Gone in a ‘Flash Gordon’: why woke censors threaten classic films  

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has recently decided to reclassify a number of classic family films. Movies such as Rocky and Star Wars – The Empire Strikes Back have been reclassified and deemed “too offensive” for today’s children to watch unsupervised. One film in particular has received a great deal of opprobrium – Flash Gordon. The sci-fi musical has come under fire for Max von Sydow’s portrayal of Flash Gordon’s nemesis – Ming the Merciless. Aesthetically the character resembles an Asian individual and Sydow was not Asian – he was Swedish. According to the BBFC, Sydow’s depiction of Ming is a “discriminatory stereotype” – in order to drive the narrative he is referred to as an Emperor. This, we are told, shows Asians in a negative fashion. Although actors are supposed to portray fictional characters – Ming is technically an alien from a fictional planet called Mongo – this is now considered “dubious, if not outright offensive”.

Based on surveys of public opinion, the BBFC claims it is reflecting “changing social standards”. Research found a “heightened sense of anxiety” among young audiences over “real world” depictions that could happen to them. The most prominent of which is discrimination. The report’s author, David Austin, says “…discrimination is one of the core issues set out in our guidelines…the tragic death of George Floyd…showed how important it is that discrimination be tackled and flagged up wherever it occurs.”

We had the same problem last year when streaming platform HBO Max faced growing pressure to remove Gone With The Wind from its US offering. The 1939 film is set during the American Civil War. Due to its depiction of slavery the film was critiqued for its “racial prejudices”. The film reappeared a few weeks later on HBO Max with a disclaimer that the film “denies the horrors of slavery”.

Although perfectly acceptable when it was made, Gone With The Wind is another example of a movie that is now deemed problematic because of our hyper-racialised political environment. It should be noted that the temporary removal of the film coincided with the death of George Floyd. While certainly tragic, there is little evidence that Floyd’s death at the hands of Derek Chauvin had anything to do with racism. But evidence is irrelevant when you view everything through the lens of race. So now, an incident that happened 81 years after a film was made, becomes irrevocably intertwined with one of the greatest Hollywood love stories of all time.

As an artistic and cultural form, movies represent one of the purest and most cherished forms of entertainment. Everything we watch, from B-movie to blockbuster, from the humble to the exotic, is unique. It may not be the pinnacle of the genre or conform to everyone’s taste, but it is still art. Art exists for the simple fact that it can, not because it must. Visionary and creative people choose to make it.

The creativity and imagination that turns a simple idea into a reality is a gift to be treasured. Art makes us who we are. Since the dawn of time, our ancestors used tools to paint images, express ideas and tell stories. The arts were created to outlast the finite nature of our existence. And this is the purpose of films – to tell a story that captivates and enthrals others long after we’re gone. A cultural legacy to leave the next generation. Art is an expression not just of who we are, but what we were and what we might be. As a visual medium, movies have the ability to portray a powerful and unique story. These stories excite us. They lift us up, watching characters strive to overcome adversity. They show us at our best and behaving at our worst. They reflect back at us the many flaws of the human condition. We can learn about the power of compassion and kindness or the darkness of cruelty and hatred. Stories allow us to explore our highest aspirations or our deepest darkest fears, impart wisdom and knowledge and fill us full of wonder. We can praise the determination and courage of a hero, or have our morality tested by the actions of a villain. By whisking us off to faraway worlds, they can stir our sense of adventure and imagination. Some haunt our dreams, while others evoke pleasant memories of childhood. Movies can motivate and inspire us to take on new challenges in our own lives. They show us the strength of love and the true meaning of friendship. They can elicit a smile or extract a frown or make us laugh and make us cry. But above all, they can show us what it means to be human.

Movies can do all this for one simple reason: they, and the people who make them, are free. The free expression bestowed upon us in a liberal society allows visionary people to realise their creative potential. Unburdened by the rigours of censorship, their artistic vision is free to flourish. It’s free to be thought-provoking, to be daring and controversial — to make life worth living. To achieve all this, you’ll inevitably risk offending people. But offence is taken, not given. To quote Salman Rushdie: “There is no right to not be offended.”

Offence can act as a catalyst for social change. In a 1976 issue of Gay News the editor was convicted of blasphemy when he published a poem depicting a Roman centurion having sex with Christ. It caused maximum offence and started a debate about blasphemy laws, eventually leading to their abolition in 2008 and expanding free speech for all of us.

Am I being too dramatic with my paean to the silver screen? Is a reclassification all that troublesome? The problem is, that’s where it always starts. There is literally no end to what you can tinker with. A cut here, an edit there. Among censorship advocates, a common contrivance is to demand that classic films conform to the supposedly higher moral standards we have set ourselves today. As with the statue debate that marked last summer’s BLM protests, you cannot judge past morality by today’s ethical and cultural norms. If you try to do so, then the sins of the father are visited upon the children. The liberal answer is to encourage debate and discussion, not tear down or censor, as the BBFC seems to suggest. To champion censorship, in a self-righteous attempt to abolish anything and everything that might cause offence, is illiberal.

The problem is that when it comes under pressure from concerned citizens, the BBFC always acquiesces and gives in to demands. As I’ve written in The Critic, the BBFC effectively did the same 40 years ago, when it came to the moral panic that defined the “video nasty” era. Driven by political expediency, the Video Recordings Act of 1984 gave statutory power to the BBFC to refuse distribution to any horror film not classified by the censorship board. It led to films being removed from circulation; some were refused a cinema certificate for over 30 years.

Politically correct, profit-driven media companies have compromised the sincerity of the silent majority in order to appease a vocal minority – all it took was 27 complaints to the BBFC to get Flash Gordon a 12A rating. In a landscape mired in identity politics, they are falling over themselves to line up with the latest social justice cause. When you reclassify, edit or censor classic films because a few people find them problematic, it doesn’t just rob their creators of free expression. It strips the fun and enjoyment out of it all. The fans always lose out in the end.

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.