Jean-Rémi Lapaire

Professeure Sue Harris

Jim Walker

Julie Villessèche

Jean Soubrier

Lt Colonel D'artillerie Penel

Capitaine De

Devant le jury composé de

This is the purpose here: an overview of the perks and drawbacks of comparison through my (little) personal experience. How it helped me, but also how it showed me that seizing the opportunity of an obvious comparison does not always serve your subject.

By obvious, I do not only mean the media coverage of both classifications, and their frequent presentation as two opposed systems. I also mean numbers. Indeed, in 2012, in France, 82,7% of the films classified by the Commission were Universal against 10,2% in the United Kingdom 12 .

But, I am no rocket scientist, and I am certainly not the first one to think in comparative terms, when it comes to classification and censorship. The major base for this field stands in film studies.

Film studies and censorship.

There were concepts I did not want to fall into when comparing British and French censorship/classification.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Now I have written this thesis, I am convinced that it would not have been possible without the support and kindness of people around me. They have allowed me to grow into the researcher-apprentice I have been for the past three years. Thus, firstly, I thank my supervisors for believing such a subject had a chance to flourish into a research, and for trusting me at all times.

I also thank my University, and especially my Doctoral School, l'Ed 3la, for giving me the chance to accomplish this thesis, thanks to a doctoral contract; the English department, for letting me teach during two years, and thus, discover the other side of a researcher's work; and my research laboratory, the CRTT (Centre de Recherche en Terminologie et Traduction), for supporting the projects in which I was involved.

I am thankful to Sue Harris, for welcoming me in the Film Studies Department of Queen Mary University (London) for three months and for also accepting to be a rapporteur and member of my jury.

My thanks also go to Kristy Beers Fägersten, who agreed as well to be one of my rapporteurs and member of my jury, and to Jean-Rémi Lapaire, for allowing this jury to be complete by his presence. I would like to thank all the people who welcomed me in The National Archives (Kew) and (Pierrefitte-sur-Seine), and at the Municipal archives of Lyon.

I would like to personally thank the two members of the BBFC -Jacob (Sorry, for not giving your name) and Edward Lamberti, who gave me access to the film files.

It also goes without saying that all this would not have been possible without the help and advice of Jonny Davies (BFI Archives). This work would not have been possible without the kindness of Pierre Chaintreuil and Jean-François Théry, who took time to answer my questions about the work of the Commission.

And, of course, I thank Pierre Frank, Claude Brenez, Jean-François Tardy, Barbara Dent and Gauthier Jurgensen, for agreeing to meet me.

If this thesis is today of ink and paper, it is also thanks to:

-My dear proofreaders, who helped me on short notice, without a dash of complaint: Michaël Gauthier and Adam Renwick.

-My lovely sister, for creating the image of the Popcorn Times, and for proofreading my interviews: Oriane Villessèche.

-My colleagues and co-organisers of the Sociolinguistics Summer School 7, who have been understanding for my half-presence at the conference.

But, if all this is possible today, it is thanks to my parents, sisters and brothers, who have been there for me for three years, who have never doubted me and who have carried me through the most difficult times.

Welcome, dear reader.

I am glad to welcome you here, first page of my thesis. I am pleased you decided to read this doorstop, and I feel honored by your presence.

A few words: the main information you will need on this journey…

WHAT IS FILM CLASSIFICATION?

Maybe you already know what I am going to talk about, or maybe as 99% of people to whom I told the title of my subject, you think you know, but you probably do not. What is film classification?

A. You are a very meticulous person sorting films in a certain order B. You mean: comedy, horror, thriller, etc.

C. It has to do with age.

Please, my deepest apologies, dear reader, for not waiting for your answer. A is a joke. B is the answer in 99% cases. And C is the correct answer. So, once and for all, film classification is about deciding whether a film is Universal, or should be rated 12,15 (16 in France) or 18.

A word of introduction

Why am I here? I am starting with this question because I cannot ask you why you are here. I can guess, especially if you are family or friends (you have probably been forced into reading this) or if you are part of my jury. The quick and easy answer to my question is: this is the result of three years of work. The long and far-fetched answer is as follows.

How I got there: The Nanny Diaries.

As the title of this section can be incredibly misinterpreted, I have to highlight the fact that it has nothing to do with Scarlett Johansson, and everything to do with "I was not a student when I found a suitable subject for what would become my future thesis".

I was part of a sub-category of another human species: I was AuPair, which is also a Nanny in some ways (but the reversal is not true). What is going to follow is less original: I did not find my topic because I was an AuPair, but I did find it because of what it implies to be an AuPair: living in a foreign country, using a different language and sometimes, trying to breathe the culture and live it. I could talk about this experience for hours, and maybe as Annie Braddock did, transform it into an anthropological analysis.

But my subject has only to do with the way I used my spare time: I was in England, and I had never been in an English cinema. This last element induces several others: I had never been in anything else than French cinemas, not because I was not travelling, but just because, until that moment when I became an AuPair in Hampton, I had never been in a position that would make me consider such a possibility. This meant that I had never seen films without subtitles (except on DVDs) as all English films are either dubbed or subtitled in France when coming out on screen. This also meant that I had lived in a different "cinema culture" without even knowing it.

I was not on my own for my first English cinema experience, which means that, fortunately for you, my dear reader, someone else, four years before you, had the painful obligation (I did not really give her the choice and I thank her for her extraordinary patience and attention) to listen to me babbling about a possible Ph.D. subject.

We were in England, and we chose to go and see what is considered as typically British from the other side of the Channel: a James Bond film, Skyfall. Apart from certain details like the colour of the ticketorangeand of the seatsblue, I do not remember thinking: "it is a complete different world". I thought it was quite similar, until I bumped into the BBFC certificate, red, displayed on the screen just before the projection of the film. I had never seen a CNC1 certificate in a French cinema and if my memory is not fading, I think I did not even care about who was deciding if a film was Universal or else.

First surprise then: a BBFC certificate. When something surprises you, it has all you attention. So I started reading it, learning there was an institution called the British Board of Film Classification, which had the extreme kindness to remind me that the film had been rated 12A2 because it "contains moderate action violence and one use of strong language"3 . This is amazing how obvious certain things you do not know are, until you realise they were just another prejudice on top of your discriminatory pile. They were displaying the obvious fact I missed during all my years as cinema goerto classify a film, you need to give reasons in favour of a rating. I had never considered that option.

Films were rated: end of the story. But as I was catching a glimpse of the world of film certificates, I suddenly realised that it was just the beginning. Rating meant criteria, justifications, and also, pre-defined categories. And two of those criteria were quietly displayed on the screen in front of me, and one of them was already echoing to my previous work: "strong language". Maybe I should have told you this earlier: to complete my Master in English, I wrote a mémoire 4 about "The French Translations of Shakespeare's insults in King Lear and The Taming of the Shrew: three centuries of linguistic evolutions or of translators' interpretations?". The indication of "strong language" was then meant for me in a way: I could not have helped noticing it.

Strong language or The Wolf of Soho Square

Studying "strong language" was my starting point, until I realised it was not really pertinent to isolate it from the other censurable dimensions of language. That lack of pertinence came from different observations, when working "in the field": Firstly, "strong language" is only a very recent term within the BBFC classification. And the first problem you are confronted to is the definition of that very phrase. Indeed, in one of their last publications, the BBFC underlines that "strong language is "the use of expletives with a sexual, religious or racial association, derogatory language about minority groups and commonly understood rude gestures. The extent of offence may vary according to age, gender, race, background, beliefs and expectations brought by viewers to the work as well as the context in which the word, expression or gesture is used" (BBFC Guidelines, 2014, p. 6). However, though this definition encapsulates a lot of different aspects, when we give a closer look at the way they use this category, it becomes obvious that there are two sides for this "strong language" coin: on one hand, there is a definition that gives an opportunity to state the different aspects of what the "language" criterion is from an examiner viewpoint; on the other hand, there is the use the examiners make of that category, which is more restrained and which refers to a simple list of words where "fuck" reigns as a linguistic tyrant without equal.

Secondly, if we consider that it is just a list of words, two main issues remain.

(1) It would be necessary to admit that "strong language" refers to something tangible and especially stable, and which would not be relative in any way to its context of use. In this case, there is a problem when a word experiences an evolution from "strong" to "very mild language" like "bugger" (from insulting to affectionate language 5 ).

(2) Some words refer to other categories defined by the BBFC. For example, "fuck", depending on its context, is either a swearword belonging to "strong language" or a sexual reference, which is either supposed to be a subcategory of "strong language" if we follow the definition given earlier, or, if we consider the examiners' practices, is part of a category which stands on its own. Indeed, in the BBFC definition, "strong language" includes sexual references, discriminatory language, offensive gestures, etc. But, in the indications given by BBFC certificates, those elements are separate and look as if they were isolated categories: "contains strong language and sex references" (A Fish Called Wanda, 1988) 6 , "contains very strong racist violence and language" (This is England, 2007) 7 , "contains one use of strong language" (Of Time and The City, 2008) 8 .

Thirdly, as the definition suggests, if it is not a simple and strict list of words, those elements are then relative to and depend on a very specific contextcontext within the film, period of the shooting, etc. In this case, it is not anymore about defining a single category but about understanding what the "language" criterion for film classifications is and how those sub-categories (strong language, sexual references...) are defined, used, how they interact with each other, and also how the whole lot evolves. This can be justified by two elements: (1) "strong language" is not the only phrase which exists to define a certain content, "coarse language" is another 9 ; (2) the criteria as we know them today have only been defined and made public from 1999.

Forthly, for the French Commission of the CNC, "strong language" did not and still does not mean anything, and there was no direct translation of it. Here are a few terms I encountered at the very beginning of my research: "grossier, grossièretés, vulgaire, vulgarités, (très) cru, excès de langage vulgaire, langage qui ne convient pas à un jeune public, références à la prostitution, discriminatoire" 10 .

Last, but not least, the major argument to favour the study of the "language" criterion is its intelligibility when it comes to comparison. Indeed, when we say "language" in film classification, it means the same thing on both sides of the Channel: all the elements within the lines of the characters, including gestures, which are censurable in the eyes of one or both institutions. However, though, in the United Kingdom, as in France, they put the same elements under the label "language", they clearly do not take them in consideration in the same way. There lies the object of this thesis.

Time for questions.

Writing a thesis is linked to a specific purpose: answering a question of research, which means you have to design your own main question. I started with that one, when I applied for my Ph.D.: in a sociolinguistic perspective, what is the relation between film 'agents' (examiners, translators) and institutions, and the definition, classification and translation of language?

WHAT IS THE BBFC? WHAT IS THE COMMISSION? HOW DO THEY ACT?

The BBFC or British Board of Film Classification (or the Board) is the institution in charge of film classification in the UK and was created in 1912 with the support of the Kinematograph Macturfacturers Association. The films are classified by a team of examiners (for one film, at least two are involved). A Certificate is delivered to the director/producer to testify that a film is rated Universal, or PG, or 12, or 15, or 18 and there is an associated comment about the reasons for classification. For example: 'contains mild language and mild threat'. It is signed by the president of the BBFC.

The Commission (or Commission of Classification of cinematographic works) is the institution in charge of film classification in France. It belongs to a bigger entity called the CNC or Centre National de Cinématographie, which is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Culture. It was created by the law of October 25 th , 1946. The Commission is divided into two parts: the plenary commission, and the sub-commissions. The subcommissions are viewing films on an everyday basis, whereas the plenary commission deals with the films on which the sub-commission disagree, or for which an agerestriction is asked. A Visa is delivered to the director/producer to testify that a film is rated Universal, or 12, or 16, or 18 and if a warning is associated and should be added to the classification, it can be found there as well. For example: 'certain scenes might not be suitable for young children'. It is signed by the Ministry of Culture.

So, from the start, I was quite puzzled by the French situation: what happened in terms of film censorship/classification before 1945? The question is the same for the BBFC, but the gap between the first film and the creation of the institution looks less long than in France.

However, one of the first differences which struck me with those two systems of classification is their relation to the audience. In France, I had never seen a visa displayed on screen before the film in a cinema. And then, in terms of message sent to the audience, there was also the issue of the institutional name. Previously, I have given you the current names:

-The BBFC or British Board of Film Classification has born this denomination since 1982. Before that, from 1912 until 1982, it was called the British Board of Film Censors.

-In France, until 1986, it was called the Commission of control of cinematographic works, whereas, since then, it has been called the Commission of classification of cinematographic works. But it was familiarly known as 'la censure' [the censorship] (Jean-François [START_REF] Théry | Pour en finir une bonne fois pour toutes avec la censure[END_REF].

Several remarks can be made about those appellations. Firstly, the historical evolution of those institutions is anchored in their names: from censorship to classification. Though there is a precise date, we will see that there is a transitory period preceding those changes. Secondly, while the BBFC insists until 1982 on the people carrying the work [censors], the Commission focuses on the type of work carried inside its walls [control]. In a way, this is very ironic as the censors are not known from the audience or the film industry in the UK, while in France, as the Commission is a public institution, its members are known.

However, in this work, I have chosen a single name for members of the BBFC and the Commission: examiners. Firstly, this choice is driven by the practical aspect of their work: this is what they do: they examine the films. Secondly, there is the idea that in terms of films, there is an evolution from censorship to classification. I would have alternated between censors and classifiers, but in terms of writing and reading, the risk to mix them was becoming too important in certain parts, and it was very difficult to decide how to name them during the transitory period. This is why I have used the word 'examiner', which is neutral regarding the questions of censorship/classification, but also regarding the institutional differences between the French and the British classifications.

All those elements in mind, and also to tell the truth, with my three years of work in mind, I have slightly modified my global question:

How have the work of examiners and the institutional and societal evolutions shaped the creation and the development of a language criterion within British and French film classification systems?

Although I have modified this question, I have kept the hypotheses I formulated three years ago, as they allow me to show you the evolution of my research.

The Fantastic Four Hypotheses

THE DIFFERENCES OF CENSORSHIP/CLASSIFICATION FOR LANGUAGE BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND FRANCE ARE OF STRUCTURAL ORIGINS (INSTITUTIONAL).

Censorship is often presented as embedded in the culture to which it belongs. As Laurent Garreau (2009: p. 16) presents it, "there is a tendency which never changes: issues of censorship and prohibition are primarily matters of territories and boundaries" 11 . Each country has its own culture of censorship, and the censorship or classification of films does not deviate from this feature. I do not deny it, but I would like to argue that it is not the predominant element, if the will is to explain the gigantic gap which exists in terms of classification of films in-between those two countries. Indeed, in 2012, in France, 82,7% of the films classified by the CNC were Universal against 10,2% in the United Kingdom. Hence, my hypothesis was that it had something to do with the evolution of the institutions themselves and not only with the differences in terms of national cultures.

In other terms, and more specifically for my topic here, such a "classification gap" could not have been created by the simple fact that strong language is considered differently in those two countries.

IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE EVOLUTION OF THE CLASSIFICATION ITSELF IS DUE TO CULTURAL AND STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS.

It was obvious to me that the classification had evolved through time. Cultural characteristics were without a shadow of a doubt one of the core elements of that evolution: though I am going to concentrate on linguistic aspects, the hypothesis was taking into account all the other criteria as well. The other characteristic is institutional:

the way an institution works can also trigger chains of reactions, which build the classification as well. On that particular ground, I only had a very vague idea based on documents I had at that time: I knew that the BBFC was using tables of classificationthat is, tables were each criterion is rated on a scale from Universal to 18. And, at that time, as a novice in my research, I was gambling on beginner's luck: this document had to be created at some point, for a certain purpose. I did not know when and why, but I was thinking that it had a potential effect on the evaluation of language within a film.

IN FRANCE, THE MINOR ASPECT OF LANGUAGE WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION IS NOT DUE TO THE EVOLUTION OF THE CLASSIFICATION BUT IS SOMETHING CHARACTERISING CENSORSHIP AND CLASSIFICATION IN FRANCE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

That particular hypothesis was a very lazy onelazy in the sense that I had no elements about the evolution of language within the French classification. Language, or dialogues, was a very strange animal in the sense that I thought the use of criteria was an obvious element taking part in, even being the essence of, film classification. Hence, when I realised how so little it was used in the justification of the French Commission, I thought it meant that it had become very minor, almost invisible, because it had never been a major element. Language was the retired Robin of the Batman-classification.

IN FRANCE, AS IN THE UK, TRANSLATION HAS A ROLE TO PLAY (SUBTITLES IN THE UK, DUBBING AND SUBTITLING IN FR).

Because I had decided to compare two different systems with two different languages, the question of translation seemed inevitable. And on this hypothesis, I was lazy and naïve. Lazy because I was following what previous research were telling me. And naïve because I forgot that translation meant censorship as well, and so, that it had possibly led to conflicts and negotiations between the classification institution and members of the film industry.

Establishing a plan

How have the work of examiners and the institutional and societal evolutions shaped the creation and the development of a language criterion within British and French film classification systems?

In order to answer this question, three different steps were required:

-Part I: here, the aim is to place this study in relation to the different fields of research, which have tackled the question, and especially to give a theoretical background about 'bad language'.

-Part II: Because of the perspective I chose for this work, transcribed within my main question by the word 'evolutions', I needed a strong background in terms of institutional and societal evolutions.

-Part III: Once all this was settled, it was at last possible to analyse my data about the dialogues of the films, and to give a certain number of answers to my previous questions, and also, to draw some conclusions.

Part I: Spiderman or spinning a theoretical web.

Spinning a theoretical web was more about defining what I was talking about, and less about what had been done in the field of language and film classification. The main reason for that is that film studies tend to understand language as the aesthetics of the film (?) or its codes (?).

Chapter 1: Falling into the rabbit hole… Delimiting the contours of my analysis.

Hence, delimiting the contours of my analysis depended more on bringing all the different fields of research related to my subject together -film studies, translation studies, sociolinguistics. The guiding principle of this enterprise is comparison, which was one of the constants of this thesis: comparing British and French film classification systems. So, the main goal of this chapter is to give a common frame of analysis through general concepts, in order to be able to analyse those two systems later.

Chapter 2: Pardon my French… What is Language for film classification?

If comparison is one of the constants, language is another. This chapter aims to define what 'bad language' is from a very general perspective. You will not, dear reader, be thrown into the comparison of what is or not taken into account in British and French classification. The central piece of this web is sociolinguistics: hence, in this chapter, the question is about how to define 'bad language' and why it is censored or classified.

So, this first part gives a place to this subject within the existing fields of research, which have tackled, or at least considered, one of the aspects of this thesis, whether it is censorship, bad language, etc. The second part follows the same path: this time, the idea is not to draw the theoretical web of this subject, but its historical thread.

Part II: Doctor Who or recounting the history of film classification.

Special warning: I am not going to give you the whole story in detail, with all the cultural, social and political aspects, which influenced the evolution of those classification systems. The issue was to link the evolution of the age-ratings with the evolution of the classification systems, so that in the end, it would be possible to tie all those features with the creation and developmentor notof a language criterion.

Chapter 3: Following a white paper trail. Methodology and the field.

The historical background of the historical chapters relies partly on my work within various archival places. This chapter seeks to give the balance sheet of my thesis, while putting the field elements in perspective with my research question, and through a more general prism: how do you deal with your data?

Chapter 4: Becoming national (1909-1970s)

The evolution of examiners' practices is due to a certain number of external elements, independent from the examiners themselves. At some point, those institutions the Board and the Commissionwere created and became the new frame for film censorship and classification: the way the examiners work depends on the characteristics of this frame. For example, those institutions had one main competitor at the beginning: local authorities. Becoming national was essential, so that the local authorities would follow the directives of both institutions.

Chapter 5: Keeping credibility alive and breathing (1980s-…)

Once the legitimacy of those institutions settled, they have to remain credible for the next generations. Films are not the same in the 1960s and in the 1980s, the audience is not the same, the laws are not the same, etc. and the classification evolves in order to take all those new elements into account.

Hence, this diachronic part, following the features of creation and development of the Board and the Commission, enabled me to construct an analysis of the language criterion, and gave me the means to explain why language does not seem to matter for French examiners.

Part III: Milo James Thatch or exploring a new sociolinguistic area.

I was not the first one to think about censorship or classification, but I am the first one to target language within censorship and classification. This part defines both the content (the prohibited or classified elements), and the context (the discourse of the examiners) within the British and French classifications, and associates the linguistic aspect of my subject with historical, social, cultural elements. More than a criterion, what is at stake here is the definition of divergent practices in terms of film classification.

Chapter 6: Building a language criterion?

Though this thesis was based on the principle that a language criterion existed, working with archival and oral data nuanced this assumption. Indeed, if such a criterion was to exist, it had to be created and developed through examiners' practices, and methods of classification. However, settling that a language criterion was built within the BBFC classification, but not in France, proved that other questions had to be answered. How do you deal with dialogues, when you take them in consideration?

Chapter 7: Degrees or not degrees… Negotiating the unspeakable.

This chapter aims at answering this question through one particular examiners' method: negotiation. The question of degrees becomes here very important: degrees through the age-ratings, but also degrees of language are established within the classification. To one age-category, there is a degree of 'bad language' associated to it.

But, what happens when a film is translated? How does translation play a part in this issue of degrees?

Chapter 8: Deconstructing the language criterion?

Delimiting the contours of a language criterion and defining its content cannot be satisfying for the whole period considered, as the 2000s data showed new aspects emerging within the British classification, and new uses of the warning (regarding language) within the French classification. For the moment, those elements might not contradict the preconceived comparisonstrict vs. liberalof those two systems, but it clearly shows the constant adaptation through which film classification has to go, especially when facing new generations, new social and cultural evolutions… Part I: Spiderman or spinning a theoretical web.

The object of my research is bound to a certain number of fields of research that I intend to explore here. One of the main difficulties was to find guiding principles in order to link censorship/classification of films with the censorship/classification of language.

Hence, the purpose of this part is to "narrow [and justify] the focus of the study" while being able to link the different perspectives present in the existing literature with my "own research designs" (Steven Boyne, 2009: p. 21).

Chapter 1: Falling into the rabbit hole… Delimiting the contours of my analysis.

After three years of work on this thesis, I have passed through different stages:

from the feeling of not exactly belonging to a specific discipline, to the discovery of worlds of words such as transdisciplinary, inter-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary. Once, I attended a conference, where all those big words were employed, and thrown as a means of academic evaluation. I was quite satisfied with one thing: no one really got the proper understanding of what they meant. But, it nevertheless relates to a simple fact: when you have a research project, the best way to deal with it is to define its boundaries. This is what I will try to do in this chapter: showing you the boundaries that I have encountered through those three years of study.

When I started to work on this, this is what I meant to do: to define what "strong language" was within the BBFC classification, to understand what was happening when that "strong language" was translated, and how the concept was translated in French classification terms. Yes, it was as simple as that and I really thought (naively) at that time that I guessed it right: "strong language" was a concept, which clearly existed in the British classification and it had at least one equivalent in the French classification. So this honeymoon mood lasted for… something that does not go beyond the first trimester of my research, because, when I started to look into it, I found this:

-There was 'strong' and 'very strong' language. So, what I interpreted as a care for language issues was in fact part of a linguistic scale, and 'strong' was only one of the adjectives associated to language.

-And in between 'strong' and 'language', there were other adjectives inserted as 'strong discriminatory language' or 'strong sexual language'.

-'Strong language' is a modern expression: there was no guarantee that it would exist at the beginning of film censorship.

-Last, but not least, what was 'strong language' for French examiners?

This is how I realised that my object could not be 'strong language', but was the study of a criterion of censorship/classification, which is called 'language'. Hence, while being completely conscious of it, I was both hands in the stream of a century of comparison: English and French classifications have often been the subject and object of comparisons (in the media, but also from the part of examiners exchanging about specific topics).

For this reason, I will divide this chapter into three parts:

-The first part will try and deal with the general perks and drawbacks of comparison.

-The second part will try and delimit my subject, still within this idea of comparison, but also within two other fields of researchsociolinguistics and film studies.

-The third part will show the last comparative aspect of this researchtranslationthus, placing my study within a wider field of research where linguistics and film studies have been steady co-workers from more than a decade.

1.1. The perks and drawbacks of comparison.

"Comparative sociology is not a particular branch of sociology; it is sociology itself, in so far as it ceases to be purely descriptive and aspires to account for facts" (Emile Durkheim, 1982: p. 157). There were two starting points for my need of comparison:

-The first one, I have probably already talked about it (sorry for the duplication), is a visual element: the first time I ever saw a certificate of classification on screen was in a cinema in Kingston-upon-Thames.

-The second one is numerical: I was surprised by the 'classification gap' existing between the British classification, and the French one.

So, in a way, I want to do what Emile Durkheim suggested: to try and break the isolation of certain facts. British classification is not strict just because it is British. And

French classification cannot be labelled as more liberal just because it is French. Emile

Durkheim was, of course, doing it in a completely different domain, but he was trying to get the regularities of isolated facts in his study of suicide within European societies, at the end of the 19 th century. However, though comparing could serve my study, it could also easily become a puzzle with so many pieces that three years would not be enough to put them back together.

"What do we mean when we talk about 'British cinema'? Are we referring to a commercial industry, to a particular body of films made in Britain, or more abstractly to a particular style of filmmaking or set of narrative and thematic conventions?".

These diagrams above were my first attempt. Why only the definition of a British film? Because I thought I knew what a French film was. After trying to define what a British film is, I am not so sure anymore. You can see here two different definitions: the first one is the statutory definition based on the Films Act (1985), for which the purpose is essentially taxes and funding; the second one is the cultural definition, which was as well discussed at the House of Commons. However, this is not an official definition, but it tries to comprehend the transnational nature of the film industry.

Those definitions are from a report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (House of Commons) 13 , which starts by this remarkable assertion: "There is a British film industry " (p. 3). No surprise here, it comes a few pages later: in 2002, "we posed the question 'Is there a British film industry? '" (p. 4). This relates to the original problem:

being sure there is a national industry for films does not mean you are able to define the boundaries precisely. Hence, is the statutory definition better than the cultural one: 13 House of commons. Culture, Media and Sport committee. The British Film Industry.

What is a British Film?

-when it states that the production must be essentially controlled and managed in the UK (maker test),

-when it defines a threshold of 70% of costs on British ground for film making (production cost test),

-when 70% of the labour force must be citizens from the Commonwealth, the EU, or a country involved in a European agreement (labour cost test),

-and when no more than 10% of the sequences should be from another film (visual sequences test)?

Or is it better to concentrate on the British identity at all levels, even if it implies having to define a film on the basis of who holds the copyright (British identity element)?

Both definitions are causing problems in practice: a film may succeed for most of the criteria, but if a single one is not respected, it will not be considered as British from a tax/funding point of view.

For this thesis, the problem with these kinds of definitions is the following (Laurence Napper, 2012: p. 361): "The first strand will deal with filmmaking and filmgoing as a practicea commercial industry involving producers, distributors, exhibitors and audiences". Though the question of censorship is included in this kind of reasoning, the examiner is not considered as an equal part in the processequal to producers, distributors, etc. But the facts, put through the prism of comparison, show that British and French audiences are not necessarily watching the same film, because of the work of the examiners: not the same cuts, not the same restrictions, etc. So, it does not really matter if a film is identified as British or French. Those definitions might be official or semi-official, but there are plenty of others which come into play: for example, is a French film necessarily in French? This long explanation was just to convey this very idea that, for my work, the nationality of a film does not matter in the constitution of a corpus 14 , as only the examiners' work is at stake.

What is censorship? What is classification?

You will learn, dear reader, that I love to ask questions with pseudo-obvious answers, just to give myself the right to make sure we are all talking about the same thing. So, though this is a comparative study, there are a lot of common grounds, not only differences, and what is meant by classification or censorship is the same. What the examiners then censor or classify and how they do it is another story to tell later in this doorstop, and is different in the UK and in France.

For Michel Dupré (2012: p. 10), censorship is one of the "means used by [the official powers], allowing them to suppress all relation between a work and its audience, or to modify it so that it becomes acceptable in accord with criteria in force, respects basic taboos, and strengthens the main ideological currents, even protects some prerogatives" 15 . And depending on what has been done, censorship is more or less visible.

In practice, what does it do? Deleted scenes and/or dialogues. The case of deleted dialogues is more frequent than we generally think and that is for a very specific reason: it can be required to ensure a certain classification. For example, "The Disney animated feature, Pocahontas II -Journey to a New World had three instances of the use of 'bloody' removed from a video where the appeal and address were wholly at 'U 16 ', and which was 'U' in all other respects" 17 . Sometimes, those scenes or dialogues are advised to be deleted to obtain a particular classification: for example, in the case of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Steven Spielberg, 1984), a list of three reels with seven suggested modifications was sent to the distribution company, UIP (UK), in order for the film to obtain a PG 18 . But sometimes, films were given advice even before being shot; Dr Who and the Daleks (Gordon Flemyng, 1965) was first commented on the basis of its scenario 19 : "Of course, we cannot say with any certainty till we see the film, as the treatment is what really matters. But I should think that most of it will turn out all right for ''U''". In those cases, censorship is either compulsory or negotiated.

Diffusion ban: the film is entirely censored and is not supposed to come out on any public screens in the country. As Albert Montagne underlines it, especially in the early period of film censorship (2007: p. 15), such interdiction can easily pass unnoticed: "the difficulty is increased by the fact that a total interdiction is mentioned only in specialised journals and so, remains classified". There are many examples: in France, you have Zéro de Conduite muting" 23 . Here again, the importance of negotiation in censorship strikes again: in the UK, the film was rated 15, which is not an advisory category as PG-13, but restrictive (you have to be 15 and over to see the film in a British cinema).

And, talking about classification, where does it stand in all this? Classification could be considered as another version of censorship. It would go in the "restricted diffusion" categorythe restriction in this case is not about territorial limits, but age limits. However, the purpose is clearly different: censoring films implies hiding elements no one will see, and classification is supposed to hide some elements to a certain public, by forbidding (or advising) a certain age category not to go and see it. So, there are two different aims here: on one side, the idea of protection is based on taboos and concerns the whole potential audience of a film, while on the other side, there are clearly issues of education, and this time, it concerns mainly children and adolescents.

We have seen, so far, that film censorship and classification are based on a common ground of definitions: there are a certain number of possibilities to censor a film, and they have been defined above. But, despite this common censoring background, you have been able to discover a certain number of differences as well: the different visas for French Films (national and abroad), the possibility of different classifications, and so on. So, what I am trying to say, is that: "There is a tendency that has never changed: the 23 issues of censorship and interdiction are firstly issues of territories and boundaries" 24(Laurent Garreau, 2009: p. 16). Each country has its own culture of censorship, and the censorship or classification of films does not deviate from this feature. Though I agree with this first assumption, I would like to argue that it is not the only predominant element; especially if our goal is to explain the gigantic gap which exists in terms of film classification in-between two countries. Hence, my hypothesis was that it had something to do with the evolution of the institutions themselves and not only with the differences in terms of national cultures. In other terms, and more specifically for my topic here, such a "classification gap" could not have been created by the single fact that British and

French examiners consider the films differently under the light of two distinct cultural spectra. Thus, in order to fulfil this aim, I needed objects of comparison.

Constitution of a corpus of films

You probably remember that the beginning of this part started by an attempt to define what a British film is. Well; that enterprise was one of my many tries in my first year as doctoral student. This does not mean that I have not tried anything after and that everything was crystal clear. Anyway, the cause for this search in national definitions stood in my two first film classification interests: Ken Loach's and the Monty Python's films 25 . The reason is fairly simple: a quite important 'classification gap' (and a very loud journalistic noise whirling around it). Let me give you a few examples (of the gap, not the media exposure), with which I started to work:

to any age-ratings (12 with warning, 16 with warning…). Hence, it does NOT stand as a category on its own: it completes the category to which it is assigned. As one of my informants said: "For me, the warning was: we lower the rating when the film is good" 27 (Pierre Frantz, interview). In other words, the warning is the upper part of the category that it completes.

At this stage of the reflexion, I am sure you understand where the perks and where the drawbacks of comparison are. The perks of comparison are the highlighting of differences or particularities (Reza Azarian, 2011: p. 117), sometimes at a microscopic level, but, they are placed within a similar context of broad evolutions concerning both sides of the comparison: what Reza Azarian (p. 118) calls the convergences and deviations. You will be able, dear reader, to observe this in the two historical chapters concerning the evolution of British and French classifications (for more information, see chapters 4 and 5).

The drawbacks come from the perks: the accumulation of the particularities, which tend to spread and hide the main problem within a forest of smaller issues. "As various species of entities are picked up to be compared, there is often an underlying and tacit assumption about their autonomy and a silent tendency to ignore the complex interplays and mutual influences among the units" (Reza Azarian, 2011: p. 120): as we have just started to see, selecting objects for comparison does not mean those objects are completely equal (PG Vs. Tous Publics avec Avertissement). So, at this point, I felt I had to be careful with what I wanted to compare, without spreading the wings of research too far from the core of my research. One of the purposes of this part was to show the non-necessity of taking into account the nationality of the film at the 'constitution of corpus' level. However, we are going to see (yes, together, dear reader) that examiners of films are not examiners in the first place, but people, social beings 28 . So before trying to understand what they do with the linguistic elements of films, let's see why they do it. 27 Original text: "pour moi l'avertissement était : on baisse d'un niveau le film quand le film est bon" 28 This is the first of my Aristotle's reference: others coming (clue: see chapter 3).

What does film classification have to do with sociolinguistics?

It has to do exactly with what I have just said above: with the question 'Why?'.

When I started my research, I used to formulate the question this way: why do we censor films? Or why do we censor language in films? Until I realised that it was not exactly it.

The real question, which was going to lead me somewhere (that isif you need a specific locationat the last page of this thesis or at its oral defence), was: why do they censor films/ language in films? ("they" being the examiners).

I am sure you now know where we stand in terms of censorship: we stand inbetween production and diffusion. In this particular in-between are the examiners 29 . But this is not the only in-between where they are. The other one is in-between the audience and the film industry. This second aspect is a bit more complex than that: there is a whole bunch of different institutions/associations 30 involved, but they can generally be divided in this pair, as, in a caricatured way of speaking, in the domain of censorship/classification, either you stand up for the audience or for the film industry.

Where does the examiner stand then?

This question is, in my opinion, the reason why media comparisons of the BBFC and the French Commission, by remaining at the classification gap level, never grasped why those two systems are so different. And this is what led me to choose 1909 as the starting point of my studythat is, right when censorship/classification, as a national issue, starts.

So, the sociolinguistic element comes from two directions:

-The examiner viewpoint on language depends on factors such as their own social origins, their status within the BBFC or the Commission, the way the institution work, the way they have to work to classify the films etc.

-And the examiner inherits of all the existing viewpoints on language within a given society (what is good/bad, polite/impolite, proper, improper, etc.)

In this part, we will first see who the examiners are, and how they define their work or how their work is defined. And then, we will examine the general reasons which give examiners the 'right' to censor/classify films, and how/why linguistic issues are part of all this.

1.2.1. Spying on 'La Censure'.

This is about giving you, dear reader, a few hints about what is going to follow, and keeping the coherence in-between every chapter.

Placing a study under a sociolinguistic star does not make it a sociolinguistic study. The words I used so farcensorship, classification, language, examinersare not just randomly juxtaposed. I truly believe that sociolinguistics can intervene scientifically in the domain of film studies and more precisely can make a difference in the comprehension of the film classification systems. What I have proposed to study so far is a system within which the language criterion is a discourse (the elements are all present in the films) and also originates from discursive practices (the discourse of the examiners about those film elements, but not all of them, only the ones they think fit within a classification context: hence, the ones which are labelled BAD). So the sociolinguistic core lies in the selection and linguistic production of elements from the dialogues within the films (this reflexion is inspired by an article written by Thierry [START_REF] Bulot | L'essence sociolinguistique des territoires urbains : un aménagement linguistique de la ville ?[END_REF].

What is sociolinguistics? It is true that the previous paragraph answers best the question: what can I do with sociolinguistics? To be fair, I have always found that the simplest definition of sociolinguistics was: a mix of sociology and linguistics, or something like the recognition of sociological elements within linguistic subjects. But if you take the article of Thierry [START_REF] Bulot | L'essence sociolinguistique des territoires urbains : un aménagement linguistique de la ville ?[END_REF] about linguistic organization or urban territories, you realize that it is exactly the opposite: the recognition of linguistic elements within a sociological subject. This is the eternal egg-chicken question. But, in this this particular study, I think the definition by Thierry Bulot fits better. Hence, this echoes the discussion about: sociolinguistics or sociology of language?

SOCIOLINGUISTICS, LINGUISTICS, SOCIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE?

To put a bit of order, let's start with a comment of Antoine Meillet at Le Collège de France (1906, ed. Of 1965: p. 17): "As language is a social fact, linguistics is a social science, and the only way to report a linguistic change is to resort to social change" 31 .

We will see it in chapters 4 and 5: the changes occurring within British and French society 31 Original text: « Du fait que la langue est un fait social il résulte que la linguistique est une science sociale, et le seul élément variable auquel on puisse recourir pour rendre compte du changement linguistique est le changement social ».

and the changes within the BBFC and the French Commission will be our springboard to explain the changes occurring to the language criterion.

What is also remarkable in this quote from Antoine Meillet is that he is not talking about sociolinguistics but linguistics: this could be directly linked to a reflexion by William Labov (1976: p. 258), written seventy years later. In his viewpoint, he considers that we only make a difference between linguistics and sociolinguistics to underline a contrast between a study of language outside social contexts (what is generally considered as traditional linguistics) and the study of language within its social context, which is formed by a community of practice.

Thus, sociolinguistics relies upon the study of the interaction between linguistic and social changes. But is it not the definition of the sociology of language as well? One of its most prolific proponents, Joshua Fishman, defines the sociology of language this way (1971: p. 217): it "focuses upon the entire gamut of topics related to the social organisation of language behaviour, including not only language per se but also language attitudes and overt behaviours toward language and toward language users".

Though I clearly see where this debate is going, it clearly looks to me both as a parish rivalry and as a real issue in the field. As a parish rivalry, because it sometimes seems that the purpose is to emphasize either linguistic or social aspects, while making the study stand out thanks to a 'social' or 'sociolinguistic' adjectival use. A real issue, because as there is this idea of using a word for 'being seen' purposes, it seems that the social aspect is sometimes forgotten in favour of 'traditional linguistics'.

Dear reader, before going further in this discussion, let me, as Ronald Wardhaugh (2010, 6 th edition) underlines it in his introduction to sociolinguistics, be honest with my own background: I wear two different hats, one in political sciences, and the other in English studies. This makes my 'sociology' hat a bit bigger than my 'linguistic' one in terms of background.

So, this said, my answer to "is it a sociolinguistic study, or a study within the sociology of language field?" is: from a 'hands-in-the-field' viewpoint, it is closer to the methods of the 'sociology of language' (interviews with a focus on content, work with different archives). And from a 'definition of an issue' viewpoint, my starting point was language, which would push the balance in favour of sociolinguistics, in accordance to the definitions given by Peter Trudgill (1978). But this dividing line looks extremely artificial.

Hence, I agree with Florian Coumas (1997: p. 3) with the fact that: "There is no sharp dividing line between the two, but a large area of common concern". And my concern is less to understand why those changes are occurring than to explain the social issues at stake through those changes. So, as I am not making a clear difference between those two terms, and as I feel no need in emphasising language more than society, or society more than language, I will use sociolinguistics for a practical reason: I have to choose one of those denominations and one of them has the benefit of being an adjective as well as a noun, I will use that one.

Moreover, as sociolinguistics, or the sociology of language, is characterised by its permeability and its large range of fields of study, each community of practice becomes a possible object of linguistic interest. Here, my community of practice is no more than the film examiners.

The forgotten CV of BBFC almost anonymous examiners.

Though I will develop certain aspects later, in this part, I would like to underline a certain number of features that I will not be able to tell you in the following chapters (hold on, it is just the first one). The BBFC was created under the initiative of the Kinematograph Manufacturers Association, with the approval of the Home Office. It functions thanks to the fees brought by each classification, or observation on scenarios.

Thus, it has always been a small institution in terms of members. For example, in 1939, there were 10 people: the president, the secretary, three clerks, three examiners, an operator and an assistant operator 32 .

Through my reading about British censorship/classification, I have never found any reference to this, or to the fact that, except the clerks, every other member, without exceptions, were men. There are multiple references 33 to the observations on scenarios because only two people took care of it from 1930 until 1947 34 , and also, because those documents are among the very few which survived from that period 35 . Apart from that, it seems that the way the institution itself works, how the work of the examiners changed between 1909 and nowadays, has never been completely taken into account: the accent being put on how the censorship evolved, in connection to the evolution of British society, but not really in connection to the examiners themselves. One example to illustrate this is the fact that there is a tendency to miss out on establishing the inner workings of film classification itself, by considering that censorship or classification has a name: the 32 National Archives, Kew, INF 1/178, 1936-44, Central Office of Information: From the Secretary of the British Board of Film Censors to D.B. Woodburn, Esq., Public Trustee Office, April 21st 1939. 33 Edward [START_REF] Lamberti | Behind the scenes at the BBFC: Film classification from the Silver Screen to the Digital Age[END_REF], Anthony Aldgate, James Robertson (2005), S.P. MacKenzie (2001), John [START_REF] Trevelyan | Sociolinguistics Patterns in British English[END_REF], etc. 34 For an access to those sources, see BFI Archives. 35 The rest is at the National Archives (Kew).

BBFC 36 , but by referring to the institution more than to the examiners, the evolution of their work in practice becomes as anonymous as their names.

What I am trying to say here is that the sociolinguistic aspects of the institution itself also have to be taken into account in order to establish a true comparison between British and French classifications. For example, there is a remarkable link between the beginnings of both institutions: though their trajectories are quite different, the composition of the first French Commission and the past of the BBFC first examiners are quite similar: indeed, the first French Commission, created in 1916, is military (Philippe Maarek, 1982: p. 13) and the examiners quoted in the archives in 1939 are former military men (Colonel, Major and Lieutenant Colonel). This can be explained by the fact that the questions of war and international army policy were at stake at that time, and it of course influenced the content of the classification.

But, both institutions evolved greatly.

"From the beginning the examining team has never numbered more than 4 or 5 of which 1 or 2 tended to be part time. On the retirement of a full time examiner in 1976, the Board decided to engage as part timers, two women with professional experience in the field of child care, a lecturer in Child Psychology at Reading University and the other a specialist in remedial teaching with 5 years experience on charge of pastoral care for disadvantaged girls" (1976) 37 .

However, because the anonymity of the examiners is a rule, there are very few data about who they were. But those few traces show the evolution within the institution evolution which shows the new trends affecting the classification itself. So, if I had to summarise here the characteristics of the British examiners from an institutional point of view:

-Their independence from the film industry (one of the many paradoxes of the BBFC: its independence from both the film industry and the Home Office, but it was originally supported by the film industry in terms of finance (for its creation) -Kinematograph Manufacturers Associationand by the Home Office in terms of nominationnon-official approval of the Home Office).

-Their anonymity: even today, anyone can check; all the members of the BBFC are known by name, and CV, except the examiners (for reference: BBFC website, URL: http://bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/who-we-are).

On the other side of the Channel, the French Commission was thought in a completely different way and so, the background of the examiners is very different from those at the BBFC 38 .

1.2.1.2. French examiners: governmental and film industry involvement.

Maybe the first thing I could do is immediately state the obvious: French examiners are neither independent, nor anonymous. To give you an example, here is the commission as it was in 1928 39 : 38 For those of you who are already worrying about the lack of historical background, see chapters 4 and 5. 39 National Archives (Pierrefitte), F/21/4695/A, file n°3 : Contrôle cinématographique. Censure de films. 1936. -Jean Sapène, Président d'honneur de la Chambre syndicale française de la cinématographie From this long table, you can draw a certain number of conclusions in terms of message sent by the institution through the composition of the commission:

Representatives

-Firstly, the equilibrium (not maintained for long) between the ministries and the film industry. This feature is an issue still I stake nowadays with the sharing of members between different Colleges. The idea (today) is to reflect the society within the Commission. The idea (in 1928) was about defining who had a saying in films public suitability.

-Secondly, something we will see in further chapters, there is only one woman. And it was so remarkable that she is labelled as being a woman with the title 'Mme'. Only military men are given a title, such as Lt, or Capitaine, but no title for the other men, such as a simple 'M.'.

-Thirdly, there are still traces (that you cannot see for the moment because of my use of modern words to translate this table) of the fact that films were considered as showsthe so-called 'spectacles de curiosité'. Where you read 'actors', the literal translation should be 'artists of the cinematograph'. Where you read 'film directors', it should be 'authors of films', and instead of 'exhibitors', it was 'directors of places for cinematographic shows'.

