Executive Summary
Guy Cumberbatch
The purpose of this research was to explore a neglected area of
public attitudes: are there acceptable limits in the portrayal of sexual
violence in films for video release? The study was conducted in several
stages:
The survey was carried out at fifteen video rental outlets. A cross section of customers (N=277) revealed liberal attitudes where those believing there was ‘too little’ regulation of television, cinema and video were heavily outnumbered around four to one by those believing there was ‘too much’. Nevertheless, the majority – just over one half - believed that the amount of regulation of ‘films you can see at the cinema’ and ‘films you can see on video’ was ‘about right’.
- A survey of video renters across the Midlands explored attitudes to regulation and rights to see graphic material on video.
- A cross-section of these respondents was selected to form a viewing panel. These participants watched three uncut videos which included sexual violence.
- Follow-up telephone interviews probed opinions and feelings about the films.
- Two
focus groups derived from the viewing panel met to discuss if, why and
how such videos should be regulated.
The survey was carried out at fifteen video rental outlets. A cross section of customers (N=277) revealed liberal attitudes where those believing there was ‘too little’ regulation of television, cinema and video were heavily outnumbered around four to one by those believing there was ‘too much’. Nevertheless, the majority – just over one half - believed that the amount of regulation of ‘films you can see at the cinema’ and ‘films you can see on video’ was ‘about right’.
This was also true of ‘18’ rated videos where respondents thought
that the amount of regulation was ‘about right’ for sex (58%), violence
(49%) and sexual violence (52%). Among the remainder, those thinking
there was ‘too little’ regulation were outnumbered by those thinking there
was ‘too much’ by four to one in the case of sex and two to one in the
case of violence. However with sexual violence the ratio dropped to
almost one to one.
Additionally, almost twice as many respondents believed that people over the age of 18 had a right to see graphic portrayals of violence (74%), or real sex (67%) as said this about sexual violence (38%). This and other data suggests that sexual violence in films remains far more controversial and less acceptable to viewers than either sex or violence.
The large majority believed that it was important to protect young people from seeing ‘18’ certified films. However, most video renters held a risky attitude to films agreeing that they were ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to watch a film even if they knew nothing about it.
Additionally, almost twice as many respondents believed that people over the age of 18 had a right to see graphic portrayals of violence (74%), or real sex (67%) as said this about sexual violence (38%). This and other data suggests that sexual violence in films remains far more controversial and less acceptable to viewers than either sex or violence.
The large majority believed that it was important to protect young people from seeing ‘18’ certified films. However, most video renters held a risky attitude to films agreeing that they were ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to watch a film even if they knew nothing about it.
There were large differences in attitudes to regulation due to gender (men were far more liberal) and age (older people were more conservative). The most liberal minded were heavy video renters and those with an interest in fantasy films especially horror. However, educational level, newspaper readership type, having children at home and hours of television watched per week revealed less variation.
The survey information was used to select a cross-section of the video renters (25 male, 25 female) who formed a viewing panel who were to watch three uncut films in their own homes. These films were randomly selected from a pool of six titles containing sexual violence: Baise Moi; A Clockwork Orange; Death Wish II; I Spit on your Grave; Last House on the Left and Straw Dogs. Each participant was screened prior to receiving the films and interviewed in depth after watching them by professional counsellors. Surprising tolerance of sexual violence in film was found among both conservative and liberal minded people so long as it was justified in the storyline and it was ‘in context’.
Conversely, among those films perceived to have little merit or justifying narrative, even liberal minded participants recommended not releasing the films uncut. As in the survey findings, gender was a clear discriminator: almost seven out of ten recommendations by men were to release the films uncut compared with only four out of ten recommendations by women.
The main characteristics of the viewing panel members who held liberal attitudes to these films (i.e. recommending they be released as ‘18’ uncut) were:
- A ‘risky’ attitude to watching films (i.e. willing to watch films knowing nothing about them)
- Interest in films with ‘gritty’ graphic violence
- Being older (35+)
- Being male
- Not
believing that film/video violence aggravate related problems in society
In interviews and particularly the focus groups, concern about what types of people would actually want to watch such - or at least some of the - films was common. This raised a dilemma about the films watched. On the one hand, advertising the film’s content (such as ‘contains graphic sexual violence’) might attract ‘the wrong audience’. On the other, viewers expressed the ‘need to know’ that with many of these films the content was ‘different/worse’ than the average film with an ‘18’ certificate. The desirability of ‘on-screen’ warnings in addition to more detailed consumer advice on videotape packaging (at least for the kind of films used in this sample), would seem an important issue to investigate further.
None of the interviewees revealed any distress beyond those transitory experiences which might be expected from viewing somewhat harrowing horror films. Attitude measures taken before and after watching the films showed shifts towards less liberal views especially a stronger belief that ‘It is very important to protect young people from seeing ‘18’ certified films’.
None of the participants regretted taking part in the viewing panel and most spontaneously expressed appreciation at being involved in the study, often despite the nature of the films, and praised the value of the research.
| Return to Top |
Return to Publications &
Reports |