár Noé’s film “Love” will most likely remain the film that called into question the correct functioning of the classification system for cinematographic works. This system, aimed at regulating minors’ access to cinemas by taking into account violence and sex on screen, has become indiscriminate in terms of the strictest classifications. It is therefore particularly difficult today to distinguish films that can be banned for under 16s, 18s or category X. This is evidenced by the interrogation by the Paris Administrative Court of the exploitation visa attributed to the Minister of Culture for the film “Love”, subsequently confirmed by the State Council.
The decision of the Paris Administrative Court ordered the Minister of Culture, Fleur Pellerin, to open consultations in order to propose options for the future. Jean-François Mary, president of the CNC classification commission, has been given this mission and will present his findings in January next year. Proposals for reform should be limited to the issue of identifying the most onerous restrictions. But why neglect a more global reflection? An overview of possible changes to film classification.
Abandoning public classification: a bad idea
The Film and Animated Images Code stipulates that any film broadcast publicly must obtain an operating visa from the Minister of Culture and after consultation with the CNC classification commission. We may well question the relevance of such a system of state regulation of access to cinemas. After all, is it not possible to return everyone – and especially parents – to their own responsibility? Are bans by public authorities necessary in the 21st century? It is clear that cinema remains the only cultural sector that still requires permission from public authorities before presenting a work to the public. Live performances, books, exhibitions, concerts are not subject to the system of prior authorization or restrictions. The latter can be banned following the intervention of a judge at the request of a third party or, more rarely, as in the case of the comedian Dieudonné’s show, following a one-off intervention by public authorities.
Cinema remains the only cultural sector that still requires permission from government agencies before releasing a work to the public.
Wouldn’t it be better to abolish the visa system? Although this solution may seem attractive and much more liberal than the current system, it should in fact be avoided. In the United States, there is no such public regulation of access to cinemas, but films released in cinemas receive the equivalent of our work visas. As in many sectors in this country, regulation in this area is not the responsibility of government agencies, but of private groups. The most widely used system in the United States is that created by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which is a private body that unites Hollywood studios. The classification system established by this body is a priori not mandatory, but in fact applies to almost all films shown in cinemas, since without this type of classification, most cinemas refuse to show a film. Theaters and producers must take into account the multiple pressures from the conservative lobby, which requires them to undergo classification before releasing it. Ultimately, the system is much the same as ours: the film is classified before it is released.
However, this system is much more restrictive than ours . It is difficult to say whether this classification is more restrictive, since it is carried out by a private person. It can be noted that, in general, the United States is more conservative than our country in matters of morality. For example, Drive or Crimson Peak , banned for children under 12 in France, are banned in the United States for children under 17 without parental supervision. The example of video games extends this analysis. In Europe, a private regulatory system has been created to classify video games . However, the PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) system is also particularly restrictive.
Generally speaking, the United States is more conservative than our country in matters of morality.
Finally, we see that the lack of government regulation is often compensated for by the intervention of private regulation, which, as it seems to us, is much more susceptible to lobby pressure, resulting in a very restrictive system. Moreover, this type of private regulation often does not offer the same guarantees of legal protection as government regulation. In other words, it is difficult to challenge an age limit set by a private entity.
is more complex. Therefore, deregulation is not a good idea, since it is not a source of problems in principle and can be quickly replaced by more restrictive private regulation.
Reworked types of bans
The Minister of Culture issues a visa for films shown in cinemas after consultation with the CNC classification commission. The visa can be “generally accessible” or accompanied by an age limit or even a warning. The ban can concern children under 12, 16 or 18 years old.
As for the ban on minors, the Minister can either impose a ban on persons under 18 (films with severe violence or containing unsimulated sexual scenes that are not pornographic films, i.e. films of a masturbatory nature), or leave the X classification for pornographic films or films inciting violence. A work visa can also be refused. It can already be seen that the visa refusal and the X visa have hardly been used for many years, since these types of films are no longer shown in cinemas. The minister is therefore left to choose between a general public visa or restrictions for 12, 16 and 18 years.