Once again, all those elements can seem trivial when thinking strictly about the 'language criterion'. But, from a comparative viewpoint, the differences of evolution between the United Kingdom and France, in terms of film classification, had an influence on what the institutions became, and consequently, had also an influence on the way to consider films. And if this last feature led today to two completely opposed institutionsstricter and more liberal -then, the evolution and the very existence of a 'language criterion' may depend on it as well. This is one of the elements I will try to convey in the last two parts of this thesis.

For the moment, I will conclude this part by saying that: though bringing a film studies subject into sociolinguistic matter may not seem obvious at first sight, sociolinguistics, from my point of view, has a lot to bring to the study of classification.

First of all, language has only been considered as a side project or as an anecdote from remote times of film censorship. And secondly, the evolution of the language of film classification has never been put in perspective with the social and political evolutions of the BBFC on one side, and the French Commission on the other side. So, if anyone is interested in the questions of classifying films into genres, there is an audience waiting for you.

Watch your mouth!

Some pages ago, I have underlined the following fact. The sociolinguistic element in my study comes from two directions:

-The examiners' viewpoint on language depends on factors such as their own social origins, their status within the BBFC or the Commission, the way the institution works, the way they have to work to classify the films etc.

-And the examiner inherits of all the existing viewpoints on language within a given society (what is good/bad, polite/impolite, proper, improper, etc.)

I have tried to show you a couple of examiner's features with which I will deal in the following chapters. But there is another aspect I have not talked about yet: the second 'direction' in my former remark. When I started to work on film classification and to compare British and French positions on dialogues, I was expecting a sort of 'watch your mouth' attitude, which would evolve through time. Unlike the previous part on examiners, where sociolinguistic studies have not yet taken place, the attitudes towards linguistic features are one of the cores of modern sociolinguistics40 .

Is this a cross-cultural study?

From my numerous readings, when it comes to comparing two different languages, there are two terms that generally come into the books or articles titles:



Comparative studywhich remains, for me, the most general and the less connoted term  Cross-cultural studywhich is less general and more connoted, for the reasons I will develop here.

Cross-cultural is a term which tends to be linked to second language acquisition.

Diana Boxer (2002: p. 177) defines applied sociolinguistics as cross-cultural pragmatics. She develops that it "takes the point of view that individuals from two societies or communities carry out their face-to-face interactions with their own rules or norms at work, which often results in a clash of expectations and ultimately, misperceptions about the other group". Language is said to be indexical of people's gender, age group, social group, status, origin, etc. Thus, when we learn a language, we also integrate all the prejudices contained within it: so, language does not only reflect all those categories, but also contributes to keeping them alive and breathing.

However, in this study, we are not in a close face-to-face interaction, but rather in a loose relation. Indeed, though there are traces of comparison in-between those institutions, it does not seem that they tried to exchange at the classification level. Thus, if I had to describe this study as being cross-cultural, it would be in the same sense as Magnus [START_REF] Ljung | Swearing. A cross-cultural linguistic study[END_REF] did for swearing: his book is entitled: Swearing. A cross-cultural linguistic study. In his acceptation of 'cross-cultural', the aim is to find trends throughout several languages, but at the same time, as illustrated by his chapter 8 on replacive swearing (Russian), to highlight the specific features for those languages.

Thus, we are coming back on our first thoughts about comparison. "A first use of the comparative method is to act like a reverse telescope, pushing away things which are too close, so that a gap is created and one can see them. This might be termed, 'distancing the (over) familiar', or turning the obvious into the unobvious" (Alan MacFarlane, 2006: p. 95). So the aim is not to see how those two contexts -British and Frenchinteract, but how, though the prism of comparison, they evolve from the same starting point (the need to organize film censorship) into two very different classificationsthough it does not mean there will not be any cross-cultural aspects.

Those remarks on cross-cultural studies led me in two different directions:

-One which puts cross-cultural studies in the domain of interactions -One which clearly uses cross-cultural as a synonym for comparison.

In order to avoid entering a long debate about which one should be used and why, I will maintain my first position: this is a comparative study between two systems of classification, which happened to be based in two different cultural areas. I feel that 'cross-cultural' would lead to misconduct readers (I might be wrong about this) to think that there are constant and regular exchanges between those two systemsexchanges which are too rare to be considered in such a way.

So, as the cultural aspect is of course unavoidable, I started to wonder in which ways it should be taken into account. In this case, the cultural aspect I am talking about is the "watch your mouth" (more 'watch your soundtrack' in the case of films) attitudes the examiners are supposed to haveespecially, according to stereotypes, on the British side. Thus, the question was: do those attitudes on language reflect some kind of sociolinguistic approach, from the part of the examiners? In this case, could this be considered as folklinguistics?

1.2.2.2. Folklinguistic study?

"While, for linguists, 'good' and 'bad' language appear to achieve such status from links with particular groups in society, for non-linguists 'good' language is primarily good because it is logical, authentic, etc. and they can even define what a language may or may not contain" (Peter Garrett, 2010: p. 186).

Examiners are not that powerful and they do not decide what a 'language may or may not contain' but they do decide what a film may or may not contain in terms of language. So, what is at stake is the attitude they have towards the dialogues. There are multiple perspectives to take into account, which will be part of the analysis of their work (skip to parts 3 and 4, if you cannot wait) as: is the dialogue an entity? Is it thought as being within a larger contextthe film? Is it necessarily thought in terms of audiencea specific age-rating or simply not suitable for anyone? Etc.

What is folklinguistics? It started in 1964, according to Nancy A. Niedzielski and Dennis R. Preston (2000: p. 2), with Hoenigswald's presentation at the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference: "a proposal for the study of folk-linguistics'. In this case, I will use the definition of Peter Garett, which avoids to enter the debate about the quality of data which has been going on for some time, and which does not have anything to do with this particular study: "the term is used simply to refer to the views and perceptions of those who are not formally trained experts in the area being investigated" (2010: p. 179).

Why is it important to bring here this particular topic? The opinion of examiners is valued and they try, as much as possible, to fit in the society's own standards. But, taking into account their point of view is not the only data I will present herenot only folklinguisticsas the idea is to put their opinions in the perspective of the institution itselfof a larger context. To give you an example: the non-understanding of American slang by 1930s examiners does not only characterize their own knowledge, but also a particular type of reaction towards new trends: "In the days of silent films there is no doubt that the censorship system worked reasonably well, but in the last twelve months the industry has been revolutionised by the advent of talk-films. The result has been to lay the cinemas open to all sorts of American phrases and vulgarisms of which very few people in England know the meaning" 41 . At that time, no examiner is under 50, says the article. So what is suggested here is that those American vulgarisms may be better known by younger people. Thus, the data itself only indicates the profound influence of the choice of examiners and the type of words authorized on screen: indeed, if you do not know that those words are vulgar, why would they not appear on screen?

There also lies the highly political role of the examiners: confronted to the audience, the film industry, the local authorities, and many other entities having a saying on the films, they have to negotiate and justify constantly their choices. But it also means that some of their choices were born through negotiation.

"Across society, polity members interpret, apply, and contest language policies from above as well as design, negotiate and implement their own policy for local purposes-such as in the home, in classrooms or in workplaces" (Nathan John Albury, 2016: introduction).

Thus, establishing a certain linguistic policy towards films is a way to fit in the social standards, but also leave them to decide what should or should not be heard. Indeed, social attitudes towards language depend on so many factors such as age, gender, education, etc. that it is impossible for the examiners to satisfy every single member of that specific society. Thus, "language and society are so intertwined that it is impossible to understand one without the other. There is no human society that does not depend upon, is not shaped by, and does not itself shape language" (Elaine [START_REF] Chaika | Language, the social mirror[END_REF]. So, since 1909, examiners clearly have shaped the type of language heard on screen and also a certain look upon it; for example, by associating certain taboo words with a particular age-rating. This could be associated with what Richard Hirsh (1985: p. 37-38) called a folk taxonomy.

So, to put it in other words, this comparison has to do with the question of displacement. Censoring or classifying the language is a question of word/phrase displacement:

-Displaced because they are censored, forbidden to a certain age category -Displaced also because examiners create their own category for language (offensive, aggressive, vulgar etc.)

-Displaced or placed because they also take into account the audience. So they can choose to move a film from an age-rating to another depending on the language.

-Displaced because there is a spatial movement involved. The diffusion of the film is not limited in space and the reactions might differ from one region to another.

-And finally, displaced because those words and phrases, if, for example, initially in French, will not necessarily remain that way, and will probably be translated through subtitles, or dubbing. In this last case, what happens to the former vulgar language? Is it more vulgar? If it is subtitled, do they take into account the tone of the original voices?

All those questions lead us to the third field of research in which this study is embedded: translation studies. And unlike the two former ones, translation has instituted a tradition of research in-between linguistics and film studies.

Translation: when linguistics and film studies match…

Through this chapter, I have tried to connect my subject to different fields of research where film classification is often unknowneven misunderstood. There is one field though, where there is no direct reference to film classification, but it connects films, linguistic taboos and their translation. About three years ago, I had this idea that translation studies would change the face of the world and unravel film classification wonders. Since then, I have learnt a few things and thus, tamed a few of my expectations.

In the introduction of this chapter, I was slowly venturing the idea that I had misunderstood the role and the implications of such an expression as 'strong language' within film classification. And since then, new arguments have been introduced, concerning British and French situations, and led to the fact that examiners might not be talking about the same thing when they think about 'bad language'.

One of my hypotheses was that the examiners were not looking at the same thing because they were not necessarily watching the same film: the text was either subtitled or dubbed. And in my idealistic world, as, in France, films are mostly dubbed, I was But what is very interesting with translation studies is that they work on what examiners do for a living. They study the differences of perception triggered by the process of translation and question facts such as "how translation might be used to efface or reduce otherness" (Charlotte Bosseaux, 2013: p. 2), or the cultural transfer occurring through subtitling or dubbing [START_REF] Pettit | Connecting cultures: cultural transfer in subtitling and dubbing[END_REF], and how the "sociocultural and communicative structure of the target language" is influenced by the structure of the source language and also influences the translation (Maria Jesus Fernandez Fernandez, 2009: p. 210). And as Brad J. Sagarin puts it (1968: p. 18), swearingor more generally, obscenity -is a "manifestation of culture". There are transfers which might not be convenient from the examiners viewpoint, and which could simply disappear through the process of translation, or there are transfers which can aggravate the coarseness, vulgarity, etc. of a dialogue, and thus change the classification.

AUDIOVISUAL TRANSLATION AS A PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Audiovisual translation has existed since the first texts appeared on screen and then, since the first voices were heard in cinemas. So, it is a professional activity in the first place and the first researches on that question, essentially from a professional perspective as well, started around the 1960s, and were essentially published in the journal Babel (Frederic Chaume, 2004: p. 14).

The first questions were about the differences between dubbing and subtitling, and the effect of both on the audience (Jorge Diaz Cintas, 2009: p. 2). Examiners are conscious of this last element and generally consider that translation affects the general aspect of the film by mainly lessening the violence, etc. 42 .

After this introduction in the wide field of audiovisual translation, the new developments about this professional experience were mainly descriptive. It was about defining what was at stake. If you believed one day that subtitling and dubbing were the only possibilities of audiovisual translation, you have been highly mistaken. Yves Gambier (1996: p. 9-10) counts ten different modes in total. Most importantly for this study, he underlines the fact that some of those modes interfere with the limits between written and oral. Indeed, what is subtitling? It is a sort of "simultaneous written interpretation" (p. 10). It is not oral, but the aim is to keep the features of spoken dialogue. 42 Interviews with French examiners (November 2014-April 2016).

Though, the true development of this discipline in the academic field emerges in the 2000s. "While mirroring reality, cinema also distorts it by constructing certain images and clichés that grip the audience and mould their perception of the world. Given the power exerted by the media, it is not an exaggeration to state that AVT is the means through which not only information but also the assumptions and values of a society are filtered and transferred to other cultures" (Jorge Diaz Garcia, 2009: p. 8). So, not only are the semiotic systems studied, but also the pragmatic elements as cultural references, for example. Thus, sub-fields of study developed around the questions of humour, dialects, compliments, metaphors, swearing, or taboo translation.

A NEW SUB-FIELD OF STUDY: TABOO TRANSLATION

"In order to retain a film's original artistic integrity, swearwords should be translated as and when they are spoken by the actors, however offensive, and both the sense and the appropriate level of intensity should be communicated to the target audience" (Maria Jesus Fernandez Fernandez, 2009: p. 212).

The studies of taboo translation have mostly focused on swearwords. What is highly interesting there is that swearwords are classified by our social standards. I was talking earlier about folklinguistics and folk taxonomy, this is exactly that principle at stake here. We recognise, in English or in French, that some words or phrases are more offensive than others. Through the translating process, this question raised is: how to maintain the differences of intensity, especially when no direct equivalent is available? And especially, how to maintain those differences when guidelines are imposed to translators? This last question is a reference to an article by Luis Von Flotow (2009: p. 97-98), who showed that translators could be given list of prohibited expressions and associated suggestions: for example, words/phrases targeted can be anglicisms such as "faire une faveur" which has to be replaced by "rendre un service", or slang such as "fourguer", or insults such as "enflé de connard". Other types of recommendations as "use sparingly" are also given (for example, in this list, there are: enculé, flics, tapette, etc.) Another aspect of those studies concerns the differences of treatment for dubbing and subtitling. Charlotte Bosseaux points out that (2013: p. 15): "In French, dubbing is usually made for broadcast whereas subtitling is done for DVD. This means that there are two kinds of audiences for a translated audiovisual product and the audience for dubbed version is a larger one. It is believed the larger the audience the more neutralised the language". This joins an idea embedded in the French film classification: "depending on the context, the language may be coarse, but without excess"43 while talking about Universal films (Tous Publics).

From those first thoughts, I decided that I needed to check a certain number of hypotheses:

-Was the British classification really following this question of intensity? For example, are the 15-rated films relatively equal in terms of offensiveness?

-Was the French classification following this question of excess in order to classify the films? If yes, how?

Creating a corpus: seeing for myself?

As I was saying earlier, the practices of examiners involve being confronted to translated films. And one of the first surprises you can have in terms of classification is to realise how important the gap between a French film classified in France and then in the UK can be, or how the classification of a British film can differ between the Board and the Commission. One of those special cases is Ken Loach, who receives higher ratings in the UK than in France, and the main argument given by British examiners is generally language. Thus, as I said in the introduction, I thought translation was the explanation.

In order to fulfil that goal, I built a corpus in two different parts:

1) The first part was built on transcriptions, for which I started with the English version. Those films had all language as a main issue within the BBFC classification and a higher classification than in France. The Commission was not mentioning anything about those films in terms of language issues except for one: This is England (Shane Meadows, 2007).

2) The second part was built on transcriptions, for which I started with the French version. Those films all have language mentioned in the British classification, but it was explicitly underlined as well in the So, as I was saying, the films were chosen for their explicit 'language criterion' argument underlined by the BBFC (1), and/or the French Commission (2). And the last element is that: for each film, there is the original version, the dubbed version (when available) and the subtitled version. Those transcriptions are based on three different features: swearwords, sexual references and discriminatory language.

So the idea was to answer the two previous questions: is the British classification following the question of intensity? If not, is that a sign of evolution of the classification, or a sort of exception for that particular film? And how does the French classification work with the 'language criterion'? So, the aim of this chapter was to present the different aspects, not of the language criterion, but of the comparison between French and British classifications. The different aspects are:

-The core of this study lies on the sayings of the examiners -Their sayings can be considered as some sort of folk classification, which gives a clear idea about the type of discourse they are constructing regarding language.

-The perks of comparison stand in the fact that censorship/classification work in the same way (only the content changes; but the same type of methods is used) -The drawbacks are that this subject, through its development, became a giant octopus, trying to become the crossroads of sociolinguistics, film studies, translation studies, while staying on tracks with one single ambition: understanding what the 'language criterion' is.

Thus, so far, I have carefully avoided to talk about the classifications, taxonomies, etc. present in sociolinguistics researches, and to study the various aspects of what I will call for now 'bad language'. What is at stake there? Taboo? Impoliteness? Language aggression? Etc. For answers, see you in chapter 2.

Chapter 2: Pardon my French… What is Language for film classification? I do not expect everyone to understand my choice for this thesis. This is a special warning for anyone whose eyes would not want to be stained by the following chapters: I will call a spade a spademeaning I will not use stars to mask any words or expressions 44 . If you look for those words or expressions in a dictionary, you will find them written as I intend to write them here. "I have never understood why people insert asterisks for letters when writing swear-words. We all either know what the words areso if we are the sort of people likely to be offended by such words, we are no less likely to be offended because they are not written in fullor the effect is to leave confusion as to what was actually said" 45 (James Welsh, 2010). This is not a possibility I can afford here: confusing you, dear reader, will not help you go through this doorstop. And the second element is that (spoiler): there is no defined criterion in the French classification, which explains why all the definitions and examples are based on the BBFC classification (This does not mean that all the elements discussed here will be useless for the reflexion on the French classification).

Those words were not part of dictionaries before. For some, you might say: they did not exist, and for others, they were not used. To which I would like to reply: not used by whom. I remember reading about the first slang dictionaries in France and Britain, and both had the same characteristic: they were linked to special strata of society.

"Originally entitled A New Dictionary of Terms, Ancient and Modern, of the Canting Crew, its aim was to educate the polite London classes in 'canting'the language of thieves and ruffiansshould they be unlucky enough to wander into the 'wrong' parts of town" 46 .

"Le Jargon ou Abrégé de l'Argot Réformé, comme il est à présent en usage parmi les bons pauvres" (Title and sub-title of the edition published in 1630).

It is more developed in the English text than in the French one, however, those dictionaries were both published at the beginning of the 17 th century, and have the same specificities (I will also use the preface of Le Jargon for this purpose):

-It obviously targets the ones who do not speak this 'language': identified as the polite London classes in one case, and for the French dictionary, the opposition is made with kings, princes, merchants, clergymen.

-It is linked to a specific population known as thieves and ruffians in one case, and "corporation of beggars" in the other one (Alan Rey, 2011: entry "argot").

-And you find this people in specific places: wrong parts of town.

So in this chapter, I will try to define what was and what is perceived as the 'bad' pieces of a film dialogue. As it was in the 17 th century, we are here into the outlying districts of language: all the parts we are not supposed to hear, not supposed to use.

What the heck are we talking about?

This is where all the difficulties lie: defining what I am going to talk about. As the 'language' criterion is the broadest term I found to cover the whole picture, you imagine that, as I told you in my first chapter, there are lots and lots of terms under this category -(reminder) the first with which I started to work was 'strong language'. So, first of all, I aim to define the broad domain in which I have been and will be working : we are in, what has been considered as, the outskirts of language [START_REF] Labov | Rules for ritual insults[END_REF]. These limits are delimited by a simple fact: there are words/phrases you should not say or hear, and words/phrases you must not say or hear.

Hence, as for films, we are talking about censorship and classification of language: censorship, in the sense that it is banned from any kind of films, whatever the rating, and classification, in the idea that there are words/phrases you can hear if you are an adult, or if you are 12 and over, etc. So, as censorship was the starting point for film classification: I started to work with the broadest term (and the clearest)that is, taboo language.

Is everything censored taboo?

Why are taboo-related studies the easiest way to try and explain my subject? The first answer to that question stands in the amount of terms existing within the category I called 'language criterion'; and when I say 'amount', I mean both in the British and French classifications, but also within those two classifications, through time and within a given period as well. So, taboo is a constant, as far as it covers what has been rejected (censored or classified).

What is taboo language?

One of the first elements to notice is that taboo is a word I am going to explore here, however, it has never occurred through my corpus of examiners' reports. They do not talk about taboo language. However, censorship is generally closely related with taboo language: "Taboo is a proscription of behavior that affects everyday life" (Keith Allan, Kate Burridge, 2006: p. 1). So, forbidding words or expressions to appear or be heard in cinemas -hence, public placesparticipate to this proscription. The aim is thus to avoid discomfort or harm to people watching the films.

However, in England and in France, taboo language is not really regulated: besides, censoring language in films before they come out is very unusual in the sense that it is specific to this medium. It existed as well for theatres but only until 1906 in France, and 1968 in the UK. The plays were read before the performance on stage. There are still a few laws which regulate language usage, but in very particular situations, or on very specific aspects:

-in France, in the Law regarding the Freedom of the Press (1881), Article 26 stipulated that "offence to the President of the Republic by a means enumerated in article 23 [that is, writing, words or images] is punishable by a fine of 45,000 Euros" 47 -In France as well, there are a bunch of articles related to verbal abuse:

there is a distinction between public/non-public, threats and insults, and the offence is considered worse depending on the reasons associated to the abuse (racial, religious, genre-related, disability, death threats …). -In the United Kingdom, the Public Order Act (1986) tackles the same question with specific sections on "racial hatred" and "hatred against persons on religious grounds or grounds of sexual orientation", stating that "a person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour".

So, this proscription of behaviour is inscribed in the law. However, this is not the case for every kind of taboo. And not every taboo is necessarily considered as condemnable by everyone in a given society. If you ask French people 48 , they would probably tell you that swearwords in France are part of informal everyday language, a sort of punctuation: so it is perfectly fine to hear/say "putain", though they would also insist on the fact that it is not considered as 'proper'/socially acceptable in every kind of situations (you may think about it twice during an interview) 49 . So, is taboo just a question of perspective?

It is impossible to dissociate taboo from who the utterer is and who the hearer(s) is (are) as well. They are so intertwined that some linguists are distinguishing taboos depending on their content and situations of utterance. This is the case of Stanislas [START_REF] Widlak | L'interdiction linguistique en français d'aujourd'hui[END_REF], who differentiates four types of taboos:

-Those linked to superstitions, beliefs, magic, fear -Those related to decency, prudishness, manners -Those referring to delicacy, kindness, compassion, pity -Those denoting prudence, foresight, megalomania, skills, interest

To be completely honest, some of them appear to be very clear but some others do not look like potential taboos. Let's take an example for the fourth category: what he is referring to is euphemisms. The problem is that three of the categories proposed refer to euphemisms, and not directly to the taboo themselves. As a practical example, you could think about the case of cleaners: as euphemisms, you can say "housekeeper" in English or "technicien de surface" in French. It is the translation of a social taboo, but the words are not taboo. Hence, there, the question is not 'taboo', but being 'politically correct'. Yet, it highlights one fact: an effective taboospoken in the case of languageis a breach, a violation. So far, though taboo language is the broadest term associated to the idea of censorship, it seems to cover a lot more grounds than simply being 'proscribed behaviour'. The problem with Stanislas Widlak's typology is the inclusion of three 48 Especially in the South, but further studies would be needed to confirm this aspect.

49 Dominique Lagorgette, Pierre Larrivée (2004) : they insist on the aspect of solidarity and context of insults and swearwords.

categories not directly linked to taboos, but to the ways of avoiding them. Rather than proposing types of taboos, Keith Allan and Kate Burridge (2006: p. 1) propose a list of themes linked to linguistic taboos:

-"bodies and their effluvia (sweat, snot, faeces, menstrual fluid, etc.);

-the organs and acts of sex, micturition and defecation;

-diseases, death and killing (including hunting and fishing);

-naming, addressing, touching and viewing persons and sacred beings, objects and places;

-food gathering, preparation and consumption".

There, the connection between taboo and film classification is clearer with themes like pornography, discrimination or swearing being addressed on both sides of the Channel. So, as taboos are supposed to be proscribed: what about the relation between taboos and films? Are films supposed to be taboo-free?

Is what remains in films taboo-cleaned?

Are the examiners mere gate-keepers? It clearly depends on which period we are talking about and this will be a question for later. But is the aim a truly taboo-free film?

One possibilitywhich I am going to suggest hereis that, for this particular study, the term taboo might be misleading, and might just not be the issue at stake. Let me explain.

Here is an example of the kind of terms the examinerson both side of the Channeluse to talk about the kind of language they classify. So, what I am trying to say here is that what is considered suitable or not on screen is not necessarily censored because it refers to a particular taboo, but rather because of its degree of offensiveness. Hence, the strongest a swearword is, the likeliest the censorship.

"In the entire language of proscribed words, from slang to profanity, from the mildly unclean to the utterly obscene, including terms relating to concealed parts of the body, to excretion and excrement as well as to sexuality, one word reigns supreme, unchallenged in its pre-eminence. It sits upon a throne, an absolute monarch, unafraid of any princely offspring still unborn, and by its subjects it is hated, feared, revered and loved, known by all and recognised by none" (Sagarin, 1968: p. 136) Indeed, fuck is considered as a particularly strong word within the British classification. Nowadays, the word is not prohibited in films, but still, it remains that young audiences are forbidden to hear it, as it is limited to films for people aged 15 and over. So, there is a nuance to make between taboo words and phrases, which are censored, and offensive words and phrases, which are classifiedi.e. considered suitable for a particular audience, which is chosen on the basis of age.

From taboo to 'axiologically negative' vocabulary?

"On the one hand, offensive language can be said to refer to those linguistic terms or expressions that contain swearwords, expletives, etc. and which can be considered derogatory and/or insulting; on the other hand, taboo language is related to those terms that are not considered appropriate or acceptable with regard to the context, culture, language and/or medium where they are uttered" (José Javier Avila Cabrera, 2013: p. 79).

This dichotomy between taboo and offensive language is quite common: here the differentiation proposed lies in the intention and the perception. Indeed, in this definition, offensive language seems to be associated to the intention to insult, whereas taboo language would be the other way around, and what would be at stake is the perception of words as being 'taboo'. But, when we closely read this definition, the distinction is blurred by the fact that offensive language, though denoting the intention to insult, also has to be 50 BFI Archives. Observation on scenarios. 1949.

perceived as offensive ('derogatory' in the text above). So, the main problem appears to be the variety of vocabulary employed to describe offensive language:

-studies related to 'bad language' (Lars Gunnar [START_REF] Lars-Gunnar | Bad language[END_REF]; Edwin L. [START_REF] Batistella | Bad language. Are some words better than others?[END_REF]), which tend to use bad language as a term covering slang, swearing, word misuse, bad grammar/pronunciation.

-'swearing' is another one of them: what is really interesting is that the study of swearing is generally defined as the study of 'taboo words' [START_REF] Ljung | Swearing. A cross-cultural linguistic study[END_REF], showing, once again, the intertwining and difficult dissociation of offensive/taboo language. Another example for this is McEnery's book on swearing (2006), where it seems that swearing is completely interchangeable with 'bad language' and 'taboo language' as well.

-'verbal agression' is another possible term (Diane Vincent, Marty Laforest, Olivier Turbide (2008); Elizabeth Dawn [START_REF] Archer | Verbal aggresssion and impoliteness: Related or synonymous[END_REF]).

Again, the distinction is unclear but the use of 'verbal aggression' is often associated to the will of highlighting the violent verbal intention of the speaker.

-'dirty words' (Edward Sagarin, 1963) or 'dirty language' (Timothy [START_REF] Jay | Sex roles and dirty word usage: a review of the literature and a reply to Haas[END_REF], which are both linked closely to swearwords.

-'foul language' used by [START_REF] Hughes | An Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul language, and Ethnic Slurs in the English-Speaking World[END_REF] in his Encyclopedia of Swearing: he defines it as "offensive or abusive language" and containing elements such as "'dirt', shit words, obscenity and pornography" (p. 182).

-'emotionally charged language' (Jorge Diaz Cintas, Aline Remael, 2014) includes 'taboo words, swearwords, interjections'.

At this stage, there is a hesitation in-between offensive and taboo. Though they are often mixed, still, we can notice that swearwords are often taken apart from the resti.e. sexual references, discriminatory language. So the question now is: should we consider that swearing has lost its taboo valuewhich would make it offensive as José Javier Avila Cabrera suggested? And from a film perspective viewpoint, what can we consider as taboo? Is the best solution to talk about "axiologically negative" language?

2.2. Bad language = swearing?

"Swearing constitutes a species of human behaviour so little understood, even by its most devoted practitioners, that an examination of its meaning and significance is now long overdue. The temper of the times in which we live having grown somewhat more complaisant, a consideration of this once tabooed topic may not be considered out of joint". [START_REF] Montagu | The Anatomy of swearing[END_REF] self, that change should be observable within the classification. The reason he gives to explain that change is that "the original purpose of the taboo on swearing has been forgotten" (p. 2). This does not mean that swearwords are not socially condemned anymore. Does that mean they should be considered separately from the so-called sex references and discriminatory language?

The 'swearwords' bias.

There is a sort of bias created within and by the British classificationbias into which, dear reader, I enthusiastically fell. When I started my readings on the British classification, I only had the 2000s reports of the BBFC. Thus, I thought that their degrees were applied only to swearwords (very mild, moderate…), in order to classify linguistic information for age-ratings from Universal to 12 -15 and above were the age-ratings where sex references and discriminatory language could be found. I realised later, after a little tour in their archives and in more detailed 2000s film classification, that it was not

Popcorn time: Good Vs. Bad James Bond?

There is a marvellous study on James Bond's issues of masculinity and degrees of profanity by Mie Hiramoto, Jan Goh, presented at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 20, in Finland. The first James Bonds were not swearing, on the contrary of the very recent one. This illustrates something which is really important in the way to consider examiners' work: to know how a word or expression was considered, it has to be used (we will also see that because some directors decided to transgress exminers' recommandation, the classification evolved).

the case. But, still, in my past point of view, swearwords had to be dissociated from sex references and discriminatory language; the reports helped me to go in that direction, and the press as well: "American action movies almost always contain coarse language, but it has no influence on the [French] classification. We do not take into account specific swearwords, as Anglo-Saxons do; it is the context which matters, even for racial insults" 51 .

So, if it is just a British classification effect, how should swearwords be considered? I have already shown that linguists all have different terms to describe offensive language. So my suggestion here is to find a common frame to discuss the question of language as a wholeswearing, sex references and discriminatory language included. But, firstly, a little remark: how does it come that sex is related to 'references', and that swearwords and discriminatory terms are associated to 'language'?

REFERENCES VS. LANGUAGE

References: "2.b. Chiefly Philos. and Linguistics. The action or fact of applying words, names, ideas, etc., to an entity; the relation between a word or expression and that which it denotes; the entity or entities denoted by a word or expression, a referent (freq. contrasted with sense)" (OED).

Language: "2.a. The form of words in which something is communicated; manner or style of expression. Freq. in bad language: coarse or offensive expressions; strong language: forceful or offensive language, esp. used as an expression of anger or strong feeling" (OED).

Thumbs up if you feel helpless in front of those definitions: I did. And then, I thought about plenty of things. I turned to one of my favourite life-belt book: Language Through the Looking Glass [START_REF] Yaguello | Language through the Looking Glass[END_REF]. My first intuition was that the answer might be in the distinction made by Ferdinand de Saussure (Cours de Linguistique générale, 1906-1911) between langue (language system), langage (language) and parole Yaguello (1998: p. 104), is that this perspective is context-free (as the language system is unchangeable) and presupposes that la langue is homogeneous while being social at the same time. And my problem with this particular type of reflection is that I was not taking the right angle: the reflexion behind Saussure's trichotomy is about the difference between the possibilities a language offers and the actual use speakers have of that language. And the question lying in-between language and references is not exactly the same. -Strong language: fuck -Mild sexual reference: make love 53

So

My hypothesis here was that if a word denoted something offensive, or aggressive, it was considered as 'bad language', but, if the word or expression considered did not directly denote such a thing, it was a question of connotation. "Denotation is the relation between language expressions and things or events in worldsnot just the world we live in, but any world and time (historical, fictional, imagined) that may be spoken of. The connotations of a word or longer expression are semantic effects (nuances of meaning) that arise from encyclopaedic knowledge about the word's denotation and also from experience, beliefs and prejudices about the contexts in which the word is typically used" (Keith Allan, Kate Burridge, 2006: p. 31). Thus, originally, 'make love' meant 'to pay amorous attention, to court' (OED), and the sexual connotation (or reference) only started to appear in the late 1920s. The problem with this dichotomy is that you cannot say that "fuck" is only in the world of denotation, it carries a lot of connotations offensive both about the denotatum but also to the people to which it is addressed or potentially to those overhearing it 54 . But, this does not mean this lead was completely wrong: the connotation is one of the key elements to understand how to define the language criterion. Indeed, Keith Allan and Kate Burridge (2006) present three different types of variations of connotation under this broad category: the X-phemisms.

connotations that are offensive either about the denotatum and/or about people addressed or overhearing the utterance" (p. 31). The alternatives to a dysphemism are orthophemisms and euphemisms, that is respectively, either a "more formal, direct" lexeme, or a "more colloquial, figurative" one (p. 34). As the authors underline, a word is dirtier for people only because of the connotation they associate it to: "the dysphemism shit is no more dirty than the word faeces nor the euphemism poo" (p. 41).

Thus, to come back to our previous example (and give some others):

How to relate this to our first idea that the language censored was either taboo or offensive? Are all the X-phemisms belonging to a broader category called "axiologically negative vocabulary"? The last term is borrowed to the works of Michèle [START_REF] Monte | L'apostrophe : prédicativité et valeurs illocutoires[END_REF].

So, in the following part, we are going to discuss the different taxonomies/typologies already existing to consider our 'language criterion' (yes, it is also a bit yours now).

Dysphemism

• fuck • cunt Euphemism • sleep with • bits Orthophemism • make love • vagina

Typologies of bad language

So, how to consider the 'language criterion'? Taboo? Offensive? Axiologically negative? Agressive? Impolite? In the previous spoiler, we can already see what we have already put in perspective, the language censored (in the case of the spoiler, for example) or classified is not all about swearing. And this is what makes it very difficult to comprehend, this added to the fact that we are travelling on a century of censorship and classification.

What made it difficult with taboo or offensive is that there is a high degree of individual evaluation involved to decide what is taboo or not. For example, when 'bloody' was at the time used in theatres, it was still considered as censorable from the examiners perspective. So, what starts to be clear now is that: it is not what the language criterion contains which is firstly the most important element to define it, but the perspective used to build this criterion. introduced the idea that the individual evaluation had a particular weight on the censorship/classification of language. To go back to Pygmalion, the evaluation of the examiners towards 'bloody' was depreciative, and the position of the production was that the word was acceptable, considering there was no particular complaints from the audience of the play.

As the purpose of this study is to take into account (in priority) the viewpoint of the examiners, I had the idea to link their position with the concept of 'axiologically negative'. I am not saying that all the linguistic elements censored and/or classified are axiologically negative, but the discourse about them is clearly depreciative, at least until the late 1950s. One of my favourite examples:

"The dialogue throughout is coarse and full of swearing; the language is far worse than any which we have permitted. There is not a single decent character of action in the whole story. It is a sordid tale of crime and lust from start to finish. In our Popcorn time: Pygmalion. Don't bloody me... The scenario, written by Bernard Shaw himself, was submitted to the BBFC by Pascal Film Productions Limited on March 23rd, 1938 (Source: BFI Archives, Observation on Scenarios). Both examiners asked for the deletion of two 'bloody' in the following lines: 'Not bloody likely' and 'Such bloody nonsense'. But, despite those observations, and strengthened by the success of the play, the production chose to carry on, and the film passed with both 'bloody" lines. opinion it would not be possible to produce an acceptable film based on this play" (On the Spot, play submitted by Edgar Wallace on January 26 th , 1931) 55 .

In a way, even if the 2000s classification does not let those kind of personal comments take place, the same type of axiologically negative vocabulary is used to describe language: bad, strong, coarse, offensive, aggressive… So, the discourse about this language criterion is axiologically negative. This does not mean that all the content of this criterion is.

IM/POLITENESS STUDIES: THE QUEST FOR DEGREES.

One of the perks and drawbacks of researching on taboo, offensive language, is that there are plenty of different domains in which people are studying the exact same swearwords, expressions than you do, but in different contexts. This is how I participated in conferences devoted to the so-called Im/Politeness Studies.

The study I am going to refer to was presented by Jim O'Driscoll at the Im/Politeness Conference in Athens in 2015. He was one of the first ones to try and give a typology of degrees of taboo and offensiveness, without taking into account words such as mild, moderate, etc. 56 Here is his typology:

-Taboo language: "Any language form whose mere animation is deemed transgressive of polite (and sometimes moral) societal norms" -Taboo reference "Any thematisation deemed transgressive of polite (and sometimes moral) societal norms"

-Taboo predication: "Any predication deemed transgressive of polite a/o moral societal norms".

Then, he suggests something which also solves the relation between X-phemisms and taboo/offensive language. In his presentation, taboo language and taboo reference can be separated or intertwined. Thus, you can have taboo language without taboo reference:

"I want the fucking dog" (The Gun in Betty Lou's Handbag, Allan MOYLE, 1993) Or a taboo reference without taboo language:

"You mean to go to bed with her" (The Flashing Stream, 1939) 57 .

Or a taboo language and reference:

55 BFI Archives, Observation on scenarios.

56 There are very good studies which uses those words, but the aim is to study the differences from one speaker to another, and not their manners to describe bad language. (Wittgenstein, Derek Jarman, 1993).

Or a taboo predication:

"where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face" 58 replaced by "where it's flat and immense, and the heat is intense" in the VHS and DVD versions (Aladdin, John Musker, Ron Clements, 1992).

THE THEMATIC TYPOLOGY.

Strong or offensive language is defined by the BBFC as including "the use of expletives with a sexual, religious or racial association, derogatory language about minority groups and commonly understood rude gestures. Guidelines, 2014, p. 6). Three elements are brought through this definition: offensive language can be defined by themes, by the receiver/hearer, in this case, the audience and by the context in which it is used.

Firstly, the different words presented in the BBFC's classification (see Table below Those themes are considered taboo because they are chosen from a certain audience perspective, which is the second element of this definition and which directs us towards another feature we have not taken into account until now: why is language even censored or classified in films? It does not happen anymore for books or for plays: why are films treated as a specific media in terms of censorship? 58 To listen to this version, please, check the following video, last seen on June 11 th , 2016. URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hPUAhSGZtvU.

59 All the elements presented can be found on the BBFC Website 60 Here, there are 6 distinctive themes. But most of the time, as in Magnus Ljung's typology (2011: p.35), some themes are regarded as major ones and other as minor ones. The major taboo themes are: religious, scatological, sexual (act and activities), and the mother theme. Among the minor ones, we can find those about animals, ancestors, death and so on.

It becomes particularly salient in the prism of our time: why are films classified, but not plays, nor books, etc.? When a play is censored, for example, it is not prior to its staging. So, in this sense, films have a very specific place as media: this configuration is a "preventive censorship" by opposition to a "successive censorship" (Francesco Rigano, 2011: p. 15). In the first case (which corresponds to films), there is an obligation to submit the content before its diffusion: hence the existence of the Board and of the Commission.

Thus, when checking the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which became effective in 1953, a few clues were given about how the governments could say that the liberty of expression does not necessarily apply the same way for each media (Article 10, ECHR):

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".

The second part is the one which matters here, as it enumerates all the reasons why censorship (or classification) is possible. However, it does not really explain why films, and not plays, are subject to licensing.

Sociolinguistic contours?

Why forbidding children to hear certain words or expressions? The audience is part of the definition because what is at stake is who can hear and listen to what type of language. As Lars Gunnar Andersson and Peter Trudgill (1990: p.43) defined it, this is about language learning. Mass media are a one-way communication, contrary to the other groups (parents, relatives, school, work, friends), who are in a situation of direct contact with the learner. Media provide us with a great number of linguistic models (that we accept/reject...) and those models have a strong effect because they can reach a great number of people at the same time. So even if their influence is small, the end result can look impressive.

And as Edwin L. Batistella (2005: p. 69) wrote it, "Because of their broader audience, the motion picture and television industries had long maintained standards somewhat more restrictive than those in the theater or the publishing industry". And "

Films such as 'Gone with the Wind ' (1939), [START_REF] Naked | [END_REF]the Dead' (1948) and'From Here to Eternity' (1951) were once considered provocative for their language, though the word shit was not used in an American film until 1961 (in the film 'The Connection')" and the word "fuck" does not appear in a film before the late sixties.

So even if it is not about the words, but about the themes they are referring to, in the BBFC classification, it is considered that "damn, hell, bloody, bugger" can be suitable for everyone; for "shit, son of a bitch", you need to give some time to your parents so that they can think about it. "Bitch and twat" are not tolerable if you are aged under 12 and "fuck, cunt" only if you are at least 15 62 . Thus, there is a direct link between degrees of bad language and the possible influence of certain types of language on youth.

As Edwin L. Batistella sums it up (2005: p.73), there are three different factors related to the opposition to offensiveness in Mass Media: bad language is related to a certain form of "subversiveness", but also associated with a "cultural-linguistic poverty", and is clearly loaded with some kind of "shock-value" from a general social and cultural viewpoint.

First drafts towards a definition.

Thus, though I have tried to differentiate the different perspectives on taboo language, with discussion about offensiveness and swearing, the reasons why language is censored or classified (and so, taken away from the ears of children) have given me ground to back up a 'taboo' definition of the 'language criterion'.

Indeed, as Timothy Jay defines it (2009: p. 153): "a rich emotional, psychological, and sociocultural phenomenon [which is] sanctioned or restricted on both institutional and individual levels under the assumption that some harm will occur if [it] is spoken". This definition takes into account the different levels which are at stake in the case of British and French film classifications:

-The institutional level: the fact the BBFC and the Commission were created at a particular moment for reasons developed in chapter 4 influenced the way they worked with the films.

-The individual level: the examiners, who have to deal with the films on an everyday basis, and who build practices which shape the 62 These are the examples given in the current classification. See BBFC website. language criterion, but which also depend on external obligations to the audience, the film industry, or the government.

-Harm: the fact that language is considered as an element which can cause harm. But this definition does not give boundaries to this word, which leaves room for the fact that, of course, language issues have not always been the same from 1909 until nowadays.

So, my definition of the language criterion in regards to the different elements introduced until now, would be divided in several parts: Firstly, as I have said, the taboo aspect is inherent to the question of censorship/classification. Though I have tried to associate other aspects to the classification part of the system, it is at the origin of the examiners' attention given to dialogues.

Secondly, the axiologically negative part concerns the discourse of the examiners. Even in the present classification, there is a clear distinction between the parts of the dialogues which matter and which are 'bad', and the rest, which is absolutely not described as it is, by opposition, 'good' or at least 'better' than the 'bad' lines. However, when the main issue is classification with use of a restrictive age-category, the perspective is different: those lines are not necessarily banned (as for censorship), except to fit with a certain age-rating, but they are mentioned to justify the classification of the film.

Thirdly, the question of perception: examiners are representative of a certain category of the British/French society. Even euphemisms can be taken into account within the process of classification.

Fourthly, censorship vs. classification: degrees of offensiveness. It appears that offensiveness is in this study, the synonym of taboo, in the sense that the harm potentially caused by bad language is not necessarily the same depending on the status of the spectator (child, adolescent, but also, at a certain period, adults, and more particularly, women).

This part has established that:

 Film censorship exists because of the special status of this medium within the public sphere  Bad language is taboo language, and its relation to films has two dimensions: censorship (proscribing words or phrases) and classification (establishing degrees of offensiveness corresponding to the age-ratings  The evolution of the attitudes and perceptions towards bad language depends on cultural and social evolutions, but also depends on the institution, which uses those attitudes and perceptions to censor/classify language.

Thus, the institutional history of the BBFC and of the Commission is necessary in order to understand how they work with the films and thus, with the dialogues.

Part II: Doctor Who or recounting the history of film classification.

In order to establish the main changes occurring within British and French classifications and to explain how it influenced the work of examiners on the dialogues, I created this part, in-between archival methodology and historical background. Indeed, censorship depends on an official power and on its instruments (Michel Dupré, 2012: p. 10). This part aims at describing the birth and developments of the Board and the Commission.

Chapter 3: Following a White Paper Trail. Methodology and the field.

I remember clearly one sentence from one of my supervisors 63 : "you have to prove to people you are not going to spend your three years just watching films and commenting on them" 64 . So I am going here to explain to you, how I spent my time reading about films, and not just watching them all. Firstly, it was not my purpose and secondly, it would not have been possible in three years.

3.1 Archives are measured in kilometers.

Have you ever visited archives? Maybe not, but you should. Firstly, because you are going to meet awesome people there: everyone who has spent a tiny bit of his/her life in an administrative entity can be found in the archives. You get the names; you get to meet them as well (sometimes, just on paper: I have had difficulties getting appointments with people who had worked at the beginning of the past century). Secondly, because you can visit archives as you visit a museum: my advice, choose your day wisely. For example, if it is a hot summer afternoon, and you are dying for an ice cream, but you do not want to spend your money on something that would cool you down only for five minutes and will inevitably get you thirsty, then you… you… Go to the archives (try to keep up, this is only the beginning: there are still two hundred pages to go after this one).

