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 baReuse content