Interview with screenwriter and filmmaker Ray Connolly

Ray Connolly has a long, successful career which has seen him write and produce films, write novels and also work as a freelance journalist over many publications. I spoke to him about film censorship and his thoughts on the BBFC.

Q: In the article you wrote for the Daily Mail about The Dark Knight, you say that the BBFC is failing to do its duty. Do you think censorship in Britain is redundant or just needs improving?

R: I don’t think it’s possible to have a situation where you don’t have censorship for something. If television and film don’t affect people as far as violence is concerned then these people who spend millions on advertising are stupid. It’s got to a point when violence is a joke and not everyone can distinguish completely between a joke and reality. You get copycats all the time. I wouldn’t want to write anything for a film that would affect someone but some people just don’t care. Movies aren’t real life, they’re a polished version. They glamourise death and violence. Movies depersonalise these sort of things. The BBFC have a responsibility more than anyone else. I didn’t think the Dark Knight was suitable for 12 year olds. It’s a very impressionable age from 12 upwards, as they’re developing into adolescence – they’re the people you worry about who are going to see these films with their mates. The film I wrote – Stardust- ended with the star dying of an overdose. I wanted to get the message across that it’s bloody dangerous to do these things. David Puttnam and I were both very keen that young people wouldn’t think that everyone does drugs because they don’t. I believe you should protect the young and impressionable and that’s what censorship should be for. I think it [the BBFC] has a job in society – it hasn’t done its job efficiently. There’s a theory we don’t need censorship and it gets in the way. I’d censor to protect the young, like a parent. The state should protect them. The right wing would use censorship to stop anyone, like China banning Google. No-one wants that but at the same time we don’t want a free-for-all. It needs to be maintained. Are they doing the job or are they getting too free? It’s all a balance so it has to be checked and regulated all the time and it should be stopped from going too far. It’s about protecting the vulnerable, not necessarily just children. A child should have the freedom to grow up without these images in his mind.

Q: Do you think the BBFC panders to film studios and gives lower ratings because of the power of the studios? Particularly the case with the Dark Knight?

A: Probably not consciously, I’m sure there would be a lobby from the studio if they gave it a 15. Maybe they thought ‘It’s Batman, it’s harmless’. With Stardust, the censor wanted to give it a higher grade certificate and David went to him and said show it to teachers and delinquents in Reading, not London because London is different, and see what they think. Overwhelmingly, they said it should be a lower certificate, AA in those days, so kids of 14 could see it now and make an impression on them. And also we wanted people to go and see it. It should be seen by young people. I can’t believe all the studios don’t put pressure on. [The censors] have to think am I doing this for the public and the kids or am I the servant of the film companies?

Q: Do you think films are often cut so they get a lower certificate which will make them more money?

A: It will happen all the time, there’ll be pressure brought by the censor. Then they’ll say what don’t you like and then they go through it to take bits out. You don’t even have to take things out. It should be a healthy debate between censor and filmmaker. The censor should be our servant not the filmmaker’s servant. It’s also not there to take out things the government doesn’t like but to protect us.

Q: In your opinion, does this cutting ruin filmmaking or is it better that more people get to see it?

A: Not necessarily, I don’t think it would have damaged the Dark Knight to remove that shot [of the Joker pushing a pencil through someone’s eye]. I would disagree in the case of violence. A director might say ‘they ruined my film’, people get very precious about their films. It’s different for a 38-year-old director who’s seen it all but it could be shocking for a 13-year-old. There’s a general trend for increasingly violent episodes. I think it’s due to a self-perpetuating cycle. Some won’t be desensitised.