Indeed, Archives -(yes, with a capital A here: to thank them for supporting my work. And also (whispering), to thank all the people who have really been patient with me and all my questions) -Archives are a cool place: you all know the process of cryonics 65 (if you do not, just watch the beginning of Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)).

Well, this idea that coldness preserves from oldness has been applied for centuries to 63 Should I give another clue?

64 I am not inventing, whatever they will tell you, it is the truth. 65 In case, you are interested, here are the enterprises which perform this special « I'm-not-dead-but-justwaiting-to-be-awaken » (the Snow White/Sleeping Beauty myths are coming true): KrioRus, Alcor or Cryonics Institute.

food, documents and now, we are applying it to our own bodies as if it is a discovery of the 21 st century (check 'coolsculpting').

So to end this long parenthesis, archives are preserved in an environment where the temperature is maintained around 18° Celsius 66 for the most common type of documents (papers, parchments), but it can be colder (5°C) for photographs. This is, of course, just one of the elements: indeed, there is also the question of humidity: paper tends to become dry (and thus, very fragile) when the humidity is low; and when the humidity is high, it is time for a DIY papier-mâché. You also have other factors that have to be taken into account: pollution, dust, lighting, etc.

All this explains why entering archives is even stricter (in terms of security) than getting on a plane, entering a central bank or a national museum. List of rules to have an access in archives: Give your I.D.: you have to go through a process, which looks pretty much like a subscription to the library. You then have a reader number and password. And you will also have an appointed desk.

Leave all your belongings in the lockers. You have to use a transparent plastic bag for pencils (no pens or highlighters allowed), your computer, notepad or else, and your camera.

Check at the security gates. To get in the reader rooms, you have security gates to come in and out: in because they check your identity through your reader card, and out because they have to be sure of who is still in the room, who has already left, and also, to be sure with what you leave, just in case you thought it was a good idea to try your Robin Hood skills on archived documents.

Order your documents. Do not imagine for a minute the reader room is the equivalent of a library one. In order to get to a document, the most important thing to remember is: 45 67 . It is the average time (in minutes) you will wait for your document. I told you archives are measured in kilometers, so when they send Lara Croft or Indiana Jones to search for the documents, it is not only for you but for all the readers asking for one or several documents.

Prepare yourself in advance (as for a journey). Ordering a document is fairly simple. Everything is linked to your reader number, and computers are at your disposal. But, you can also order documents in advance (from 66 64,4° Farenheit, or 291,15 Kelvin. Stay clean. Among the precautions you have to take when consulting a document, there is this one: you need to stay on your assigned desk. And also this one: is it necessary to mention that you have to wash your hands?

For some documents, it is even required that you use gloves. But most of the time, when you want to read 20 th century documents, it is "just" required to use foam supports on which you will place your files, books… All this said, you can now enter the archives.

3.1.1.How many kilometers of archives have I read?

This is clearly the wrong question: I think what I had the chance to read is probably measured in meters but clearly weighed in kilos (paper is heavy). But, though I have never reached a kilometer of archives in terms of reading, I have clearly reached a high number of kilometers to visit those archives. Let's have a tour of the archives I have visited.

Did you know? Archives are not just all the same. You will not find papyrus in the National Archives in Kew or in Pierrefitte-sur-Seine (or if you do, it is not the main type of documents you can find there). This would be in the archives of museums such as Le Louvre or the British Museum. So once you have defined the boundaries of your subject (remember, in this case, 1909-present), you can choose the type of archives corresponding to those years.

National treasures: heavy boxes, big muscles?

My work is based on the work (how ironic) of two institutions: you have a building, interactions with different groups such as the government, the film industry, local powers, associations and so on. One opportunity to see how exchanges were taking place when the state level was involved was the National Archives documents: to sum up the content of those archives (for my period and my personal research), it is essentially administrative reports, letters, documents sent to the Home Office etc.

No papyrus or old-goat-skin paper for me: mainly typed papers (with old typewriters) and handwriting (not too much, hopefully: if you believed only your doctor wrote appallingly, be assured that in the archives, there must be a lot of doctors' handwriting).

Last thing before talking about the archives I have visited at length: archives are not just about papers. I know we have talked about how to preserve the documents, how to handle them, but all this would not be possible without all the people working there: so, there might not be a specialist in your subject, but there are always people specialized in this or that period of history. So, don't hesitate: ask questions. And if they tell you (it happens sometimes), 'I don't think you will find anything interesting for your subject here' and if you have an intuition you want to check (you are very stubborn and you have decided you had not made all this journey for nothing): go on and check; it does not cost anythingexcept for time and brain sweat.

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES (TNA) OF KEW (UNITED KINGDOM) 68

This is what The National Archives was for me: 50 boxes, 54h of work, and in terms of journeys, in total, it makes 27h and 664,2km (yes, it is really far to go from the East of London, in the area of Leyton, to the South-West where lies Kew, its Gardens and 68 Website : http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ Journeys: 27h and 664,2 km 54h in the archives 50 boxes its National Archives). And to stick with numbers, I am also among the 1.1% of French who visited TNA 69 . And look what is in the most popular search terms 70 : films… Archives are not just about the history of a country and its institutions: it is also a building with its own history. And all the archives I have visited had different stories to tell. For each archives, I will give you the same type of information: the age of the building, the number of kilometers of shelving, and the period of time included in the archives.

Though the building is 39 years old, it was at the beginning an annexe for public records. TNA was created in 2003. And though there are documents from the medieval period, I have only seen documents from 1909 until 1985 in theory, and in practice, until the end of the 1970s:

-"In theory": there is a 30-year-rule on the records. However, since 2013, TNA have been in a ten-year transition period: in 2023, the new rule will be based on 20 years 71 .

-"In practice": having access to records dating from the medieval times until 1985 does not mean you will find information until 1985 sharp. So, to conclude, boxes are not always the same size depending on the number of documents classified under a particular reference. The principle is the following: a reference is an entity defined by a particular theme. To give you some examples:

For the methods used to search in all the archives, please see 3.2.

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF PIERREFITTE-SUR-SEINE (FRANCE)

Here again, this is the summary of my days in the National Archives of Pierrefittesur-Seine: 61 boxes, 60h of work, and my journeys to the archives took in total 18h and covered some 240km (it would not have been that long if only I had not been on the wrong Maybe, dear reader, you start to feel those numbers are both annoying and superfluous, but let me tell you one thing: those journeys have been part of my work since the very beginning. And I think almost everyone is on the same boat: I have never heard of someone who had her/his desk in her/his own bed (If such a person exists, my deepest apologies). So, at some point, you have to get up and make your way to your work: that is why it is fair, for all of you who have never had the occasion to mention it, to tell you how it went for me, and maybe, now, you can do the same for you. I am, hereby, finalising the balance sheet of my thesis.

Wondering why I am emphasising the locations of archives such as Kew, or Pierrefitte-sur-Seine? Well, dear reader, your question is more than welcome. Indeed, there is a reason: As we have seen for TNA, and as we will soon see for Pierrefitte, archives imply kilometers of shelving, and year after year, you need more shelves.

Unfortunately, no one has cracked the technology of the T.A.R.D.I.S. nor of Warehouse 13 73 : so buildings are not bigger inside, and cannot expand within a limited space. Hence, sometimes, you need several locations. In/near Paris, for example, you have three different locations:

1) In Paris, it contains the records from the Middle-Ages, from the Ancien Régime, from the notaries of Paris and also the Museum of the National Archives.

2) In Fontainebleau, there are: private archives of architects, career files of public service employees, naturalisation files covering the second half of the 20 th century, electronic and audiovisual archives, and some specific records (for example, the files from the Centre National de Cinématographie 74 ).

3) In Pierrefitte-sur-Seine, the records start after la Révolution Française until nowadays, and also there are the records from private sources (like the records from an association, a political party, etc.). Ministry who has the final saying for the classification of films is that the records offer a wide range of elements in terms of international and national issues: international because there are two visas delivered in France (one for the French soil, and the other one, for international screening); national because some ministries are represented in the Commission. So, here again, as in Kew, the records give the broad picture in terms of relationships. However, those records do not contain all the work done within the walls of the CNC, which is in the archives of Fontainebleau (in the case of the BBFC, it is in their private archives, except for the period before WWII, which is at the BFI Library).

Did you know?

So, the national level of records was necessary for my research for some reasons I have given above, and for others I will give right here, and for some more that you will discover later (except if you are already tired of reading all this). Films are embedded in relationships between several levels within a given society: about the British system, James Robertson (1993: p. 5) When I started reading about the creation of these systems of classification, there was one milestone, on which every author was agreeing: local authorities were the trigger for the creation of the classification systems in the UK and in France. And from a film industry viewpoint, they were the bad guys (how ironic when you know that today, everything presented as local is supposed to be good76 ).

That is why I decided to go to local archives: I was already expecting wonders.

My advice: in research, do not expect too much. You might find things you did not want in the first place. So, my planmy wish77 was: in the local records, especially before the Second World War, as the local authorities are reacting to local complaints, I will (yes, I was quite certain) find a wide range of issues people raised against the films, including linguistic ones, which will give me a better idea of what people were expecting on screen for their children.

With that formidably-full-of-hope hypothesis, I forgot two basic elements:

 Firstly, not everybody has access to the public sphere: even just writing a letter to the mayor is not within any Jane/Joe Bloggs' reach. So, it means that my assumption of "what people expect for their children" was too wide, and too simple as well.

 Secondly, films were moving pictures and the linguistic part was limited to title cards. So, there was a tendency to focus more on the message conveyed by the picture than on the actual message in the intertitles. Now, not finding what you were looking for is a good experience anyway, and it makes you "get a clear perception of humanity, where we've been, where we're going, the pitfalls, the possibilities, the perils and the promise. Perhaps even an answer to that universal question: Why?" 78 .

THE MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES OF LYON

Now, I am sure you completely understand the significance of those numbers: they are neither superfluous, nor repetitive. In the previous paragraphs, they gave you an idea of the importance of those records in my work. As we shall see with the next part (the BFI Archives), what matters is the relation between the number of documents and the number of hours of work: in other words, if you have few documents but associated with a significant number of hours, there is a high probability that they will become a 78 Dr Emmett Brown, Back to the Future (Robert Zemeckis, 1985). On top of that, there is another element: not every file or every document is meant to be history. As we have seen so far, records take a lot of space (kilometers of shelving).

Journeys

For example, in the case of the BFI Library, its archives are off-site. But, if they have a gargantuan appetite for space now, let us be logical: they had it years ago, when they were edited. And unfortunately, institutions do not always think from a researcher's viewpoint: they react pragmatically and if files use too much space, one solution is to destroy them.

And this is what happened to most of the files concerning films sent for classification between 1945 and 1950, and for some of them until almost 1960.

79 Though I am sure Joan and her followers would love that.

So, after learning all this, I felt extremely lucky when I discovered that some documents still existed: just not at the place where I thought they were at first. This is how I came to spend 56 hours at the British Film Institute, for 13 legendary documents and this is also how you are very happy to commute, even if in total, you had Archives are quite similar: both in France and in the United Kingdom. Even the BFI Library had a similar process to consult records, though it is a… Library. But there are private archives: they are owned by private institutions (firm, association, etc.) or individuals (#Secret: your attic is a private archive) and they can, in the end, move from private to public. Because of their private characteristics, they do not necessarily function the same way. You could ask: why such a sprint? As I was telling you earlier, private archives do not work exactly the same way: first of all, the archives in the case of the BBFC are not primarily for researchers, but for the examiners. They are for keeping track of the classification of each film, especially in case they have to classify it again for a special public screening (festival, etc.) or for a new DVD edition. But, they do researchers a huge favour and they do give us access to their archives (thank you very very much).

However, there is no reader room, and almost all the archives are digitized. This means that you have to ask for an appointment and give all the references you would like to see in advance, so that the records can be registered specially for you on a computer, in PDF version. They also provide you a desk (#Lucky: I was in the office of a Senior Examiner). I told you that almost all the archives are digitized. "Almost", because you can also gain access to the Minutes of Exceptions or "Blue Books": the repository of all the exceptions which have been taken to films since 1956 80 (exceptions is the euphemism for cuts). The digitized records are the documents about the classification of each film that the BBFC examiners watched, watch and will watch. They are digitized so that examiners can have an easy access to those records, and also because all the paper records are off-80 I had no time for those ones. One day maybe… Journeys: 7,5h and 130km 40h in the archives 174 files site. This is why I cannot tell you how many kilometers of shelving they have. What I can tell you though is that you cannot be sure of what you are going to find before consulting the files on site. I established a corpus of films which started in the 1950s and ended in 1994 (because of the 20-year rule imposed on the documents) on the basis of hypotheses I made about certain films, of readings which encouraged me to go further in the study of a particular case (for example, French films within the British classification system), and of elements I found thanks to the information available on the BBFC website 81 . So to conclude, I will give you the complete balance sheet of my archival adventures.

On top of that, just for those archives, I could add the fact that I had to travel from Narbonne to London by train (1324km), then from London to Paris (464km) and finally, going back to my home university, from Paris to Lyon (467km), which makes 3477km in total (and so, 82,5h). All this, just for archives 82 . Thank you, dear reader, for holding on until the end of this kilometric part. All this might not mean anything to you, but it means a lot to any doctoral student who has been on that gargantuan quest for data. Now, I hope you have been reassured and that, next time, you will dare to pass the threshold of your local/national/etc. archives and that you will not wait to be over 65 years old (which is the impression you get when you are in the reader room, but it is not true). 81 The complete list of the films is available in the annex. 82 I could have included as well : the interviews, the libraries, etc.

And I also hope that you have an idea of what those archives are, what I have done there (quantitatively speaking) and that you will feel comfortable for the next part: How do you work in archives? (methodologically speaking).

3.2. Archives in methodology: Historical sociolinguistics.

"The usage of archives does not spontaneously appear as a method of sociology" 83 (Liora Israël, 2012: p. 167) 84 . I am afraid it is true.

So, once and for all:

83 Original text : « L'usage des archives n'apparaît pas spontanément comme une méthode de la sociologie ».

YES

• You can use archives for sociolinguistics research.

3.2.1.Back to the origins of archives' use.

You can easily imagine that if the caricature of people working in archives is an old historian, there is a reason. I am no specialist here, but I imagine that it helps to spread this image when this is the father figure of history:

Say hello to Herodotus85 , Greek historian, born in 484 B.C.E. (He would be three thousand years if he were still alive and breathing, hidden behind a pile of papyrus in the archives).

The important element here is the fact that at some point in the history of mankind, people started to think that what they were doing and why they were doing it should be remembered, but not just for utilitarian purposes like economic exchanges, for example (Yes, debts are something you might want to keep in mind). With those few remarks made, you can notice that unlike your attic (which is more likely a pile of disorganized souvenirs, childhood treasures, broken objects and 'you-do-not-know-what-to-do-withit' random stuff), archives are meant for something; they were created for a purpose (Your bank keeps a trace of your loan, because it wants to make sure you repay it), which can be economic, political, cultural, etc.

So, I will here trace for you a brief history of the use of archives, but most importantly, all the questions that come with them: how do they choose which document will be relevant in the future? Who gets to decide? Etc.

Historians' stories.

As I have started to suggest it above, historians are not at the origins of archives:

it is actually the complete opposite. Archives are at the origins of historians. Indeed, the sphere of research is very small, and therefore, it is dependent on the decisions of other networks.

WITHOUT ARCHIVES, NO HISTORY?  It is not because you are a researcher, that you will have a direct and easy access to the archives. Time, dust, etc. are all problems which damage the documents: people are another one of them. But there is another reason: a document, once in the archives, becomes public, but this does not mean it loses its former secret characteristics (there is no guarantee you will have access to certain files).

 All this means that, before even talking about the history of an event you have decided to study through old records, you should start wondering about the history of those records (some sort of historical mise en abyme). "The archives: an institution of the 19 th century" 89 (Sonia Combe, 2010: chapter 2): "At the intersection of the topological and the nomological, of the place and the law, of the substrate and the authority, a scene of domiciliation becomes at once visible and invisible" (Jacques Derrida, 1995: p.10). Before even considering the question of significance, there is the matter of how archives were created, and when: the principle of archives as we know them today, has been invented at the end of the 18 th century for France, and during Queen Victoria's reign for the United Kingdom. In France, the Revolution created a new need: keeping the records of the Ancien Régime, and saving the ones from the new regime. The idea was to create a unique place for everything to be kept. It is exactly the same principle that led to the creation of the Public Record Office in 1938, in the United Kingdom: documents were kept in various places, and lots of them did not have proper storage. At that time, records referred mainly to legal documents. So, all the documents preserved are considered to be relevant, to have a historical significance, from a particular point of view (government, churches, clubs, etc.). It induces an inevitable influence on the historians' works. Jesse Spohnholz (Washington State University) 90 remarks that: "evidence in archives is not simply descriptive of the past, but prescriptive of how people understood their present and wanted later generations to understand the past. One result is a privileging of male voices with the result that religion and politics look more male-dominated to us today than they may have been". This is what historical significance is: records defined by the priorities of an individual, or an institutionpriorities, then, inherited by the researcher, but without a special warning or without instructions for clues. Here starts our job: to unravel the hidden priorities within the records, the logic behind those past traces.

Thus, when you work in archives, this is something you might want to keep in mind: a document is not proof. It is a possible piece of evidence, which has to be crossreferenced with other data.

THE DIVERSIFICATION OF RECORDS' USES.

The evolution of history, as a discipline, is one of the major elements in the diversification of records' uses. This is deeply depressing but, at the beginning, there were only three major elements, which historians considered as worth saving for the next generations:

-Military history -Political history -Religious history.

History was for the Great, whatever it might have been. But at some point, other interests developed: in the first half of the 19 th century at the earliest, but mostly during the 20 th century. This shows you that it is not because you have records that you suddenly create a new interest: you have (just) created access.

And so, during the 20 th century, records became a source of data in other fields: sociology was one of them, for example. Where and when does linguistics fit in this archival scene?

Private origins, private use.

Public use

The invention of public archives in the 19th century and the development of social, economic and cultural history triggered an opening for other disciplines.

Archives: what about linguistics?

Well, it is like history: we have settled that history, as we know it today, did not exist before, but it still existed in a very particular form B.C.E. So, in the modern sense, linguistics starts at the beginning of the 19 th century. But it existed before: if not, no one would have known Latin and Greek, and Grammar would not be in school curricula. This brings me to my first idea.

WITHOUT ARCHIVES, NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANCIENT LANGUAGES

This seems the most obvious element which comes to my mind, when I try to associate Linguistics and Archives. Of course, here, we are not necessarily talking about records that could, or even can, be found in places called archives, because they did not exist before the 19 th century, and also because they simply belonged to another category: ancient texts were discovered by archeologists (Thumbs up to Champollion).

The Rosetta Stone, my dear reader, can seem very old compared to your brand new audio records, but this is also part of linguistic research. I managed to record interviews because the recording of sound has been invented in the mid-19 th century, and also because nowadays, it is accessible to everyone. So, today, things have changed, but in its prime, linguistics relied on stones, papyrus, papers, etc.: written elements. But here, we are not only talking about linguistics, but about sociolinguistics. There is a gap between the first use of archives by linguists and the current use of archives by sociolinguistics, because the latter wonder about the context, the person behind the writing, etc. and try to connect them to the linguistic patterns in the text. This is the case of recent works carried by Melanie Evans 91 (2012) on Early Modern English, through a very specific case study -Elizabeth I, in which she tries to establish "the correlations between her biographical experiences (education, age, writing habits) and the patterns in her spelling system". This research shows two particular aspects that I have tried to convey to you, dear reader: Back to my research. You may already know this: researching in archives depends on their classification. Here is one of the first classification you can encounter in the archives: the question of availability. This is highly simplified: here is missing one of the most crucial problems, when you are working in the archives,your affiliation. If you are an affiliated researcher (and recognizedfor certain subjects, it helps a lot), the archives will be more accessible for you. Some archives are not clearly labelled "unavailable for public consultation": it is said you have to ask for a special authorization (here comes into play your affiliation). This has not happened to me, but it is still something of which you have to be aware.


Even if it could be tempting to start with anything that comes to mind, and to take into account the limits imposed by the archives, this is not a good idea. Firstly, you have to establish a list of what you already know (even archival references given by other authors, that you might want to check for yourself, as not everyone has the same research question). With all this, try to make a sort of map with the institutions, individuals involved. For example, I wanted the work of film examiners in the classification when it comes to linguistic aspects. For that, I needed to know who those examiners were, how they worked, with whom they were exchanging, and so on. In other words, I needed to know the place of the British Board of Film Classification and of the Commission of Classification of Cinematographic Works within the Film Industry sphere, within the political sphere, and for people watching films as well. Secondly, you draw up a list of keywords: be careful, names of institutions evolve through time, the way of talking/writing about a subject too, so you have to use a large spectrum of keywords, even if they all mean the same thing to you. For example, classification was called censorship for a very long time.

Another archival classification is the one granted to the records by the archives 93 , also called "the context of the record". Here is the example of one of the boxes I had the chance to open in the National Archives (Pierrefitte-sur-Seine): the box under the codename F/21/4695/A. The first diagram shows the context of the box, while the second one gives the content of the box, which is also part of the context of your document. 93 I have lightly mentioned it, when I answered the question "What is a box?" in the first part of this chapter. I have set two goals with the interviews:

1. Confirming hypotheses I had thanks to my readings and to my work in the archives.

2. Giving a face and a voice to the film examiners, as I realised they were absent from most previous works, and from public archives.

But, I did not try to replace the archives by interviews, though it was tempting to do so, as I was unable to visit some archives (for good reasons, or bad, you will be the judge of that).

3.3.1.The archives I missed to visit: Matters of life and death?

Research is exactly like a plan of John Hannibal Smith: "I love it when a plan comes together" 94 . Having a plan does not mean everything will work but it does not mean that you will not reach your goal either. I already gave you a few examples in the first part of this chapter about destroyed records, and so on; this is just another part of what might not work and why. This is at the outskirts of methodology: it is not something you can plan, but you have to deal with it anyway.

The National Archives of Fontainebleau (France)

I do not know if you remember, but I am going to do as if you do not, so that you do not have to go backwards. This is what I told you earlier about the National Archives of Fontainebleau, which is one of the three sites for the National Archives in France (the two others being Paris and Pierrefitte-sur-Seine):

In Fontainebleau, there are: private archives of architects, career files of public service employees, naturalization files covering the second half of the 20 th century, electronic and audiovisual archives, and some specific records (for example, the files from the Centre National de Cinématographie).

Fontainebleau is the furthest site from Paris: 61km, South-East of the French capital. And it is also one of my biggest disappointments: I was literally brought to earth with a bang (No, I have no sense of exaggeration… at all). Let me explain what those archives represented in my research. There are the equivalent of the BBFC archives, that is the film reports. I lost the voices of the examiners, just because of something I have not talked about yet, but which can be defined as a risk for the documents: the building becomes old too. In this case, it is a bit more dramatic than that: the building was flooded, and according to what they said, 13 km of records are now contaminated with humidity and fungus 95 . 94 One of the main characters of the TV-series The A-Team (Frank Lupo, Stephen J. Cannell, 1983-87). 95 "Fontainebleau : vers une fermeture des archives Nationales". Le Parisien. 10 Novembre 2015.

My first administrative enrolment for my Ph.D. dates back October, 2013. And the archives of Fontainebleau were closed at the beginning of 2014, when I was miles away from knowing about those records, and kilometers away from thinking about going in the field. So, on this side, I was left with the works of other researchers as Albert [START_REF] Montagne | Histoire juridique des interdits cinématographiques en France[END_REF], Frederic [START_REF] Hervé | La censure du cinéma en France à la Libération[END_REF][START_REF] Hervé | Censure et cinéma dans la France des Trente Glorieuses[END_REF] or Laurent [START_REF] Garreau | Archives secrètes du cinéma français[END_REF], who had the chance to see those archives. However, they did not have the same research question, so, you will see that sometimes, I will not be able to give a final answer.

Back to local archives: Croydon (United Kingdom)

Croydon is a completely different situation. I did not expect to go there when I went to England for three months. I found out about it at TNA (Kew): it had almost a film title, "The Croydon Experiment", in the box HO 45/17072. There was not much in the National Archives about it, but it was worth it: this is one of those moments when I thought I would be able to get closer to the people living in the 1930s.

So, the Croydon Experiment, thus called by the Home Office, was an experiment carried out in Croydon (also in other localities, but no names were given) during the 1930s, and considering the dates on the letters exchanged, around 1934-1935: the principle was to put in place local censorship for Sunday screenings.

When I checked the opening times of the Reader Room of Croydon, it was strongly advised to contact them in advance in order to ensure that what you are seeking exists. This is what I did. I gave them all the information I had about the "Croydon Experiment", and they came back to me with a negative answer. Then, time prevented me from going further in this direction. But, if I had time again, I think I would ask if they have documents from the local Bishop, who was part of the experiment at that time, or if I should try other archives.

Anyway, the important lesson I have learnt from those two missed appointments with my destiny (No, I still have no sense of exaggeration) is that "the only failure is the failure to try, and the measure of success is how we cope with disappointment"96 . This is a very hopeful message that should be applied to every bits and pieces of possible trajectories that life may take.

3.3.2.Forms of interviews.

I have tried to convey an idea so far, but I just could not find the right way to write it plain and clear for you: what is important for a thesis is not the methodology in itself, but the attitude you adopt towards your subject. If you are too strict, and you want to keep it within strict boundaries, you may lose the most important point. If you are too vague, and you do not know where you want to go, you may get lost in a world of random information. This is exactly what takes place when you decide to propose an interview to someone.

I agree with the Grounded Theory 97 on this issue: your attitude is a dynamic one. You are constantly going back and forth between your research hypothesis, your accumulated data and possible analysis. So, when you start interviewing people, whether formally or informally, you have to keep in mind a rather large objective (I want to know about your work as an examiner), while having specific demands (the inner workings of a French sub-commission of classification, for example). It is in this spirit that I encountered examiners.

Small-scale conferences and aftermath.

I have already written about the BBFC archives, but if you want to know more about how classification works, there are two possibilities (and I was very lucky, because I managed to do both):

1. You can encounter an examiner, during a seminar session at the BBFC (Soho Square, London).

2. You can also meet an examiner (a senior examiner, generally), because they regularly organise conferences. I attended one called "The Good, the Bad and the BBFC" 98 thanks to Sue Harris, my supervisor in Queen Mary University, during my research period in London.

For both sessions, I was obviously not alone but it was an excellent exercise: first of all, because, for the seminar session, I was with a group of pupils (who were about 15- process), gave me access to answers I would have never had, because I did not think about the associated questions. It was a similar experience with the conference, except that the public was entirely different: older, parents and grand-parents mostly, but some students as well. I thank here both the examiners I met, they were extremely patient with everyone, and at the end of the seminar/conference, they answered all my questions, even if we were not in the formal setting of an interview.

The advantage of those sessions is that you really get the institution's message through the examiners: they talk about their own experience within the frame of the BBFC. The disadvantage is that, if you cannot ask some questions, you learn more about the work as it is institutionalised and less about how they think their own work. For me, those two sessions were complementary to the work I had done in the National Archives, and completed what I learnt through the examiners' reports.

In France, the situation was completely different: I only had access to examiners' reports through the works of others (as the National Archives of Fontainebleau were closed), and in most of the books I read, there was a great deal about the plenary commission (which classifies only the films, on which the sub-commission disagree, or the ones for which a stronger classification than universal is asked99 ) but not much about the people in the sub-commissions (which are the ones assigned to the daily job of watching films)100 .

'Formal interviews': the perks of in-depth interviews.

This is with this information in mind that I started to look for informants. I started at the top: a former president of the French commission, Jean-François Théry, and a member of the plenary commission -Gauthier Jurgensen, who started in 2007. And from the former, whom I thank for his help, I managed to meet four other informants, who had at least all been in one of the sub-commissions (and most of the time, they spent some time in the plenary commission as well). All my informants did not start working in the commission at the same time: the oldest member started in 1975 (Pierre Frank), when he was about 40. Claude Brenez and Jean-François Tardy were in their twenties when they arrived at the plenary commission: they are part of the new project of introducing younger people within the Commission, and who were then proposed to continue within the subcommissions. And my last informant, Barbara Dent, worked in a sub-commission during the 2000s.

But some light must also be cast upon the way I conducted those interviews. One major element in interviewing is the first impression you give to your future, potential informant. In the domain of film classification, there is one major problem: you have systems with criteria (BBFC) and systems with no criteria (CNC). However, they are all perfectly aware of the different elements which are part of a film, and that could be considered as harmful for a child or an adolescent. So, if you start by directly telling them that you work on a specific criterion, you may have some sort of fixation of your informant on that particular question. That is why I told them I was working on film classification, but not that I was looking for how they were considering the dialogues.

Another element I introduced during the interviews is the fact that I was comparing two countries: I did not tell them before because the United Kingdom and France are so opposed in the media in terms of film classification, that I was afraid I would only get the caricatures and prejudices of both systems. I managed to record all my interviews, one excepted102 , and no informant was bothered by that aspect. For them, it seemed normal that I talked with them, rather than taking notes (some of them even commented on that aspect saying that it was better to record the interview). But you have to reassure your informant about the recorder: it happened that my informants told me that they should not say anything incorrect at the beginning of the interview, because it was recorded.

I did not choose the place for the interviewsmy informant did. So, there was a risk for the recording: if it was in a café, I could not make sure to choose a quiet one.

Most of my interviews happened in cafés, and there was no problem for recording. And my interviews all lasted at least between one hour, and one hour and a half. I did not manage to choose the place of the interviews in advance, as all of them occurred in Paris.

Last, but not least, always remember that the importance of an interview lies in all its steps: before, during and after. And after is generally the part that I consider the most time-consuming: directly after the interviews, you have to make some notes about how it went (introducing yourself, setting, conclusion, especially everything which happened when the recorder was off), and then you have to transcribe. Your transcription must be in the same format for all your interviews: first of all, because it will be clearer, and secondly, because you will avoid forgetting information, especially the ones which are off-record103 .

My dear reader, here comes the end of this long chapter about what I did during those three years: it presents only one aspectthe collection of data through archives and interviews, and their associated methodology. However, there is one methodology no one ever talks about, but which seems the most important one for me. It is the one you will apply to your everyday life as a Ph.D. student, especially when you will see the end approaching, with the writing phase along with it. Eat, Drink (water, mostly), Walk, Run if you have to, Go out, Meet family and friends, Save time for activities outside the university sphere. And never forget: every step you take is a new hypothesis, a new thought, a new question that will help you build your thesis. You will spend a lot of time sitting (it is difficult to write otherwise), but I believe, and so does Aristotle, that walking keeps the mind in motion. Best methodology ever. Chapter 4: Becoming national (1909-1970s).

Dear reader, until now, I have written a whole chapter about what I have done, in terms of research in the field, trying to give you some reasons for each of my experiences.

But I know how attentive you are and I am sure you have spotted some pieces of information, here and there, for which you thought explanations were lacking (I see… Already an unconditional enthusiast of "The Croydon Experiment"?).

Here they come (in two chapters). The idea here is to give you some historical background about the situation of those institutions (I am sure you wondered: "Why has she visited local archives? Are not those commissions of classification national?").

In this chapter, I will try and explain to you the long road those institutions had to go through to become truly national, before growing into the British Board of Film Classification and the Commission of Classification of Cinematographic Works. Thus, you will know the ugly truth about their birth: child protection was not the main issue at stake.

National Control required.

What scared people a century and 21 years ago? There are legendary stories about this: Train pulling into a Station (Lumières, 1895). I study in Lyon, birthplace of the cinema as invented by the Lumière brothers, inventors of the Kinematograph. And Train pulling into a Station, which showed a train arriving at La Ciota Station, was the first film publicly screened in Paris. The film lasted 50 seconds. And it is associated with some sort of urban legend: apparently, during the screening, the audience was so overwhelmed by the moving picture of a train, which was, fictionally, coming directly towards them, that they apparently fled screaming104 .

More seriously, I have no anecdote allowing me to say linguistic elements were among the first to be censored, as films were strictly moving pictures at the beginning.

Auguste and Louis Lumière did not even believe films had a commercial future; but they had. And at the beginning of the 20 th century, concerns started to be raised about the influence of those films on the audience, and the peak arrived in 1909.

First censorships: Local powers.

1909: this could not have been easier. A bit too easy, honestly, which made me wonder for a long time if that would or not be my starting date. But, when you have a year like this, when cinema starts to flourish economically, and when suddenly local and state powers, for the first time, are poking about film affairs, both in the UK and in France, how could I resist? However, though the situations in France and in the UK could seem very similar, because of this extraordinary happy chronological coincidence, in the field, on the contrary, you can see that the measures taken by each country were at two different speeds.

1909: A TIME FOR BRITISH LOCAL GLORY

Before 1909, local authorities, such as the LCC (London County Council), "had already drawn up a series of rules to regulate cinema shows […], including placing a projector in a fireproof box and banning the use of certain illuminants" (Simon Brown, 2012: p.4). But if the authority of the local councils was very clear for music and dancing, it had not been clarified if cinema should be subjected to the same legislation. For example, if there was a pianist during the film screening, a licence was necessary and thus, local authorities had a say about those screenings. If neither music, nor dancing, was involved, then, there was no previous legislative decision on that question. Thus, the LCC and hundreds of other local councils started to draw up their own regulations.

But, "unlicenced cinematograph shows spread throughout the country" (Simon Brown, 2012: p.4), and called for a national reaction. It came under the form of the Cinematograph Act (1909), which was not an instrument of censorship as it was defined.

The aim was to grant local authorities the ability to deliver licences for the places housing public screenings. This Act was originally drafted in order to ensure the safety of the audience, as a certain number of fatal fires occurred because of the highly inflammable characteristics of the cellulose nitrate base composing the film rolls. However, local authorities saw this Act as an opportunity to impose a control on films thanks to the vague formulation of the conditions for obtaining a licence: "A county council may grant licences to such as to persons as they think fit to use the premises specified in licences" 105 .

And as the licence was granted for a year at most, and needed to be renewed after that 105 Cinematograph Act, 1909 : 2-(1). period of time, it gave local authorities another means of pressure and control on the screenings, triggering protests on the side of the film industry. Thus, by 1912, the issue was to adjudicate the competing claims from the audience, from the State and from the Film Industry itself. The audience and the State were asking for a control imposed on the films, while the Film Industry was looking for a single instance of control, as it was facing multiple censorships at multiple levels: since the Cinematograph Act (1909), local authorities had the power to censor the films in order to give licences to cinemas while using this pretext to control film content. Annette Kuhn (1988: p. 21) considers that there were three "contenders" until 1912: the local authorities, the Home Office and the law.

In 1912, as James Robertson (1985, p.4) states, "local authority pressure on film content was sufficiently strong for the film industry to fear the imposition of central government censorship, as local authorities wished". So, in order to counteract this pressure, the Film Industry proposed the creation of an institution independent from itself, but also from governmental authority. Together, those elements triggered the birth of the British Board of Film Censors.

1909: THE FIRST FRENCH MINISTRY INTERVENTION.

Before 1909, the control of screenings in France was as vague as in the United Kingdom. And the situation of screenings is quite similar as well: films were firstly fairground amusements, and could only be seen by one person at a time. And progressively, a ritual settled inindoors, in dark roomsbringing at the same time, a new lot of stereotypes and preconceived ideas. The most notable one is the all-too-easy association between the type of audience and the place: as Sabine Lenk (1995: p.4) points out, once sedentary, films attracted mainly workers and the petty bourgeoisie. Now imagine the picture: workers, all in a dark room, with sulfurous or violent moving images in front of them. How outrageous! Shouted the crowd of right-minded (which has to be understood as middle and upper classes, very narrow-minded from a 21 st century viewpoint) people. And in this case, a burnt child dreads fire: so, one case of filth, crime or any other amoral working-class preconceived behaviour, and cinemas were the realms of crooks.

What triggered the first control intervention, according to Albert Montagne (2007: p.22), was the audience's enthusiasm for executions, and the equal enthusiasm of Pathé to satisfy its public. For Albert Montagne, what created film censorship was the news reels (this shows us that the debate is a long-haul one 106 ). In spite of the prohibition to film the execution of the bandits Abel and Auguste Pollet, Carus Vromant and Théophile Deroo, Pathé filmed it anyway and edited La Quadruple exécution capitale de Béthune (1909).

The reaction of the Ministry of the Interior was immediate, and a circular was sent to all the prefects of France and Algeria, with several aims:  Forbidding any films of this kind, that could cause public disorder  Giving a first clarification of the status of films as a "spectacle de curiosité"

 And, most importantly, reminding mayors of their power of censorship over films under Article 6 (of the Law of January 6 th , 1864).

This first national intervention was, as in the United Kingdom, clearly in favour of the local authorities. But, as I said, this reminder was sent to prefects, so that they would remind mayors: the difference between them is that a prefect is a high-ranking civil servant, and a mayor is elected. So the suggestion of the government in this case was that prefects should (had to, as well) stand in for the mayor, in case the latter should forget any governmental directives concerning this matter107 . Though they thought prefects may intervene, they quickly realised that they had allowed mayors to open the floodgates of censorship, and that it would be highly difficult to re-organize censorship at a national level (Paul Léglise, 1973: p.15).

baccalauréat: "Bac 2015: un philosophe imagine pour "L'Obs" trois sujets de philo et les corrige", L'observateur, June 15 th , 2015. URL: http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/education/bac-2015/20150615.OBS0793/bac-2015-trois-sujets-de-philosophie-tires-de-l-actu-et-leurs-corriges.html, last seen on March 30 th , 2016).

First steps towards national control.

As you may have just read, in the United Kingdom, the British Board of Film Censors was an initiative of the Film Industry to counteract the multiple censorships of local authorities, induced by the Cinematograph Act (1909). But, if you compare it to the situation in France, in both countries, local authorities initially had the support of the government.

Thus, in the United Kingdom, despite the Cinematograph Act period (1909)(1910)(1911)(1912), a national solution quickly replaced the disputable interpretation of the Act by the local authorities. Nevertheless, the BBFC was not perceived as a national initiative as such: it had the full support of the film industry, but the government, though it authorized its creation, was not openly supportive until the end of the 1920s. On the other side of the Channel, the first French initiative was to work on the basis of existing laws, without giving films a special statusthus, recognition was deniedand on the basis of existing institutionsthus, reinforcing the power of the mayors.

Popcorn time: Edouard Herriot, hoisted by his own petard.

One of the main figures of early 20th century French political life: mayor of Lyon and also Ministry of Public Education and Fine Arts (1926)(1927)(1928). As Paul Léglise (1977: p.15) remarks, after being one of the first mayors to assert his powers of censorship, as Minister, he was also the one trying to constrain those same powers (See 4.2.2.).

It means that, to become 'national', film control had to go down two very different paths. On the one hand, in the UK, the BBFC had to prove its value to the local authorities, to the government and to the audience. On the other hand, in France, no clear legal framework defined the status of films: only the government's intention was obviousgiving the responsibility to prefects and mayors. In a way, this could be defined as a national intervention through local implementation. 4.2. 1909-1945: Becoming national.

The very first part of this chapter was a sort of introduction to what follows here.

As we have seen, the situation of film control in both countries cannot be described as stable. In the UK, to become officially British, the BBFC had to overcome the long-term consequences of the Cinematograph Act (1909). In France, the issue was to define the elements at stake: as we have seen, in 1909, films were among the so-called "spectacles de curiosité". A lot of discussions at that time were about an independent body vs. a national entity. Indeed, though the BBFC had British in its name, it did not mean it was recognized as such. Most of the time, local authorities had the impressionwhich was wrongthat the BBFC was paid by the industry, and not by the fees paid by the producers for classification services. The problem with a national entity is that they wished it linked to the Home Office, without any appointment of members by the Home Office. This first criticism of the BBFC (See quote above) is among the latest proffered in this period . This explains why there were two reoccurring questions at that time: is an independent national board a better solution than local censorship? How does the BBFC really work?

AN INDEPENDENT NATIONAL BODY?

The hatchway, after 1912, for local authorities, was that the BBFC had never been created as an official body. Its creation had been authorized by the Home Office, but nothing was organized to make it look official. The Cinematograph Act was not modified:

though it should have, as the BBFC certificates were supposed to be applied by all local authorities (in theory).

In practice, from 1909 until the middle of 1930s, local boards flourished throughout the United Kingdom under different forms: regional, national and local. Among the regional ones was the Advisory Committee in Scotland. At the national level, So, according to James Robertson (1993: p.5), "post-1913 British film censorship has functioned at four levels -within the BBFC, within the production companies themselves, at the local authorities, and from extra-parliamentary critics and would-be censorship reformers, with some overlap at times between them". On top of that, despite their sometimes opposite views, the question of a central body was also raised at a time when local licensing authorities realized that their differences of opinion about a film could lead to advertising -involuntarily -that very same film 110 : censorship was (and still is) a "sort of involuntary advertising machine" (Yves Boisset, 2011: p. 7). This was the BBFC's chance to become official. 109 TNA, HO 45/24945: Document about the reconstitution of the Consultative Committee (1937). 110 See documents related to that question in TNA : CAB 37/157/2. Especially the document called 'Censorship of cinematograph films', printed for the use of the Cabinet, and signed October 3 rd , 1916.

BBFC: HOW TO BECOME OFFICIAL (-ISH)

The BBFC has never been officialised, legally speaking. But it became "official" due to certain circumstances. And by 1925, it was the major power of film censorship in Britain.

The table (see directly above) shows the three main steps in the "official" recognition of the BBFC. We are interested in the consequences of two cases (1921 and 1925). Ellis v. Dubowski clearly helped the BBFC: it was established that "films which had not been passed for universal or public exhibition by the BBFC could not be exhibited without the express consent of the Council" (Annette Kuhn, 1988: p.26). This was the very first step: all the films passed Universal by the BBFC were now out of the grasps of licensing authorities. The London County Council was the first one to apply the measure and included it in its list of recommendations: the Home Office sent the same directive to all licensing authorities from 1923. And the final blow was given by Mills v. LCC (1925):

the LCC had given a licence to Mills, a cinema proprietor, under specific conditions. If a film had not been passed Universal by the BBFC, it was possible for Mills to organize screenings without the express consent of the LCC as long as no children under 16 were therein. And the outcome of this was that: "the county council are in law the body which has the power to censor films for exhibition in cinemas, but in practice it is the board which carries out the censorship, subject to review by the county council" (S.H. Bailey, 2005: p.471). To this, the failures of local censorship experiments (see Popcorn Time about the Croydon Experiment) also helped. And this is how, ladies and gentlemen, in 1925, the most improbable and completely legally madcap British system of censorship was born. They invented a system where, in theory (on legal grounds), the local licensing authorities had the power, but in practice, the local licensing authorities bowed to BBFC certificates. And thus, they created what I have given you as spoilers in the previous part, a system in which directors can appeal the local licensing authorities for a change of certificate. I am amazed by this labyrinth of decisions, which officialised a non-official body.

Defining what a film is.

In the meantime, in France, they had their own legal quagmire. I do not know if you remember the quote in 4.2.1, but for the UK censorship system, France was seen as a model:

"France, a bureaucratic centralised country, has its Grand Council for the Control of the Cinema in every direction -educational, artistic, and the like" 111 .

In 1930, yes, that was true. But until then, they had to face two different difficulties: the local licensing authorities (to a lesser extent than in the UK) and most importantly, defining what a film was.

Popcorn time:

The Croydon Experiment.

23 months of reviewing (1934)(1935). This was the situation in Croydon: they rejected 244 films, judged unsuitable for Sunday screenings. Of 1,470 films, they actually viewed only 37. So, it is very likely that they actually rejected most of the 244 films on the basis of the synopsis (maybe even of the title).

WHAT IS A "SPECTACLE DE CURIOSITE"?

Generally, during your research, there is one thing of which there is no lack:

definitions. You all know the problem with a rule: you need exceptions. And the exception in my research was the case of "spectacle de curiosité". Everyone agreed about saying that films were considered as such from 1909, but no one dared to describe what kind of group it was, what kind of elements you could find in it.

So, I started with what I knew: the decree of January 6 th , 1864, which was supposed to define them. In fact, the main goal of this decree was to give freedom to theatres. Until then, they were subject to administrative control. But because of the Article 6 of this decree, les "spectacles de curiosité" were excluded from this measure, and remained submitted to the preliminary authorization of the mayor. And among them were:

puppet shows, boxing matches, cabarets, circuses, fairground festivals etc. (Jean Morange, 2007: p.74). For me, it looks a lot like a catch-all term, and very convenient when you need to establish a system of pre-censorship.

BECOMING A FILM

To sum up the situations of films in 1909: initial censorship did not trigger a

French version of the Cinematograph Act. Until 1914, the government continued to send recommendations to mayors through prefects. And in 1914, a stage of siege was declared, and this power was transferred to military institutions.

