LETTER: Corrections from the film censor
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr James Ferman
Sir: I would like to correct several inaccurate statements in two recent articles by Tom Dewe Mathews about the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC).
From "Welcome to the legion of the banned" (11 November):
1. Despite its violence, Boy Meets Girl joins a banned video list dominated by sleazy sex titles.
Out of 39 rejected videos, 36 were banned for violence or sexual violence, none for sex alone.
2. What is even more rare is that [the film maker] received a two-page letter ... detailing the reasons for his film's refusal.
All reject letters specify grounds, and most run to two pages so the recipient can assess whether to appeal.
3. The censor expressed surprise that anyone should want to depict violence that wasn't entertaining.
Untrue. The Board always passes serious studies of violence, even when deeply disturbing. Films cut or ba
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments