<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MVtZk3g0atY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Using your essays
Grade D. Identify & Categorise & Organise
Technology - Home Video
Political
Social (audience & 1980's Britain)
Economic
Task 1: categorise the following under the correct context
Task 2: place these events on a Timeline from 1980 - 1984
-Conservative government sought to protect
-Videos being distributed by cornershops, market traders and garages
-The covers on the boxes often more grusome than the content
-Regulated videos to have age restrictions by BBFC
-Moral Panic created by Media the term: 'video nasties'
-Government Censorship & Police Raids on VHS dealers
-Riots and civil unrest, unemployment and recession
- Moral Campaign against video nasties; Mary Whitehouse (NVLA), Margaret Thatcher, the media and the BBFC.
-The above mentioned scapegoated the video nasties for immoral behaviour which led to a moral panic
-Cinema attendance declined massively due to the rise of VHS
-Video Nasties like Evil Dead, I Spit On Your Grave and Driller Killer were realistic because they were low budget
-Video Nasties were niche films and really popular with teenagers due to controversy
-Video Nasties were exploited to explain responsibility for moral decline in society
-Watching video nasties helps put it in context of narrative, the campaigners did not actually watch them
-Video Nasties were made for distribution only via home-video
-Censorship or individual judgement?
- Video Nasties created diversity of films
- Video Recordings Act 1984, banned list
Grade C: Apply and analyse - make links between the EVENTS and the EFFECTS on regulating Home Video
Plan the essay
http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/interactives/essaymap/
 |
| Point = Context Event, Influening factors |
 |
| Effect on - example of films on banned list & |
Grade B: Give REASONS for the regulation of Home Video and how this is based on FEARS of the audiences having access to unrestricted content
Video Essay
Arguments how can this be applied to Moral Panics?
3D Quiz
Assessment
http://leighmediaasfilmessays12.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/quiz-from-starters.html
Political:
ReplyDelete-Conservative government sought to protect
-Government censorship and VHS police raids on dealers
-Mary Whitehouse, Margret Thatcher, BBFC and the media scapegoated the video nasties for immoral behaviour which led to a moral panic
-Video Recordings Act 1984 - 72 banned list
-Moral campaign against video nasties ; Mary Whitehouse (NVLA), Margret Thatcher, BBFC and the media
-Regulated videos have age restrictions by BBFC
-Video nasties were exploited to explain responsibility for moral decline in society
-Watching video nasties helps put in context of narrative, the campaigners did not actually watch them
Social:
-Videos being distributed by corner shops, market traders and garages
-The covers on the boxes were often more gruesome than the content
-Moral panic created by media the term 'video nasties'
-Riots, civil unrest, unemployment and recession
-Video nasties were niche films and popular with teenagers due to their controversy
-Video nasties were exploited to explain responsibility for moral decline in society
-Censorship or individual judgement
Economic:
-Riots, civil unrest, unemployment and recession
-Video nasties like Evil Dead were realistic because they were low budget
Technological:
-Cinema attendance declined massively due to the rise of VHS
-Video nasties were made for distribution for VHS
Grade A - Thesis statement. What is the debate surrounding these events, and what is your opinion?
ReplyDeleteQ. Was the VRA a (morally) legitimate law?
To synthesise (reconcile) in your response:
BBFC age restrictions for Home Video
Video Nasties Banned List (uncertifiable)
Right Wing Gov as defenders of Morality (which questionable motives & policies)
Police enforcement & criminialising distributors to adults (Raids on suppliers)
BBFC NOT a government body, but funded by the Industry to accredit their films
Synthesis Tip - The task is to find the balance between successfully protecting children & restricting & crimialising the supply of 'obscene' material for all
Is the VRA a legitimate law?
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a legitimate law that does protect children from watching films that are not suitable for their age. Even though adults were not allowed to watch these films either because of them being banned and would be able to make up their minds if it was suitable to watch, it was still a morally good law to put in place. If they were banned just for children, they would still be able to watch them another way, there would be other ways to get hold of these films, so the fact that the police were going in and raiding video shops to get rid of video nasties, was a good thing as no one would be able to watch unsuitable films. The VRA was a suitable law to put in place overall.
Thesis:
ReplyDeleteThe Video Recordings Act was brought about in 1984 to censor, regulate and ban films that were seen as being immoral; containing images such as pornography and violent behaviour. The law was sought to protect society from this, as these so called video nasties introduced imitable behaviour, and attracted a youth audience. The Video Recordings Act enforced age restrictions and banning of films. However, there is controversy throughout the topic of the VRA being a legitimately moral law. Some argue that the VRA protects a certain amount of society. The VRA were set up by the conservative government and therefore it holds the traditional, middle class views of how moral society should be. Whilst others believe that the VRA does not protect society, and that it should be down to individuality and choice. In my opinion the VRA is a moral legitimate law as these video nasties were being viewed by vulnerable audiences that could commit an imitable behaviour. I believe that the VRA are legitimate and moral for banning and censoring films as age restrictions only account for a particular part of society's vulnerable groups. Video nasties were produced on VHS, meaning that anyone could purchase and watch these films.
Is the Video Recordings Act a morally legitimate law?
ReplyDeleteThe video recoding act (VRA) was put in place to protect young children from viewing unnecessarily violent content that they should not be seeing in 1984. It was put in place for films once the obscene publications act failed to work against movies. Video nasties was used by the conservative government as a scapegoat for all the violence happening they used video nasties as an excuse and reason for this violence. They reinforced the VRA not only to protect young children but to benefit themselves in a way that they wouldn't look bad. In reality the conservative government was the cause of all the violence due to choices made but used video nasties as a scapegoat to justify this violence. I believe that VRA is a morally legitimate law to some extent as it provides a form of security around content that shouldn't be seen.
Georgina
Is the Video Recordings Act A Morally Legitimate Law?
ReplyDeleteThe Video Recordings Act was put in 1984, with the interest of protecting the viewers of films. This was put in place after the Obscene Publications Act failed to regulate films. The Video Recordings Act was established by the Conservative government after the use of video nasties was used as a scapegoat to explain the economic decline and the riots in the 1980s. This law regulates the content of films and implemented age restrictions. I believe it is has moral legitimacy to an extent. I strongly agree with age restrictions that this law has implemented, however, the complete censorship of films such as video nasties lacks morality. People over the age of 18 are at liberty to make their own decisions about what they would like to view. Films had to go through a process before being released in which they had to be cut to fit the age restrictions and other categories to make them eligible for release.
The VRA are is classified as a law to follow when films are set to be published. It was introduced in 1984 to ban video nasties and the likes of evil dead, driller killer and cannibal holocaust. the VRA was introduced to support the censorship, and banning of films that we're deemed unessasaryly gory or contain scenes of murder, genecide, rape and suicide. the whole debate of wether video nasties should be banned is to protect children around the age of 10-16, however the VRA is responsible for banning the films rather than making them hard to access for children. In my opinion, the government couldn't give a toss about adults who are exposed to this kind of material, but they can use the banning motivated by protecting children, as a scapegoat to blame for rise in crime rate and mental health. This law was then enforced by the raiding of video shops, when this only diverts the crime from murders to illegal video selling, theft and VHS dealers.
ReplyDeleteIs the NVA a legitimate law?
ReplyDeleteThe video recordings act was introduced and enforced in 1984, after the moral panic introduced by the right wing newspapers. The legislature passes this bill when the Conservative government was in office. The Bill stated that no one should see these video nasties, due to its immoral behaviour. However the moral panic focused on the availability of these video nasties and how easily accessible it was for children to watch them. The act did prevent children from watching video nasties and unregulated films, which made it successful and morally right. However this bill blocked the civil libities and freedoms of an individual over the age of 18 who is more than capable to decide wether or not to watch these films, thus making this a morally iligitmate law.