So, the first decree concerning film censorship was drawn up in 1919 (July, 25 th ), and it was placed under the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Education and Fine

Arts. All films had to have a visa except news reels, delivered by this Ministry, and a commission was created to examine booklets and scenarios (Albert Montagne, 2007: p.30). So this first decree's move towards national control was important for two reasons:

-Firstly, for the film industry, as it clearly limited the power of the mayors and so, multiple censorships.

-Secondly, for the films themselves, which clearly obtained a primary status.

But the revolution for film censorship occurred in 1928, thanks to the decree of February, 18 th . At that time Edouard Herriot, Minister of Public Education and Fine Arts, initiated "the most liberal system that the cinema has known in France"112 (Philippe Maalek, 1982: p.14) thanks to two main principles:

-The first commission created in 1919 was strictly governmental. The one of 1928 was a joint system: half of the members were high-ranking public servants, and the other half was composed of members of the film industry.

-The Minister was obliged to follow the decision of the commission, and the visa was now clearly defined as issued for the entire French territory, and only matters of public order (local police) could lead the mayor to intervene.

This honeymoon period was not meant to last, and in 1936, a new commission was created, composed of members from ministries, and leading figures chosen outside the film industry, and appointed by the government. On top of that, the power of the commission was clearly diminished as its decision did not have to be followed anymore by the Ministry. This balanced system would nevertheless be back in 1945, with the creation of the CNC (Centre National de Cinématographie). But the decision of the Minister had never been (so far) dependent on the assent of the commission again: though they are not that often different. Spoilers! How to create a language criterion... constitution of those two systems depended on a few elements, that we have seen through the two first parts of this chapter and which are very broadly summarized by the spoilers. 4.3. 1945-1980: Re-ajusting to new needs?

John [START_REF] Trevelyan | Sociolinguistics Patterns in British English[END_REF]: p.81), former BBFC Secretary (1958-1971), wrote that censors refer to "the public social conscience" when it comes to film classification, to which Sian Barber (2011: p.7) responded that this concept "is not a fixed and stable certainty but rather is constantly shifting and evolving". This is precisely what we have seen so far, and this is exactly what is at stake with the inner structureespecially for the age-ratingsof those institutions of classification.

What is a child?

I had never thought I would ask that question one day (this is among the obvious things you are convinced you know for sure, until you are asked to explain to a Pyxidisian 113 what a child is). But considering the period I am studying in this chapter, I had to, and for several reasons:

-believing a child was the same thing for film examiners in 1909 and in 1980 would be clearly foolish -when you consider the changes in the age-ratings themselves, you start thinking you might review your own definitions of a child: the 12-rating did not exist for a very long time, and the restrictive categories were fewer in number, and the first age-limits were higher.

-last, but not least, when you see how film examiners, local authorities etc. talk about children, women, and parents, this is when you know, for sure, you have to define what a child is. There was one event in the archives which summarizes quite well this ideaa national conference conveyed by the Birmingham Cinema Inquiry Committee, where the participants clearly stated that114 : (1) parents cannot entirely be trusted; (2) one 113 From Pyxidis, main star of the Pyxis constellation (the compass box). Funny Fact: there is a close relationship between stars and linguistics, thanks to Albert De Swaan, who calls "constellation", the way languages interact on earth (in case you are interested: http://deswaan.com/langue-et-culture-dansla-societe-transnationale/)

of the problems was the wideness of relationships children had when they wanted to see an A film; (3) they also wondered if the films should not be clean for everybody. Who is a child then?

INVENTORY OF INVENTIONS: CONCEPTS THROUGHOUT THE 20TH CENTURY

That title was extremely bold. Do not expect a long list of scientific inventions (you would be very disappointed): here, the matter at stake is the political and social 1928: suffrage for all women over 21.

1944: suffrage for women I could have presented a lot more information as about drinking, smoking, etc. But the idea was to see how the division between children and adolescents shifted slightly during the 20 th century. Adolescence was an invention of the 19 th century (Agnès Thiercé, 2005: p.42); but at the time, an adolescent was born in well-to-do backgrounds. So, during the 20 th century, with the educational, social, and political situation of children evolving, the boundary between child and adolescent became clearer.

First of all, that boundary was born because of a shift in educational situations: in 1909, a child was obliged to go to school until 10 in the UK and until 13 in France. Most of them left school after having attended primary classes only. But with the creation of secondary schools (public), distinct from primary schools after the Second World War, started the modern division between children and adolescents. Before that, especially for working classes, children attended school while it was compulsory and then, went directly to work. This can also be seen with the raising of the age of criminal responsibility in 1963 (UK): juvenile crime (and its relation to films) was one of the main issues of the period before 1945 both in the UK and in France. Films were supposed to have a bad influence for children and according to the government and film examiners, too many children were going to cinemas without a proper guardian. Thus, films (as video games nowadays115 ) were held responsible for crimes committed by children116 . After 1945, film examiners became more concerned about the influence of films on the "youth", especially during the 1950s-1960s period with the movements of greasers and socs.

All this led to three questions:

-Who was supposed to be responsible for the influence of films on children? -Were children the only persons who had to be taken care of, during the process of film censorship/classification?

-How should all this be transcribed in film classification?

This is when you realise that you do not know what a child is, until you start looking at what film examiners were thinking and how they were working, but also that you do not know what a woman was. Here comes a little review about responsibility and the invention of child protection.

FILM EXAMINERS' VIEWPOINT: RESPONSIBILITY IN QUESTION?

"We realise fully that the future of our industry depends on the cleanliness, and that women and children can see shows without objection, and we have come to the conclusion that if it would meet with your approval, and if we could have the approval of the Home Office in so doing, we would select 3 or possibly 5 men -and if thought advisable women -whose names might be presented to you for consideration, our aim being to get men of education, men who have travelled, who are broad-minded, to whom might be assigned the duty of seeing these films from week to week, the manufacturers and exhibitors paying them for that service; and that if they felt that they must pass upon any of these films a prohibition if anything was objectionable, they would do so, and the manufacturers would be required to cut out the objectionable portion of the film, or withhold the film from the market altogether" 117 .

In 1912, in the UK, according to this quote from a discussion between the Home Office and representatives of film manufacturers and renters, responsibility was falling on men, for both children and women. I remember reading one of the comments from an examiner saying that wives were generally dependent on their husbands for the choice of films they would see: "A great many young married men choose the films they want to see; their wives come with them and often don't enjoy the language, or the violence, at all" (Report for the scenario of Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, 1960, BBFC Archives). Thus, film examiners had to be aware that censorship/classification was meant for children and adults, so that nothing immoral would come out on screen. This idea of responsibility taken for both children and women spread at all levels:

But, by asking this questionwho is responsible -also determines the responsibility of the institution itself: should the BBFC take responsibility in the place of parents? And this is where lies one of the other differences between the BBFC and the French commission (that I will show you as well through the explanation of the language criterion): in the UK, parents are held responsible for taking their children to the cinema (and not leaving them alone) but not for the choice of films, where the prime responsibility comes down to the BBFC.

All those questions about who children are, and who should be responsible for them, leads to the structure of the institutions themselves. How did they manage to take Stereotypically, the need of protection from bad language was for children and women as well (Batistella, 2005: p.72).

those evolutions into account? How did they transcribe them into the classification system?

Rethinking the institutions themselves?

The similarity which runs through the period 1909-1980 is the instability of the system in general: from a bi-age-rating to a quad-age-rating system, from a system without women to one with women examiners, etc. This is what I will try to show you here, while trying to connect this to the concepts we discussed earlier.

AGE-RATINGS: THE "UNIVERSAL" CONCEPT 118 .

A brief tour of all those abbreviations, maybe?

-U stands for Universal, and TP for Tous Publics. No restriction is imposed on the film.

-A stands for more suitable for Adults. As it is an advisory category, it is the equivalent of the modern PG (Parental Guidance). It had some pretty good anecdotes linked to it (See Popcorn Time below).

-AA stands for admission for children of 14 and over. This is a restricted category: no children under that age can be admitted for those screenings. This is also the case for 13, 16 and 18 (French classification).

-H stands for Horrific. It was advisory. -X (French classification) stands for audience of 18 and over, and is divided in two categories: Violence and Pornography.

In France, there were only cases of censorship (films being completely forbidden for any audience), because the very first case of age-rating (18) occurred during Le Régime de Vichy (1940Vichy ( -1944) ) in 1941. So basically, in France, before 1941, either a film was Universal, or it was not. What is also important to be noticed is the two types of categories: one restricts access to the cinema, the other advises parents about the possible unsuitability of certain films for children (and potentially, a warning for husbands about the suitability of the film for their wives?).

Moreover, compared to the previous part about changes for children, we can remark that:

-In the UK and in France, there is clearly a pressure (social, moral…) on the age categories. Clearly, films, until 1945, had to be accessible to anyone. And there was also a difficulty in establishing the limits between children and adolescents. Considering the evolutions at that time (educational and so on), it seems normal that it does not appear straight after the Second World War.

-In the UK, the system was based on letters, contrary to the French system.

Numbers disappeared during the 1980s (topic of the following chapter).

Popcorn time: As Adult-like as Snow

White.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Disney, 1937) was a blockbuster, equivalent to Star Wars (in case you would like a point of reference). But as it was a new genre, and as there were some scary scenes (do not lie, you have all been terrified by the Evil Queen), British censors felt they should advise parents to accompany their children.

Clearly, film classification is taking into account the fact that there has to be a move from censorship to control and then classification. The social and political changes affecting children were slowly taken into account and a cut is established between those in primary and in secondary school. But these were not the only changes influencing the course of those institutions.

CHANGING WITH THE TIMES…?

"Miss Rosamund Smith has been appointed to a seat on the Film Censorship Consultative Committee. She is the 13th and only woman member of that body. For three years Miss Smith was chairman of the Theatre and Music Halls Committee of the London County Council, and had in that capacity much experience of films. The appointment of Miss Smith is the result of numerous representations to the Home Office that a woman should be included in the committee" 119 .

This quote from an article entitled "First Woman Film Censor" considers as a victory the presence of a woman in the Consultative Committee. Without knowing it, this is extremely true 120 : indeed, in the BBFC, film examiners are unknown to the public, the press, and the film industry. Only the Home Office inquired about it, as we can see, for example, in this letter from J. Brooke Wilkinson, BBFC Secretary (March 13 th , 1947) 121 ,

where he enumerates all the examiners and readers working at that time. It is only in 1947 that there was, at the BBFC, a woman examiner, Mrs Crouzet, who had been reader of the scenarios for many years (just to give you an idea, she is the one, with Colonel Hanna, present in all the observations on scenarios, from the BFI archives). In France, the first woman to be in the Commission of 1928 (the one equally shared between ministries and the film industry) is Mme Germaine Dulac, as one of the representatives of film authors 122 .

About the involvement of the film industry in the French Commission, it bacame a permanent feature of film classification. In 1945, the membership of the Commission was again equally shared between ministries and the film industry. From 1961, it became tripartite (Amaury Pascaud, 2012: p.20):

-Eight members to represent the government -Eight to represent the film industry 119 TNA, HO 45/15208 : "First Woman Film Censor", The Morning Post, January 30 th , 1933. 120 In the name of one of my readers: "to repeat what Sheldon Cooper said in the Big Bang Theory "truth is an absolute statement, not subject to gradation" to which Stuart says "yes it is, it's somewhat true to say that a tomato is a vegetable, it's not at all true that a tomato is a suspension bridge"".

121 TNA, HO 45/23091.

122 NA (Pierrefitte-sur-Seine), F 21/4695/A : Article 5, Decree of February 18th, 1928.

-Eight others: five appointed by the government including psychologists, sociologists, etc. and three designated by l'UNAF, le Haut Comité de la Jeunesse, and l'Association des Maires de France.

Each member is a tenured holder, and has one alternate (two from 1979).

So, both changes bring light to the fact that censorship was constantly trying to adapt to social changes, especially after 1945. As Frédéric Hervé points out (2015: p. 33), "from 1966, censorial jurisprudence was trying to run alongside the evolution of standards, and the transgression peaked with the erotic and pornographic wave of 1974-75" 123 For the early period of film censorship, I think that one thing we have to understand is that censorship was not the only priority and even at the beginning, we can clearly see that there are plenty of other issues which all prevail: inflammable films (that is what triggered censorship in the UK: security matters), effects of cinema on adults and children etc., years of instability/hesitation.

Censorship/classification of films was created in a context of conflict between different levels and kinds of powers trying to prevail on the decisions about film control.

Once those institutions became settled, the period after 1945 shows that the system was not stable yet. The questions I have raised about children and adolescents were a way to try and understand of what the social imagination of those generations was made (Frédéric Hervé, 2015: p. 25).

We can clearly see that in this period, there is a plurality of age thresholds: for example, in France, in 1945, you need to be 16 to watch any films you want, but 21 to vote. Women can be married from the age of 15 years old and 3 months. And people can work at the age of 14 (which is the case for a third of them in 1959 (Frédéric Hervé, 2015: p. 29). And the age of sexual majority is 15 (only if you are heterosexual). All this feeds the gaze of examiners on films, and feeds a certain popular imagination: juvenile crimes influenced by films, etc.

But, from 1980, those institutions were to face a certain number of new questions:

in France, the main question is the age of the examiners (in one of my interviews, an informant (Pierre Frank) told me he was the youngest one when he arrived at the Commission in 1975… He was 40 at that time), while in the United Kingdom, the secrecy of the examiners and of their methods will be at stake. One of my informants (Claude Brenez) told me that, for her, between the 1970s and 1980s, there was a swing: "In the 70s, freedom of speech was really not the same, the freedom of the youth was really not the same either, the freedom of asserting your sexual orientation, or your political beliefs, for plenty of things, it was really not the same before.

There really was a before and an after [the 80s]"124 . In a way, this is the feeling I had about the 1980s for the French Commission (the renewal), but at the same time, that renewal was also a response to criticisms addressed to the Commission, and the changes really happened in the 90s. At the same time, the 1980s are clearly the peak of glory of the BBFC (renewal as well), but the criticisms come later. As you have probably guessed, this is the object of this chapter.

5.1. Under the 1980s wind: the long road from censorship to classification.

Both institutions came out of the 1970s triumphant, and above all, fortified by being at the center of the political stage through several events:

-In 1975 125 , in France, a law was passed taxing pornographic films and those inciting violence as well. Hence was born the X rating in France, divided in two sub-categories: X pornography and X violence. Thus, from 1976, film examiners had to reclassify all the films which were given an 18 rating in the former period. As one of my informants (Pierre Frantz) said: "A friend of mine was saying that we are part of that French minority who is paid to watch pornographic films" 126 .

-In 1977, in the UK, the Obscene Publications Act (OPA) was extended to films and videos. It was reinforced one year later by The Protection of Children Act (1978). The OPA defined as obscene a film "when, taken as a whole, the work has a tendency to 'deprave and corrupt' '(i.e. make morally bad) a significant proportion of those likely to see it" 127 . The Protection of Children Act concentrated on the exploitation of children images, because it was felt that the OPA might not fully clarify this last issue.

-In 1979, in the UK, the Williams Committee Report was published, which openly supported the existence of the BBFC: for Sian Barber (2011: p. 118), it "recognised the value of the BBFC and in doing so, helped to safeguard its future". So, for the first time since 1909, the BBFC and the French Commission were on an equal footing, in the sense that, thanks to pornographic and violent cinematographic legislation, the BBFC gained statutory powers. The Obscene Publications Act, BBFC Website. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/educationresources/student-guide/legislation/criminal-law, last seen on April 11 th , 2016.

New youth?

Who was the 1980s youth? How different was the experience of watching a film for them? In the issue that concerns me here (and you, dear reader), we have to take into account two major evolutions, which clearly started to have an effect for cinema goers in the 1980s: television and VHS.

1980s films in 16/9

Once again, the 1980s build on the lightning increase of TV ownership through the 1970s. British and French data follow approximately the same evolution: from the end of the 1950s, while the number of TV owners kept increasing, the number of cinemagoers kept decreasing 128 .

Besides, the 1980s were also a period when private channels were created, which meant that films became more and more accessible from home. And this is also notable 128 For TV owners : (France) data from Mousseau, Jacques. 1991

Evolution of TV owners and cinema-goers in the UK and France (1965-85)

TV owners (in millions) when you start looking at other numbers, which show this decrease even more strickingly129 :

-in 1965, in France, people were seeing an average of 5.3 films per year, and 6.7 in the UK.

-In 1985, those numbers fell respectively down to 3.4 and1.3. So, all this allows us to paint a better portrait of the situation for the youth of the 1980s: films were becoming more accessible to children and adolescents through TV and at the same time, VHS. But how is this connected to the evolution of the BBFC and the Commission of Control? The importance of those evolutions lies in the fact that the BBFC and the Commission did not commit themselves in the same way. We have already seen that the 1970s gave first statutory powers to the BBFC; the 1980s followed in the same direction: in 1984, the Video Recording Acts were passed, giving the BBFC the responsibility to rate the VHS as the films (and later, same for DVDs and Blu-Rays). In the meantime, as we will develop later (5.1.2.), the French Commission stuck to its first and only target: films in cinemas. But, what has to be understood is that these events happened in two different political contexts: while more liberal standards were being developed (especially in the cultural domain) in France, moral ones were back in Britain (I am caricaturing a bit for the sake of clinging to film classification: I cannot take the risk of describing here the whole complexity of political and social evolutions in France and the UK).

Moral vs Liberal?

1980s political contexts in France and in the UK were completely different:

-one was swinging to the left (France: with left-wing President, François Mitterrand)

-the other was swinging to the right (UK: with right-wing Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher).

I am not saying that those political changes had a direct influence on the Film Industry or on the film classification, but it clearly had an influence in terms of standard taste, levels of acceptability and mostly, the types of political solutions implemented. This is where the link between film classification and governmental helms comes into force.

While in France, the Ministry of Culture was putting in place objectives towards more freedom within the film classification and within the Commission, so that they better fitted into the new audience's standards, in the UK, they began a witch-hunt (make no mistake: though it had a clear impact on the policies on VHS, I have not been able to measure if it had a real impact on film classification itself, as from the past decades, a more liberal system was inherited).

In 1982, the BBFC implemented a voluntary system for rating video recordings.

As all BBFC ratings require a fee, this voluntary option was more followed by major Popcorn time: First witch burnt at the stake, The Evil Dead (Sam Raimi, 1982).

In 1983, when the list from the Director of Public Prosecutions was drawn up, at the head was The Evil Dead. "Copies were seized from video shops and the film was held up as an example of unregulated video which could be seen by anyone, including children, in the home" (Sian Barber, 2011: p. 112). But this film, though labelled 'nasty', was not one of the nastiest ones (I Spit On Your Grave (Meir Zarchi, 1978) was more exemplary of what nasty meant).

New strategies.

If there is one thing which starts to be repetitive in this little history of British and

French classifications, it is the fact that there is a survival principal attached to film classification. When censorship is confronted to a more liberal society, it evolves into a new concept: classification. And the main question for that is: as children protection is the main goal of these institutions, is there a need to censor 18-rated films anymore? "Censorship for adults is, in whatever guise, always at rock bottom a device to perpetuate the political and social status quo" (James Robertson, 1993: p. 158).

And associated with that, there is also the idea that both institutions were evolving while parting from moral considerations: they "progressively part from [their] role of 'guardian of taboos' to become [institutions] protecting childhood and adolescence" (Jean-François Théry, 1990: p. 47) 130 .

FRESH BREEZE ON THE FRENCH COMMISSION.

The 1980s are synonymous with a lot of changes in France, but there is one which directly concerns film classification, and it is the arrival in 1981 of a new face for the Ministry of Culture: Jack Lang. He had three objectives for the Commission of Control of films (Jean-François Théry, 1990: p. 32-33): The last objective is really important as it really changed the way the Commission functioned as soon as 1981. They realised that the average age of a cinema-goer was about 25 years old while the average age of a member of the Commission was 50 (Jean-François Théry, 1990: p. 32). Thus, they launched a first experiment of young people in the plenary Commission131 : they were all under 25, they only had a consultative voice within the Commission (contrary to all the other members who could vote). The experiment lasted two years (1981)(1982)(1983) and was conclusive in two ways:


-Some of the young 'observers' were included after 1983 in the subcommissions. It was the case for two of my informants: Claude Brenez and Jean-François Tardy.

-And in 1990, the decree 132 included them within the plenary commission as well.

So, in France, though the changes started during the 1980s, they were only implemented in 1990, along with the new age-ratings, and the definition of the relationships between TV and cinema.

COLORS OF THE WIND.

I could not resist entitling this part like this (thank youthose of you who got the reference 133 ). Among all the changes made in the British classification, the ones which occurred in the 1980s are my favorites for two reasons:

-They finally used a system that I can easily understand (do not make me believe that A and AA seemed logical to you; and X was clearly messing with everyone, especially if you have been a cinema-goer after 1977 (OPA) or 1975 if you are French).

-And the second reason is that they are calling out to my inner child:

age-ratings were associated with a color system based on greenyellow-red paradigm. In other words, film classification became (visually) a matter of traffic lights.

This evolution from censorship to classification may seem less obvious after what

we have said so far: re-enforcement of parliamentary involvement in the film business (OPA, Video Recording Acts…). But as I told you, dear reader, the system and the society had already been evolving towards more liberal standards. So, once again, the classification somehow became haphazard:

132 Decree n°90-174 of February 23 rd , 1990. 133 For the others, you might want to check among the Disney classics. creating new ratings to fill the gap between U (Universal) and 15 also means that there will be fewer films within each of those categories.

Thus, the development of ratings participated in these two antagonist movements: a more liberal system maintaining strict standards. This is a feature that has always been present within the classification, with the list of exceptions between 1909-1932, or with other rules and criteria created after 1945.

If there is one thing that the development of visual mass media at home brought to the stage of film classification, apart from legislation, it is suspicion. Neither side of the Channel was spared:

"The extension of the vote to the majority of adult population for the first time in 1918, the expansion of education and property-owning, particularly since 1945, and the growing importance of the visual mass media have progressively rendered suspect hierarchical decision-making as bolstered by parliamentary sovereignty" (James Robertson, 1993: p. 158).

"Lots of people still associate us with censorship. We might say and repeat that there is no longer film censorship in France, that adults have the right to see what they want, that our mission is not to dictate their choices, and that it exclusively concerns childhood protection, the idea that we participate in censorship is mentioned directly or indirectly each time there is a disagreement or a legal argument on a classification measure.

[…] Though the politician is 'innocent' […] suspicion is there" 134 . 134 Letter from the President of the Commission, Francis Delon, addressed to all the members of the Commission, dated 2004.

During the 1980s, with the shift from censorship to classification, language remained an issue and new criteria were instituted such as the "fuck rule" (see 7.3). This is that suspicion, which created a form of mistrust,especially of the work of the BBFC, but the Commission was affected too,and led to a new change within the film classification:

-1909-1945 was a period where both institutions struggled to become nationally recognized.

-After 1945, the system of censorship became more and more liberal.

The peak was reached during the 1980s, where it is clear that they were both thinking more in terms of classification than censorship.

-1990s brought a new issue: how to become public? Those institutions, and especially the BBFC, had been particularly discreet in terms of classification (the last list of exceptions made public dates back to 1931: from 1932, they decided to send the list of exceptions taken only to studios because of the critique some of those sentences received 135 ).

Under the 1990s tempest?

So, what the 1990s brought along was a need for public approval, not so much from the government, or the local authorities, but from the audience itself.

Two countries, two transitions.

The smooth transition of the Commission of Control.

The most important change for the French classification was the outcome of the 1980s projects, with the adoption of Decree n°90-174 on February 23 rd , 1990. And the other important element in France is what did not change.

THE CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE 1990 DECREE

First of all, the 1990 decree. This initiative, as you probably have already understood, dear reader, was the result of the objectives set under the leadership of Jack Lang at the Ministry of Culture. As a reminder, here were the three objectives:

-To end the possibility to forbid completely a film The withdrawal of the State from the control failed: the College of the Ministries is there to prove it, and also, the fact that the final decision was still taken at the level of the Ministry of Culture. So, the decision of the Commission was still officially (legally) maintained as an opinion, or recommendation (Article 3).

As for the last (but first in my list) objective, ending the possibility of completely forbidding completely a film, it is officially maintained (Article 3): however, in practice, no film has been completely forbidden since the 1980s.

"WE CANNOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS" 136 : WHAT HAS NOT CHANGED.

As we are about to see for the BBFC, there are three objects of classification that have been completely put aside by the Commission:

-VHS (and so, DVDs and Blu-Rays) -Video games -Providers of streaming films.

The main reason is that "the Commission only act on what it can control. What is

not controllable is not controllable, hence it is useless to do anything" 137 (Gauthier Jurgensen). And the question is not about: can you control DVD? Or video games? And so on… The real question is: can you control the audience? And for those three objects, the answer is: No. "You have to realise that on the DVD market, you are not in a cinema, you cannot forbid a certain age bracket from buying the DVD. We have no control on who is going to watch it after it is sold" 138 . So for DVD, and for video games, "what comes out [from their specific age-ratings] are only recommendations, because once again, we have no control on who is going to play that video game within the private sphere"139 . So, if the Commission has been limited to films in cinema alone, it is because you can legally control who is going to attend a screening, through I.D. checks for example.

This puts the position of the BBFC in a completely different perspective: during the 1980s and 1990s, thanks to the VRA (1984), certain films were not released on VHS. Here is the problem for the French Commission: to control the private sphere, you need to forbid, which was something they did not want to do anymore.

Of the origins of the BBFC crisis. "Right now, film classification in Britain is in a state of flux with the new chief censors who are already turning heads by finally passing The Exorcist on video. On Television, a host of new digital film channels are flourishing and meet furious arguments about what we should and should not be allowed to watch in our homes. Meanwhile, the laws governing pornography seem as changeable as George Michael's sexuality and the effective regulation of the Internet as unlikely as the return of Wham! […] Channel 4 takes you on a unique journey into the heart of the British Board of Film Classification to witness the passing of a legend and to join the bizarre rituals of the last days of the board (Voice-off:

The program contains some violent scene and strong language)"140 .

According to this quote, a certain number of events transpired during the 1990s and let some people contemplate the idea of the BBFC's end (Dear reader, I know you already know that the Board still exists nowadays, but they did not know it then):

-The Board's leadership changed after 23 years (1975-1998) with James Ferman as Secretary/Director of the Board. He was one of the Secretaries who stayed the longest (See table below 141 ). And he also worked during the 1980s periodalso known as the beginning of the VRA (1984)which made him famous for his refusal to pass certain films on video (hence the remark on The Exorcist above). -The 1990s were not a rupture from the 1980s trend and films tended to have an increased presence on television; but, TV regulation was not under the Board's responsibility (though it clearly has an influence: same age-ratings, similar criteria, etc.).

-"The laws governing pornography are as changeable as George Michael's sexuality". Besides the fact that this sentence is a pearl, it is also biased. The only major law regarding pornographic issues is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994) translated into the Video Recordings Order (1995), giving the BBFC supplementary powers in order to reconsider any previous decisions made before the VRO. In the VRO, what was meant by 'harm' was precisely defined and a special attention was requested for works including: criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour and incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents, human sexual activity142 .

-The last element mentioned (control of the Internet) had indeed not yet been considered within the BBFC classification.

So, all these elements, added to the fact that the work of the BBFC seemed obscure to most people, that none of the criteria were known, and that the examiners remained anonymous as well: thus, it led to this sort of 1990s crisis. This sentence, from 1974, shows clearly what was brought to light during the 1990s: "Censorship decisions are taken in secret, based on unknown criteria, without subsequent justification or public accountability"143 . But, this 1998 program can also be seen as a turning point for the BBFC, on its way to becoming public.

Becoming public.

ACCOUNTABILITY. This is the keyword on which the new way of thinking the classification is based. The same patterns are found for the BBFC and the Commission.

However, they are much more pronounced in the UK, for all the reasons we have already seen: the need for credibility was much more persistent in the case of a non-official institution of classification, even with recently acquired statutory powers.

"I did not imagine, when I succeeded James Ferman as Director at the beginning of 1999, that I would have quite such an eventful first 12 months. This has been a year in which the Board's policy and resolve have been robustly tested. A year of appeal and litigation. A year in which the classification Guidelines have been redrafted and put to extended public consultation. The year of The Exorcist, The Idiots, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Seul Contre Tous, Romance and Fight Club (to mention only a few). A year in which our media image has veered from libertarian to kill-joydepending upon your newspaper, television or radio program or website; or perhaps more simply upon the short-term media response to the Board's most recent decision144 ".

On the other hand, in France, the obligation to publish a public report was not pushed by public demand, but instituted by the 1990 decree, article 20: "The Commission of classification shall give an annual report about its activities and the recommendations it issued to the Minister in charge of culture. The report shall be made public" 145 .

Though BBFC reports are a response to public demands and criticisms, they both have pretty much the same content:

-a brief recap about the status of the institution -selected examples of classification -a brief (in France)/ extended (in the UK) explanation of the method of classification -the list of members -and, only in the case of the BBFC, the summary of accounts.

A brief reminder about this last element: the Commission of Classification is part of a public institution called the CNC, so the budget is already public, and then, redistributed within the CNC to the different departments; the BBFC depends on the fees paid for each classification issued. So, for the latter, 'accountability' is a question of transparency at all levels: the institution, the classification, and the accounts.

So, the only transition for the French classification occurred in 1990, and since then, everything has been in the continuity of the decisions taken at that very moment.

On the other hand, the BBFC did not go through a transition, but through a crisis, losing the public's trust about its methods of classification: and in a way, this need to become 145 The reports from the Commission, were the reasons I believed there were criteria in the French classification.

public triggered creativity (new methods were created to survey public opinion), and an evolution within the classification itself.

Facing new threats? (2000-…)

We have already established that the BBFC and the CNC have parted ways in terms of objects of classification (hence the first part will be mainly devoted to the BBFC's work). But there is a question which challenges the very existence of both institutions: with the development of private channels devoted to films only, with the growing accessibility of films through the internet to children, are these classifications still relevant?

Universe 3.0.

Relevance is a question of legal point of view in terms of film classification. This is the French justification for not taking into their own hands the classification of video games, DVDs, etc.: they cannot have any control over it, as it happens in the private sphere. Because the BBFC felt everything was connected, and also, because it obtained statutory powers 146 with VHS, and then, DVDs, video games…, it chose to dive into those matters.

"The 1994 legislation also redefined the nature of a 'video work' so as to more clearly include video games. Although the majority of games remained exempt from 146 Acts as: OPA (1977), VRA (1984), VRO (1994).

Being confronted directly with public opinion, and being obliged to reveal its inner machinery, the BBFC was pushed towards a system, which allowed them to justify exceptions for certain criteria. The evolution which changed the face of the 'language criterion' could be summed up as: from the text to the context.

being age rated, the BBFC would now consider those games that included, amongst other things, gross violence, sexual activity, nudity and criminal acts"147 .

For 20 years, the BBFC rated games alongside films, on the basis of the same criteria. But in 2003, a European system was created. This is important because I have not yet been able to talk about it: it is expensive, for a film which qualifies for an international career, to be submitted to different systems of classification. But for cinema, at this point, the only element of agreement between European countries is that their systems are too different to create a single one that would satisfy everyone.

"Diversity. It is real and it is a testimony of our identities, of the history of our There is, however, a 21 st century phenomenon, which has to be taken into account: the return of the locals.

Past shadows: the locals return?

Why plural? (Very good question, dear reader). This time, I do not only mean local authorities, I also mean locals as in:

"There are two associations in the South-East of France, which describe themselves as familial associations […] which choose a judge they know in a small town; they refer to him/her saying 'this film is coming out on the city screens, it is a breach of moral standards, I ask you to ban the film'"152 . This is not a recent phenomenon, but thanks to the media, these associations have become more visible, by taking into their own hands cases of famous films (La Vie d'Adèle (Abdellatif Kechiche, 2013), Antichrist (Lars Von Tier, 2009), etc.). This is something I will not take into account as it does not affect directly the work of French examiners. Indeed, the decision is taken after the first classification was given. And then, it is not up to the Minister in charge of Culture, but to the Justice to decide the fate of the film.

However, what I will occasionally take into account are the decisions taken by local authorities in the UK, as they directly contradict certain specific reasons given by the BBFC as justifications for its classification. Just to give you a little spoiler: Popcorn time, the return.

What I have tried to give you here is an overview of the evolutions through which the BBFC and the Commission went. So that, now we are about to dive in a less chronological part, we all have the same context in mind. As, what I am about to show you, is that all those institutional evolutions influenced the constitution of a language criterion, and also the way examiners work.

Popcorn time: A Ken Loach case: Sweet

Sixteen ( 2002)

The key classification issue for Sweet Sixteen was strong language: what was at stake for the 18 rating was the fact that "cunt" was used at multiple times. However, the local authority which covered the shot -Inverclyde -decided to rate it 15. The debate around language in this case was: is the BBFC using a London-centered viewpoint.

This part has established that:

 The change from censorship to classification, though important, is not the only element at stake for these two classification systems  The evolutions of the composition of the Commission is another element  The changes occurring within these classification systems in terms of age-ratings support the idea that audiences are contributing to their general evolution  The institutional background of the BBFC encouraged the creation of criteria in order to establish its legitimacy, while in France, the Commission was not confronted to this problem (at least, not on the same scale)

Thus, the BBFC, as we are about to see, built a language criterion thanks to its institutional history.

Part III: Milo James Thatch or exploring a new sociolinguistic area.

This part aims at bringing together the historical background and the analysis of my data, but also to put the language criterion back into its context. "When the issue of context is raised it is typically argued that the focal event cannot be properly understood, interpreted appropriately, or described in a relevant fashion, unless one looks beyond the event itself at other phenomena (for example cultural setting, speech situation, shared background assumptions) within which the event is embedded […] The context is thus a frame […] that surrounds the event being examined and provides resources for its appropriate interpretation" (Alessandro Duranti, Charles Goodwin, 1992: p. 3).

Chapter 6: Building a language criterion? I have given, here and there, clues about the fact that a 'language criterion' might be great on paper, but in practice, is less obvious. This chapter aims to consider what happened and what did not happen within British and French film classifications.

In my chapter 4, I submitted this first scheme representing a very general explanation about the creation of two different systems of classification in France and in the United Kingdom, despite similar starting featurespower of the local authorities, late reaction of the government, etc.

In this chapter, I intend to develop this first draft to explain why in France, examiners claim that language is part of a whole -the film, and that there cannot be a specific criterion devoted to it, while in the United Kingdom, the whole system is built on criteria, and language is one of them.

To "why has a language criterion been developed in the UK and how?" and "why not in France?", I will answer in three parts:  The foundations: on which basis has this criterion been built? idea here is that if you build a system of criteria, your room for manoeuvre becomes more restricted: it is like a military order; it has to be respected.

6.1. Taking exceptions: objection, your honour! "It is found that the dialogue far more emphasizes the situation than is the case with titling […] therefore, the BBFC had to take more rigorous action to ensure 'damaging' topics were not presented on the cinema screen, and a new list of prohibited issues was drawn up in 1931" (Edward Lamberti (ed.), 2012: p. 19)

As the period I am talking about includes both silent and sound films, and as I am focusing on language, this issue was unavoidable: was there a major distinction made about language when films came to have sound? This quote seemed to be confirmed by the examiners responsible for the observation on scenarios153 : "While it is admitted that the subject has already been passed by the Board, it must borne in mind that the dialogue of a talkie film very often accentuates the situations and it will be very necessary to pay the various parts with delicacy and restraint to avoid emphasising the coarser side of this very strong drama"154 . However, synchronising the advent of sound and the censorship of language is not possible. Indeed, in the first BBFC report, for 1913, among the twenty-two exceptions taken on films, there is: "Indecorous sub-titles". So, clearly, language is not just a matter of sounds. Furthermore, despite the new list of prohibited issues published in 1931, and including words such as bum, strumpet, harlot (Edward Lamberti (ed.), 2012: p. 19), in 1919, it was not a list but a "no swearing" rule, which was established:

"The Board has come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when it is necessary in the interests of the Trade to make it a rule to object any use in the sub-titles of words and phrases which are in the nature of swearing. Films have been passed, although with reluctance, with the occasional introduction of words such as 'damn you' -'The damned' -'Go to Hell', etc., but it is noticed that the use of these words is greatly increasing, and in some films the repetition gives a bad tone to the whole story, while failing to add to the impressiveness of farce of the script. As it is impossible to make an arbitrary limit of the extent to which the use is advisable, it is thought that the only course is to rule out entirely all such language and expressions, and we hope, and have reason to believe, that this will meet with the approval of the Trade, as it certainly will of the Public" 155 . This quote answers one of the prejudices against the BBFC: no, dear reader, they did not count swearwords, they were ruling them out. And in order to do to so, they were creating lists of exceptions.

Creating lists of exceptions.

It is interesting to notice a major difference of vocabulary: while in France, examiners were talking about 'cuts' (coupures), the British examiners were taking that: what has been forbidden will be forbidden ever after. The work of the BBFC evolves depending on the type of films which are presented to its judgement, hence the case of swearing, which had been occasionally authorised and was then completely banned. This sense of lists made according to the films submitted is one of the aspects which can be drawn from the aforementioned exceptions. themselves, but the difficulty of choosing which ones would not be objectionable, for which reasons, and to what extent.

SUB-TITLES?

"Hitchcock's -and Britain's -first full-length sound film, Blackmail (1929), made for BIP, was only his second foray into the crime genre which was to make his name. According to legend, the studio gave Hitchcock the go-ahead to shoot a proportion of sound footage, but the director surreptitiously shot almost the entire film in sound, back to back with a silent version for distribution to the many cinemas still not equipped for talking pictures"158 .

So, until 1929, we are talking about silent films in Britain (and France159 as well) -this explains the fact that 'language' is referred to through the term sub-titles. Those exceptions are taken from films which passedeither U or A. I have left aside the part of the reports where the motives of complete censorship are given: the main reason being that a film has never been censored completely on linguistic grounds. Most of the films were classified Universal at that time. For example, in 1919, they saw "2,311 subjects of which 1,454 have been passed for Universal Exhibition, 829 have passed for Public Exhibition with a restrictive 'A' Certificate, while 28 films have been entirely rejected. The Examiners have taken exception to 253 films"160 .

Apart from swearing, there are two other main areas of censorship: political and sex references, which is labelled by the adjective "suggestive". It is impossible to tell what was the content under those indications. One thing is sure though: those lists were public but also sent to the producers: they had thus two main functionsgiving a report of the past year but also providing a list of limits for future directors/producers.

About those limits:

 Swearing: the fact that it was completely banned might refer to its own reputation, and to cinemas' reputation. I have already mentioned that crime and cinema were intertwined at the beginning of censorship (Chapter 4), and as Tony McEnery underlines (2006: p. 72), British conceptions of bad language were inherited from 17 th and 18 th century attitudes, when it was clearly a mark of 'non-middle-classness' and was associated to a lack of education and low morals. Alongside those considerations, there was also the disrepute of cinemas 161 .

 Political sub-titles: This particular type of exceptions can be linked to two different elements. Firstly, the need for the BBFC to be supported by the government ensured that censorship was close to governmental policies. As a reminder, at this time, the BBFC was supported mainly by the Film Industry and the overt support of the government and the local authorities became clear only at the end of the 1920s (see Chapter 4, for more details). Secondly, political sub-titles can also be linked to the fact that most of this period was under the yoke of war.

 Suggestive sub-titles: Here is a hypothesis (which I will be able to partly confirm: see 6.2) about 'suggestiveness'. Back in my first chapters where I tried to define what was meant by 'language criterion', I tried to make a distinction between euphemisms and dysphemisms. In this case, I suspect this is not 'bad language' in a dysphemistic sense, but in a euphemistic sense: in other words, I do not think that dialogues were at that time containing what we call 161 TNA, HO 45/10811/312397: Picture From The Kinematograph and Lantern Weekly, January 4 th , 1917 nowadays explicit language, but rather suggested references to sexual activities.

 'Indecorous sub-titles': As indecorous was the only element linked to sub-titles from 1913 until 1919, I wondered about two elements. Firstly, does 'indecorous' mean simply unacceptable, and in this case, cover 'swearing, political and suggestive sub-titles'? Secondly, does it refer to elements in conflict with decorum?

HIDDEN LANGUAGE EXCEPTIONS?

Decorum is most likely the proper answer. My first assumption was that language was necessarily indicated by 'sub-titles', but it appears that there are plenty of other exceptions, which might have been about the sub-titles, without being formulated as such.

On the following pages, you will find most of the exceptions which might have been linked to language. For some of them (not quoted below), there are still uncertainties (see Annex): 'Illegal operations', 'Personal violence amounting to brutality', etc. For those, I can make hypotheses as I can relate them to the observations on scenarios; however, I cannot have any certainty that language is necessarily involved. For example, in the 1930s, references to abortion were among the exceptions examiners were taking from the scenarios, but 'illegal operations' does not necessarily refer to abortion, and it does not necessarily imply explicit or implicit references within the dialogue (though I strongly doubt that it was shown).

About the new exceptions I have added (I admit I created a bit of suspense to separate the direct references to sub-titles from certain others which were clearly linked to dialogues, but it is not the case for all of them):

-Apart from sub-titles, the other possible allusions to language are: quotations, themes, subjects, references, use/misuse, propaganda.

-There are recurrent themes: swearwords ('offensive vulgarity'), sex ('advocacy of the doctrine of free love, suggestion of incest etc.), politics (references to controversial policies, Bolshevik propaganda, etc.). The only new theme is religion (irreverent Biblical quotations, …). changes (new elements are taken into account). But, their work is also influenced by external changes: international context, advent of sound, etc.

-The second one is the institutionalisation of exchanges: we have seen in chapter 4 that progressively, the different groups (government, local authorities, associations…) started to position themselves in relation to the BBFC. This touches on censorship itself with local authorities, such as the LCC (London County Council) publishing list of rules completely copied (and presented as such) from the list of exceptions of the BBFC: same organisation in themes 163 ; but these exchanges also extended beyond the limits of the UK, with the Colonial Films Committee repeating the same pattern 164 .

But, these are elements playing a part in the strengthening of censorship as a whole. What about the language criterion?

Institutional contexts.

It was only from 1928 that it was finally possible, in the UK, within the frame of the work of the Board, to talk about a 'language criterion', called at that time 'Titling and Sound Reproduction'. Furthermore, there are major features in the UK, which clearly favoured its institutionalisation. On the contrary in France, there were clearly elements which prevented the establishment of a system of classification, but also the fact that particular attention was paid to linguistic issues.

Working at the Board…

For the Board, and more particularly for its examiners, there were three elements, which helped in the constitution of a language criterion.

THE BBFC AND THE CHAMBERLAIN

"The function of the Board is confined to the question whether films are suitable for exhibition in the usual cinemas, over which their jurisdiction and responsibility exist. The audience at a cinema is very differently constituted from that of a theatre, being composed largely of young people and family parties, who, more often than not, have no knowledge beforehand of the program which is to be put before them. This consideration obviously imposes on the Board other canons of criticisms than those which are adequate in the censorship of dramatic productions" (BBFC Report; 1919) 165 .

Theatre censorship lasted until 1968; when it was abolished by the Theatres Act.

So, when cinema censorship started, the Lord Chamberlain was still in charge of censoring theatres. This had a clear impact in the evolution of the BBFC work on language, especially on the return of swearwords within films.

In the previous quote, there is a distinction made between theatres and cinemas by taking into account the type of audience. Beside the fact that they are insisting on the fact that cinemas attract 'young people and family parties', I think the key part to understand what they meant is: they have no knowledge beforehand of the program which is to be put before them. This, linked to the disrepute of cinemas (see chapter 4), gives the broader picture: it is not the same type of people who attend plays and films, but it is not principally, in their viewpoint, a question of age, but of social class.

However, what is important here is what is not said: in 1919, a 'no-swearing rule' was passed. In theatres, there was no such rule. And if you remember what you have read two chapters ago, dear reader, you will also remember that at that time, the local authorities' power in terms of censorship was strong, and directors/producers were able to use that power against BBFC decisions. Thus, when only language was at stake, and when the film was an adaptation of a play, the decisions of the Lord Chamberlain had a clear impact on the examiners' decisions, and this was so until 1968. We have already talked about Pygmalion: the remarks of the examiners were ignored and the two occurrences of 'bloody' were in the film, and kept this way. James Robertson (1985: p. 70) argues that the examiners let it through because they also wanted to avoid a Dawn incidenta film directed by Herbert Wilcox (1928), which is an account of Edith Cavell's trial and execution: it was banned by the BBFC because of pressures coming from the German embassy, but the local councils, the LCC at the forefront, approved it.