These classifications could be reworked to give the Minister of Culture a wider choice, as is the case in some countries. In the Netherlands, NICAM (Netherlands Institute for Classification of Audiovisual Media) has a choice between 6, 9, 12 and 16 year classifications and even uses pictograms to indicate content that justifies the ban (violence, drugs, sex, foul language, etc.).
In the US, more emphasis is placed on parental responsibility for bans for children under 17. Some films are only “not recommended” for children under 10 or 13, and parental consent is then simply “advisable”. As for films banned for children under 17, minors may only attend the cinema if accompanied by a parent. On the other hand, the ban on those under 18 is absolute and therefore without exception. This use of parental intervention, which is also seen in the UK, is interesting and could be used in the future in France to create intermediate classifications that would avoid an outright ban. Another solution would be, as we have suggested, to lift the ban on children under 18, which today creates more problems than it solves. It can be noted that the Netherlands, for example, abolishes age restrictions from 16 and therefore no longer bans films from this age.
Increase communication
A special feature of the British classification system is the increased awareness of the bans attributed to certain films. The BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) actively communicates on social media to inform and discuss its work, as well as the rationale behind the various bans attributed to films. The BBFC Twitter feed is a very rich source of information and even regularly hosts Q&A sessions based on questions from its members. The BBFC website also contains a wealth of information which makes the work of the organisation very readable. France lags behind in terms of communication and readability, which is a shame because such a system of communication could lead to a better understanding and acceptance of the system by viewers.
BBFC Classification
To soften or tighten the system
The French classification system is one of the most flexible in the world; it seems difficult to relax the level of requirements any further, except by removing the under-18 ban. Does this mean that we should tighten our system and make it more restrictive? The US and UK have a much more restrictive age rating system than we do. The BBFC attributes the under-18 ban to dozens of films a year, while in France only 1 or 2 films a year receive this classification.
The French system is certainly more flexible than in many other countries, but there seems to be no need to tighten it. Social and moral development presupposes a certain flexibility regarding the presence of sex and violence on screen. The reasons why some films scandalized in their time (Roger Vadim’s Les Liaisons Dangereuses (1960), François Truffaut’s Jules et Jim (1961)) today make us smile. Perhaps one day the same will happen with Amour , Saw 3D or Nymphomaniac . The classification of cinematographic works seems to have reached a point of equilibrium and generally meets the needs of modern society. It seems necessary to clarify the prohibitions on children under 16 and under 18 without the need to tighten them (1).
Flexibility is good, but be careful not to become lax.
The fact remains that some classifications can surprise with their flexibility. The first part of the film Nymphomaniac was originally was banned for children under 12, but after the intervention of the administrative justice system, they raised it to 16 . By the same logic, the film Mad Max: Fury Road was classified as “for all audiences” in France, while in the rest of the world it was banned almost everywhere, at least for children under 14 . Flexibility is good, but be careful not to fall into laxity.
Intervene in all media
Developments in the field of digitalization and audiovisual viewing media usually involve several rules of different organizations (CSA, CNC, etc.). Some European organizations work in several media, which is not the case in France . For example, the BBFC issues visas to films shown in cinemas, as well as to films shown directly on video. In France, a film that is not released in cinemas but on physical media will not have any age restrictions. Whether it is released on VOD or SVOD depends on the service on which it is broadcast. The solutions are therefore numerous and complex. We could imagine that the French system is modernized and that the same organization is responsible for classifying several types of works on different media. This is the case in the Netherlands, where NICAM classifies films released in cinemas or directly on video, works broadcast on television or on demand, video clips, etc. Having a single system for all types of works and media allows for greater legibility and greater consistency in restrictions against minors. Such a system could be possible in France.
Expand the grounds for banning
French bans on cinematographic works are based exclusively on two elements: violence and sex visible on screen. Some countries justify their bans by taking into account other elements. Thus, the British and Dutch systems take into account not only sex and violence, but also the language used in the film (vulgarity), the presence of drugs, nudity or weapons on screen, the fear that the film may cause, and even discrimination and dangerous behavior. These references, which go far beyond the French binary logic (violence-sex), clarifying it, allow for more detailed justifications for prohibitions, while helping parents in their choice of films. This approach could be used in France to ensure better protection of minors and to effectively inform parents.