The Last Gasp of Outrage?

Abstract

Up until the last quarter of the twentieth century, film censorship operated at an intersection of interests: the film industry, national government, local government, the press and public opinion. National government provided the necessary legislation, while local government licensing departments, guided by British Board of Film Censorship/Classification (BBFC) certificates, interpreted the law according to local circumstances by granting exhibition licences to cinemas while also applying local censorship/classification as they deemed appropriate. The press, both national and local, formed part of the matrix, acting as the voice of public opinion, or so they claimed. The effect of certain press campaigns, usually expressing outrage at allegedly over-liberal censorship decisions made by the BBFC, did not always bring about the desired results, namely to bring the Board to heel and remove some of its powers. Gradually, as the result of legislative changes, the British Board of Film Classification became more autonomous and grew to almost monolithic proportions, in spite of pressure from certain newspapers. Its consistent resistance to these pressures during the rule of James Ferman as Director strengthened its position. Notable cases1 towards the end of the century were The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), Natural Born Killers (1994), Michael Collins (1996)2 and David Cronenberg’s Crash (1996), which last is the subject of this paper. The press campaign against Crash in 1996 was unusual because it represented a campaign waged by only two newspapers, the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail (both owned by Associated Newspapers). And although there have been a few more recent campaigns of a lesser nature, it is also, to date, the last of its kind. The campaign bears closer examination, particularly with regard to the way in which it was used politically by the two papers, and the way in which the Board reacted