PRACTICING CLASSIFICATION

Another feature of institutionalisation of a 'language criterion' is the classification itself. This is in direct comparison with the French situation: British examiners had the choice between two ratings from the start -U standing for Universal and A for 'more suitable for adults'. And in 1921, this A, which was advisory, was becoming restrictive within certain areas. This first sense of classification meant that there was a possible distinction between 'suitable for everyone' and 'suitable for adults'. So there was a possibility to make a distinction in terms of content as well.

KEEPING UP WITH THEIR TIME?

At the end of the 1920s, with the advent of sound, examiners were facing two technical problems. First of all, they clearly did not anticipate the success of sound films and were not equipped to watch films with synchronized sound: their solution, asking for the scenarios. "In practice, however, we should find it difficult to install the projectors for the synchronised versions in our private theatre. We have therefore required the script to be furnished in all cases where dialogue is concerned"166 . And the second reason, which is also linked to the advent of sound is that, with synchronized sound, it became very difficult to make clean cuts: "The experiences during the year have justified our remarks, and the Board is repeatedly meeting with the objection that technically it is difficult to delete or modify either scenes or dialogues without completely upsetting the continuity, or sacrificing whole reels"167 . Thus, they proposed, as a solution, to read and examine the scenarios before shooting. So, clearly, by reading the scenarios, the emphasis was on the text but it was not the only reason that triggered language censorship. In 1925, complaints were already being raised about vulgarities introduced by American films, where "some words being used which have a vulgar association here, although apparently for universal use in the U.S.A"168 . So their concern about language was not only technical, but there was a movement to keep the language 'clean' or as the BBFC president of that period put it, intelligible169 : "It is obvious that if synchronised drama is to be made popular here, it is vital that the dialogue should be written in language which is intelligible to the average audience. This is clearly more important than in the case of sub-titles. In the silent film, the interest is largely, indeed mainly, enlisted by the action, but in the case of synchronised drama, it is manifest that the interest is more dependent on the merits of the dialogue. It is therefore clear that the language should be such as is easily understood in this country, and does not give offence"170 .

The workings of the Commission…

Meanwhile, in France…

By comparison, France ended theatre censorship since 1906. There was only one age-rating (Universal) until the Régime de Vichy and the composition of the successive commissions clearly played a role in the non-establishment of criteria. Indeed, the first national film censorship commission in 1916 was military, the second one instituted in 1919 was strictly governmental with the Ministries of Defense, Interior, etc. involved, and in 1928, the new commission was constituted of 16 members of the government, and 16 from the film industry. So, the advent of sound was marked by the advent of the film industry in the workings of the Commission of Control.

The Commission guidelines could be summarized by the following aspect, inscribed in the articles on which it was built: they would censor anything that would risk to cause an affront to public decency or trouble public order. So, it does not mean there were no linguistic elements censored, but that it was not institutionalised as in the case of the BBFC: it encompasses classification as a whole (no criteria). Instead, by introducing the commitment of the film industry within censorship/classification issues, attention was also turned to other matters (economic, cultural, etc.). Thus, when in 1946, the C.N.C. (Centre National de la Cinématographie) was created: the Commission of control was one of the many workings of the C.N.C., which was more than the BBFC had ever beenthat is a cultural, economic and political institution. Though I cannot measure at this stage of my research the impact of the C.N.C. on the Commission, I can, at least, support the definition of Laurent Garreau (2009: p. 17-18) about French films censorship: one of its four axes is the relations with the C.N.C. previous to the issuance of the visa of exploitationrelations based on economic decisions such as financial support.

So, as I have already suspected in the historical part of this thesis, the way those two institutions formed had a profound impact on the formation (or not) of a 'language criterion'. So far, we, dear reader, have seen that the BBFC, between 1912 and 1931, built a sort of criterion dedicated to the linguistic elements of films under the label "Titling" and later "Titling and Sound Reproduction". However, we cannot talk yet about a criterion, as the lists of exceptions are part of annual reports, and the only thing I can conclude for sure about them is that from 1926, in those reports, there is a first attempt to organise the exceptions by theme (and language is one of them). This does not mean that these themes were used as such in the everyday practices of the examiners. One way to see this is to check the only source available in the continuity of those reports: the observations on scenarios. that is, the technical problems met by the BBFC and by the Film Industry with the advent of sound. The BBFC was not equipped at the very beginning to actually play the film with sound within its premises. And the film industry had difficulties to make clean cuts within the film, when they were required. More practically speaking, those observations are reports constituted of two parts:

-A summary of the scenario -The elements asked for deletion (or advice of caution) Generally, there are two reports per scenario, by the two same examiners (with a few exceptions): Colonel J.C. Hanna and Miss Shortt (Mrs Crouzet from 1936), between 1930until 1949(with two years missing: 1940and 1948). On all the scenarios, plays, novels, commented, I took notes for 373 of them (these are the observations with reflections on linguistic elements), distributed as in the following table :   1930 -32 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1941 -42-43 1944 Hence, here, the aim is to look at the content of the observations, in comparison to the lists of exceptions, but also to elaborate the practices of the examiners: for example, are the themes apparent in their writings? Do they distinguish linguistic elements from other elements? Furthermore, as there are only the two same examiners on most cases, what does it say about working as an examiner at that time?

The second part (6.2.2.) will try to give some context to those observations by giving some audience's reactions, transcribed in press articles, and to, once again, try and understand what was happening in the meantime on the other side of the Channel.

Giving content to the exceptions.

In the previous paragraphs, I had established through the lists of exceptions that from 1926, there is a special category for linguistic issues, but that they are not limited to it, and other categories such as politics, religion, society and sex, present linguistic aspects as well. In this regard, the hypothesis would be that it brings more confusion, and avoids the isolation of language, and thus, the creation of a criterion dedicated to it, used in practice by examiners.

List of exceptions and Observations.

As expected, linguistic issues within the observations can be divided in subthemes (sex, politics, religion, society, swearwords). But this is not the most interesting finding which can be deduced from those reports.

LIST OF WORDS

One of the first features which comes out of those observations is the question of lists of proscribed words. As pointed out in Edward Lamberti (ed., 2012: p. 19), or in the annual reports of the BBFC, two different lines of work co-existed: listing forbidden words such as bum, strumpet, harlot, and a 'no-swearing' rule.

Well, dear reader, you will be glad to hear that both those features are present within the observations, including the censoring of bum, strumpet and harlot, among others. Here is a first list of words which are regularly asked for deletion, organized under a basic principle of frequency (Software used: AntConc). This is what can be found in my corpus of observations. The problem with those numbers is that they cannot be used in more detail, as the number of files is different from one year to another (not the number of observations per year for which I took notes, but the total of observations for each year) and that, after the Second World War, the practice of reading scenarios starts to decline significantly (the last book, 1949, was very thin compared to the others171 ). To this, you can also add the fact that some scenarios were submitted under different titles, but as the examiners were not always sure that it was the same film, you cannot conclude anything from it. On top of that, there are different situations for all the scenarios: some have been produced, some have never been shot, some have been produced but under a different title, and with a slightly different story.

And finally, some were plays, some novels, some original scripts, scenarios. But, to give you an example, with the most powerful word (in terms of occurrences) of this corpus:

There is also another major problem of methodology (not on my part, but on the part of the examiners): the only thing joined to the examiners' commentaries are a summary of the scenarios/scripts/novels… all the deletions requested are rarely put in context. So, I could say that those words I have listed above are systematically rejected, but I cannot be 100% sure, as the examiners themselves give me reasons to doubt:

-"There are a certain number of swearwords in the book which might well be omitted in the film dialogue" (Excess Baggage, 1932): certain? Then, not all of them? -Colonel Hanna: "There are a few mild swearwords, which are very mild for that period, but otherwise, I do not think there is anything in scene or dialogue to which we would take exception" and Miss Shortt: "This comedy is quite suitable for production; but I would like to call your attention to one or two expletives, used no doubt to give atmosphere to the roughness of the language of fighting soldiers. Perhaps some of them should be deleted" (Me and Malborough, 1934). For the suggestions of deletion, she quotes: "Why the hell, Blast you, By God, Hell (Twice), What the hell". Does that mean: no more "no-swearing" rule? Beside, as examiners were working within the same premises, reading the same scenarios, should not they apply the same rules? -In case you needed more proof about this last remark (Dusty Ermine, 1935): Both of them asked for the deletions of "bloody", "bitch", but then, about the rest, Colonel Hanna noticed that "There are a few swearwords, but nothing offensive", when, on the contrary, Miss Shortt continued and asked to "delete the "Good Gods", "damns", "What the hells"".

So, in the first part of this chapter, the annual reports, by giving lists of exceptions which were taking a more organised form throughout the years, let me think that the censorship of the films, and more precisely, the censorship of linguistic issues, was organised. My readings confirmed this aspect of organisation by the establishment that lists of prohibited words were communicated by the BBFC to the film industry. In practice, it does not seem that simple.

Firstly, I cannot be sure of the regularities of the prohibitions: indeed, as suggested by the comments of both examiners, certain swearwords were permissible. Those comments of permissiveness are generally associated with positive comments about the scenarios, and to swearwords considered as less offensive for that particular period: damn, hell… (remember, dear reader, that these were on the 'no-swearing' list of 1919). For example, "Some of the dialogue is too outspoken and would require to be softened. There are a good many "damns" which could easily be avoided and one "bloody" which must be excised" (Carnival, 1931).

Secondly, on the list of swearwords I have given above, I suspect that some are outdated or not that much used, even for that period. Again, are they not that much used in the scenarios, or are they less noticed by the examiners? I would opt for the first assumption, because of the repartition of those words in the corpus:

- Strumpet: 1934and 1941. -Lewd: 1933, 1934, 1944and 1945. -Bawdy: 1934and 1944. -Pimp: 1934and 1937. Another hypothesis is that depending on the taboos carried by certain words, scriptwriters might as well have avoided them, in order to obey the demands of the BBFC and of the audience (which was taken into account by the examiners, as we shall see very soon). Moreover, the demands of the examiners were evolving, as shown by the case of blast: "We wired America about 1937 and 1938 that we should allow "blast" in the future. I think that the whole thing depends on how it is used" (Landfall, 1949).

Thirdly, the over-representation of bloody might be nuanced by the following fact: it may have attracted the examiners' attention, because it was widely spread in the scenarios; one of the reasons explaining this could be the more liberal theatrical context on which a lot of films were depending (almost a third of my corpus of observations).

PLAY VS. FILM

"In the play there is a fair amount of swear words, which might advantage be reduced in the screen version" (The Ringer 172 , observation 1930).

"From the Censor's point of view the chief objection to this play is the suggestion of an illegal operation, even though the language is quite very delicately veiled. The idea would have to be wholly deleted from the dialogue. There are a good many words in the nature of swearing which should be deleted. It is recognised that the film cannot permit the use of such words to the same extent that the stage doors" (The Stag 173 , observation 1930).

And this was also true for silent films, as James Robertson (1985: p. 37) points out: " [What Price Glory? (Fox, 1926, dir. Raoul Walsh)] […] and uses the play's bad language which an audience would identify through the actors' lip movements.

Nevertheless, the BBFC passed it on 28 February 1927 Bloody in the observations of scenarios Bloody sub-title alterations". And this comparison between censorship of plays and films is carried on until the end of theatrical censorship, that is, 1968.

One of the worries which is the most highlighted by the writings of the examiners is the question of quantity: I used some examiners' remarks earlier to point out that all the swearwords were not asked for deletion. Those same remarks also show that what they take into account is the quantity. So, was the "no-swearing" rule for all films, or just the ones for which directors wanted to obtain the most economically generous classification -Universal? But, more than that, there is a question of context: I was suggesting that more pleasing scenarios (from the examiners' viewpoint) might have been granted more freedom (for mild language) than the ones they found unsuitable. But the context is defined by the themes: not necessarily the themes within linguistic issues, but as a whole within the scenario.

REFERENCES TO…

So, obviously, depending on the theme of the film, there will be words linked to that particular content. But, we have seen in the list of exceptions that certain themes are prohibited or unsuitable for the screen. And also, if you remember the quote from the observation on The Stag, even when the reference is not explicit, it counts. Thus, when the examiners asked for the deletion of references to infidelity, or to opium, if there are no quotes from the scenario, there is no guarantee that the reference was explicit. On the other hand, some references might have seemed vulgar, but not necessarily offensive to the examiners, and that is the reason why the expression was deleted.

Hence, there is clearly a distinction between euphemisms as "you mean to go to bed with her?" (The Flashing, 1939) -"a machine to produce honourable children" -"I've been sleeping with you for the last three nights" Their definition is the following: "given another context with a different set of interlocutors […] the same expression could just as well be described as cheerfully euphemistic". In the case of this stage play, the scene in which those references are emphasizes the dysphemistic issue of those quotes: they describe the scene as "the vamping scene between Lady Cattering and Neville".

Here is my question: where is the line between censoring taboo or offensive language and censoring linguistic elements because they suggest something happened? Where is the line between the examiner and the speaker?

Personal observations.

What is the status of the observations? Earlier, I asked the question: What are the observations? But it did not completely comprehend all the features of those observations. Indeed, their status within the premises of the BBFC, and for the Film Industry is primordial in their definition.

The first dimension is obviously the laissez-passer, given or not by the report: either the script is suitable for screen or not. The second dimensionwhich is the object of this partis far less obvious: it is the personal commitment of the examiners in that particular period. This was already noticeable in certain quotes in the previous paragraphs. They do not give only a censoring verdict, but also a judgement of taste. One of the adjectives they tend to use to highlight their disapproval is "sordid", and it is generally emphasized by expressions such as: "In my opinion". For example, Mrs.

Crouzet wrote about the scenario of Birthdays, submitted in 1936: "in my opinion, this is a very sordid story, but I am afraid it would not be possible to call it prohibitive". They even tend to make suggestions to replace certain expressions or words: for 'adultery' 'misconduct' was proposed (Decree Nisi, 1939), for 'ripper' 'avenger' (The Lodger, 1932) etc.

One of the ways to confirm the subjective implication of the examiners is the presence of numerous markers of subjectivity associated to words I have listed above between their reports:

-(The Fugitive Smuggler, 1939): ""Judge Jeffries, him of the Bloody Assizes". I personally take no exception to the use of the word bloody in this instance" (Mrs. Crouzet).

- Not only do these quotes relate to their personal commitmentthe high frequency of the first singular personal pronoun 'I' associated with 'think, consider, etc.' also supports this ideabut also to the lack of organisation of a possible 'language criterion', which seemed to appear within the BBFC annual reports.

The case of the beef in The Count's Livery is particularly interesting, in the sense that bloody is more and more tolerated throughout the years, and thus, its context of use matters, but in other cases, where the tolerance is low, the ruling of the Board prevails, whatever the context: "The word "cissy" being objected to by the Board is unsuitable name for the cow" (His Lordship Goes to Press, 1938).

To support this 'personal commitment' feature, I will go through three different cases:

-The question of social sensibilities, or how the social status of the examiners influences their observations;

-The lack of knowledge on certain linguistic issues, which obviously affects their judgement;

-And the preconceived ideas they project within their reports, especially French stereotypes.

SOCIAL SENSIBILITIES

This part will tackle three different themes: the question of accuracy, the case of female characters, and what I will call private matters.

Military accuracy

The question of accuracy does not have the same importance for both examiners.

Colonel Hanna is particularly attached to the respect of military vocabulary in all its dimensions, this probably being due to his past profession. For example, ""Defaulters" is only applied to men after sentence. In those days the word to use would be "Prisoners", Substitute "Crime" or "Guard Report" for "Charge Sheet". Latter expression only used at Courts Martial" (Soldiers Three, 1934) or, when it is the main theme of the story, it becomes: "There is not much story. The object apparently is to present a picture of what life was like in the ranks of the New Armies whilst training at home. If this is so, it is a miserable failure. The dialogue is silly, the atmosphere is entirely false, the jokes are almost connected with the sanitary squad, No 9 pills and latrine buckets, all girls referred to as "tarts". Whenever an officer is introduced he is depicted as fool who doesn't know his job, the Sergeant is familiarly known as Old Gustache, the words of command on parade are ridiculously inaccurate. In fact, the whole thing is the cheapest travesty that one could well imagine" (Wait for it, 1933).

The case of female characters

In this case, the fact that the character is a woman and her rank in society are sometimes intertwined and very difficult to distinguish, as there are -"The language of the book is very outspoken on the subject of sex and is full of swear words, especially the word "bloody" which is freely used by all the characters, especially the women" (A Soviet Marriage, 1931)

The question of gender and language has generally been considered under the perspective of the Separate World Hypothesis, which implies that men and women use different languages, because they evolve in separate worlds [START_REF] Ervin-Tripp | The Place of Gender in Developmental Pragmatics: Cultural Factors[END_REF]. But in this case, it is not a question of being separate, but on the contrary, it is a one-way interaction between a speaker and a listener: "in cross-sex interaction between potentially sexually-accessible interlocutors, or same-sex interaction in gender-specific tasks" (Brown and Levinson, 1983: p. 53). The idea herealso supported by Robin-Eliece [START_REF] Mercury | Swearing : a bad part of language, a good part of language learning[END_REF] is that depending on the genders present in the interaction, the behaviours would not be the same. As the quotes above are written both by Colonel Hanna and Mrs Crouzet, it seems that this idea of different marked behaviours for linguistic issues is completely integrated. However, it is difficult to go further in this direction and check if female characters are more censored than male characters because of the lack of information in the observations.

Private matters

In my first chapters, I introduced the notion of taboos, underlining that they were related to different themes, including bodies and their effluvia. What I did not realise is that the advent of sound would boost the possibilities of this particular taboo, with a particular keyword I discovered with the observations: "razzberry or raspberries" (two different spellings).

Thus, if the sound is not tolerated, and systematically asked for deletion, so are the jokes associated to it:

-"Can't you control your wind man?" (Maria Marten, 1935). But, it is not limited to this, and all associated words are asked for deletion: constipated (White Ensign, 1933). However, once again, it is very difficult to go further than that, as once again, all those demands for deletion are out of context. But, it is possible to say that, in terms of language, the examiners tend to build a middle-class way, which is confirmed by their isolation and lack of knowledge in terms of 'slang'.

INCOMPREHENSIONS

The above examples are closely bound to a difficult period for the BBFC, in terms of linguistic issues: with the advent of sound, technical difficulties arose but this was not all. Indeed, an article of The Morning Post (March 8 th , 1930) explained the situation like this: "In the days of silent films there is no doubt that the censorship system worked reasonably well, but in the last twelve months the industry has been revolutionised by the advent of talk-films. The result has been to lay the cinemas open to all sorts of American phrases and vulgarisms of which very few people in England know the meaning. Mr Brooke Wilkinson admits that several of the slang words he meets in script are unknown to him".

However, unlike what I suspected, the article does not link the problem to the social origin of the examiners, but to their age: they are all above 50, and know nothing about slang. Even so, it works for Colonel Hanna, but not for Miss Shortt/ Mrs Crouzet. Nonetheless, it does not prevent from saying that their judgement is clouded by their absence of knowledge in this domain. What I have tried to suggest through this part is that examiners at that time were clearly influenced by their personal experiences and their own prejudices, as criteria were not clearly organized and that there was hesitation, in the case of language, between lists of prohibited words, and taking into account the context of those words.

-"The dialogue throughout is very French. Very outspoken and in many places quite prohibitive". (The Passage of Princes, 1934) -"Light French comedy, which suggests improprieties at times but never shows them" (The Impromptu Journey, 1935)

-"Delete 'Salaud! Tricheur!'" (The Fire Raisers, 1933)

The reason why I had an interest about French stereotypes is not really the question of the personal commitment of the examiners but rather an on-going question about French films: was there any swearing in French films, or sex references? I did not get any clear information from my readings, except some anecdotes about French linguistic issues. I think that this seems to give me an answer to the differenceseven preconceivedabout French and British films; so, this could be a reason to add about the lack of a language criterion in the early period of French censorship: the fact that the cultural context -French in general, and the French film industry in particularmight also have played a part in the non-institutionalisation of linguistic issues in the French censorship/classification.

So, what I have tried to convey so far is an apparent institutionalization of a 'language criterion' through the BBFC annual reports, and on the contrary, a rather loose organisation of the prohibited elements when it comes to the observations on scenarios.

Those observations are a testimony of the considerable personal commitment examiners allowed themselves, in terms of letting their own linguistic prejudices mix with social and cultural preconceived ideas emerge (Tom Dewe Mathews, 1994: p. 51).

Anecdotes.

From this first conclusion about the reports and observations, one question looms: were the linguistic worries so widely spread? I cannot answer this question for sure, as not all the audience had a voice on censoring issues. However, certain factsthat I have labelled anecdotes, as they are isolated elementsseem to point to something which has already been mentioned: the advent of sound enhanced linguistic issues. Examiners were conscious of it: "She leaves muttering something about "saucy lot of baskets". I suggest the producers take care that "baskets" does not sound like "bastards"" (Murder Tomorrow, 1937).

BRITISH AWARENESS ON LINGUISTIC ISSUES

One of the elements showing that linguistic issues were one of the worries of British audiences is the fact that misunderstandings were almost considered as prohibited. This kind of misunderstanding, calling for examiners' intervention, confirms elements already seen in the observations of scenarios: accusations directed at American films, the technical difficulties of the BBFC to adapt to the advent of synchronised sound, and worries about linguistic issues. But swearwords are not the only issue advertised by the press. "The Board of Film Censors yesterday afternoon took the unusual course of sending their examiners to re-censor an American talking film, "Untamed", now being shown at the Empire Cinema, Leicester-square, W.

This action was taken on the representation that a word offensive to English ears had crept into the dialogue.

As a result of the examiners' visit the exhibitors were requested to blot out the offending passage forthwith.

A visit to the cinema before the blot-out was effected left no doubt as to the word, which, in some parts of the house, was greeted with ribald titters.

At the offices of the Film Censors, however, it was maintained that the actual word was "buzzard", and the script of the film submitted when the first censorship was made was produced in support.

What Audience Believed

Whatever the written word may be, there can be no doubt as to what at least 95 per cent of the audience believed it to be.

Mr. Brooke Wilkinson, secretary to the Board of Film Censors, explained that when "Untamed" was submitted for censorship early in January the board had no talking film apparatus and had to examine the picture as a silent film, checking it with the written script provided.

"That means, " he continued, "we never 'heard' the film, and when this morning it was represented to me that the word used was 'b-----r' and not 'buzzard', as printed in the script, I sent examiners to see and hear the film.

"I have received their report and, although the word 'buzzard' is used twice in the film, they agree that on the first occasion it might be mistaken for something else.

"Frankly I do not know what the word "buzzard" is supposed to mean; it seems a harmless sort of word in itself, but many words are now coming over from America of which I do not know the meaning."

Here comes a case of outspoken language, again. Indeed, in 1931, August 13 th ,

The Smiling Lieutenant with Maurice Chevalier had its place in The Methodist Times, which was calling for censors' intervention. The reasons advanced were mainly the songs:

-"It has beautiful music but the words are such that we do not think it desirable to repeat them here. Chevalier's songs were banned when he attempted to sing them on the stage during his last visit to this country; why should he be allowed to sing them in the "talkie" picture houses?" Then, what was happening in France? We have already seen that there was no institutionalisation of criteria, due to a certain number of factors (see 6.1.2.1.), but does that mean there was no censorship of language at all?

-
The answer is obviously no. Frédéric [START_REF] Hervé | Censure et cinéma dans la France des Trente Glorieuses[END_REF] Thus, sex, politics, drugs, … are all possibly linked to linguistic issues. However, at no point does the author suggest lists of words, such as in the BBFC reports, or as suggested as well by the observation on scenarios. However, though he regularly quotes the dialogues through all its categories (4 divided in 18 sub-categories), 'language' is one of the social questions 'sub²-categories'that is:

-Social questions is the main category -The sub-category of social questions in which language is embedded is morals (moeurs).

However, the example quoted in this 'sub²-category' suggests that language is always one of the reasons quoted for the age-rating of a film and never the main reason:

On Pierrot le Fou (Jean-Luc Godard, 1965), the representative of the Ministry of Public Health said: "everything is sickening and vulgar, the situation, the style, the characters' temper, the linguistic vulgarity, which is barely French, the erotic nature, the brutality of some scenes"176 (In Frédéric Hervé, 2015: p. 312).

So, there is a French silence about language, as it has never been an issue as such:

it has always been connected to the context (and for the more recent period, from mid-1970s until the current day, all my informants confirmed this aspect). This is what Frédéric Hervé remarks (2015: p. 314): "this is what this chapter about the moral of censorial discourse reveals: it is almost always the morals of the youth, its language, or its sexual practices that the censor intends to remove from the minors' eyes"177 . It is not only what is said which matters but who is saying it.

In conclusion, these two systems clearly differ not only in terms of the presence or notof a language criterion, but also in terms of practices. And it is those practices which are going to seal the destiny of the (non-) existence of criteria within their classifications.

Methods of work: parting ways.

The object of this chapter was to show the contrast between British and French classifications, with the progressive institutionalisation of a 'language criterion' for the BBFC. However, until now, the finale is missing: the 'language criterion' as we have seen through the observation on scenarios does not seem to exist. But, it is possible to trace the true source of its existence, and probably of its creation as well, through the examiners' reports.

Tables vs. summaries.

Until the beginning of the 1980s, the examiners' reports were quite similar to the Commission's reports, which contained:

-The distribution of the film production -A possible notice of pre-censorship on the scenario -The report of the sub-commission -The general report written by the president -Letters exchanged between the beneficiary and the president, or the Minister -Notes exchanged between examiners or with the different ministries

The examiners' reports contained:

-The certificate of classification (equivalent to the general report) -A possible notice of pre-censorship on the scenario -The reports of at least two examiners -Letters exchanged between the beneficiary and the president or secretary of the BBFC -Letters from the public.

However, though the practice is not really going to change for the Commission, it clearly does for the BBFC with the creation of tables. Here is an example: And there, they are: the BBFC criteria. So, though it seemed obvious that the BBFC strictness necessarily implied the creation of criteria, it was not that obvious for the BBFC examiners to institutionalise them completely in their everyday practices. This is confirmed by the writings of John Trevelyan (former Secretary of the BBFC, 1958BBFC, -1971)): "Our methods were intuitive rather than scientific, but I believe that our assessments were nevertheless reasonably successful; indeed this view is supported by the fact that we had surprisingly little criticism even during a period of considerable liberalisation" (1973: p. 66). He describes the work of the Board as inconsistent, as each film was judged independently, but also because the team of examiners had no clear common frame of reference, which the advent of tables clearly changed.

The fact that they started to use them obliged them to define what they meant by "language". In the table above, the definition appears rather clear: 'language' corresponds to what is not visual, so everything which is sound. It will be the purpose of another chapter to demonstrate that this definition suggested by the presentation of the table might not be so simple.

So, by parting ways in terms of methods of work, they also parted ways in terms of classification:

-Clearly, the BBFC institutionalised, through its practices, a system of criteria This last subsection is a general reflection, in order to introduce the next chapter, but also in order to pose a certain number of questions about something which is taken for granted in Film Studies: the Universal film, the Holy Grail of the producers (because it does not presentat least in terms of classification signaleconomic limitations).

I have not been able yet to propose a definition of what is, even linguistically a

Universal French film (skip to Chapter 8 if you cannot wait to know why). However, I have been able to draw the contours, especially the linguistic ones of a British Universal film, and I have found a surprising result.

We have seen, dear reader, that during the 1930s, it appeared that the 'no-swearing rule' elaborated in 1919, was not completely followed by the examiners and the level of tolerance was sometimes higher than expected. Thus from 1945, what was censored within the observation of scenarios became part of the Universal films, such as damn, hell, and other very mild swearwords.

This has not much evolved, partly because of the evolution of the classification system. Nowadays, at U, they "only allow infrequent use of very mild bad language (e.g. 'damn' and 'hell')"178 . This is the result of the 1980s as well: with the creation of the tables, and their systematic use, and with the creation of two new age-ratings (PG in 1982 and12 in 1989), the possibility of dividing the 'language criterion' in sub-categories defined by degrees of offensiveness was increased.

But the increase of this possibility also meant another feature, which clearly makes language a major issue of the British classification: the difference between a Universal (or at least an advisory category such as A and later PG) and a 15-rated film is just one 'fuck' away. So, like many other aspects of the films, this specific criterion was affected by another process: negotiation.

Chapter 7: Degrees or not degrees… Negotiating the unspeakable?

In the first chapters (part I), a certain number of notions were taken for granted: the existence of a 'language criterion', but also the question of organised degrees: a language classified in degrees corresponding to age-ratings. In the previous chapter, we have already seen that the existence of a 'language criterion' was not obvious taken in a diachronic perspective. Here, we are going to see that the question of degrees is more complex that what I have presented in my second chapter. I will also present another drawback of comparing two classification systems through that question of degrees: are they maintained by the process of translation?

Degrees are not a recent target in sociolinguistic studies. However, as it is a relative concept, the frame is generally case-centered. Generally, it is based on the same principle: either numbers (0 being not offensive at all, 10 or so, being the most offensive) or expressions. One of the references in that field is The Massachussetts 1978 Ratings example in Timothy Jay (1992: p. 162), where the most offensive-rated swearword was motherfucker appearing in 5 th position after witnessing murder, witnessing rape, witnessing acts of child abuse, witnessing masturbation 179 . So, in this particular study, language is placed with other elements, which avoids distinguishing swearing from other types of social violence. More recent studies have updated those results (for example, Kristy Beers Fägersten, 2007), still in a context of university students: the idea was to bring context back with the swearwords, and show that the degrees of offensiveness given to swearwords are more or less high depending on the context of enunciation.

Other researches based their interest in media-related questions, which are closer to the context of this thesis: the question of acceptability of words in broadcastinga study carried out in 2009 with comparisons in 2005 and 1999, in New Zealand, by Nielsen, commissioned by the BSA and another carried out in 2000 commissioned by the ASA, the BBC, the BSC and the ITC, in the UK. Both aim to study people's attitude to offensiveness. Those studies also echo to the research commissioned by the BBFC in order to achieve the same goal. They clearly show that the audience have expectations concerning the question of degrees: tendencies can be established. The question is: how do examiners deal with those expectations when it comes to films? (the answer will come with this chapter and the following one).

In the context of classification, I have associated the question of degree with the concept of negotiation. First of all, because the non-institutionalisation of degrees leads to fewer possibilities in terms of negotiation between the director/producer and the examiners. Secondly, because translation (and the respect/non-respect of degrees through its process) could bring in negotiation in terms of classification (Spoiler: it does not and I will explain how you can start working with wrong principles). Thirdly, if at some point a system of degrees of language is established (as it seems to be the case with the BBFC classification during the 1980s), then, negotiating an age-rating on a linguistic basis becomes possible.

7.1. Negotiating the linguistic content… 1960s BBFC cases.

When language matters the most… Zazie dans le metro is the example of a French film classified by the BBFC examiners: hence, the film is sub-titled and the examiners are going to suggest new translations. We will see that the role of the examiner in this case looks very close to the role of a translator, with a particular aim: a specific age-rating in mind.

Ulysses shows that classification has a subjective aspect. Both films, on linguistic grounds, were rated X with an interval of 5 years. But the first one clearly looks less offensive from a present viewpoint. So what made those films equal from a British classification perspective? was saying earlier, is the fact that language was at the center of the classification, and remains the main issue, even nowadays. Everything is about Zazie, her age, and her language. This is a French film, so the main issue was the subtitles. There were not a lot of documents about this film, especially for its 1962 classification, but there was a letter from John Trevelyan to the production (Connoisseur Films Limited), dated from March 16 th , 1962, and establishing a list of the problematic subtitles and associated suggestions or comments (BBFC Archives):

CONCERN FOR CHILDREN

The main concern is the fact that Zazie is a child, swearing, and making sex references. What you may (or not) know, dear reader, is that, in the book, Zazie is older The moment I saw you, I know I had to do it with you. = I know I had to have you, he was like an animal. If he comes after me and insists perhaps I won't say "No", but I won't chase him. Examiner's comment: I suggest some modification here to soften the titles. [START_REF]Psychology of marriage as depicted by its physical aspects[END_REF]. Here she is 10 and the treatment applied by the examiner to her language looks like parenting. This is at the beginning of the 1960s, which means that some swearwords, such as fuck or cunt, have not yet been used/authorised in films. Ulysses [START_REF] Strick | from X with cuts to 15 uncut[END_REF] is considered as one of the first films where the word fuck appears (Keith Allan, Kate Burridge, 2006: p. 257). Obviously, as a consequence, the examiners' scale is not based on the same references. We have already talked about it but swearwords with a current or former sex reference tend to be considered as the most aggressive.

Apart from the content, and still about the context, the main concern for this film is the fact that Zazie is a child. And at that time, there were still major worries about the effect that a film might have on children and adolescents. The fact that Zazie swears is just one of the elements: this offensiveness is directed at adults, who are the people with whom she interacts throughout the film.

Zazie dans le metro arrived four years after Look Back In Anger (Tony Richardson, 1958) but received the exact same classification. One of the reasons is the fact that they want to avoid certain themes being within children's earshot. Thus, Anthony Aldgate (1995: p. 75) notes that, in the case of Look Back In Anger, for implicit references to abortion, the examiners asked the production to be careful with that and to make them unintelligible for children.

My first question was the same for both films: knowing that they were going to rate both films X, why were they so worried about children? Reminder: at that time, when the rating was X, the audience was limited to people aged 16 and overit was only raised to 18 in 1970. And the two other ratings were only advisory: U for Universal and A for 'more suitable for adults'. So, coming back to my question, if X prevented children to see it, why were they changing the dialogues? I have already raised a certain number of issues in chapter 4 (4.3.1.) when I tried to explain what a child was. Here, we can reverse the question and ask ourselves: what is an adult: the age of majority in the UK was 21 at that time, so it remains possible that the cuts were partly made for them, and partly for general audience-related moral issues (see previous chapter). What is unfortunate however is that John Trevelyan's letter did not make any references to the audience. But the offer to replace dialogues was something quite common (see Anthony [START_REF] Aldgate | Censorship and the permissive society. British cinema and theatre 1955-1965[END_REF].

FROM SEX REFERENCES TO …

The process applied to subtitles is almost a translation process. Indeed, the translator has a role comparable to the one of an examiner, in the modern sense: adapting the language (or placing the film) to the audience (in its corresponding age-rating, as giving an age-rating is targeting a certain audience). Mihaela Visky (2013: p. 68) underlines the fact that she had to take into account the audience for the translation of French films in Romanian: "both films [Les Bronzés, and La Chèvre] were presented at summer festivals, followed by an audience with young and very young viewers, so we chose to use style variation"181 .

In this case, there are a certain number of strategies common to translation. For the terminology, I am using Gottlieb's terminology (2009), but there are plenty of others based on the same principles (Nedergaard-Larsen, 1993;Tomaskiewicz, 1993;Leppihalme, 1997;Pedersen, 2003;etc.). The reason why I have chosen his typology rather than one of the others is that it is based on the principle of degree of fidelity; and I am sure that, at this stage, you have understood that classification is all about establishing degrees.

So, his typology is as follows ( 2009 And the last, and most used strategy is substitution. And in this case, we also find a process common to translation (Fawcett, 1997: p. 119): the tendency is to tone down the original word or expression. For example:

-He talked like a right cunt, becoming He talked like a bastard -You silly bugger becoming You silly ass -They're all sods becoming They're all swines

And here is what I talked about earlier, by toning down the original text, they are also neutralising the sex reference embedded in cunt, bugger, sods.

However, there is a specific example for which I have hesitated a long time for its categorisation: Homo becoming queer. And I only have a hypothesis about it, as I am not specialised in this particular terminology and especially, its history. The most plausible explanation for this change is the difference of use and perception between those two words. Homo does not leave any space for ambiguity about what is meant. And the same problem appears in nowadays media: the American association GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) considers this term as offensive. The reason given is:

"Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disorderednotions discredited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in the 1970s. Please avoid using "homosexual" except in direct quotes. Please also avoid using "homosexual" as a style variation simply to avoid repeated use of the word "gay."

The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post restrict use of the term "homosexual""182 .

Hence, the fact that queer is used by a child may lead the audience to the ambiguity of the term and let them think she is referring to the primary use of it -"Strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric. Also: of questionable character; suspicious, dubious" (OED). This can also be considered through the prism of a translation process. As Dominique Lagorgette underlines (2006: p. 42), the work of the translator of sub-titles is a "collaborative work": there is at the same time the idea that the translator has to work with the different meanings of a word, but also the idea that she/he has to master the different styles and social codes building the situation of use of that word. And the last aspect of queer could be found in a definition I used in the first chapter: euphemistic dysphemism. As Keith Allan and Kate Burridge state (2006: p. 39): "A euphemistic dysphemism exists to cause less face-loss or offence than an out-and-out dysphemism (although it will not always succeed in doing so)". Once again, the purpose of the examiners is to tone down the different offensive elements of the dialogue.

So, what I have shown you with Zazie dans le metro is the case of a French film, and so of a subtitled film in the case of the BBFC, for which the examiners played the role of the translator, toning down or neutralising the words and phrases considered as too offensive. For comparison, in the same category, but without subtitles this time, there is the highly controversial Ulysses. Why 'highly controversial'? Simply, because even in France, there were linguistic issues. Unfortunately, I will not be able to talk about the French aspect for this film, but what I can do is to give you the story 183 , and then move on to the British classification.

In the UK, the situation of this film was also particularly complicated. I have already explained that it had been difficult for this film to have a director (chapter 1). But it was not the only issue. In 1967, the BBFC first made cuts using techniques not approved by the company: it appears, according to a letter from John Trevelyan to The Rt. Hon.

Lord Goodman, British Lion Film Limited, sent on March 28 th , 1967 (BBFC Archives), that he tried to stimulate public criticism of the Board and also bring pressure on the production to submit the complete film to the local authorities. Hence, the aim of John authorities. It did not work that well and the film was only passed with cuts in 1970 when X was raised from 16 to 18 years old.

All the references to cuts can be found in Appendix II of What the Censor saw (John Trevelyan, 1973: p. 243-245). In case you are wondering about swearwords, it was absolutely not about that: it was solely about sex references. In this case, contrary to Zazie dans le métro, there were no suggestion made, except if you consider that 'Delete' is a suggestion.

The use of Ulysses in this part is to underline the difficulties of establishing clear degrees within a classification, and the difficulty of comparison when there are only three possibilities (four if you count the refusal of a certificate) for age ratings: U, A, Xwith only the last one being restrictive. On one side, there is Zazie, swearing and using a somehow provocative/offensive language for a 10 year-old girl. On the other side, there is Molly, Bloom, and the others: the language is here offensive in its explicitness, and in terms of context and degree, it is not really comparable to Zazie's linguistic issues (these are extracted from Molly's dialogue and were asked for deletion):

-like iron or some kind of a thick crowbar standing all the time ... No I never in all my life felt anyone had one the size of that to make you feel full up -just to try with that thing they have swelling upon you so hard and at the same time so soft when you touch it ... So, what is considered as offensive is not the words themselves but their taboo aura and so, their illocutionary aspect. Here again, the question is around the terms discussed in chapter 2: dysphemistic euphemism or euphemistic dysphemism? (Keith Allan and Kate Burridge, 2006: p. 39). Here, almost all the cases are dysphemistic euphemisms (the exceptions are Bloom's lines -I am going to explain why through the explanation of Molly's lines): those locutions are dysphemistic but not their illocutionary point. Molly is not trying to be offensive. What is offensive for the examiners is the meaning of those locutions and the sex taboo to which they refer. So, the important element is the context. However, this is a linguistic reflection which was not (at the time) taken into account by the examiners.

What they target is the taboo reference, without putting it in perspective with the context. In a way, this is why it is hard to go into details about specific linguistic issues, as there was no will to explain the reasons behind the censorship. And it also gives a hint about another question: how was it possible that Zazie dans le metro and Ulysses were in the same age-rating category? The answer lies in the absence of degrees made between films, because of the lack of possibilities (only three age categories), but also because the language criterion does not exist yet: if it does not clearly exist in the practices of the What we have seen with the previous part is that linguistic issues can create spaces of negotiation between director/producer and examiners. As the purpose of this study is also to compare with what happened in France, the aim was the following: if there is such a 'classification gap' between British and French classifications, the translation might be responsible. It appears that the translation might not be responsible after all, for reasons I will give here. However, I will show that, even if language was not taken into account, British and French spectators do not necessarily see the same film, as translation transforms the linguistic aspect of those films.

Examiners' voice on language.

With this idea of studying translation, I started on the wrong path, thinking that examiners were taking it into account. Here are the answers I got.

Films are seen in their original languagewhich means the subtitled version (confirmed by all my informants).

Stuff happens. I admit I thought that both versions were checked and especially the French version. The old caricature is that films which are only subtitled are from the art et essai category. For example, Riff [START_REF] Raff | Rockers[END_REF] does not have a dubbed version. There is a tendency nowadays to offer more films in their original (hence, subtitled) version. However, the bulk of the French versions has long been largely predominant in France.

So my next question, after recovering from my first surprise and from the feeling of despair from having worked on translation for an entire year for what looked like nothing (First year: beginner's mistake?), was: why? Well the main reason is: "all a French version can do is to neutralize even more the effects of the staging" (Gauthier Jurgensen). Thank you! I have not done my work for nothing! This is the only reason which gave me a good justification to keep this particular part of my work (in my balance sheet (chapter 3), I have not counted the hours of transcription it took me but believe me, it was very very … long). Now, from there, there was still a question remaining: if you are watching a subtitled version, how does the dialogue count for the classification?

Language is at most at the origin of a warning (J.F. Théry) This is true since the new classification (1990 Decree) has been put in place. And this was probably true even before, but under a different form. The main difference, though, with the British classification, is that from the 1980s, there was no suggestion made about the dialogues anymore, and no censorship imposed upon the films (hence, on the dialogues as well). No censorship still means within the frame given by the laws (do not make me say what I have not said).

The 'warning' question came from an observation I made about certain films issued from the Commission's reports (2000s): when there was something specified about language in the text accompanying the classification, it was always for films rated Tous Publics (Universal) avec Avertissement (with a warning). Here is the recap of those films:  2004, Je n'aime que toi, directed by Claude Fournier  2004, Soul Plane, directed by J. Terrero Hurwitz, H. Schlossberg They were not the only ones, but they were the ones which had a DVD edition.

Crude, colloquial language is not a problem if it is in a specific context. Ken Loach, it is in proletarian suburbs of poor towns, it is in the context (J.F. Tardy).

Until, then, especially with the British classification, I have disconnected language from its context, because that was how it was transcribed in the examiners' reports. And What is the context? If you had asked me three years ago, I would have simply answered: "the moving images synchronised with the sound and/or the subtitles". After a few readings, I decided it was worth defining it in detail. Frederic [START_REF] Chaume | Film studies and translation studies: two disciplines at stake in audiovisual translation[END_REF] gives ten different codes, which he defines as the signifying codes of film language: "a film is composed of a series of codified signs, articulated in accordance to syntactic rules" (p. [START_REF]Bolshevik propaganda[END_REF]). Hence, a translator needs these codes as they can impact the translation. Here is a brief summary of those ten codes (p. 17-21):

1. The linguistic code: the translation (dubbed or subtitled) 2. The paralinguistic code: laughs… or specific signs used for subtitling as brackets, capital letters, dots, etc.

3. The musical and the special effects code: songs and special effects refer to subtitles again (use of italics, for example)

4. The sound arrangement code: when there is an off-screen narrator, for example.

5. Iconographic symbols: if there is a verbal explanation (either oral (dubbed) or written (subtitled)), there is no need to take them into account. There are all the symbols (as traffic signs, graphs…) for which a translation might be needed.

6. Photographic codes: the use of colours (or references to colours) may be a problem for the translation, especially when it is associated with a visual gag.

7. The planning code: lip synchronisation.

8. Mobility codes: the movements of the characters on screen.

9. Graphic codes: for the same film, in its original version, there might be intertitles, titles, texts and subtitles.

10. Syntactic codes: when a reference is about something we did not see.

The purpose of Frederic [START_REF] Chaume | Film studies and translation studies: two disciplines at stake in audiovisual translation[END_REF] was to propose a framework of analysis, which could be used by translators, and which would take into account the interaction between the visual and the verbal. Though oriented towards translation, this list gives an overview of the possibilities produced by this interaction. Though very useful, this list is reduced to the different codes of the film, which should be taken into account.

From an examiner's viewpoint, the context means all those films, but it also means:

-The subject of the film: proletarian suburbs of poor towns -The treatment of the film or the aim/purpose/will of the director: the easiest example could be "does that film teach you how to be a criminal?"

-The mood of the characters: during the early period of the BBFC classification, we have seen that all the words deleted did not take into account the characters (were they angry? Hurt? Happy? Playful? Etc.). There were just lists the examiners were following.

