In my previous blogs I've talked about how I thought 12A was too high a certificate for Casino Royale. I sent an email to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) asking them about this. They have replied to me and I have pasted it below in full:

Thank you for your email and letter regarding this film. I have discussed
the points you raise with an examiner who viewed it.

The BBFC’s classification decisions, and our Consumer Advice, are made in line with published guidelines and the available research evidence. The classification guidelines are a product of both experience and an extensive public consultation process which is repeated regularly. Over eleven thousand people contributed to the most recent revision of the guidelines.
These guidelines are available on our general website –
http://www.bbfc.co.uk – under the ‘downloads’ section.

CASINO ROYALE showcases the latest incarnation in a very long and popular line of Bond heroes. The films have for some years been regarded by thepublic as family viewing, but the new James Bond, actor Daniel Craig, contrasts markedly with his immediate predecessor in that he is more prepared to engage in violence that looks realistic, rather than sanitized or glamorised. There has been much in the press reporting that this Bond film is grittier and more 'back-to-basics' than the previous films.

The Board's Guidelines at '12A' state that: "Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood. Sustained moderate threat and menace are permitted". The opening scene, in which Bond fights and kills an assassin, is filmed in grainy black and white, and cuts from past to present, illustrating a narrative strand in which Bond acquires his 007 status. The style of filming and the nature of the editing
reduce the potential impact. While the sequence lies at the upper end of the '12A' category, there is no detail of injury. Although the film contains intermittent sight of blood and brief sight of bullet wounds, it lacks the focus that would generate a '15'. Similarly, the torture scene in the film does not contain elements that would have resulted in the film receiving a '15' classification - again, there is no detail of impact, blood or injury, and the Bond character in fact jokes about the torture,
which distracts from the implications of what is taking place. The BBFC felt that the scene was also acceptable at the upper end of the '12A' category. Indeed, the overall tone of CASINO ROYALE is similar to other action adventure films classified '12A' such the BOURNE series.

While you may not agree with our assessment of the violence, the process as
set out above provides an indication for you of how the violence in the
film was measured against BBFC Guidelines.

Although children under 12 may see a '12A' film with an adult, the classification does not indicate that it is suitable for them. Indeed, the classification indicates that the film contains material which may upset or be considered unsuitable for children under 12. As you note, the responsibility for allowing under-12s to view lies with the accompanying adult. The BBFC realises that the maturity and development of children
varies considerably, especially around this age, and that the parents know better than anyone else how mature their child is and what content they will be able - and unable - to handle. We have given parents the ability to exercise this decision. Indeed, you state that you would not take an under-12 to see CASINO ROYALE.

However, we do advise adults to think carefully before taking a child under 12 to see a '12A' film and to this end we provide Consumer Advice (CA) to help them make an informed decision about what their children view. We provide Consumer Advice (CA) for every film and DVD we classify. The purpose of CA is to convey to the public (particularly those responsible for children) a clear sense of the content of films and videos/DVDs, to enable people to make informed decisions about their viewing and that of
their children. It is also used to signal the presence of material which may be of particular issue to some viewers (for example, a child abuse theme). This CA is usually displayed on the publicity and packaging of films and DVDs. It is also available on our main website. The CA for CASINO ROYALE notes that the film contains "one scene of torture and strong action violence" which should indicate to parents the nature of the film, and its suitability for their children to view.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to express your views to us. I trust this response has gone some way in reassuring you that the BBFC takes its function of classifying film and video/DVD works seriously, and that we are taking significant steps in making the viewing public aware of what they plan to watch. Please be assured that the BBFC takes these issues seriously, and that your comments will be noted.

Yours sincerely,

J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)

Further to my last blog on Casino Royale, I have been to the BBFC website (British Board of Film Classification). I have sent them an email asking how they came to the decision of giving this film a 12A rating. It would be interesting to see what kind of response I get, if any. I will post any reply of course.

I would recommend any regular cinema goer to visit their website: www.bbfc.co.uk

It has some interesting info about how they classify films. for example did you know why they introduced the 12 certificate for Batman? did you know why they cut a scene in a Star Wars film where Obi Wan kenobi gets headbutted? The answers to these questions and more are on their website.

David

I went to watch the new james Bond movie, Casino Royale. It certainly broke the mould from previous Bonds in that it was more serious. But I'm suprised it got a 12A rating, considering that amongst other violent happening, there is a torture scene, Bond drowns someone in a bathroom sink by holding his head down; he strangles some other victim whose legs are kicking and twitching for quite a while until he succumbs, and someone gets shot right in the head. If I had a son or daughter who was 12 or under I certainly would not allow them to see it. I have noticed quite a few films over recent years where I think, 'how on earth did they get that rating?' like for example a 12 film with loads of sex in it. I've got to the stage now where I think carefully about going to see an 18 film. If a 12A film can have scenes such as I have described, then what is an 18 going to be like? I think I am getting more intolerant of such films as the years go on. Give me Wallace and Grommet anytime! (By the way, there is a documentary tonight on the South Bank Show on Itv 1 about how Wallace and Grommet films were made)

David

Hello folks, I've had a bit of an absence, for various reasons, like getting a new computer and getting a new broadband supplier, so have not had time to actually do anything on the computer apart from setting it all up, sorting out teething problems, etc.

My comment today, is about something that has stuck in my mind the most. That man who has been on death row in Pakistan for eighteen months is now back home, after his death sentence was lifted. I felt happy that this happened, it shows that someone in this world has some compassion at least. Having said that, he did do something very wrong. He killed a taxi driver and he has always maintained that it was in self defence. A court of appeal overturned the death sentence but then he was put back on death row because what he did was still a hanging offence under Sharia law. I don't know much about Sharia law except that i think it is very harsh to hang someone after he has been officially cleared of murder. I followed the case fairly closely, and I felt really happy when it was decided that he should be released. He has already suffered enough as punishment, having lived for 18 years with the prospect of a rope looming.

David