| |
G4EBT > FILMS 19.04.07 21:35l 133 Lines 5374 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : A05193G4EBT
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Film Standards - Warren.
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<GB7FCR
Sent: 070419/2009Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:27581 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:A05193G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : FILMS@WW
Warren, KB2VXA wrote:-
> Oh dear, I forgot you're Canadian and probably unfamiliar with the
> American movie rating system. Hint; XXX is at the opposite end of the
> scale from R and about on a par with Missouri anti-freeze?
I have a friend who's a senior manager involved in the detection of fraud
and corruption - something the Americans are paranoid about after Enron,
Worldcom etc.
He's on a two-year secondment from England to Wilmington.
The first thing he noticed on TV was that there's no sex and hardly any
romance, but lots of really violent and disturbing films - far worse than
anything he'd seen on UK TV.
He was quite shocked and mentioned it to his neighbours.
They said "you're not watching the films correctly".
He said "how come?"
They said "if you watch properly you'll see that all the bad guys
get their comeuppance and get blown to hell where they belong".
He said "yes, but some good guys die too".
They replied "Well of course they do - for good to triumph
over evil, sometimes the ultimate sacrifice has to be made".
The neighbours then gave him and his wife some helpful advice about how to
fit into the neighbourhood and to be welcomed and accepted. They said
"this is a respectable God-fearing town".
"We don't hang undergarments out on display at anytime, and never put
washing out on the Sabbath as it means you've been doing chores on the
day of rest".
Just as well that they'd only used the tumble dryer!
He feels as though he's stepped into another century.
Not the last one either.
I've no idea to what extent this is a reflection of small-town America.
Last time I was there there were maybe a hundred TV channels all with the
same sort of inane rubbish that pervades UK TV these days - chat shows,
"reality" TV, game shows, canned laughter, lots of commercial breaks and
rather too much sport. They even try to make the weather forecast sound
like high drama.
In effect, more choice has become less.
In the UK, radio and TV broadcasting is regulated by Ofcom.
Ever since the introduction of Independent Television in 1954 it has
always been a statutory requirement that those in authority should
ensure/secure that programmes "do not offend good taste or decency, or
offend public feeling". The Communications Act 2003 replaced this with new
provisions that are capable of wider interpretation.
Clause 319 of the Act states that a duty of OFCOM will be to set standards
for the content of television and radio services which shall be contained
in a code.
Among other things the code will set objectives with regard to the
protection of "persons under the age of eighteen" and the "inclusion in
such services of offensive and harmful material". Consideration will be
given to the degree of harm or offence and the likely size, composition
and expectation of the potential audience.
These provisions, which have their origin in a European Union Audiovisual
Policy document issued in 1998, ('Converging Technology') are calculated
to enable justifiable criticism of offensive programme content to be
easily dismissed.
In this scheme the viewer or listener, aided by advance programme
information is now expected to avoid the programmes likely to offend
and the broadcasters' responsibility not to cause offence is removed.
Mediawatch-uk who keep an eye on broadcasting developments believes that
the constant portrayal in film and drama of crime and disorder - often in
a glamorised and stylised fashion, could be said to be an incitement.
Indeed, the British Board of Film Classification in its Annual Report of
1996/97 stated "America has the highest crime rates in the developed world
and produces the most violent entertainment".
"The most popular stars are the macho heroes who use violence successfully
and therefore demonstrate and validate its use ... It (violence) has also
become far more pervasive, since it occurs in a much larger proportion of
films, particularly those targeted at a young audience".
A lot of fuss is being made right now about 33 people who died in
Virginia on a university campus, but at least 30 people die every day
in gun homicides America due to guns - on average ten are children.
I guess that on that fateful day, another 30 will have died here and
there in the US.
If accidental gun deaths and suicides using guns are taken into account,
the figure rises to an average of 68 a day - 25,000 a year.
Nothing will change.
Many Americans - leastways those who've appeared on TV news in the UK,
seem to think that the university campus would be a much safer place if
26,000 students took a gun to class with them each day along with their
books and lunchboxes. ("Gunfight at the OK Corral?").
They say "unfortunately, the campus is a gun-free zone and something needs
to be done about that". The NRA will as usual no doubt come out with their
mantra that "guns don't kill people - people kill people".
Fine - what sort of society is it in which 25,000 a year die from
guns, and the answer is "we need more people to carry more guns"?
All very sad, but keep on not minding - there are no votes to be won in
America from tighter gun control.
Best wishes
David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 21:05 on 2007-Apr-19
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