So, thanks to all those elements, the second part will try to answer the question: does translation really neutralise the effect of staging? Is it even measurable?

Analysis. French laissez-faire or translator's censoring?

Despite the provocative title of this part, there is a real problematic behind it: are the examiners and by extension, the audience, that tolerant with language? "Maybe France is a country which indulges in more vulgar language, but honestly, it is not a criterion. It would need to go very far in… in a certain sort of vulgarity and that even the director sets his/her staging in order to emphasize the trash side of language, the vulgar aspect, so that we would finally wonder about it; but if it is as in Ken Loach, i.e. something for the sake of coherence or realism, I don't see why the Commission of Classification would raise it" (Gauthier Jurgensen). This part will be organised in two sub-parts: the first one is a general overview of the strategies employed by translators. The second one is about trying to connect those strategies to the context. For the sake of comparison, this part is centred on swearing mainly. Indeed, the British classification provides tools of degrees (from very mild to very strong), which makes the comparison possible with the translations of those words.

General overview.

To organise my analysis, I have used typologies from Lars Gunnar [START_REF] Lars-Gunnar | Bad language[END_REF]. We are going to compare two different types of swearing: expletives and abusive swearing. They define expletives as a way to express emotions, but it is not directed towards others; abusive swearing is directed towards others, is derogatory and it includes name-calling and different types of curses (1990: p.61). And in each of these types, swearwords belong to different grammatical patterns. They give five different ones (1990: p.62): separate utterances, adsentences, major constituents of a sentence, part of a constituent of a sentence and part of a word. What we are about to see is that French translators tone down the original version by using different strategies.

Original Version

French Subtitled Version

French Dubbed Version

(1) Fuck it! (Raining Expletive (1) and Abusive (2)

swearing in separate utterances

In this case, two types of strategy are used: the first choice (1) involves a shifting from a taboo theme (sexual act) to a less taboo theme. In H. Gottlieb's typology, it is called a substitution (2009: p.31). The subtitled version uses the scatological theme, and we have seen that it is considered as more tolerable: "fuck" is strong language, "shit" is mild bad language.

The second strategy (2) used could be described as: lessening the negative connotation. This happens systematically with "fuck off": the strongest expression I have found to translate it was the equivalent of "go to hell" in the subtitling of Life of Brian. In H. Gottlieb's terms, it would be called a generalisation. Indeed, it is the same idea that is transferred both in the subtitled and dubbed versions, but it is generalised in the sense that we lose the taboo precision occurring in the original version. Expletive (1)

Original Version

swearing in adsentences

Those shifting and lessening strategies are not limited by the grammatical patterns of swearing, as we can see it in the table above. However, in this table, the subtitled version of the example shows another type of strategy, called omission (Gottlieb, 2009: p.31). Here, it might be explained by the fact that the translator chose to use the phrase "se prendre une balle", which means "to be shot" but there is a precision: this phrase clearly states that a bullet (balle) was involved. Compared to the original version, this phrase is more colloquial, so it counterbalanced the omission, but because it is longer (the number of letters involved in the French subtitling is more important), then it might also be explained as a necessary omission (it would have been too much on the screen). Abusive swearing as major constituents of a sentence Thus, we can now introduce a fourth strategy: the use of slang or colloquial words, phrases, or more informal type of language. In these cases, it is "en vrac, foutue" (1) and "te tirer" (2), which especially fit in this description. This obviously lessens the negative connotation carried by "fuck": we are not dealing with strong language anymore, nor with words involving a possible taboo. But this, again, does not change the general meaning.

Original Version

Original Version French Subtitled Version

French

Dubbed Version Expletive (1) and Abusive (2)

swearing as part of a constituent of a sentence

There is no new strategy with "fucking". However, it introduces the huge range of translations surrounding "fucking". When it is translated, its role as an intensifier is kept but the negative connotation is lessened. For example, ( 2) is a combination of [You+fucking+Noun]: in French, there are mostly single swearwords, except in the dubbed version where the intensifier "espèce de" is involved. This particular line ( 2) is chanted in the film: the character is distinctively and purposefully separating each syllable; to keep the effect in French, as well as lip synchronization, the intensifier partly disappears in the sense that it is not necessarily replaced by a corresponding word. And, here again, the language is less strong than in the original version.

The cases in which strong language is not toned down in the process of translation are generally part of scenes of violence: so, both the gestures and the language are aggressive. However, in these situations, the translations do not all present the same features. At this point, they need further investigation in order to find out whether (or not) there are patterns in the ways they are translated. But, still, what I can say is that, in the films I have studied so far, the strongest swearwords in French are either directed towards animals, or directed towards someone absent in the scene when the insult is uttered. The problem with the first analysis/general overview of my previous paragraph is that it is completely disconnected from the question of context. Far from taking into account the characters, the scenery, etc., it only gives information about the strategies (omission, etc.) used through the process of translation and the types of effect it produces (neutralisation, toning down, emphasising, etc.). And this question of degrees unfortunately leads to more problems and not so many answers. Here are two examples: one from Bread and Roses (BR) and the other one from Looking for Eric (LFE). In both cases, if the idea is to study the translation of damn only, it is not going to be possible, as it is used in combination with other terms. Thus, damn is translated in in combination with these terms: nom de Dieu, putain de merde. been controversial. As we have already seen, it has been censored for Zazie dans le metro (Louis Malle, 1960). In 1972 (BBFC Archives), for Up the front (Bob Kellet), it was censored. However, Zazie dans le metro was in the X category, and the cuts made to Up the front were made so that the film could fit in the A category (advisory: film might be unsuitable for children).

In 1975, again, censorship stroke for the sake of the A category. Among the cuts asked for The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes ' Smarter Brother (Gene Wilder, 1975), there was: "That's what the buggers are waiting for"185 . So, in the 1970s, for the A category, it seems that Bugger was still considered too strong. It became part of the PG category after the change of categorieswhich means after 1982. Hence, there were two buggers in Billy The Kid And the Green Baize Vampire [START_REF] Alan | Blazing Saddles[END_REF]: they were not asked for deletion, and the film was passed PG.

To conclude on the classification history of bugger, when Life of Brian came out, bugger was among the words forbidden to children aged under 14. And it fits as that film was passed AA. What does all this mean for the French translation and classification? It means that here, the cultural impact of bugger is not translated. Obsédé does not fit in that sense. I am not saying that the translation is bad, but that, clearly, the French equivalent does not carry the same problematic as bugger. Hence, it again makes the question of degree difficult to define and the possibilities of comparison are limited.

DIFFICULTY N°3: IS TRANSLATION A DEGREE-KILLER?

I admit that the question is rhetorical, as I have given you a general overview of strategies to tone down the original text, used by translators, for the same movies I am now using again. But, with these strategies, there was no question of taking into account which term was used. In other words, as the context prevails on any direct and literal translation, it means that the same French term can be used for several English terms.

And in the English version, those terms are rated on different degrees by the examiners, but it can happen that in France, once translated, those degrees, for the same film, do not mean anything anymore.

So, you cannot find traces of the BBFC's very mild bad language and strong language. For example, "putain", which is the direct translation for "fuck", is colloquial in French and not part of strong language and it is also used to translate "god damn it!", "bloody hell!" "Son of a bitch!"only when it is said with an absent addresseeand "shit!"186 . All these words belong to different degrees of language aggression and refer to different ratings in the British classification. However, it might be possible to trace another sense of degree through the situations of use of those words.

Do not forget that my previous sentence is a hypothesis, before checking the following examples. All the films quoted here belong to the 1990s, or the 2000s, decades when classification was rather stable, at least for the three terms taken as examples: twat belongs to moderate language (age-rating: 12), son of a bitch is mild bad language and can be found in PG films, and cunt fits in the very strong language category and is limited to the 15 and 18 age-ratings. With the first example, Son of a bitch, all the situations of use are with an absent addressee. Here, we are in cases which I considered as breaking the confinement of "the boundaries of the sentence"187 . If you do not take into consideration the context, the sentence in itself does not give you all the information. Here, we are back to the basic definition: who is the utterer? Who is the addressee? And in this case, more importantly, where is the addressee?

Here, son of a bitch is meant as an insult. Insults are defined as illocutionary acts, which wer first described by John L. [START_REF] Austin | How to Do Things with Words[END_REF] in his study about speech acts. They are also characterized by a perlocutionary effect (Michèle [START_REF] Monte | L'apostrophe : prédicativité et valeurs illocutoires[END_REF]. The idea that J.

Austin developed is based on the fact that our utterances have performative effects. The most known example come from the Bible: "God said: ''Let there be light'', and there was light" (Marina Yaguello, 1998, p. 11). There is the same kind of speaker's performative act in 1001 Nights with "Open, Sesame". And the most recent example that we could give which is in a way very close to the subject of insultsis the passage when Alastor Moody transformed Draco Malfoy into a ferret to have nosed around Harry 188 . But, when both addressee and utterer are in the same place, there is a possibility of a perlocutionary effect. Here, there is none as the addressee is absent.

All this to explain that the translations here cannot be related to degrees because of their context: they are meant to reflect the character's moodangry at someone who did something to them, but that 'someone' is not there. In the first case (A Fish Called Wanda), Otto is angry to find out that George did not hide the diamonds where he said he hid them. In the second example, still in AFCW, Otto is angry at Archie who is writing love letters to Wanda. In the second case (Bread and Roses), the security guard is angry because he did not catch the man who broke through the building's security system.

However, all the cases of twat and cunt are also related to characters, who are angry. And though in different films, you can observe that the anger is respected, there is no possibility to say that the translations of son of a bitch, with an absent addressee, are less strong than the translations of cunt, with present addressees. So, I agree with Maria Jesus Fernandez Fernandez (2009: p. 225) who states that swearing is part of the translation process, in the sense that it helps to maintain the tone, the register and the intention in the target language. But, at the same time, it has to be respectful of idiomatic preferences and sociocultural contexts. Hence, as the translation is only taken into account when it emphasises the film's strongest sides (see pop-corn time), I cannot say at this stage that the translation plays a role in the classification gap which exists between British and French classifications. This means that, according to what I said in the previous chapter, the French classification of language relies on institutional evolutions (and a different socio-cultural context as well), and in no case is language part of any bargain between examiners and directors/producers, as far as translation is concerned.

Popcorn time: Once upon a time, translation mattered...

In the answers given by J.F. Théry about the French classification system and the work of the commission, he had one anecdote about translation, which confirms what I have just said. He wrote about a series of kung-fu films, which only deserved a 12-rating when fight scenes were too violent. However, one of them had been completely twisted by its subtitles, which were "lewd, perverted, and without any direct relation to the images". Because of the subtitles, and only because of them, described as "pure provocation", the Commission asked for the film to be forbidden to minors. Hence, if the translation matches the context, there is no reason to take language into account more than the other elements. What I am going to show here is that there is a real turn for linguistic elements, within the practices of the French Commission: from censorship to no-censorship, but not to classification. This turn from censorship to classification in France is only true when you take the elements of classification in general but not for linguistic issues. On the other side of the Channel, there is a progressive switch from censorship to classification, including negotiation. Indeed, if censorship does not appear as a solution any more, the only way to cut is to trade the cuts for a certain age-rating.

So

When dialogues were censored: long time no see…?

There is no possibility of establishing degrees, even for the pre-1980 period for the main reason developed in the previous chapter: the creation of a language criterion in France has never happened. Contrary to the British classification, where censorship of linguistic elements could happen at all levels, as established by the rules of the Board, in France, censorship relied on the context.

Warning: this part is based on my readings and on certain information retrieved in archives, but as I have said in Chapter 3, I have not been able to access the files of the Commission, so, there might be more to say about language than what I am able to say here, but I cannot be sure.

So, according to the information I have gathered so far, there are two main axes of language censorship in France for films released before the 1980s: discrediting and emphasizing.

DISCREDITING

Here is the point where I stop (for a while) arguing how different the British and French classifications are. You probably remember the parenthesis I made about the perlocutionary effect of insults (when the addressee is presentif not, the probability of reaction is limited). You can think about the question of discrediting as a perlocutionary effect of certain parts of dialogue on the examiners. The definition given by Monica Heller points out something we have already seen under the form of rules in the British classification, and which appears (without any rules being edited) in the French classification. In the UK, it was not permissible to put certain professions in a position of discredit (see BBFC reports). In France, the same pattern can be observed. So, the limits of verbal violence are defined by the respect of certain social orders.

For example, in 1968, for the film La Bande à Bonnot (Philippe Fourastié), the Commission "proposed a restriction for minors, because of the exemplary nature which can be linked to criminal actions and especially because of the ideological and moral justification given to those actions by a certain number of remarks on the theme of anarchy and on the necessity to resort to murder in order to solve problems related to living in society. Furthermore, a cut is requested affecting lines of the police chief: 'with gangsters, it is simple: we belong to the same circle '" 190 (Laurent Garreau, 2009: p. 283).

In this case, it is a specific profession, but the question of discredit is also applied to institutions, as in Fleur d'Oseille (Georges Lautner, 1967): a cut was asked for the line "in a world peopled by matronly activists and unlucky drummers" with the following justification "The Commission considered that, despite the context in which it occurs, this judgement made on nursery schools could bring discredit on the work of those institutions"191 (Laurent Garreau, 2009: p. 298).

As in the British classification with royal names, or respect of military professions, there are recurring elements in the French censorship of language like:

-the Army -Any profession in charge of public order (police officer, gendarme) -Political: current conflicts (War in Algeria, etc.) One aspect should be mentioned about the examples quoted above: they belong to the besieged period192 of the Commission [START_REF] Hervé | Censure et cinéma dans la France des Trente Glorieuses[END_REF]: p. 33) between 1967and 1975. According to Frédéric Hervé (p. 31-33), the Commission experienced three different periods:

-A period of sovereign censorship (1945)(1946)(1947)(1948)(1949)(1950)(1951)(1952)(1953)(1954)(1955) characterized by a lack of motives given by the Commission to the directors/producers -A period of conflict (1956)(1957)(1958)(1959)(1960)(1961)(1962)(1963)(1964)(1965)(1966) marked by a renewal of transgression and conflict between the Commission and directors -A besieged period (1967)(1968)(1969)(1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974)(1975) when transgression is not contained anymore.

So, this gives us another insight into the works of the Commission: justification was not necessarily institutionalised in their practices. However, one thing is to be noticed: during those periods, there is not much room for negotiation, as the cuts generally condition the attribution of a visa and so, of a certain age-rating.

EMPHASISING

The second axis of censorship of language is: emphasising. Coming back to one of the previous examples (La Bande à Bonnot), the Commission quoted in its remark the fact that the dialogue justified the criminal acts. In other words, the characters' dialogues, when combined with their actions, accentuated/emphasized a certain exemplary aspect, which was not considered permissible by the Commission.

But the main theme of this censorship axis was: sex references. In the previous chapter, I explained how British examiners considered French films as more outspoken, and more liberal on this matter. Well, it did not mean that no censorship was applied to that type of language by the Commission. I consider this as the main theme because it really exemplifies the notion of emphasising the context of the film.

In those cases, there is Pierrot le Fou, for which the crudity of language was mentioned (see previous chapter), but it was also the case of La Maman et la Putain (Jean Eustache, 1972): the language is mentioned because it adds to the context, a sulfurous ménage à trois, in which certain lines of the dialogue were judged "without moral resources" and linked to characters who give their opinion as "troopers about uninteresting problems" (Report of the Commission, In Frédéric Hervé, 2015: p. 308).

So far, we have only studied the possibility of censorship: is there any negotiation?

This is where it takes place. Frédéric Hervé (2015: p. 223) underlines that cuts can be imposed, proposed or suggested. This means that there is room for negotiation. Thus, in 1947, when the Commission asked for the suppression of La Marseillaise in the film Le Diable au Corps (Claude Autant-Lara), and a rating restricting minors, the director's appeal was successful and the film obtained a Universal rating, without cuts but with the obligation to include a warning: "The story matches only with the feelings of some young

French during the 1914-1918war" (Frédéric Hervé, 2001: p. 54). Besides, the possibilities of negotiation increased as censorship became a "sort of unintentional advertising machine" (Yves Boisset, 2011: p. 7), the press playing the role of intermediary between the film industry and the audience.

To conclude on the French censorship of language between 1945 and 1975, there is clearly no criterion (no news so far), but there is an evolution towards justification:

examiners cannot just hand down a verdict and expect the film industry to cooperate. This change is accompanied by the tendency to classify and not censor the films. Indeed, in 1975, only three films were completely banned, and 17 were either cut, reduced or had an associated warning (Laurent Garreau, 2009: p. 254). To give you a point of reference, in 1988 (13 years later), in the UK, the number of films classified by the BBFC after cuts was 234 (BBFC annual report, 1988) 193 . This tendency was also confirmed by my work in the archives of Pierrefitte-sur-Seine, which showed that films which also had a visa of 193 At that time, the number of cuts in France was nought.

exportation and with a rating either at 13 or 18 were very few (only 7 films for 13 and none for 18 in 1988) 194 .

Clearly, you now have all the reasons explaining the lack of criteria within the French classification, and the absence of negotiation around linguistic issues: you cannot negotiate when you do not establish clear rules. On the contrary, and this is what I am about to argue about the BBFC, if rules are established and if a criterion is created, there is room for negotiation, especially when those rules/criteria become known by the audience.

When you create a 'language criterion', negotiation becomes possible.

Historically, the BBFC had to prove itself to the film industry, to the local authorities, to the government, to the audiencehence the public annual reports until the beginning of the 1930s. The solution was to make clear what was permissible and what was not. However, we have seen that the criteria as a method of work for the examiners were only clearly put in place during the 1980s.

We have already started to see a certain number of the features, pioneering the establishment of the tables with the example of bugger. This was the case for bloody as well. And fuck, sex references and discriminatory language followed the same path. Here, there is an important element to understand: when censorship or classification becomes less strict, it generally means three things. Firstly, it means that the examiners are becoming more tolerant of certain aspects of films. Secondly, it means that the directors are becoming more transgressive when it comes to certain aspects of their films. Indeed, when a word like fuck started to be tolerated in X films (John Trevelyan, 1973: p. 179), it also meant that more and more films had that word present in their dialogues. Thirdly, it means that the audience is ready to tolerate those words/references for certain ratings. But the process is long, this is why the space for negotiation is actually very small and grows little by little.

SMALL SPACE OF NEGOTIATION: THE CASE OF MOUTHED/MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS

With these three features in mind (examiners/directors/audience), we are going back to the case of mouthed and/or misunderstood words. In 1959, the BBFC Secretary wrote to Mr Saltsman, of Woodfall Film Production Ltd 195 :

"Furthermore we simply cannot accept the word "bogger". We have not yet accepted the use of the word "bugger" in films and the substitution of the letter "o" for the letter "u" makes no significant difference: on the sound-track the word will certainly sound like "bugger". I appreciate that words of this kind are normal in the speech of the type of people that the film is about but I have always found, strange though it may seem, that these are the very people who most object to this kind of thing on the screen".

In this case, the reference to the mismatch between directors' expectations, public criticism and the Board's rules clearly leave no space for negotiation. And this was the case for words which could be misunderstood, or which were mouthed. In 1975, The Man Who Would Be King (John Huston) was submitted to the BBFC. For one reel, the word "bugger" was redubbed, because it sounded like "fuckers". This case of mouthed swearwords goes on even later, which makes an examiner ask in 1987: "New presumptive rule? If mouthed "fucks" and "cunts" over-dubbed then they are acceptable at PG? This was certainlyand sensiblythe case with Crocodile Dundee" (BBFC Archives.

Examiner's report). This also suggests that the space of negotiation is defined by the clarity of the rules: if the rule is not clear, it is not possible to know what could be tolerated

or not for the different age-ratings. But, by slowly clarifying the rules, they created space for negotiation for the directors/producers and for the audience, and at the same time, they turned the issue of 'precedent' to their advantage.

LARGER SPACE OF NEGOTIATION: "FUCK RULE"

What is a precedent? The "precedent" (please, dear reader, note that it also exists for the French classification) is a film for which the classification changed the way one of its rules worked before that film was submitted. Most of the time, examiners fear to create a precedent because it gives ground to the directors and producers for negotiation:

the control exercised by the Board is potentially lessened by such an event. For example, in 1976, the film The Front (Martin Ritt) was submitted to the Board. One of the reports mentioned (BBFC Archives, Report, September 16 th , 1976):

"The company wanted an A certificate, but had warned us that there was an uncuttable line of dialogue which might cause problems. This occurs when Woody Allen finally decides to stand up to the Committee's interrogation and tells them 195 BBFC Archives. File Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. Letter dated November 24 th , 1959.

"Furthermore you can all go fuck yourselves". Similar dialogue (albeit more frequent) was the stumbling block to the 'A' certificate for "All The President's Men" and, though children might derive some enjoyment from Woody Allen's humour, it was the similar consideration that pre-teen would have little grasps of the political background essential to the plot that finally decided us not to create a precedent for such language in a junior category. We passed the film AA without cuts".

Accepting fuck for an A certificate would have created a precedent, and so, the possibility for directors and producers to ask for the indulgence of the Board when there is a single fuck, and then when there are two, etc. This question is still valid for today's classification: is there a precedent? 196 This is an issue considered by the BBFC for each film (it works the same way for the Commission).

So, basically, the precedent is a problem for the Board, because it cannot foresee its consequences. But, it is also possible to turn it to its advantage. One of the aspects of British examiners' work is letters of complaints: the examiner who rated the film has to answer the letters. And this is when the 'precedent' is useful: as I have said, the evolution of the 'language criterion' (and more generally, of the classification) relies upon the combination of the opinions of the examiners, the directors/producers and the audience;

thus, creating a precedent means that the examiners are not necessarily sure about the reaction of the audience.

For example, in terms of language, E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (Steven Spielberg, 1982) was passed Universal, despite linguistic elements not even tolerated at Universal nowadays: "douche bag", "penis breath", "health shit", "what's all this shit?". But, it was passed U before the changes in the classification, and then, when in 1988 it was resubmitted to the Board for a video version, the Secretary insisted that it remained U, but mentioning at the same time that "this is not to be used as a precedent" (BBFC Archives, Video Report). But, even if it had not been used as a precedent to make the language criterion evolve, it clearly became a point of reference for the examiners: a letter of complaint was received for a "Oh God!" in Hook [START_REF] Hook | House of Cards (Michael LESSAC[END_REF]. The examiner answered that no PG warning was necessary for such a phrase and that in terms of bad language it included less forceful expressions than E.T. 197 . Thus, despite the fact that E.T.

did not establish a precedent for the film industry (more seen as a special favour, due to its success), it did establish a precedent, when needed, to the audience.

One way to avoid this case of precedent is to establish clear criteria, defined by established by the BBFC is the "fuck rule" (I am not inventing; it is written as such in the examiners' reports). This means two things198 :

-If language is the only issue, the director/producer can negotiate that aspect more easily, especially if 'fuck' is the only word standing between the film and a 12-rating.

-But it also means that the examiners, if the film suits a younger audience, can propose this kind of solution (removal of the 'problematic' word).

And it is interesting to note that in the case of fuck, the space for negotiation was created in a decade: first authorised during the 1970s in X films, it started to appear in 15-rated films during the 1980s. Since 1989, creation of the 12-rating, the 'fuck rule' has been applied very strictly, probably out of fear of creating a precedentfear which was present for The Front, for example. However, when there are only one or two fuck (or more) in a film which is clearly directed at a younger audienceyounger than the restrictive 15-ratingwhat happens? Does the examiner create a precedent? Do they make a special case? Does the classification evolve? What does it mean for a criterion if the rule changes? All this is the purpose of the following chapter, in which I invite you, dear reader, to pursue this journey.

Chapter 8: Deconstructing the language criterion?

I have spent a chapter convincing you that in France, there was no criterion (of any kind), but that in the UK, a 'language criterion' was born, through a long process of transformations within the work of examiners. I have spent another chapter to give you hints about how this criterion could work for the examiners, how it could change the relationships between the BBFC, the film industry and the audience; and also, I have shown you that translation does not allow a direct comparison between British and French degrees (to say it very rapidly) but gives precious information about what the French examiners are looking. In this chapter, I intend to show that in the modern period of my corpus (2000s), the work of examiners on linguistic issues might not be as obvious as presented in the two previous chapters.

Do they really count?

This is the old accusation from French examiners towards the British classification: 'They are counting the swearwords'. So, basically, when I checked the British classification, I expected a lot of counts and especially, references to frequency.

In the annual reports (for the 2000s), there are clear references to the question of frequency associated to the issue of language 199 : -Universal: "bad language occasionally" -PG: "never a great deal of bad language" -12: "infrequent strong language" -15: "frequent strong language" -18: "frequent strong language and very strong language" What we can notice about those categories, is that they are based on the idea of infrequency. What is very interesting about that is that most of the time, the BBFC claims that they are not using infrequency tests anymore. This belief is conveyed by the press and by certain film directors. Indeed, "I think we were allowed seven c***s […] but only two of them could be aggressive c***s", said Ken Loach in an interview given to the Guardian 200 .

Besides, the guidelines are based mostly on the public approval and positioning towards strong language. And what is happening is that there are still people counting the occurrences of "fuck" for example. So what the BBFC is doing is that they have to justify the presence of a certain amount of strong language. This happened for the King's speech, where the King is swearing to get rid of his stammer (Edward Lamberti, 2012: p. 169 At first, the examiners chose to play by the rules and considered that the 17 occurrences of fuck were a reason to give that film a 15-rating, despite the fact that it was the sole factor in favor of that category. Following strong criticisms from the part of cinema exhibitors, the BBFC accepted to give the film a 12-certificate. However, they felt a justification was needed and said that it was part of the therapy sessions with no intention to insult or offend. The comment joint to the certificate was: "contains strong language in a speech therapy context"201 . And despite the number of occurrences of strong language, and thanks to the context, the film got a 12A.

12/12A can mainly contain moderate language: at this stage, we can see that the presence of strong language can only be legitimised by the context. To make things clearer, for the film Juno, directed by Jason REITMAN (2007), there were two occurrences of "fuck": two main arguments were considered by the BBFC. Firstly, two occurrences are an infrequent case of strong language. And secondly, those two "fuck" are neither aggressive nor directed at anyone. Thus, the film was allowed a 12A as well: "The two uses of strong language ('f**K') are not aggressive nor directed at anyone. They occur firstly when Mark (the prospective adoptive father for Juno's baby) is trying to appear 'cool' in a conversation about horror movies, and secondly when Juno realises she is going into labour. Though strong language is not permitted at PG, the BBFC Guidelines do allow for infrequent uses of strong language at 12A. Two uses in a feature length work were considered 'infrequent'"202 . Of course, this is valid for sex references and discriminatory language, except that discriminatory language is not possible in films rated U/PG/12. For example, for 12-rated films, moderate is the main adjective covering all aspects of the 'language criterion'.

Even if the BBFC tries to apply its guidelines as strictly as possible, you can easily notice that the context, as an element of language aggression definition, is a tricky, and easily manipulable element. It can change the way to consider a word, as well as influencing the question of frequency. This manipulable feature can be used by the BBFC, but also by the local authorities. This was the case for Sweet Sixteen (Ken Loach, 2002) 203 .

They benefit from cinema licensing powers to overrule the previous classification: thus 18-rated Sweet Sixteen was given a 15 rating in the area covered by the shooting, by arguing that this type of language exists in that area among adolescents and 'language' is thus not a reason for limiting the access to a film which mainly targets an adolescent audience.

So, more than counting, you can see, dear reader, that the 'language criterion' is far from being a smooth set of rules. The truth is that not all films are equal. To come back to the 17 occurrences of 'fuck' from The King's Speech, another film had the exact same number of occurrences: Made In Dagenham (Nigel Cole, 2010). If you look at the BBFC website, it is said that this film contains "occasional use of strong language" 204 .

So, what is this all about? This leads to a problem which goes beyond the 'language criterion' and touches the way those systems of classification work. In France, it seems difficult to explain to British people what a Universal film is when about 80% of the films are Universal (against around 6% in the UK). But it is also difficult to explain it to French people (believe me, I tried).

It is the exact same thing for the British classification: with the growing access to films through the Internet, it becomes more and more difficult to justify the more and more liberal attitude towards violence for the 12-rating with films like Inception or The Dark Knight. And for the 15-rating, you find films like The Expendables, The Last Exorcism, Kick-Ass… In Made in Dagenham, there is no violence, no nudity, no horror, and the sole argument is language, which explains why this argument became more and more disputable, because of punctual precedents such as The King's Speech.

I do not intend to start a riot against those classifications: this is not the point in this thesis. However, I think this lead allows to wonder about the practices around the language criterion. Indeed, if the examiners want to maintain their legitimacy on the question of classification, they have to justify their choices. So, first of all, I will try to present this problem under the term of classification mismatch. And in a second time, I will give you the true reason behind the number of occurrences authorised sometimes at 12, sometimes at 15. Not everybody has the same right to swear or make sex references… even on screen.

BBFC: classification mismatch?

According to the BBFC guidelines, in Universal films, you can only find very mild bad language such as "damn, hell" and with very limited aggressive uses. But if you think about a very well-known movie (about which I have already talked), E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (Luc Besson, 1982), it is rated Universal, and nonetheless, "The film contains some very mild bad language, including uses of 'dammit', 'God', 'hell', 'sonofabitch', two uses of 'shit', and one use of 'penis breath' (as a comic insult). There is also a joke about 204 BBFC website. Made in Dagenham. Last seen on June 29 th , 2016. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/made-dagenham-2010-0.

the name of the planet Uranus"205 . Here, shit and sonofabitch are seen as very mild bad language even if they were considered as "mild bad language" in the guidelines. Does it really matter? I think it does, because it changes the way to consider the classification of other films. Compared to this one, we can think about a much more recent classification, the one concerning one of the last Disney Studio Animations, Frozen (Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck, 2013). It is rated PG for the same reasons as E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, that is, mild threat and language. However, neither the language, nor the threat, is comparable to Luc Besson's film. Mild bad language in E.T. is not analogous to the mild rude humour of Frozen, which is summed up by the examiners to: "what if he picks his nose? And eats it?"206 .

IS THAT A CLASSIFICATION MISMATCH, KNOWING THAT 30 YEARS ARE SEPARATING THEM?

Here is another example, that we have already discussed a little. Let's come back to The King's Speech (Tom HOOPER, 2010). In the therapy session, in less than 20 seconds, there are about 7 occurrences of "fuck" and 17 in the entire movie (see Table ).

In an hour and a half, for Life of Brian (Monty [START_REF] Python | La Vie de Brian[END_REF], there is the same number of this token, except that it is in 20 seconds for The King's Speech. Though well aware that a bit more than 30 years separate those two films, the regular update of the classification through new video editions let the comparison be possible, despite that major historical gap. According to what we have said, and despite this regular update of the classification data, we have to add the context of production and release of both films to understand why Life of Brian could not match with the somehow aggressive, but not directed, swearwords of the King. Life of Brian's release was really controversial as we have said in the introduction and despite the fact that the barristers concluded that there was nothing that could be considered as blasphemous in this film, it was still rated 15 and its release was forbidden by 39 local authorities: the last one only lifted its ban in 2008207 . For the King's Speech, initially, the BBFC gave a 15 rating and then changed it to 12A after an appeal by UK film's distributors208 . What is clearly at stake here are social and economic forces, completely different because the balance of forces was different at those times, but the principle is the same. However, this is not the only element that can counteract the guidelines and details from the film itself can produce the same kind of results.

The BBFC best-kept secret: the sociolinguistics of characters.

When I first thought about what the BBFC meant by the importance of the context in the definition of strong language, I imagined that the answer was quite obvious and that it was including factors like the ones mentioned in the classification-apart from the language: that is, violence, discrimination, sex, alcohol, drugs, horror and so on.

However, I discovered something I had not completely expected, which was, what I called, the sociolinguistics of characters. It is about the identification to the profiles of the characters. As members of an audience, you are most of the time expected to identify to, at least, one of the characters. And this is what is particularly at stake for young people.

The BBFC considers that depending on who is using the words, or type of language we have been talking about, the classification is not the same. If it is likely for the child to identify to the character in question, the one using strong language, or bad language, then the rating has to be more severe because the risk that the child would take the character as an example is higher. If we want to sum up this idea: it is less a problem to swear if the one swearing is the bad guy.

WHO IS THE VILLAIN?

To confirm this element, those are comments you can find on the BBFC website (animation, Life of a cat, insight published on the 27/03/2012, and available on the BBFC website):

"The film also includes a single use of the word 'bitch'. In one scene villains are locked in a cellar and, before breaking the door down, a gangster is heard saying, "That's enough you bitch". In this case the language is spoken by the central villain, not a character younger children are likely to identify with, and it is not clearly directed at any one individual. Guidelines at 'PG' allow 'Mild bad language only' and, in the manner and context in which the bad language is used, the term sits within the 'PG' allowance in this feature. The villain also uses discriminatory terms 'moron' or 'morons' on three occasions when addressing his henchmen"209 .

"Bitch" is normally part of at least PG-rated films. But in this case, the villain is neither the central character nor a character children are likely to identify to, and thus, this single occurrence was justified.

Another example would be Ladybird, Ladybird [START_REF] Loach | Ladybird, Ladybird[END_REF], where the central character, Maggie, is comparatively swearing as much as the main characters in Riff Raff [START_REF] Loach | Riff Raff[END_REF] and Raining Stones [START_REF] Loach | Raining Stones[END_REF]. And also, in my whole first corpus, she is the only woman using "fucking" as a swearword. This film is classified 18, when the others that I have presented earlier in this paper are 15. One of the main explanations that can be found is the fact that she is a mother. She is supposed to be an example for her children, and thus, she has in a way to be an example for any children.

This is what I called earlier a matter of identification, that is, the fact that the audience is also taken into account. This explains the different rating of this film compared to the other films directed by Ken Loach. This hypothesis can be confirmed by two different arguments. Firstly, the number of strong language occurrences in Ladybird, Ladybird is largely inferior to the ones in Raining Stones and Riff Raff. And secondly, we have already mentioned the case of Sweet Sixteen (Ken Loach, 2002): the fact that the main character was an adolescent also raised issues, and, for the examiners, it induced a reinforcement of violence through the words used. However, most of the swearwords used in Ladybird, Ladybird are not aggressive or directed at anyone. What mainly constitutes the core of strong language occurrences in the film is the adverb "fucking", that Maggie uses quite a lot: this is not about language aggression anymore, it is about style-giving. So, British film classification is extremely diverse and its application is not as obvious as the guidelines allow to expect. This preciseness in the different elements defining the ratings may be misleading without a detailed look at the practices ensuing from the application of those guidelines. As we have seen, economic and cultural forces have a role to play, as far as there is room for negotiation in the process of classification210 , but there are also other elements at stake inside the guidelines themselves: there is room for discussion because of that very simple-and at the same time highly difficult to define-element, which is the context, where the sociolinguistics of characters stands, for example. But then, we might wonder about the situation in France, especially because of the classification gap existing between both classifications, and which let us think that there is little space for language in French ratings.

So, what is observable is that the Villain justification is generally mentioned for Universal and PG -rated films. I am being honest with you, and the example of Ladybird Ladybird is just an application of this feature, not a proper examiner's remark. However, this use of the context proves that counting is really not relevant anymore and what brings out the number of occurrences is the context. But this means that the examiners are probably (progressively) losing control on the frame of negotiation which had been built for linguistic issues.

WHY IS LANGUAGE STILL AN ISSUE?

I feel like I have vaguely tried to bring concepts such as taboo, offensiveness, without really getting to the point of this question. One of the major problems of what I have written until now (purposefully, so that I could write this at some point) is that I have put aside the question of the characters (object of the previous paragraph), but also the question of the audience.

In the recent reports of the BBFC, but also in the quote by Ken Loach (see introduction of 8.1.), there is the idea that a word is not worth the same attention depending on its aggressive feature. So, my question here is: is there a possibility that most of the time, linguistic issues are matching other issues and in this case, remain nondescript, and that when the linguistic issues are quoted as the main issue, there are still other matters at stake?

Here, we are in the frame of what Dawn Elizabeth Archer (2008: p. 188) describes as the "norms of acceptability". Indeed, she continues and explains that verbal aggression is a "type of antisocial behavior that violates the […] norms intentionally". Here, this remark refers to Goffman's definition (1967) of face: face damage is for him divided in threeintentional, incidental and unintended.

So the more a sentence is aggressive, the more it will lead to the most restrictive ratings. In other terms, when language is the main issue, it is probably the context of that language which brings it out (this is also present in the French classification: see 8.2.).

Hence, for the 17 occurrences of fuck in The King's Speech, what was troubling was not necessarily the language, but the utterer of those words. In Life of Brian, the matter is less the language and more the context of its use: a film which was considered by many as too daring in its mockery. But this can also be seen from another viewpoint: aggressive to whom?

THE EXAMINERS: SUBSTITUTE AUDIENCE?

Examiners are referring to directness and aggressiveness as two features of their understanding of linguistic issues. When I first started to think about how to define the examiner as a potential member of an audience, but at the same time, as a professional, and a living breathing human-being with his/her own lot of experiences, cultural background, social interactions, etc., I turned to literature trying to define verbal aggression and the place of the different agents in such an interaction. "Aggression may be defined as any form of behaviour directed towards the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment", (Baron and Richardson 1994: p. 37). Unfortunately, with this type of definition, all the mild bad language, mild sex references, non-aggressive strong language uses, are not supposed to be taken into account. Moreover, this definition does not take into account my central character: the examiner.

Instead of quitting the 'aggression studies' lead, I decided to concentrate on studies which were indirectly focusing on the content and were trying to define the parameters of a given situation. What I wanted to do is make a connection between the different status of the examiner and their effects on the 'language criterion'. One of the studies going in that direction is the analysis on impoliteness, relational work and power by Jonathan Culpeper (2008: p. 30). His scheme of an individual is:

I would not say that this perspective is the answer to everything 211 concerning language aggression. But it gives some explanation towards the differences which can happen between the examiner's viewpoint, and the audience's viewpoint, for example.

Though the fact of dissociating the different norms looks a bit mathematical, it gives tools for the analysis I have tried to carry on.

So, to start with my first scheme, I delimited the reaction of the examiners in three parts: the hearer's reaction, which corresponds in terms of Culpeper's norms to personal 211 Which is 42.

Personal

Cultural Situational Co-textual •total of X's social experiences •total of X's experiences of a different culture
•total of X's experiences of a particular situation in a particular culture

•total of X's experiences of a particular interaction in a particular situation in a particular culture

Norms of an individual (X) engaged in a particular situation [START_REF] Culpeper | Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power[END_REF] and cultural norms; the trained reaction which is the situational normthe observer trained to look for certain features in the film, in a certain place; the anticipated reaction of the audience or the co-textual norm, which is the interaction with the audienceindirect, though, as all the studies commissioned by the BBFC are not directly carried out by the examiners.

And there comes my question: if all those norms define the reaction of the examiners, they also define the reaction of any member of the audience, but their content is not the same; when the aggression is relative to the context (a villain swearing, for example), how do they define the limits between the different age-categories? Here are for me the limits of the definition of a 'language criterion': they are in mid-water elements, which creates space in the work of the examiners, but also in the demands of directors/producers, but also of the audience. I use 'in mid-water' because this is what they are: floating from one category to another.

From there, there are two hypotheses: firstly, those elements really depend on the characters, the context within the film and of the film, etc.; secondly, they are echoes of the movements of those categories. I have shown that the criterion was evolving through time, and maybe, what I have defined as the sociolinguistics of characters is symptomatic of the transition towards a more liberal system (for the linguistic criterion).

So, are they counting? The answer does not really matter. What matters are the elements which really make a difference for the classification. And counting does not make a difference, as it is always associated or combined with other elements.

Hence, I am not including counting as a practice from the part of the examiner because of the need to remember that other criteria are at stake in the film, and also that there is a more general context (the society in which the examiner works, the moment when the film was submitted, etc.) which also influences and feeds the language criterion. Thus, by deconstructing the centrality of the language criterion, I have been able

to build a more general reflection on the attitude of British examiners, which made me wonder about the momentsrarewhen French examiners were considering it was worth mentioning the language.

8.2. French classification: when does the language count?

In France, the Commission of Classification only mentions the language twice in its classification. One is in the "tous publics" section and the other one is in the 12-rating section. In the "tous publics" or Universal-rating, it is said that the language can be coarse but without excess. And for the 12-rating, there might be vulgar language but without excess 212 . There are two elements here: the type of language, which is close to the conception of the BBFC guidelines, and the question of excess, which also reminds us of the question of infrequency mentioned in the BBFC guidelines (see previous part). The question of frequency (UK), excess (FR) seems to be part of the definition of language aggression. However, I have already shown you that frequency is less of a method of classification, and more of a term which covers other aspects of the films taken into account by the British examiners. Indeed, when you notice that Life of Brian (Monty [START_REF] Python | La Vie de Brian[END_REF]) got a 15 rating with 7 occurrences of "fuck", that Looking for Eric [START_REF] Loach | Looking for Eric[END_REF] got the same rating with 184 occurrences of "fuck" (all forms included) and

for The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese, 2013), which obtained an 18 rating with 569 occurrences of that same word, we cannot possibly consider the question of frequency as valid to determine the dimensions of a 'language criterion'. But, more importantly, so far, all the films included in this thesis, which were, for most of them, classified 15 due to the presence of strong language in the UK, are Universal in France. So what is coarse or vulgar language according to French standards? And in practice, where does it really appear inside the classification? 8.2.1. The uncanny rating? "Universal with a warning".

Surprisingly compared to what I have said until now, neither Universal nor 12

ratings have mentions of coarse, strong or vulgar language when it comes to the individual classifications of films. There is only one category which has this mention, and it is not, as PG, a category in itself. It stands inside the Universal category: it's called "tous publics avec un avertissement", that is "Universal with a warning". And it is in this category that you can find comments warning parents about the type of language used in some films.

A CONTEXT-RELATED NOTION?

In its 2005-2006 report (p. 22) 213 , the Commission stated that:

"The Commission of classification has proposed to associate an authorisation Tous Publics with a warning when the following elements are susceptible to frighten, to disturb, or to confuse the youngest ones: the realism or the strength of certain scenes of violencesocial or familial, the presence of children in an atmosphere of tension, explicit sexual situations, the theme, or the atmosphere or the language employed, which comes as support to the other criteria" 214 .

213

All the reports by the Commission can be found on the CNC website. URL: http://www.cnc.fr/web/fr/rapport-de-la-commission. Last seen on June 22 nd , 2016. Language is not seen as a criterion, but as an element participating to the whole picture (see table above). And it is considered as less important than the atmosphere, the images, etc., whereas it is put with all this on equal footing in the British classification. So, nothing new so far, except that it contradicts the first assumption I had: the first mention of language I read was in a leaflet (2007) destined to be more largely spread than the reports of the Commission (2003-2012which are just published on the CNC website), and it only mentioned language at Universal and 12. It appears that it only matters at Universal, and it is signaled by an associated warning.

What about the content of those remarks? We go back to the remarks of my informants: language only matters depending on the situation. So what really matters is the situation, which is emphasised by the language.

BRIEF COMPARISON: BACK TO THE BRITISH CLASSIFICATION

So, all those films are transformed by their classification. I am sure, by now, that you have realised that there is a difference of message sent to the audience, depending on the certificate given to a film. But there is also a big difference made by the joint remark, which appears on the certificate. This is what I gave you in this first part, and this is what, in the second and following part, I will try to study and analyse.

la présence d'enfants dans une atmosphère de tension, des situations sexuelles explicites, le thème du film ou le climat ou encore le langage employé qui vient appuyer un des autres critères, sont susceptibles d'effrayer, de perturber ou de désorienter les plus jeunes." According to the French classification, I am not sure if I can talk about axes, in the sense that it is not precise as in the British classification:

-Langage cru/très cru -Grossièreté permanente -Vulgarité -Langage Because of this imprecise feature, I will handle my corpus using the British classification axes in order to be clear in the themes: however, I will discuss the French classification as well.

STRONG/VERY STRONG LANGUAGE

Those examples are from the French and English versions of Team America [START_REF] Parker | Team America[END_REF]. Reminder: for this film, the French examiners mentioned "un langage très cru" and the British examiners "very strong language". This was the clearest and the most precise equivalence in terms of classification. All the others only variation, and probably predominance of the image. The second film for which the examiners used this type of designation (langage cru/strong language) is Gigolo malgré lui (Mike Bigelow, 2005) 215 .

In Team America, the story is about a team of characters who are falling in disgrace after destroying half of Cairo, and trying to regain their popularity by fighting the evil they previously failed to destroy. The characters are all puppets. My guess is that the reason which played a part in the attribution of a 'warning' for this film is the gap between the expectations sent by the image (puppetsfilm targeting children) and the language/actions of the characters. Back to the example above, the problem is clear: explicitness.

You probably remember my first chapters and the first drafts of definition of the 'language criterion' that I have written. Here, we are in the dysphemistic area in the sense that it is explicitly referring to sex, without any use of euphemisms or orthophemisms.

Keith Allan and Kate Burridge (2006: p. 110) consider that dysphemisms express the speaker's wants and needs, whereas the use of euphemisms and orthophemisms translate the absence of total liberty of saying whatever you want, because of social conventions. And I have already mentioned that using taboo language is perceived as a violation of 215 The English title is : Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo.

French version

Si tu nous trahis, je t'arrache tes putains de couilles et je te les fourre dans l'cul. Comme ça, quand t'iras chier, tu t'chiras sur les burnes, t'as pigé !

Oh, c'est pas la pire des catégories, les têtes de noeuds. Y'a aussi les p'tites chattes et les trous du cul. [..] Mais il arrive parfois que les petites chattes aient les glandes et que les têtes de noeud les baisent. Mais les têtes de noeuds baisent aussi les trous du cul.

English version

And if you betray us, I'll rip your fuckin' balls off and stuff 'em up your ass so that the next time you shit, you'll shit all over your balls! Got it?! Well, uh being a dick ain't so bad. See, there are three kinds of people: dicks, pussies and assholes. [...] So pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while because... pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck!

Examples from Team America codes. Here, the code which is violated is the standard association between puppets and children. On top of that, I can add that clearly, un langage cru refers to sex references mainly. You can check the transcription I made of Team America, and Gigolo malgré lui in the Annex part: you will see that it is mostly about language related to sex, and you will also be able to check the quantity (absolutely not represented by my two examples). It seems that this is also another factor which triggers the 'warning': the fact that the dialogue is constantly playing on that type of references.

STRONG SEX REFERENCES

The British classification tends to be very specific on that particular subject, whereas, we have already seen it, the French classification tends to be rather vague, the word sex being used to qualify the images, not the language. For example, Harold and Kumar s'évadent de Guantanamo fits in this category, which makes me hesitate about whether the French examiners are clearly referring to language, or to the images.

The phrase used by the French examiners is la vulgarité de beaucoup de ses scènes. This is where one of the limits of this comparison stands. Indeed, if langage très cru was referring to strong sex references mostly, and if vulgarité is also referring to the same thing, it seems that those terms are employed as synonyms and do not allow to presume of any kind of degree or of any kind of particular theme.

French version

Vous avez déjà entendu parler de sandwichs à la viande de bite ? Elle a sûrement deux bites non circoncises devant sa bouche et elles se les frottent contre les amydales

English version

Ever heard of a cock-sandwich?

Right now, she's probably got two uncircumcised dicks dangling in front of her throat. You know what she's gonna do with them? Down 'em into her tonsils

Examples extracted from Harold and Kumar

The examiner is no linguist. This means, as Evelynne Larguèche (2011) suggests, that the remarks joint to the certificate by the Commission are like everyday language: those phrases are used as synonyms, as are blasphemes, insults, affronts, defamation, and invectives. As there is no criterion within the French classification, there is no need to use clear keywords. But this means that the status of those comments is linked to the status of the examinersnot as it is defined by the law or by the rules of the subcommissions/plenary commissionbut as they think their role is. This is the discussion of the next part (see 8.3.). In the meantime, let us move to our next and last category.

VERY STRONG RACIST LANGUAGE

This is England (Shane Meadows, 2007) is a complex case within my study of film classification, for several reasons. First of all, it was the first film for which I found out that language could be used in France. Second of all, because of this status, it is the first one for which I thought there were possible equivalents between British and French classifications. Third of all, this is my last example and this is where I explain to you that despite cultural differences, it is not because of them that a European film classification is not possible, but because of institutional differences in the first place, in combination with the features of the society and culture in which it is embedded. To that, there is still a question you can ask me: are not those institutional differences dependent on social and cultural differences? I imagine that this is the chicken or the egg causality dilemma.

Certaines scènes violentes (attitude, langage)

[some violent scenes (attitude, language)] is the comment left by the Commission for the potential audience to see. If I had just read the French comment, I would have never understood that it was about discriminatory language. So, this is also one of the main differences I have tried to convey to you: because of their differences in the way examiners work, the question of language

French version

Ça faisait trois semaine, tu vois, trois semaines que cet enfoiré de putain de nègre...

White boy... Give me your pud-pud.

Envoie ce que je t'ai demandé, Paki de mes deux.

British version

for three weeks, right, this fucking wog...

Petit blanc, donne-moi ton miammiam ! Just fucking get 'em, you Paki bastard!

Examples from This is England (the two first ones are within the lines of a character storytelling and the second one is directed, aggressive, during a robbery) evolved completely differently. While in the first part of this chapter, I was trying to show you that the British 'language criterion' was possibly loosening its boundaries, and that maybe social and cultural standards might go in the same direction, here, on the contrary, I am not showing you anything you but just confirming the status of language within the French classification: it has never been a criterion, it is not becoming one, and because of that, they do not have the tools to send clear messages to the audience, and my guess is that they do not have to.

They do not have to give a clear picture of the film, because after all, is it not up to the parents to decide if they should take or authorise their children to go and watch this or that film? The French classification thus refers to the film as a whole: thus, when there is a possible mismatch between audience's expectations [Team America: film with puppets, generally associated to young audiences] and the true nature of the film [images and language more suitable for an adult audience], they use the warning to emphasize that aspect.

Thus, beyond the question of the criteria, it is also a question of attitude towards the audience. Indeed, what this last example shows, is that there is a gap between detailing the elements within the comment joint to the certificate and warning the audience that certain scenes might not be appropriate for a young audience, without necessarily detailing why. This is the question I am going to try and answer in the last part of this chapter.

So, different institutional cultures lead to different notions of language. As it has been said, in France, the issue of language aggression is hardly traceable: films where sexual, offensive and/or discriminatory language is used are just associated to a warning.

Both institutions send clearly different messages to their audiences: through their work, their ratings or their institutional standards regarding the use of their guidelines (if any).

What film classification highlights in regards to the discussion on language aggression is the importance to take into account institutional, cultural, economic and social contexts, in order to understand the forces at stake. And among the concepts I have not discussed until now, there is the aspect of status: as a public message, is a visa the equivalent of a certificate?

"Language attitudes"?

I have tried to avoid talking about 'language attitudes' throughout this thesis and I would like to keep it that way. This is precisely why I am raising that question here. How can I differentiate 'language attitudes' from 'criteria attitudes' or 'film attitudes'?

As you have been able to see, I have defined the existence/non-existence of the 'language criterion' without separating it from the institutional, historical, social and cultural evolutions occurring in the UK and in France. There are however certain features which remain unanswered:

-Is a visa the equivalent of a certificate?

-Are there specific requirements to become an examiner?

-How do those two features play a role in the relation between the examiner and the audience and more specifically, in the definition of 'language'

within the frame of a visa or certificate?

Visa Vs. Certificate.

A visa is not delivered by the institution of classification itself. It is delivered by the Minister of Culture, who in principle has the final saying, but it rarely deviates from the advice of the Commission. A certificate is delivered by the president of the BBFC, who is generally following the report delivered by the two examiners in charge of the film classification.

And this is where another institutional difference stands: a visa is a public instrument. I have tried to study how examiners were dealing with language in films while at the same time taking into account the methods and practices developed to achieve such a goal. Does that mean the visa has a different status from the certificate?

In terms of law, it has a different status, as the visa is an instrument of public policy, that is "a device, both technical and social, which organizes specific social relations between public powers and the addressee in accordance with the representations and significations that it carries"216 (Pierre Lascousmes, Patrick Le Galès, 2004: p. 13). By this, they also mean that an instrument is not neutral, it carries certain values, an interpretation of society and also, a certain conception of how to use it. In this sense, a certificate is also an instrument.

Thus, from the very beginning, those two instruments carry two different conceptions. Indeed, the certificate is an attestation which testifies of the reality of something217 , while the visa is an authorization, which gives the legal possibility to do something by an explicit agreement218 . Hence, in the case of films, the certificate testifies that the film is Universal, while the visa authorises the film to be broadcasted without restrictions.

Those differences have to do with the way those institutions were created: the Board had an informal status, which was not the case of the Commission (see chapter 4, for more details). If I mention this aspect here, it is because of its role in defining the examiners, and in concluding on the language criterion.

Becoming an examiner.

In Chapter 4, I have underlined a certain number of features about the examiners.

In France, at the beginning, being an examiner requires to be a civil servant or to be part of the film industry, while in the UK, it requires to be independent from both the government and the film industry. Through time, their origins (essentially military for the Board) have evolved and both the Board and the Commission gave priority to the diversity of backgrounds. But considering their institutional status does not give any information about who they are, and how they think themselves.

I have argued in my first chapter that the status of language in films depended on the fact that films are a one-way type of communication, and that there was a fear tied to the imitation of linguistic models. I have already presented the aspect that a Villain who swears is less of a problem, because less likely to appeal to imitation, than a good guy swearing. But what is the position of examiners on that particular question?

FRENCH EXAMINERS: DISTANCING THE PARENT FROM THE EXAMINER?

To understand the position of French examiners on language nowadays, maybe it is time to understand who are the invisible members of the sub-commission: indeed, the reports are emphasizing the work of the plenary commission, as it gets all the restrictive decisions, but who are the ones who view the films in the first place?

The members of the sub-commission (same for plenary members) compare their own work to voluntary work, because they are not really paid, though they are defrayed, it is not a proper salary. So, there is the idea of commitment to a cause among the discourse of the French examiners. It implies that lots of students are involved in the subcommissions, especially those coming from language or cinematographic studies. But there are also a lot of former members from the plenary commission, to whom it was proposed to join the sub-commission.

What was also important in my interviews is the fact that they are all very conscious of the economic consequences. It appears as an argument they put forward when justifying the need for an open-minded system: "We are related to the protection of children and we are in a system where the classification is a recommendation… a strong one in certain cases, and which has economic consequences, that we know"219 (Claude Brenez).

Another feature (and you have probably noticed that when I said that students were involved in the Commission) is the fact that: being a parent is not required. In fact, certain of my informants tend to dissociate their role as examiners and as parents:

"Myself, as a parent, when my children wanted to see a film, I was going to see it before they saw it. They were not going at the cinema alone at 10"220 (Pierre Frantz).

There is an emphasis on the responsability of parents in the choice of the film. One of my informants also told me that:

"For example, the film Bienvenue à Zombieland [Ruben Fleischer], which came out in 2009, we can say that it is an audacious film, in a violent way, there is a lot of graphic violence, etc. it is a thing which pushes the boundaries a bit too far. It is a very dark, black humour, and yet the film is Universal. There was no warning with it maybe because we consider that a film which is called Bienvenue à Zombieland is clear enough for the audience in terms of position. We do not think that we will have entire families bringing young children for a birthday party to see Bienvenue à Zombieland. Normally, in those cases, there is a sort of auto-regulation. We do not have to intervene" 221 (Gauthier Jurgensen).

So, beyond the context of the dialogue or of the images, there is the context of the film itself : does it send a clear message to the audience ? Is there a mismatch between the message sent to the audience and the actual content of the film? This is a feature, which starts to worm itself in the discourse of British examiners as well. At the BBFC conference 222 I attended, the examiner signaled the fact that for a film like the Woman in Black (James Watkins, 2012), they considered the possible mismatch between the presence of the main actor, Daniel Radcliffe, who was known for his Harry Potter role, and the content of the film, which was not suitable for the youngest part of the audience.

But she directly added the fact that it was not the main criterion for the classification of this particular film (as I have already shown, the context is not a concept, which can be used by British examiners without careful justifications).

Thus, the relationship to the audience is completely different, as two of my informants explained it to me: "[audience's feedbacks], measured by the letters I was receiving and the protests addressed to the CNC, majoritarily reproached us our "permissiveness". They wanted us to be much more severe, and they reproached us for not to forbidding such and such a film, which was judged scandalous. And it is true that those protests were often targeting films that we had rated Universal. […] But we should not forget that people who are satisfied never tell so" 223 (Jean-François Théry).

« If I have to do a summary of all this, the audience… the average cinema-goer wants a stronger classification, he wants more restrictions. He So, the mission of the French examiner is shaped by a principle: the liberty of expression, on top of which is added the protection of children and adolescents. Though they define it as their priority, they also consider that parents are the main channel of control between a film and their children. This is why they refuse to categorise the films by establishing criteria, as it would contradict the principle of expression. As one of my informants stated, the reaction of French examiners is subjective, because they see the film as a whole, and not as a puzzle of multiple potentially classifiable elements. Thus, "We cannot make a grid, a table in which we throw the films, it is not possible"225 (Gauthier Jurgensen). This is not possible in the viewpoint of a French examiner, but not for British examiners.

BRITISH EXAMINER: THE SECOND PARENT?

British examiners are full-time employees. They classify the film for a living, which explains why there are fewer examiners at the Board, than in the Commission: the sub-commissions are different for each half-day of the week. As for their backgrounds, it is like the Commission, except that the examiners are not as young as in the Commission. of law or social work). And as I have already said, no place is given to the 18-25 part of the audience within the BBFC, whereas it is the case in France. And there is a reason for that; at the BBFC seminar 227 I attended, the examiner explained that:

"We do not classify for the children but for the parents".

So, the idea is not to have, as for the Commission, a Board which would be closer to the audience in terms of diversity in age and experience, but a Board able to inform parents.

And this is even emphasised by their guiding principle: the examiner who rated a

film has to answer to the letters from the audience. And because what makes the legitimacy of the Board is not a legal status, but the approval, among others, from the audience, they consider that they have to: Thus, contrary to the French examiners, who do not get the letters from the audience (the administration: secretary, and the president do), they feel that their classification has to be based on public expectations. Thus, when I asked one examiner 229 about the use of criteria, she underlined that British strictness is based on the amount of letters they receive each year, which push them in that direction.

Parents' choice Vs. No-Risk choice?

Hence, and this is the conclusion of this chapter, there is a clear difference between those two institutions, but also between their examiners. On one hand, at the Commission, there is a confidence in the parents' choices, and a confidence in the fact that parents are the first ones to be responsible. On the other hand, there is a position of no-risk at the Board, with a declared obligation to inform the parents properly.

What consequences does it have for the language issue?

"Change is the result of the interaction between agents who have room for manoeuvre, and more general mechanisms which form a frame imposing on them with more or less strictness" (Pierre Muller, 2005: p. 164).

227 BBFC Seminar, February 10 th , 2015, at Soho Square. 228 Conference "The Good, the Bad and the BBFC", at the Lighthouse Media Centre, Wolverhampton. This is what I have tried to convey through the different chapters of this thesis, but more particularly in this one. The changes occurring to the language issue are not only the result of general mechanisms, as the evolution of the institution itself, or the evolution of the societies in which the Board and the Commission exist, but also of the actions of the examiners.

This explains how the context is becoming part of the classification of language in the UK, but also why language is appearing in the Universal with a warning rated films in France. There has never been a directive about taking into account the context or using the warnings to signal language issues. But the fact that the British classification works on the basis of criteria led the examiners to consider the context as one of those criteria, thus keeping the balance between evolution of the tolerance towards swearwords in a certain context and informing the audience by giving them the tools to understand the decision which has been taken. In France, language has never been a criterion. But this is interesting to see that when there is a mismatch between the dialogues and the general appearance of the film, the examiners can use existing tools (the warnings) to make this statement to the audience.

This part has established that:

 The language criterion exists in the British classification, but it was created through examiner's practices and was not established as a criterion before 1982  There is no language criterion within the French classification, and the absence of criteria is part of the identity of the French examiners, who defend the nobility of their system  Translation does not have the expected role in the French classification, but it was interesting to see how translation played a part in the British one.  The attitudes of the examiners towards language are also attitudes towards the audiences: in France, they rely on the responsibility of the parents, while in the UK, this is a risk-free system, where every possible element is studied and then transmitted to the audience.

A word of conclusion I thank you very much for staying with me until those last pages.

General overview

I have started with the main following question:

How have the work of examiners and the institutional and societal evolutions shaped the creation and the development of a language criterion within British and French film classification systems?

This question presupposed two elements:

1. That the examiners were playing a role in the creation/development of a language criterion; 2. That there were more general mechanisms, within the Board and the Commission, and beyond, which had a role as well. And the idea was to answer it through four different hypotheses.

THE DIFFERENCES OF CENSORSHIP FOR LANGUAGE BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND FRANCE ARE OF STRUCTURAL ORIGINS (INSTITUTIONAL).

As I had warned in the introduction, I do not consider that there are no other factors, such as cultural or social ones (they have a considerable place in this thesis), but I found that the institutional elements were generally put aside in the study of British/French film censorship/classification. And along this study, I have given elements to back-up this hypothesis.

In the UK, when the BBFC was created in 1912, it was in a difficult position: it was confronted to the local authorities, without official support from the Home Office and with guarantees to give to the film industry which was trying to solve the problem of multiple censorships. In this context, the BBFC established a method in its relation to the audience, the Home Office, or the Film Industry, by editing annual reports with issues which had not been considered permissible. This led to the slow creation of criteria, which were completely established seventy years later, by a new practice among the British examiners: the association of a table of criteria to the reports.

In France, the Commission also was in a difficult position, as the local authorities were also in the habit of dealing with that question. However, the fact that the Commission was a public institution gave it much more credit, and the relation to the censorship/classification of films rapidly became a public policy issue. In order to match other cultural policies, and support the liberty of expression, the Commission integrated members of the film industry, and later, experts in child psychology, etc. and young people aged 18-25. The Commission never clearly explained its rules, neither to the audience nor to the film industry, and this gave it room for manoeuvre in terms of censorship, but it also restricted its ability to censor very specific elements such as language.

Nowadays, the differences on the language criterion are due to the institutional evolutions of the Board and the Commission, which clearly enacted this gap. The social and cultural elements influenced much more the content of that criterion.

IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, THE EVOLUTION OF THE CLASSIFICATION ITSELF IS DUE TO CULTURAL AND STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS.

We have seen it, especially with the reports and the observations on scenarios, the establishment of rules led the BBFC to a high level of precision concerning the evolution of the language criterion. But this does not mean that institutional practices were the only elements at stake: on the contrary, the reports of examiners clearly show that they were also taking into account the evolution of the degree of tolerance towards certain types of language, or images. However, they wereand still are-constrained by their system, which led them to systematically justify each of their decisions. This is why, nowadays, when the context leads to a more permissive attitude towards language issues, they do not derogate to this rule and justify by explaining the circumstances. Hence, the evolution from censorship to classification is marked in the UK by the establishment of a system which seems to be based only on degrees of offensiveness, but which has its own exceptions, as negotiations can take place and lead to a different result, either in terms of modification of the film, or in terms of justification of the examiners about language.

IN FRANCE, THE MINOR ASPECT OF LANGUAGE WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION IS NOT DUE TO THE EVOLUTION OF THE CLASSIFICATION BUT IS SOMETHING CHARACTERISING CENSORSHIP AND CLASSIFICATION IN FRANCE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

Here again, it was not a very audacious hypothesis. However, I failed to see where language could be an issue and why, before getting my hands into the archives, interviews, etc. I have shown that there are common grounds between the UK and France in terms of censorship of language, when it comes to certain professions, or international policies, etc. But, I have also shown that, very quickly, there was a sense of taking into account the dialogues when they were emphasising the context. This is what recent classifications have also confirmed. However, at no moment, at least at this stage of the research, are there hints which would allow me to define criteria of any kind. Language, within the French classification, is just one element among others which participate to the general atmosphere of the film. This is what matters.

IN FRANCE, AS IN THE UK, TRANSLATION HAS A ROLE TO PLAY (SUBTITLES IN THE UK, DUBBING AND SUBTITLING IN FR).

I had overestimated this hypothesis in the French case, and underestimated it in the British case. Indeed, translation does not directly play a role within the classification, as the examiners are watching the film in its original version in France. This does not mean that there is no censorship through the process of translation: certain examples from my corpus showed that very strong language does not tend to be used by the translators.

But, this is not to be generalised as translation depends on the context of the film: and when the dialogues are particularly coarse (almost in the sense of provocative), the translation follows the same direction.

I underestimated the role of translation within the BBFC classification, as I had excluded it from any possible negotiation between the examiners and the film industry. This, once more, shows the importance of the data in the construction of a research: of course, researching does not mean diving into the field without questions and hypotheses, but they should not blind us, and should be fed by the new discoveries made on the way.

Hence, the attitudes of examiners towards language can be described as:

I have not leant too much about the content of the language criterion, or the content of the warning about language for several reasons: -I have not found elements that would particularly contradict existing studies about the evolution of the tolerance towards the offensiveness of certain words of phrases -The content of the criterion was more enlightening about attitudes towards taboo language within a specific public sphere.

Indeed, cinemas are a specific public sphere in that they are a closed space, within which the content has been previously chosen to correspond to a certain audience by the examiners of the Board (UK) or the Commission (France). Thus, I think this study echoes the reflections by Florian Coulmas (2013: p. 9): "Sociolinguistics is the linguistics of choice, and, if only for that reason, we have to come to grips with the relationship of the freedom of the will, human action and language, for the choice is a notion which presupposes an agent rather than an automaton". The examiners are agents of the film classification, of the choices they make towards language: the manoeuvring space they create within the classification, their personal investment show the particular dimension of their work.

Two of my informants described those systems as:

-Organic (Gauthier Jurgensen): "C'est quelque chose d'organique, quelque chose qui prend en compte ce facteur humain" Though this might look like a caricature, it gives a precise idea about how they think they work and how they think it works on the other side of the Channel. Though the British system is described as military, because of its classification based on criteria, and though its own examiners refer to its strictness, there are negotiations taking place, proving the existence of room for manoeuvre, through this apparent rigidity. The fear of the precedent or the justification of certain contexts, both clearly emphasise this aspect of the possible flexibility of the system, thanks to the work of its agents. On the French side, it also gives clues about how the system works: indeed, this human feature is due to the fact that all the sub-commissions are different (not intervening on the same film, and not composed of the same membershence, there are 10 different sub-commissions). The fact that it is not remunerated in the common sense shows that there is the aspect of personal investment, which makes the classification much more than a job.

And now?

However, on the one hand, in this thesis, there are elements which would deserve to be developed, especially on the part of the identity of the examiners. Indeed, it lacks elements about their curriculum and their personal experiences, as spectators and as examiners.

There are other elements on the other hand, which should have involved less time and brain sweat. I built a corpus of translations, though I came to realise that it was not really the main issue; but it still helped and it was possible to confirm some existing elements within the literature, but also to add some new ones.

I also take the opportunity to apologise if some of you felt frustrated with the historical background given in this thesis. The aim was the work of examiners on language, and thus, the elements which might be important for the history of the classification, but which were not participating to the general argumentation of this thesis, were left aside.

This study, I hope, would have opened new opportunities in terms of sociolinguistic studies, but also in the way of thinking sociolinguistics, which has been, in my viewpoint, not just another way to study language, but also another way to think about people's attitudes and conceptions about languageespecially within a particular group: the film examiners. It is what they do with existing standards and values and how they stickor notto them, within a specific space (cinemas), and with a particular object (films), where cultural, political, social and economic issues are at stake. It echoes

NB:

The last existing reports (1932)(1933) did not contain any exceptions taken from films. From 1932, they decided to send the list of exceptions taken only to studios because of the critics some of those sentences received. -You and me.

-Yeah.

On les aura, ces salauds.

Toi et moi. Mets de l'eau froide, espèce de con.

Mo

-n'importe quoi.

-fucking hell (Eric)

-oh fuck off (vexed) -It's not bad, it's better than Spleen's anyway.

-Yeah whatever (waving down)

-n'importe quoi.

-Fais chier.

-Elle est mieux que celle de Spleen.

-Si tu veux.

-Va te faire foutre.

- -"an overloaded postman".

-[laugh] how many letters?

-a fucking big bag full.

[laugh] -T'es bon en mots-croisés ? -Ouais, ça va.

-« Postier super chargé ».

-combien de lettres ?

-une sacoche pleine.

-T'es fort en mots-croisés toi j'crois ?

-ouais, ça va.

- -No! -Donne-moi son numéro.

-Non.

-Son numéro.

-Non.

-bon allez, filemoi son numéro.

-non.

-File-moi son numéro.

- -Not trasnlated.

-Je me ferais bien une bourge.

-C'est laquelle.

-Celle-ci.

- L'aspect linguistique de l'étude :

Ainsi que présenté dans le paragraphe ci-dessus, le langage ne semble pas avoir la même place en France et au Royaume-Uni. Ces deux systèmes sont fréquemment opposés dans la presse, au point de décrire l'un comme très strict et l'autre comme très libéral.

De plus, le discours des examinateurs de films est particulier à chaque classification. Dans l'exemple de Team America [START_REF] Parker | Team America[END_REF], dans le cas du BBFC, ils parlent de strong language, alors qu'en France, ils mentionnent un langage très cru.

Enfin, alors que le BBFC a attribué un interdit aux moins de 15 ans à ce film en mentionnant les dialogues comme étant l'une des principales raisons, la Commission lui a, quant à elle, octroyé un Tous Publics avec Avertissementavertissement qui inclut le 245 En outre, à l'origine de ce travail, quatre hypothèses avaient été formulées :

-Les différences en termes de censure/classification du langage ne sont pas seulement d'origines sociales ou culturelles, mais s'appuient sur le cadre institutionnel -Au Royaume-Uni, l'évolution du critère langage est due à des éléments culturels et structurels, notamment en termes de méthode de travail des examinateurs -En France, l'aspect mineur du langage au sein de la classification n'est pas seulement dû à des éléments culturels, mais aussi à l'évolution de la classification elle-même dès ses débuts -Au Royaume-Uni, comme en France, la traduction joue un rôle dans la classification du langage au travers des sous-titres, et/ou du doublage.

Le plan a été construit autour de trois axes principaux, afin de répondre à la problématique citée ci-dessus :

-Partie I : il s'agit de définir les contours théoriques du sujet, en mettant en valeur les différents champs d'étude dans lequel il s'inscrit, afin de construire une réflexion plus globale.

-

Qu'est-ce que le langage vulgaire ou bad language ?

Un des premiers aspects qui a été établi au cours de cette thèse, c'est qu'à l'origine du langage vulgaire, il s'agit avant tout des mots ou expressions tabous. Ainsi que le souligne Timothy Jay (2009 : p. 153): "a rich emotional, psychological, and sociocultural phenomenon [which is] sanctioned or restricted on both institutional and individual levels under the assumption that some harm will occur if [it] is spoken".

Cette définition permet de prendre en compte les différents niveaux qui sont en jeu dans le cadre des classifications britannique et française : -Le niveau institutionnel : l'idée que le BBFC et la Commission ont été créé pour sanctionner ou restreindre l'accès au langage vulgaire.

-Le niveau individuel : les examinateurs, qui sont chargés de la classification des films de façon journalière et dont les pratiques ont façonné le critère langage. Cependant, ils sont aussi soumis à d'autres facteurs tels que les attentes du public, de l'industrie du cinéma ou même du gouvernement.

-Harm : le langage est ainsi placé dans une perspective de violence potentielle, mais aussi de violence relativerelative à celui/celle qui entend ces mots/expressions, mais aussi relative à l'époque et au contexte dans lesquels les dialogues s'inscrivent.

Ainsi, la définition du langage vulgaire repose sur quatre éléments distincts :

1. l'aspect tabou du langage qui reste inhérent à la censure/classification des films. the Dead ' (1948) and 'From Here to Eternity' (1951) were once considered provocative for their language, though the word shit was not used in an American film until 1961 (in the film 'The Connection')" et le mot ''fuck'' n'apparaît pas dans un film avant la fin des années 1960. Donc même s'il s'agit de thèmes dès la première ligne de cette définition, ce sont les mots qui sont jugés acceptables ou non en fonction d'une certaine audience.

Ainsi, cette étude s'inscrit au sein de plusieurs champs de recherches : des aspects sociolinguistiques, mêlés à des thématiques qui correspondent avant tout au champ des études de films. Pour des raisons de condensation, la troisième dimension de cette thèse, à savoir la traduction, sera présentée dans la partie suivante, mais fait également partie des champs de recherche délimitant ce sujet de thèse.

Partie II: Retracer l'histoire des classifications de films

Un bref résumé des données à disposition.

Dans le cadre de cette étude, des archives, des entretiens ainsi que la constitution de deux corpus de films ont été mis à profit. Ainsi que je l'ai déjà montré, ce sujet a une dimension nationale : il s'agit de comprendre comment l'instauration de ces systèmes a conduit à la créationou non -d'un critère langage, ce qui implique qu'il faut que ce système prenne forme et se développe. Guerre Mondiale, la quasi-totalité de la période avant-guerre a été ainsi perdue).

Afin de comprendre ce qu'il s'était passé du côté français, je me suis rendue :

-Aux Archives Nationales de Pierrefitte-sur-Seine o Qui m'ont permis de comprendre qui étaient les membres de la Commission dans les années 1930, mais qui m'ont aussi donné de précieux éléments sur le fonctionnement de la classification française.

Je n'ai malheureusement pas pu me rendre aux Archives Nationales de Fontainebleau, où se trouvait l'équivalent des dossiers de classification des Archives privées du BBFC, à savoir les rapports de la Commission de Classification. Ce manque a été comblé par des lectures, et des informations complémentaires ont été obtenues grâce aux entretiens que j'ai pu mener avec d'anciens membres de la Commission.

Enfin, ainsi que je l'ai souligné en introduction, ainsi que dans la première partie de ce résumé, une de mes hypothèses était le rôle que la traduction avait pu jouer dans la classification de certains films. Lorsque j'ai commencé à rédiger ma thèse, je pensais notamment aux films de Ken Loach, fortement stigmatisés par la classification britannique qui s'appuyait sur les dialogues comme argument principal, alors que dans la classification française, ils étaient Tous Publics, sans avertissement particulier concernant le langage. J'ai donc établi un premier corpus de transcriptions qui s'appuyait sur la présence du langage dans la classification britannique, et afin de le compléter, j'en ai établi un deuxième, composé de films où le langage est considéré comme faisant partie de la classification française et de la classification britannique. Au sein de la classification française, l'ensemble de ces films est Tous Publics. (1909) au Royaume-Uni, et via le rappel de l'autorité des maires en matière de spectacles de curiosité en France (les films sont alors placés dans cette catégorie). Cependant, les professionnels du cinéma s'insurgent rapidement des mesures de censure multiples prises par les autorités locales, qui les contraignent à adapter le film suivant le lieu de sa projection.

Ainsi, en 1912, avec le soutien financier de la Kinematograph Manufacturers Association, le gouvernement britannique valide la création du BBFCalors British Board of Film Censors. En France, il faudra attendre 1919 pour qu'une Commission, autre que la censure militaire, soit créée.

Les différences entre les institutions s'installent dès lors :

-Le BBFC peine à se faire reconnaître au niveau national, et cela va se traduire par un besoin de légitimité, car le soutien officiel du gouvernement ne lui sera accordé qu'à partir des années 1920.

-La composition du BBFC s'inscrit dans une double perspective : l'institution se revendique à la fois indépendante du gouvernement, et de l'industrie du cinéma.

-Du côté de la Commission, au contraire, dès les années 1930, et cela se poursuivra après 1945, un certain nombre de sièges sont réservés à des représentants de la profession.

-De plus, le fait que la Commission soit une institution publique facilitera son acceptation par les autorités locales.

De la censure à la classification.

Une des évolutions majeures que connaissent ces deux systèmes est le passage d'un système de censure, caractérisée par un très petit nombre de catégories d'âge (par En 1990, le système de classification français a connu au cours de la précédente décennie des changements majeurs :

-L'arrivée de membres plus jeunes au sein de la Commission (18-25 ans) -La fin des coupures de scènes et dialogues -La fin de l'interdiction totale d'un film Ces évolutions ne sont pas connues par le BBFC, mais une tendance commune va toucher les deux systèmes :

-La nécessité de rendre publique la méthode de classification des films.

Ce changement répond à des évolutions culturelles qui ont touché le cinéma de manière générale :

-La baisse du nombre de spectateurs dans les salles ; -L'avènement des films sur VHS et télévision, puis sur DVD et Internet ; -Le besoin de rendre des comptes à un public qui évolue (le rajeunissement de la Commission fait partie de cela, et la publicité des critères de classification du BBFC aussi). Il s'agit de donner l'assurance que les systèmes de classification ressemblent à leur public.

Ainsi, les évolutions de ces deux systèmes, sur le plan institutionnel, ont influencé les possibilités des examinateurs en termes de censure/classification du langage.

Pour reprendre les éléments du schéma de la page précédente, le besoin de légitimité du BBFC a entraîné la création d'un système plus strict basé sur des critères précis, qui ont Du côté de la Commission, des similitudes quant à la présence du langage dans la classification peuvent être définies :

-Comme au Royaume-Uni, il y a une attention particulière donnée à ce que peuvent dire certaines professions sur grand écran.

-Cependant, au contraire du BBFC, la présence du langage vulgaire est comprise dans son contexte ; c'est-à-dire que les examinateurs du BBFC établissent notamment des listes de mots, alors que les examinateurs français vont généralement souligner la question du langage lorsque celle-ci accentue la vulgarité du contexte.

-Ainsi, la Commission ne fonctionne pas sur un système de critères et s'en revendique.

Le cas français

Une deuxième particularité de la Ainsi que j'ai pu le montrer, en particulier dans le corpus de films tous publics avec avertissement, c'est le fait qu'il y ait un décalage entre l'attente créée par le film et le contenu effectif de ce film, qui entraîne la mise en place d'un avertissement. Un film qui semble être une comédie, mais qui contient de très nombreuses références sexuelles (Soul Plane, Jessy [START_REF] Terrero | Soul Plane[END_REF], présente un décalage : la comédie étant souvent associée à un aspect plus souvent tous publics, le contenu des dialogues montre que le film se destine à un public plus adulte.

Ainsi, il semblerait facile de limiter l'analyse à un contraste :

-Classification britannique: un système de critères strict -Classification française : un système compréhensif, libéral.

Mais ce serait mettre de côté l'ensemble des marges de manoeuvre ou bien les éléments complémentaires qui sont pris en compte dans la dimension langage de la classification.

La dimension du personnage dans le langage.

Tout d'abord, je pensais que le critère langage était associé au contexte : seulement, selon des critères de classification cinématographique, le plus souvent, la référence au contexte évoque la violence physique, la discrimination, l'alcool, la drogue, les scènes d'horreur, de sexe, le sujet abordé, la façon de filmer, l'attitude des personnages. Mais j'étais bien loin de penser à la prise en compte de l'identité du personnage dans une perspective de possible identification à celui-ci. Voilà, c'est dit : la sociolinguistique des personnages, c'est la question de l'identification aux personnages.

En tant que membres d'une audience, on est appelé, amené, à s'identifier aux personnages, ou du moins, à certains personnages. Et dans le cas de l'enfance/adolescence, les examinateurs sont là pour s'assurer que cette identification sera la bonne. Autrement dit, le BBFC prend en considération les paroles prononcées, mais également le personnage qui les prononce et les chances que l'enfant a de s'identifier à ce personnage, et donc se prendre d'affection pour lui, pour ensuite peut-être l'imiter : c'est là toutes les frayeurs du début du XX siècle qui ressurgissent dans une forme moindre. On n'en est plus à suggérer qu'une scène de braquage forme les voleurs de demain. Dans le cas où l'enfant est à même, voire incité, à s'identifier au personnage qui use (abuse) de grossièretés en tous genres, la classification va s'avérer plus élevée. Si l'on devait résumer cette idée de façon caricaturale : c'est moins problématique si c'est le méchant de l'histoire qui jure.

Pour confirmer cet élément, voici un exemple d'explications que peuvent écrire les examinateurs pour justifier la présence de certains jurons/certaines insultes dans un film dont la catégorie de classification exclut de tels usages : « The film also includes a single use of the word 'bitch'. In one scene villains are locked in a cellar and, before breaking the door down, a gangster is heard saying, "That's enough you bitch". In this case the language is spoken by the central villain, not a character younger children are likely to identify with, and it is not clearly directed at any one individual. Guidelines at 'PG' allow 'Mild bad language only' and, in the manner and context in which the bad language is used, the term sits within the 'PG' allowance in this feature. The villain also uses discriminatory terms 'moron' or 'morons' on three occasions when addressing his henchmen » (Une vie de chat, Jean-Loup Felicioli et Alain Gagnol, 2010). La justification intervient ici car, en temps normal, un terme comme bitch n'a pas de place dans un film Existe-t-il des paliers de fréquence?

La classification britannique (la classification française mentionne aussi cet aspect) s'appuie notamment sur la question de la fréquence. Ainsi, nous le verrons, lorsque certains mots sont peu fréquents, tels que fuck, le contexte de leur énonciation est pris en compte par les examinateurs. Cependant, il ne faut pas oublier qu'à l'échelle d'une catégorie d'âge, il n'y a pas seulement la question du langage mais bien d'autres éléments qui entrent en ligne de compte. permitted at PG, the BBFC Guidelines do allow for infrequent uses of strong language at 12A. Two uses in a feature length work were considered 'infrequent' » 256 . Dans cet exemple, la volonté de justifier la présence de 'fuck' malgré sa rareté montre l'importance de ce critère dans le fonctionnement du système de classification.

Dans le cas de The King's Speech, la position du BBFC repose sur le même critère la question du contexte, bien que l'interdiction aux moins de 12 ans est apparue plus comme une faveur accordée au film qu'une volonté des examinateurs de justifier dès le départ la présence de jurons par le contexte. En effet, le film fut interdit au départ aux moins de 15 ans. Ce n'est qu'après une mobilisation des compagnies de distribution britanniques que le film s'est vu attribué une interdiction aux moins de 12 ans 257 . De plus, ce film montre aussi l'importance de la culture de l'institution responsable du système de classification. Aux États-Unis, The King's Speech s'est vu attribué la catégorie de classification R, soit interdit aux moins de 17 ans : afin d'obtenir la catégorie inférieure, soit PG-13, interdit aux moins de 13 ans, non-accompagnées d'un adulte, il fallait couper certaines occurrences de fuck. Alors que le MAAP (institution de classification aux États-Unis) a contraint le réalisateur à donner une version édulcorée de son film, le BBFC a simplement changé la classification. Comment ont-ils justifié l'acceptation des revendications du réalisateur, des compagnies de distribution ? « The strong language is not aggressive, sexual or directed at any other person. The uses also occur in rapid succession. In this unusual and very specific speech therapy context, it was concluded that the strong language was sufficiently infrequent, in terms of the film as a whole, to be permissible at '12' » 258 . Une fois de plus, le contexte a permis cette fois de justifier le nombre injustifiable de fuck en temps normal pour un film interdit aux moins de 12 ans.

Conclusion

Bien que certains éléments tendent à montrer une convergence du système britannique vers certains éléments du système français (notamment, la prise en compte du contexte d'énonciation dans la classification), on ne peut pas conclure à une convergence de ces deux systèmes sur un plan plus général. -D'autre part, la Commission, en intégrant quasiment dès ses débuts la profession cinématographique dans ses rangs, s'est tournée vers un système plus libéral, dans le sens où l'absence de critères est devenue une des forces de revendications culturelles de ce système. En effet, l'imbrication de la Commission au sein d'une institution plus grande (le CNC), qui suit le film de sa création à sa diffusion, a inscrit le travail des examinateurs au sein de débats politiques et culturels, qui ont profité à l'ensemble de l'industrie cinématographique, et à la Culture de manière générale (c'est la période Jack Lang, notamment).

De fait, bien que ces deux systèmes soient basés sur des principes différents, ils ont connu des évolutions similaires :

-Censure à leurs débuts, car un film se doit d'être tous publics.

-Classification par la suite : un film est associé à un public, créant ainsi dans le cas britannique, une classification du langage par la même occasion.

-Justification et développement de marges de manoeuvre : le rôle des examinateurs est essentiellement basé sur le principe du choix (ce sont eux qui décident de la classification du film, et d'eux dépend tout un public potentiel).

La marge de manoeuvre des examinateurs est plus importante au sein de la classification française. Cependant, il est intéressant de constater que la place des justifications associées au certificat de classification a permis aux examinateurs du BBFC de se créer des marges de manoeuvre qui ont fait Keywords: film classification, censorship, taboo language, offensive, archives, sociolinguistics, diachronic, comparative.

  LOWREY, Mike. 2014. « Comparison between the PG-13 version and the International version of The Ghost Writer, by Roman Polanski ». Movie-Censorship.com. URL: http://www.moviecensorship.com/report.php?ID=797656, last seen on June 30 th , 2016. Popcorn time: Bowdlerised! I have not considered "bowdlerisation" as one of the means of censorship, because it is just one of the many ways to mean 'abusive censorship'. If you are interested in bowdlerised movies, there are plenty. The most extreme cases are the works edited by CleanFlicks or via the use of CleanPlay.

-

  Louis Aubert, Président de la chambre syndicale de la cinématographie française -Charles Gallo, Administrateur du journal Comoedia -Robert Hurel, Administrateur-délégué de la S.A.F. Franco-Film -Olivier, Co-directeur de la Société Kodak-Pathé -Renard, Vice-président de la Société des Gens de Lettres -André Rivoire, ancien président de la Société des Auteurs et compositeurs dramatiques, Membre de la C.T.I.

Popcorn time :

 time Funny fact... When you are working on film classification, there is a huge gap between what you study and what people think I am studying. Most of the time, I am expected to speak about film genres: thrillers, comedies, dramas, etc.

  expecting the French Commission to watch the dubbed version: thus, they would have been looking at a different version of the film in question. Unfortunately, this hypothesis was based on a false idea: examiners watch the original version of the film, i.e. the subtitled version. So it is still a different version, but the impact on the audience is clearly not the same.

French

  classifications. For those, though I gave the French version, the French subtitled version, and the original version, I was more interested in the interaction between what the Commission meant by langage cru (for example) and the content of the film.

(

  speech). According to him, une langue is a system of signs which exists independently from each individual. It is homogenous and social, by opposition to the heterogeneity of le langage, and the individuality of la parole. Le langage is the linguistic ability each individual possesses and uses (hence the heterogeneity) and la parole corresponds to individual productions. The problem with this trichotomy, as underlined by Marina

  , I turned towards two different concepts: connotation and denotation and I completely left the debates with Saussure and others to take off with lexicology. Before introducing my new idea, let me give you a few examples from the 2000s BBFC classification 52 :

Five

  first exceptions taken from films (BBFC Report, 1919, TNA, HO 45/11191: 1. Materialisation of the conventional figure of Christ. 2. Unauthorised use of Royal Names, Public Characters and well-known members of Society. 3. Inflammatory political sub-titles. 4. Indecorous and inexpedient titles and subtitles. 5. Sub-titles in the nature of swearing. AXIOLOGICALLY NEGATIVE VOCABULARY? Contrary to taboo or offensive, 'axiologically negative vocabulary' is a term which does not try to make a differentiation between what is censored, and what is classified. It can comprehend both perspectives, and it has the same starting point. I have already

  59 ) all belong to themes categorized as taboo 60 :-religious (damn, hell, bugger); -scatological (shit); -body fluids (bloody), -sexual act (fuck); -sexual organ (cunt, twat); -Animals and ancestors (bitch and son of a bitch).

  67 I would have loved to say 42. home), once you have registered. The only delay to obtain a document is when you need special authorizations. The best way to deal with all this: start checking what you need on the archives' website before going on site.

  have started with this precision. What I mean by a box is a set of documents, which has been classified such as 72 : The type of records concerning film censorship and classification is organised by government department reference: here, HO stands for Home Office. But there were also other government departments involved such as:  CAB: Cabinet Office  MEPO: Metropolitan Police Office  FO: Foreign Office  INF: Central Office of Information  CO: Colonial Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Offices.

  North part on the line 13: maybe I should have done a chapter about "My journeys in Lyon, London and Paris: overgrounds and undergrounds").

  that I have been running for my thesis, I could say that my visit at the BBFC archives was literally a sprint. Five days, 174 files, 40h of work (May I be paid for overtime?). Even the total time and distance of my journeysrespectively 7,5h and 130kmdo not seem really impressive in comparison.

  84 « L'usage des archives en sociologie », In Paugam, Serge. 2012. L'enquête sociologique. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.

NO•

  Records are not only manuscripts on animal skin or paper covered with dust NO • Readers are not old dinosaur-like people, hidden behind piles of paper NO • Archives are not reserved to historians alone.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. The context and content of Box F/21/4695/A

a

  Consultative Committee was created, in 1931. Unlike the former, the latter was formed in order to complement the work of the BBFC and allow the licensing authorities to express their grievances. Its aim was "to consider broad questions of policy relating to the exercise of film censorship, with a view to securing closer co-operation between the British Board of Film Censors and the local licensing authorities under the Cinematograph Act, 1909" 109 . Its configuration evolved as well: at the beginning in 1931, there were only representatives of local licensing authorities, and then, in 1937, it was completed as follows: four representatives of the local authorities, three of the London Council, four allotted to Scotland, two Justices, an independent Chairman nominated by the Secretary of State, a Home Office representative, and one or two persons with practical knowledge of cinema (to represent the critical public). At the local level, two councils were particularly notable in their interactions with both the Home Office and the BBFC: the London County Council and the Birmingham Cinema Enquiry Committee.

  Council, first licensing authority to apply the measure 1923: Recommendation from the Home Office to the licensing authorities 1909: Cinematograph Act 1909-1912: local licensing authorities are the censors.1912: creation of the BBFC at the instigation of the film industry.

I

  hope you start enjoying my spoilers: they are the kind reminders of my overall objective, which is language in films. As it is always very frustrating for a reader to go through a very factual part without knowing exactly where it leads, these are the hints I am leaving to you. Here, I am introducing one of the major elements in the comparison of British-French film classification: The early period of censorship is the key moment for the organisation of those systems, and it left imprints that can be traced from the present back to developments between 1909 and 1945. One of the major differences between the British and the French systems was the fact that only the BBFC proclaimed to use criteria, while the Commission of Control denied and refused such a frame. The

  British classification) stands for audience of 16 and over (it is restricted in this case) in 1951, and in 1970, it is raised to 18.

Chapter 5 :

 5 Keeping credibility alive and breathing (1980s-…)Just a brief recap: in 1909, film classification as I intended to study itthe work of film examiners, more precisely on language -was far from being credible. Firstly, it took time to put in place the institutions: on both sides, the power was given to the local authorities at the very beginning. Then, the formal institutionsthe film examiners' workplacewere created: in 1912, for the BBFC, in 1919, for the first French Commission. From there, both of them inherited the difficulties of the decisions made in 1909. So one of their primary aims was to gain the confidence of the audience, of the various associations involved in such questions, of other institutions such as churches, local authorities, the film industry and the government.So, in a way, the whole enterprise of 1909-1945 was to become part of the cinematographic landscape, while 1945-1980 was about testing their capacities to evolve when faced with changes within the film industry and society in general. But becoming part of the cinematographic landscape and remaining a vital part of the whole process of film distribution there are two different objectives. And during the 1980s, those institutions would have to confront this second objective.

- 1985 :

 1985 18,3 (FR); 20,6 (UK) -1965: 5,4 (FR); 14,6 (UK) Cinema-goers (entry/in millions) -1965: 259 (FR); 326 (UK) -1985: 175 (FR); 71 (UK)

  companies than small ones. But in 1983, the case of video nasties was officially drawn by a list from the Director of Public Prosecutions. This ended by the Video RecordingActs (1984): this is where the right-wing political aspect really matters. While the political choices in France for films were to try and disengage the State from the Control, the British government on the contrary chose parliamentary solutions to rule out 'the nasty videos' case, while, once again, placing its trust in the BBFC examiners. This led to two different sets of strategies for the British and French film classifications.

  To end the possibility to forbid completely a film  To remove the State from the control  To rejuvenate the Commission.

  1982 and 1989 changes within the BBFC classification -On the one hand, the video nasties list, and the right-wing movement pushed for stricter standards -On the other hand, the development of the classification with the introduction of the PG (1982) and 12 (1989) ratings seemed to participate in the shift from censorship to classification. But, this would be without thinking about what is within those boundaries:

  135 BBFC Report, December 21st, 1932. TNA : HO 45/15208 -To remove the State from the control -To rejuvenate the Commission. Only the last objective is clearly attained. The Decree divided the Commission into four different Colleges: -the College of the Ministries -the College of young people -the College of experts -the College of professionals.

  Annual Report of the Commission of classification. March 2004-March 2005. Original text: "La Commission de classification remet au ministre chargé de la culture un rapport annuel sur ses activités et sur les avis qu'elle émet. Ce rapport est rendu public".

  differences and our specificities. It is close to our hearts.[…] This situation is bound to our histories, to the place family has in our societies, to the place of cinema.[…] Those diversities are a source of wealth and they are legitimate" 148 .But, for video games, as the systems of classification in Europe were not all taking them into account, the European solution -PEGI, Pan European Game Informationtook root 149 .So, the times of the BBFC within the universe of video games have already come to an end, as I write to you, dear reader. And the times of Internet control is not really part of the examiners' line of work, neither in the UK nor in France. However, in the case of the BBFC, some websites present the BBFC classification (you can find the link within the very soon upcoming footnote 150 ). To conclude on this brief insight about new technologies, I will make it clear for you, dear reader: I did not take into account video games and Internet websites for my research. First of all, they do not have a direct influence on the examiners' work. Secondly, they are not part of how I defined my subject 151 .



  A difficult delimitation: both in the UK and in France, classification is far from being clearly organised until the 1950s.  The point of no return: examiners' methods. The way you work shapes your way of interpreting the world around you (in this case, the films). The

  a language criterion: British (right) and French (left) classification systems

  exceptions, or expressing their objections. The choice of the word 'exception' gives a very different perspective to the British classification. To explain what I mean, this is how I have been introduced to French censorship 156 : And when I read exception and objection, I do not really see the same thing; when I think about British film classification, exception (OED: 4.b. Law) sounds more like "an objection made to the ruling of a court in the course of a trial". And this is exactly how the lists of exceptions look like: a succession of legal precedents. But it does not mean 155

6. 1

 1 .1.1. 1913-1925: Mind the gap between your linguistic ideas and the expression of linguistic exceptions 157 . As swearing has a place of choice within the first exceptions taken by the BBFC (from 1919), I would like to come back on this idea of completely ruling swearwords out from the films, rather than opting for case-by-case decisions. First of all, as Dominique Lagorgette (2008: p. 31) points out, "paradoxically, verbal violence is the result of a cooperation between speakers who agree on an interpretation", which explains why there is a real difficulty to legislate for acts of verbal violence as they completely depend on the context. So, what they are ruling out is not necessarily swearwords in and of 157 See annex.1913-1915 •Indecorous sub-titles 1919 •Inflammatory political sub-titles •Indecorous and inexpedient titles and sub-titles •Sub-titles in the nature of swearing 1921 •Inflammatory political sub-titles •Sub-titles in the nature of swearing •Suggestive sub-titles 1923 •Sub-titles in the nature of swearing •Suggestive sub-titles and shadowgraphs 1925 •Inflammatory sub-titles •Sub-titles in the nature of swearing Language elements within BBFC annual reports (1912-1925)

  Suggestive deleted dialogue: "He knows all about beds and what to put in 'em" (BFI Archive, Observation on scenarios, Some are cruises (M.S. & Scenario) submitted by Wetherall. June 30 th , 1933).

•

  vulgarity and impropriety in conduct and dress •Stories tinctured with salacious wit •Themes relative to 'Race Suicide' •References to controversial politics •Subjects dealing with the premeditated seduction of girls •Unauthorised use of Royal Names, Public Characters and well-known members of Society •Offensive vulgarity and indecorous gesture •Reference to controversial or international politics •Advocacy of the doctrine of Free Love •Salacious wit •Suggestion of incest •Offensive vulgarity •Impropriety of conduct and dress •Irreverent biblical quotations •Offensive vulgarity and indecent attitudes •Misuse of titles actually borne of living persons •The irreverent introduction of religious subjects and emblems; irreverent Biblical quotations •Offensive vulgarity and indecorous gestures •Bolshevik propaganda Elements (implicitly) referring to dialogues (BBFC annual reports, 1913-1925)

6. 2 .

 2 The incredible case of the observations on scenarios.What are those observations? They are the results of what I talked about in 6.1.2.1.

  Swearwords asked for deletion within the scenario reports (BFI Archives)

Twirp•

  Mrs Crouzet: I do not know if this word has a censorable meaning (Calling All Ma's, 1936) • Mrs Crouzet: I do not know the meaning of this word, perhaps it could be verified in the Board's dictionary (Swinging Along, 1938) Punk • Mrs Crouzet: "punk". As this is being specially omitted elsewhere for England, I suggest it had better come out here. I do not know what it means. (Dead End, 1937) Pansy • Colonel Hanna: What is a pansy? Sound as if it might be undesirable and if so must come out (To Brighton with a Bird, 1932) Limey • Mrs Crouzet (still Miss Shortt at that time): What is the meaning of the word "limey?"(The Mystery of the Mary Celeste, 1935)FRENCH STEREOTYPES

180 7 . 1 . 1 .

 711 Zazie dans le metro (Louis Malle, 1962): from X with cuts to 15 uncut. This film is an adaptation from a book by Raymond Queneau. The main plot of the scenario is Zazie, 10 years old, going to visit her uncle in Paris for the weekend and her will to take the metro. This wish becomes impossible when her uncle first comes and collects her in a taxi, and then, it appears that the underground is closed because of a strike. Zazie is then trying to make the best out of her weekend and keeps escaping her uncle's surveillance. In the course of her multiple getaways, she will encounter numerous characters, including her aunt, etc. In this case, I will only talk about the film version and the video version, as the examiners are commenting on the previous decisions made about this film at the BBFC. I will not talk about the most recent classification of the film, which put it at 12. What is highly interesting in this case, as I

  On the left, the subtitles, on the right (after =) the suggestions made by the examiners, and my own summaries of certain sentences are underlined.Snob, my arse = snob, my foot. The bastards, doing this to me = the beasts (this alteration is suggested because the word is used by a young child) you're a couple of silly old twats = fools Beatniks give me the ballsache = make me sick Sad, my arse = my foot in two days, she'll be interfering with all my male customers = upsetting pension, my backside = foot I'll bitch up the martians = do for talk, my arse = foot you silly bugger= ass I don't want a trollop = nuisance (since this refers to the little girl) kindness, my arse! you heard that? my arse? = my foot and omit the second arse Christ! I've had a scare (Hell or omit Christ) You've got the squitters? = You nervous? then you're an old lecher= a wicked old man stick them = forget them Jees. It made enough splash (omit Jees) He talked like a right cunt = a bastard modify (because they don't like) when she invents a story about her mother having killed her husband because she found him messing about with her own daughter. It makes me puke to hear such crap = stuff so you live by prostituting little girls? omit little So you're a homo as well as a white slave = queer What's a homo? = queer Oh, piss off = scram Christ! It makes me dissy = hell or omit Christ Why? 'cause he's a homo = queer Are you a homo too? = queer Christ! What next? = hell If I asked whether you're a homo? = queer Example my arse = foot If he's a homo = queer That's right I cannot know what a homo is. = queer Well I'm buggered; what a bloody nerve. = well I'm damned, what a nerve They're all sods = swines oh, comment: We do not much care for the implication here and would like it modified if possible.

o

  : p. 31): -maximum fidelity: retention -high fidelity: literal translation -low fidelity: specification, generalisation, substitution -minimum fidelity: omission. Not all these strategies are used, and I am sure you have already guessed that the examiners' suggestions are related to low and minimum fidelity strategies. For example, the most used strategies are: -generalisation, or neutralisation of the original o my arse, becoming my foot o I don't want a trollop, becoming I don't want a nuisance -Omission, or pure elimination of the original o Specific words such as Christ, or arse, or bloody o In order to change the meaning of an expression: little girls becoming girls, in the sentence so you live by prostituting little girls? Or to tone down: my bloody nerve becoming my nerve

7. 1 . 2 .

 12 Ulysses (Joseph Strick, 1967): from X with cuts to 15 uncut.

  Popcorn time: Scandal at Le Festival de Cannes... In an interview given in 2009, Joseph Strick came back on the 1967 subtitle issue which affected Ulysses. He underlined the fact that at the last minute, and without being consulted, the subtitled had been crossed out with a pencil directly on the film roll. The subtitles were originally from Valéry Larbaud's translation of the book. He also raised an argument about this particular film: as the book was wellknown, and as people were expecting what would happen on screen, why was it necessary to censor the film?

 2004 ,

 2004 Team America, directed by Trey Parker  2005, Boss'n up, directed by Pook Brown  2005, Gigolo malgré lui, directed by M. Mitchell, Bigelow  2008, Harold and Kumar s'évadent de Guantanamo, directed by J.

  suddenly, through the interviews with French examiners (members of the Commission from 1975 to the present), it became a new topic of the linguistic discussion on classifications. Again, this section is dedicated to the French classification, and if you want answers about the place of the context in the British classification, please, check 7.3 and chapter 8.

( 1 )( 2 )

 12 No, you fucking can't! (A Fish called Wanda) Tu te fous de moi ! [Are you kidding me?] Non, il n'en est pas question ! [No, it's out of question!] You fucking twat! You fucking cunt! (Looking for Eric) Saloperie ! L'enflure ! [Bastard! Scumbag!] Espèce de connard ! Connard ! [You jerk! Jerk!]

7. 2 . 2 . 2 .

 222 Specific cases and the absence of degrees? Damn, Bugger, Son of a bitch, Twat, Cunt.

  this example from Life of Brian, which came out in 1979, what is the place of bugger at that time? According to BBFC classifications, the place of bugger has long 184 SV : Subtitled version ; DV : Dubbed version.

  , in the two first parts of this chapter, I have established that translation can be part of the censorship/classification process, but, this is no surprise considering the conclusions of the previous chapter, only for the British classification. However, in the first part, I concentrated my efforts on cases from the 1960s. In the second part, the majority of the films were from the 1990s and the 2000s, and my reflection was limited to translation. So, what has happened between 1945 and the present, in terms of negotiation, within the range of linguistic interests for both classifications? I have not been fair with you and I have kept aside the linguistic elements of the French classification, to discuss them here and in the next chapter. 7.3. Negotiating the classifications: linguistic adjustments.

8 . 1 .

 81 Defining a criterion with somehow clear boundaries seemed to me as an achievement, but I cannot ignore other factors, which change the methods of classification, or which help to nuance certain of my conclusions. Indeed, even if I have tried to isolate the language criterion within the work of examiners, you have been able to see, dear reader, that I am constantly referring to other parameters: The question of translation The social, political, etc. evolutions of British and French societies The place of those institutions in the landscape of film-making The other criteria (violence, alcohol, drug, sex…) This is to show that this language criterion does not exist on its own. Hence, at the end of the previous chapter, I have discussed the question of precedent as fear and resource for the examiners. Here, I will try to show you that the examiners are creating a new type of precedent by taking into account new parameters within the 'language criterion'. This chapter will tackle three different questions:  What is (are) this (those) new parameter(s), within the BBFC classification?  I have already mentioned that my corpus of transcription was made of two parts: what about the second part? What does it teach about the consideration given by the French examiners to dialogues nowadays?  And finally, who are the examiners? Indeed, defining the 'language criterion' depending entirely on their work and practices within those two specific institutions (The Board and the Commission), what does it mean about them? How to determine their role to the films and to the audience? Counting exercices: the Villain figure.

214

  Original text: "La Commission de classification a ainsi proposé d'assortir une autorisation 'tous publics' d'un avertissement lorsque le réalisme ou la dureté de certaines scènes de violence -sociale ou familiale •Le langage cru employé dans ce film pour évoquer des scènes de prostitution n'est pas susceptible de convenir à tous les publics Je n'aime que toi (Claude Fournier, 2004) •Bien que ce film soit un film d'animation, il n'est pas destiné au plus jeune public, en raison de scènes violentes et de l'emploi d'un langage très cru Team America (Trey Parker, 2004) •Ce film, dont toutes les scènes reposent sur une grossièreté permanente, peut heurter la sensibilité des jeunes spectateurs Soul Plane (Jessy Terrero, 2004) •Le langage, les images et les situations de ce film peuvent choquer les jeunes spectateurs Gigolo malgre lui (Mike Bigelow, 2005) •Ce film compte tenu du sujet traité et du langage employé justifie un avertissement : "Ce film comporte des situations susceptibles de ne pas convenir à un jeune public" Boss'n Up (Pook Brown, 2005) •Ce film justifie, en raison de certaines scènes violentes (attitude, langage), un visa tous publics avec l'avertissement suivant : ″Ce film est susceptible de heurter des spectateurs sensibles" This is England (Shane Meadows, 2007) •Ce film, en raison de la vulgarité de beaucoup de ses scènes, justifie l'avertissement suivant : "La vulgarité de beaucoup des scènes de ce film n'est pas susceptible de convenir à un jeune public" Harold et Kumar s'évadent de Guantanamo (Jon Hurwitz, Hayden Schlossberg, 2008) Films rated Universal with a warning (2004-2009) Only a few films are missing (not included in my corpus): Fracassés (Frank Llopis, 2006), Kiaï (Georges Zsiga, 2007), Le Tueur de Montmartre (Borislav Sajtinac, 2007)

Films 8 . 2 . 2 .

 822 Team America[START_REF] Parker | Team America[END_REF] Soul Plane[START_REF] Terrero | Soul Plane[END_REF] Gigolo malgré lui(Mike Bigelow, 2005) Boss'n Up[START_REF] Brown | Boss'N Up[END_REF] This is England (ShaneMeadows, 2007) Harold etKumar s'évadent de Guantanamo (Jon Hurwitz, Hayden Schlossberg, 2008) British classification 15: contains strong language, violence and sex, all involving puppets 18: contains strong sex and language 15: contains very strong language, sex references and drug use 18: contains strong language, sex references and hard drug use 18: contains very strong racist violence and language 18: contains strong sex references, nudity and drug use Sacrificing myself: transcribing the content. I have watched all the seven films quoted in 8.1.1. and transcribed the potentially incriminated content. Why potentially? The reason is fairly simple: I did not have much in terms of indication to know what I should look at. It was easier for the films for which I transcribed the English text first, as I had much more information about what the British examiners were looking for. And in terms of method, I have to be completely honest and say: if I had not worked on this subject, I would probably have never watched those films (except for This is England). According to the British classification, there are three different axes in my corpus: -Strong/very strong language -Strong sex references -Very strong racist language.

  With the British classification, I can easily define what are strong sex references in this film: references to sexual acts in a direct and explicit manner (see examples below). If I had not seen the movie, vulgarité could refer to a lot of different things (linguistically speaking): it seems that what I have tried to do with Langage très cru was not necessarily the best analysis.

  taken to 166 films by the Examiners, on the following grounds: (a) Cruelty to animals. (b) Indecorous dancing. (c) Vulgarity and impropriety in conduct and dress. (d) Indelicate sexual situations. (e) Scenes suggestive of immorality. (f) Situations accentuating delicate marital relations. (g) Gruesome murders. (h) Excessive gruesome details in crime or warfare. (i) Indecently morbid death scenes. (j) Scenes tending to disparage public characters and institutions. (k) Medical operations. (l) Executions. (m) Painful scenes in connection with insanity. (n) Cruelty to women. (o) Confinements. (p) Drunken scenes carried to excess. (q) Scenes calculated to act as incentive to crime. (r) Indecorous sub-titles. (s) Indelicate accessories in the staging. (t) Native customs in foreign lands abhorrent to British ideas. (u) The irreverent treatment of sacred or solemn subjects. (v) The materialisation of Christ or the Almighty.

  Pourquoi s'intéresser à un tel sujet ? L'aspect comparatif entre le Royaume-Uni et la France : D'un certificat de classification du BBFC signalant « 15. Contains strong language, violence and sex, all involving puppets [emploi de langage très vulgaire, scènes de violences et de sexe, avec des marionnettes comme personnages] » 243 à un visa d'exploitation du CNC portant la mention « Tous Publics avec Avertissement « Bien que ce film soit un film d'animation, il n'est pas destiné au plus jeune public, en raison de scènes violentes et de l'emploi d'un langage très cru » » 244 , on pourrait croire que ces deux avertissements concernent deux films complètement différents : ils décrivent pourtant le même, mais du point de vue de deux institutions différentes, situées respectivement au Royaume-Uni (Londres) et en France (Paris). Si une différence principale devait être mise en avant, ce serait la suivante : entre les classifications britanniques et françaises, il existe de façon quasi-systématique un ''écart de classification'' pour tous les films classifiés et/ou sortis en salles. Et cette dissemblance se répercute sur les statistiques des classifications 245 . En effet, alors que la très grande majorité des sorties en France se voit attribuée la mention « Tous Publics », la répartition des classifications au Royaume-Uni place la majorité des films dans des catégories plus élevées : interdits aux moins de 12 ou 15 ans, du moins pour les années 2000.

3 . 5 .

 35 un retard de classification (le film reste en attente de classification, faute de trouver un accord entre les différentes parties impliquées) : Ulysses a vu sa réalisation retardée entre 1962 et 1967 (année de sa sortie en salles). Le projet a même changé de réalisateur entre temps, avant de trouver son créateur en la personne de Joseph Strick. 4. une restriction de diffusion : ''interdit aux moins de...'' ou (cas de figure possible au Royaume-Uni) interdiction de diffusion par le BBFC mais une autorité locale décide que le film pourra être diffusé par un club privé par exemple. La mise en circulation de plusieurs versions : par exemple, dans le cas de The Ghost Writer, réalisé par Roman Polanski, il existait une version américaine et une version dite internationale. Les changements touchaient notamment les dialogues : « In the UK (among others), the uncensored audio track is used for the film. It features the f-word multiple times and also the c-word is used once. For the PG-13 rating (for language, brief 247 Document extrait des archives : Examiner's report for Dr Who and the Daleks daté du 4.2.65, disponible en ligne sur le site du BBFC. nudity/sexuality, some violence and a drug reference), the studio replaced most of those terms in a relatively ham-fisted manner by dubbing or muting » 248 . Ainsi, pour un certain nombre d'occurrences de ''fuck'' dans le film (seulement deux furent conservées), la version américaine les a remplacé par des équivalents perçus comme moins offensants pour cette catégorie de classification. Par exemple, « Look, it's a new ghostwriter he needs, not another fucking politico » (version internationale) tandis que pour la version PG-13, on entend : « Look, it's a new ghostwriter he needs, not another goddamn politico » (00:02:33 du film). Si l'on devait retenir une chose de cette brève énumération, c'est qu'elle souligne une censure plurielle, tant par ses acteurs que par le contenu de la censure. En effet, dans le cadre du langage, le positionnement classification/censure conduit à une limitation des termes que certains types d'audience peuvent entendre ou à une censure pure et simple de contenu. Cela peut concerner « un mot (bip-bip remplaçant le mot S.A.C. dans Le Juge Fayard dit le Shérif d'Yves Boisset en 1977), un groupe de mots ou une phrase (dans La Kermesse de L'Ouest (Paint Your Wagon) de Josuah Logan en 1969, l'injure raciste ''French tarts'' (''Putains françaises''), lancée dans la V.O., n'est pas traduite dans la V.F. et est même omise » (Albert Montagne, 2007 : p.15)exemples provenant de classifications françaises. Et les injures ou jurons ne sont pas les seuls concernés : pour prendre un autre exemple plus récent, le film d'animation Disney, Aladdin, sorti en 1992, comportait dans la chanson ''Arabian Nights'' « where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face » 249 , qui fut remplacé dans les versions suivantes, notamment en VHS et DVD, par « where it's flat and immense, and the heat is intense ».

248

  Lowrey, Mike. 2014. « Comparison between the PG-13 version and the International version of The Ghost Writer, by Roman Polanski ». Movie-Censorship.com. http://www.moviecensorship.com/report.php?ID=797656, consulté pour la dernière fois le 01/10/2014. 249 Pour écouter cette version : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hPUAhSGZtvU, consultée pour la dernière fois le 11/06/2016.

2 .

 2 Le discours des examinateurs repose sur une description axiologiquement négative (Michèle Monte, 2009) du langage. En effet, au travers de la censure/classification, il y a une division qui est effectuée entre les parties du dialogue que les examinateurs remarquent, et qu'ils décrivent comme bad, strong, discriminatory [BBFC] ou cru, vulgaire, discriminatoire [Commission] et les parties du dialogue qui sont laissées de côté et qui ne sont pas mentionnées par les examinateurs. 3. L'aspect individuel : la perception du langage est propre à chaque individu, et les examinateurs ne font pas exception, et représentent une certaine catégorie de la société, de par leur éducation, parcours, etc. 4. Enfin, le langage est défini selon un principe de degrés : à chaque catégorie d'âge correspond un type de langage. Ainsi, une sorte de gradation s'instaure entre un film Tous publics et un film interdit aux moins de 12 ans. Ce qui montre qu'il existe un aspect profondément sociolinguistique vis-à-vis de la censure/classification du langage, en cela qu'il se définit avant tout en fonction d'un public. Pourquoi le langage est-il censuré/classifié ? L'audience tient évidemment une part importante voire même centrale dans cette définition car il s'agit de déterminer qui peut entendre, et écouter quel type de langage. Comme le montrent Lars Gunnar Andersson and Peter Trudgill (1990 : p.43), cela peut se référer en partie à la question de l'apprentissage du langage. Les médias dits de masse sont un moyen de communication à sens unique, à l'inverse des autres groupes auxquels l'enfant se trouve confronté et qui sont en contact direct avec lui (parents, famille, école, travail, amis etc). Les médias fournissent un grand nombre de modèles linguistiques divers et variés (que nous acceptons et imitons ou que nous rejetons) et ces modèles peuvent avoir un impact important dans la mesure où ils touchent un grand nombre de personnes au même moment. Donc, pour résumer, même si leur influence était minime, ce qui peut paraître et s'avérer impressionnant est l'effet total ou cumulé. Et comme l'écrit Edwin L. Batistella (2005 : p. 69), cette conception, vision des médias a des conséquences pratiques comme une censure, un contrôle plus systématique de leur contenu : "Because of their broader audience, the motion picture and television industries had long maintained standards somewhat more restrictive than those in the theater or the publishing industry". And " Films such as 'Gone with the Wind' (1939), 'The Naked and

  Afin de comprendre les échanges qui pouvaient avoir lieu entre le BBFC et les autres institutions/individus concernés par la censure/classification des films, je me suis rendu : -Aux Archives Nationales de Kew (TNA) o Ces archives m'ont donné un accès privilégié aux rapports annuels publiés par le BBFC entre 1912 et 1932 ; o Elles m'ont aussi permis d'établir les acteurs impliqués dans la création du BBFC mais aussi de définir les difficultés rencontrées par cette institution à ses débuts ; o Elles m'ont enfin donné un aperçu des préoccupations qui pouvaient traverser la société britannique ; -Aux Archives privées du BBFC o Qui m'ont donné accès aux rapports de classification de films à partir de la fin des années 1950 jusqu'en 1994 ; -Aux Archives du BFI (British Film Institute) o Qui possédaient les vestiges de la censure/classification des films entre 1930 et 1949 (les locaux du BBFC ayant été détruit durant la Seconde

  exemple, en France, la première restriction en termes d'âge est créée en 1946), à un système de classification. La phase finale de l'évolution de ces deux classifications est atteinte en 1982 et 1989 pour le BBFC avec le passage à un système de nombres : U, PG, 12, 15, 18 ; tandis que pour la France, la nouvelle classification est scellée par le décret de 1990 : Tous Publics, Interdit aux moins de 12 ans, Interdit aux moins de 16 ans et Interdit aux moins de 18 ans.

-

  'institution de garantir sa légitimité dans le paysage cinématographique. Du côté français, son statut public a permis à la Commission d'envoyer un message différent à ses publics, dans la mesure où l'intégration de membres de l'industrie cinématographique est un message fort d'ouverture du système, et de libéralisation de ses méthodes et pratiques. C'est dans ce cadre-là que j'ai inscrit mon étude de la création et du développement du critère langage. Mon hypothèse de départ présupposait son existence au sein des deux systèmes, mais cela s'est avéré plus complexe que ce soit au Royaume-Uni ou en France. Partie III: Explorer un nouvel objet sociolinguistique Construire un critère langage. Les documents recueillis au sein des Archives ont permis d'identifier plusieurs éléments. Voici l'évolution principale touchant la question du langage au sein de la classification britannique (BBFC) : Le BBFC est créé en 1912 ; le premier rapport annuel est édité en 1913 ; la présence de la censure du langage est identifiable dès le premier rapport ; mais, la première classification par éléments censurables (langage, violence, etc.) n'apparaît qu'en 1926 et la création d'une catégorie spécifique au langage qu'en 1928. Les dimensions de cette catégorie tournent autour de quatre axes principaux : Questions of sex.Ainsi, au Royaume-Uni, on peut dire que le langage connait une véritable institutionnalisation en tant que critère au sein de la classification. Cependant, cette institutionnalisation ne sera officielle qu'en 1982, avec l'instauration d'une nouvelle : l'usage de tableaux de critères au sein de la classification. Ainsi chaque critère est d'abord placé séparément des autres sur l'échelle des catégories d'âge, et ensuite, un bilan est effectué. Si le langage est placé à 15 (interdit aux moins de 15 ans) mais par les autres critères, la plus haute classification prévaut toujours (le film sera donc interdit aux moins de 15 ans). Cependant, les années 2000 viendront nuancer cette première conclusion.

  classifié PG. Cependant, dans le cas présent, on pourrait se dire qu'il s'agit d'un changement mineur, qui ne concerne qu'un nombre très limité d'occurrences. Il est alors possible de se pencher sur la question inverse : est-ce qu'un personnage qui n'est pas le méchant de l'histoire mais qui jure beaucoup peut faire pencher la balance en faveur d'une décision de classification plus stricte ? La réponse est positive et porte un nom : Ladybird, Ladybird[START_REF] Loach | Ladybird, Ladybird[END_REF]. Parmi les films que j'ai étudié, c'est le seul dans lequel un personnage féminin jure autant que n'importe quel autre personnage principal masculin.Elle utilise de façon récurrente fucking dans la plupart de ses phrases. Mais là où Ladybird, Ladybird fait vraiment figure d'exemple dans le cadre d'une sociolinguistique des personnages, c'est qu'il fait partie, avec Sweet Sixteen, des films réalisés par Ken Loach qui ont reçu comme classification, 18, alors que les autres sont interdits au moins de 15 ans. Même si l'on prend en compte tous les autres critères, cela ne permet pas de justifier l'interdiction aux moins de 18 ans dont ces deux films font l'objet. Mais, si l'on ajoute à tous les critères existants, que dans le cas de Ladybird, Ladybird, le personnage principal, Maggie, est une mère ayant des problèmes avec les services sociaux, et que ces jurons/insultes sont associés à un mauvais comportement, surtout en présence d'enfants, et que dans le cas de Sweet Sixteen, il s'agit d'un adolescent écossais, on comprend qu'il y a dans les deux cas un enjeu d'identification et du point de vue des examinateurs, un risque d'imitation. Cela avait été aussi le cas de Billy Elliot(Stephen Daldry, 2000).« Timing is everything... »(Edward Lamberti (ed.), 2012 : p.154).En effet, dans un tout autre registre, l'évolution des classifications entraîne parfois des perspectives possibles complètement différentes sur un même film. Je parlais dans l'introduction de la différence de classification entre E.T. The Extraterrestrial(Steven Spielberg, 1982, Universal) et Frozen (Jennifer Lee, Chris Buck, 2013, Parental Guidance). Il se trouve que la réponse, dans ce qui semblait être une erreur de classification, tient en fait à l'histoire de la classification elle-même :

  Ainsi, à la question posée au départ : Comment le travail des examinateurs ainsi que les évolutions institutionnelles et sociales ont-ils façonné la création et le développement d'un critère langage au sein des classifications britanniques et françaises ? Plusieurs réponses s'imposent : -D'une part, du côté britannique, les difficultés rencontrées dès 1912 par le BBFC pour s'imposer sur la scène cinématographique et prendre sa place entre l'industrie cinématographique et le public se sont répercutées sur la forme prise par ce système (démontrer sa légitimité par son indépendance) et sur les pratiques de ses examinateurs (établir un système clair et strict afin, encore une fois, de s'établir en acteur légitime dans le paysage cinématographique britannique).

  évoluer la classification : en effet, la fin des années 2000 marque l'avènement de fuck au sein de la catégorie 12, alors qu'il était cantonné à 15 et 18 depuis les années 1980. Introduction ............................................................................................................. Partie I: Les contours théoriques ............................................................................ Partie II: Retracer l'histoire des classifications de films ........................................ Partie III: Explorer un nouvel objet sociolinguistique ............................................ Conclusion .............................................................................................................. Annex 4 : Primary Sources ..................................................................................... References for TNA (Kew) .......................................................................... References for National Archives (Pierrefitte-sur-Seine) ............................ Reference for Municipal Archives (Lyon) ................................................... This thesis wonders about the work of examiners within British and French film classifications: in the UK, the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) is the institution in charge of film classification; in France, it is the Commission of Classification of Cinematographic Works. The question here is: how have the work of examiners and institutional and societal evolutions shaped the creation and the development of a language criterion within British and French film classification systems? Indeed, stereotypically, those classifications are generally opposed: the BBFC is presented as a swearword-counting system, while the French classification is described as liberal. This thesis aims at explaining the origin of those stereotypes and at highlighting the true place of language within film classifications. Le Board et la Commission (1909 à nos jours) : étude d'un critère langage au travers de la classification des films. Cette thèse pose la question du travail des examinateurs au travers des classifications britannique et française de films : au Royaume-Uni, le BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) est l'institution en charge de la classification des films ; en France, c'est la Commission de Classification des OEuvres cinématographiques qui s'en occupe. La problématique de ce sujet est : comment les pratiques des examinateurs et les évolutions sociales et institutionnelles ont façonné la création et le développement d'un critère langage au sein des systèmes de classification britannique et français ? En effet, selon les stéréotypes, ces classifications sont généralement mises en opposition : le BBFC est présenté comme une machine à compter les jurons, alors que la classification française est décrite comme étant libérale. Cette thèse vise à expliquer l'origine de ces stéréotypes et à mettre en lumière la place du critère langage au sein de ces classifications de films.

  I was pointing out earlier, the interesting perspective brought by translation studies is the negotiation taking place between the source and the target languages: what is transferred and what is not? What is constrained by those two languages? And with the first question, you can clearly see the direct connection which can be made to censorship.

1.3.1. Films and taboo translation.

As

  Here goes the comment for the scenario of the film The Girl who couldn't quite submitted by John Argyle Productions Ltd, on May 6 th , 1949: "delete "bleedin'", which makes the phraze "bleedin' 'ell" too strong" 50 . In the 1970s, a 'very strong' term was fuck but twenty years later, it becomes just 'strong'. (for more details, see part 3).

	2000s British classification	2000s French classification
	Very mild, mild bad, mild bad, very mild	Grossier, grossièretés
	bad	vulgaire, vulgarité,
	moderate,	(très) cru
	offensive, aggressive, strong, coarse,	excès de (langage vulgaire)
	very strong, crude (explicit)	langage (qui ne convient pas à un jeune
	sex references, references to sexual	public...)
	behaviour, acts	références à la prostitution
	discriminatory

discriminatoire Though these are the 2000s classification, you will see that the vocabulary scarcely changes through time (some terms were simply not used). What changes the most is the content behind those labels. For example, in 1949, what was still called 'strong' by the British examiners was "bleedin'".

  There is a question I have not dealt with until now, and it is the question of swearing. In 1967, Montagu clearly dissociates swearing from taboo by stating that its status has changed. So, according to what he is saying, and this is a remark for my future

	p. 1)
	As a reminder:
	2000s British classification	2000s French classification
	Very mild, mild bad, mild bad, very mild	Grossier, grossièretés
	bad	vulgaire, vulgarité,
	moderate,	(très) cru
	offensive, aggressive, strong, coarse,	excès de (langage vulgaire)
	very strong, crude (explicit)	langage (qui ne convient pas à un jeune
	sex references, references to sexual	public...)
	behaviour, acts	références à la prostitution
	discriminatory language	discriminatoire

  Doctor Who,Warehouse 13. In the same idea: The Librarians. If you love research, you might want a library or a warehouse like this one day.

	anything to your local archives after reading this, please, let me know, I may meet you in
	30 years).
	Going back to Pierrefitte-sur-Seine:
	Pierrefitte-sur-Seine is the youngest site of archives I have ever visited, but it is
	the biggest center of archives in Europe: it has been constructed for two reasons. The
	building in Paris was getting old, Fontainebleau was a problem in terms of accessibility,
	and both of them were saturated (no T.A.R.D.I.S. but keep calm and hope for it). 2140
	tons of records were moved from Paris to Pierrefitte: it is the equivalent of 53.5 km 75 of
	shelving, about the distance between Agde and Montpellier.
	I have had access to records dated between 1928 and 1991. The perks of having a
	You could be a donor of records: indeed, you could decide that
	your personal/familial records should be preserved in the archives of your town. My dear
	reader, you are History, and you have lots of stories to tell (if you decide to donate
	73 TV Series: 74 See 3.3.1.1.

.1.2. Local treasures: when your dreams do not come true...

	authorities, and from extra-parliamentary critics and would-be censorship reformers,
	with some overlap at times between them". But, the most important element that led me
	to become a reader of those records is that both institutions (BBFC and CNC) were
	created at a time when multiple censorships from the part of the local authorities were
	becoming a problem for the film industry, and also with the authorization of the NA (Pierrefitte-sur-Seine) government in place. Besides, if any other proof is required, the only fact that films,
	nowadays, have a particular system of censorship in each country where screenings take
	are 3 years old. place, shows that it has been integrated as part of national identities: you are what you have 320 km of shelving. from 1790 show (at least, that is what they thought, especially in the case of France, with the creation up to now. of an international visa).
	3.1
	wrote "Post-1913 British film censorship has functioned at
	four levels -within the BBFC, within the production companies themselves, at the local
	75 The information is available in the leaflet, published by Les Archives Nationales, available online at:
	http://www.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/fr/web/guest/site-de-pierrefitte-sur-seine, last seen on
	March 19 th ; 2016.

3.1.1.3. Private treasures: welcome in Archives 3.0.

	10,5h or
	177,8 km of transport. Even if I am not going to write at length about them now (see
	chapter 6 for details), I will give you a hint about the content of those documents. They
	are the observations on scenarios from 1930 until 1949. And during all those years, the
	vast majority of the work was done by two people. This means 19 years of scenario
	observations through the eyes of only two examiners: I felt like the pirate who finally
	found the treasure island. You will have to wait for a few chapters before getting your
	share of the bounty. As I am writing about treasures, we shall talk about the ones you can
	find within the private drawers of a private institution.
	I do not know if you remember but, at the beginning of this chapter, I explained
	how archives work when you want to become one of their readers. Well, it is time now
	to forget everything you thought you knew and start over.

WHAT IS HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE?

  , a book, an event, but it does not necessarily exist 86 . So, in other words, what you find in archives is what you have been authorized to find 87 .The archives make history: they are not neutral documents. As Filippo de Vivo (Birkbeck, University of London) points out: they were firstly "working tools" 88 . And this, dear reader, leads us to the major problem of records: are they relevant?

	reference to a record
	However, so far, I have talked about archives and research, as if what you are
	looking for exists. Indeed, you imagine that with all those constraints, there is a remote
	possibility that what you are looking for does not exist. It happens that you have a

3.2.2.How do you work in archives?

	mainly from manuscripts held at the British Library (See, I told you
	numbers and places are important).
	 And as with all types of documents, you have to know the perks and limits
	of your data: as Melanie Evans wrote (2012, conclusion),
	"Whilst the study was not able to consider spelling forms more generally in the
	sixteenth century, the persuasive evidence in favour of social factors influencing
	Elizabeth's spelling practice suggests that a larger sociolinguistic analysis of spelling
	variation may help us to understand the processes that shaped this intermediary stage
	in English spelling, and to better appreciate the social significance of the written
	mode in EModE [Early Modern English]. The corpus tools offered by the historical
	sociolinguistic framework provide a valuable means to realise such a goal".
	HISTORICAL SOCIOLINGUISTICS: …
	In Historical Sociolinguistics, you have to deal with the LACK: the problem with
	the written records is that it is a person (but you do not always know how she or he was
	living outside those documents; sometimes, you do not even get a name) in a particular
	context (personal: in this case, you might learn a bit more about your informant;
	institutional: face it, you cannot be lucky all the time, but there is still hope).
	Archives are places where you meet informants. But, you do not have, depending
	on the period you are working on, the possibility to meet them and ask them further
	questions. So, as you may have learnt that transcribing is a particular exercise, which
	depends on what you are looking for (spelling, grammar, etc.), you will have to learn how
	to work with and in the archives if you decide to compile such data.
	How you work depends on what you are looking for. And in this case, you enter
	a vast field of debate about what kind of data you want and how you want to use them.
	Let's not beat about the bush. The main question is: are you looking for repetitive events
	Archives are not a corpus: there are documents, and you have to put in or cases? Are you using a quantitative or a qualitative research method? This is the
	with a considerable amount of work in order to constitute what will be definition I love: "qualitative research is concerned with structures and patterns, and how
	called your corpus. She managed to transcribe 55 letters (22,400 words), something is; quantitative research, however, focuses on how much or how many there is/are of
	a particular characteristic or item" (Sebastian M. Rasinger, 2010: p.52) 92 . The truth is: you
	can combine both of these methods, but you might want to wait and see what you will
	find before making your decision.
	91 "A Sociolinguistics of early modern spelling? A case study of Queen Elizabeth I", In Tyrkko et al. (eds).
	Outposts of Historical Linguistics: from the Helsinki corpus to a proliferation of resources. Helsinki:
	VARIENG, Volume 10.URL: <http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/10/evans>, last seen on
	March 24 th , 2016.

3.2.2.1. It is always about… Definitions.

F/21/4695/A

			F/21/4695/A
			Contrôle de l'industrie
			cinématographique (1928-36)
			Cinéma (1919-38): F/21 4691 à 4698,
			classé et inventorié par Nicole Brondel
			en 2015.
			Administration des spectacles
			(1790-1942): F/21 4523 à 4710
			Archives des directeurs et sous-directeurs
			d'Etat des Beaux-Arts. Archives du bureau des
			travaux d'art, musées et expositions F/21 4523
			à 4710
			Versement de la Direction de l'Architecture
			(1958), classé et inventorié par Elizabeth
			Dunan, Conservateur
		Dossier 1:
		Projets d'aide
		et de recettes
	Dossier 6: Films
	français, promotion, soutien, diffusion		Dossier 2: Règlementation
	Dossier 5:		Dossier 3: Contrôle des films
	Fonctionnement interne du service de contrôle des films	Dossier 4:	et composition des commissions et sous-commissions
		Censure
		des films

aux Archives Nationales WHAT HAPPENS WHILE FACING THE RECORDS?

	Looking at the previous diagram, and especially at the content of Box
	F/21/4695/A; you realise that not everything is directly linked to my subject. But
	temptation, and fair curiosity are your best friends: so, on one side, temptation is telling
	you to look at all the files within the box, no matter what, and on the other side, fair
	curiosity tempers your surge for information and suggests you consider what your other
	best foes/friends (time, relevance) have to say about it.
	I have no ultimate truth about whether or not you should open those files. My best
	advice: if you are going to look at similar boxes (in terms of organization), check at least
	all the files for one of them, so that you can see the type of documents which are under
	those obscure titles. But if your best enemy (time) is on your side, feel free to check on
	everything.
	In the archives, while facing the records, you might become someone else -more
	like: Sherlock Holmes. When you are working on the 20 th century, especially from the
	1970s (before, it is unlikely, but you can still check, especially if you know their date of
	birth), you may find names. See where the private detective allusion is coming from?
	3.3. Completing archives? Interviews.
	Is it the role of interviews to complete your archival research? Yes, and No (this
	is the worst answer ever). They can complete your archival research, as you can ask
	people whose names were in the records if they accept to be interviewed. During the
	interview, you can ask them about the work they have done and try to obtain details about
	specific facts. But, you, and I, must always remember that what they will say will only be
	memories, or stories, and not history. And interviews cannot complete your archives for
	this reason, and also because you may not have the same goal set for the records and for
	your interviews. You have to doubt your interviews as well as your records: information
	is selected by someone else in both cases.

  At present we send children to cinemas and we imagine they are getting a good taste in films. We might just as well give them in school nothing but penny dreadfuls and expect them to develop good taste in literature. It is our business to use the film as an educative force, using "educative" in the broader sense of the term. Every other country in the world has for practical purposes organised that educative force. I speak as a British Member of the International Institute for Educational Cinematography, a body which has been in existence for three years, an offspring of the League of Nations. Let me take you to a few countries to give you an example of what I mean. France, a bureaucratic centralised country, has its Grand Council for the Control of the Cinema in every direction -educational, artistic, and the like" 108 .

Spoilers 1909: power to local authorities 2006: This is England (Shane Meadows) 2007: the film was classified 18 by the BBFC for realistic violence, racist and strong language, but 15 in Grimsby. about durable effects of local censorship 4.2.1. Defining their position.

"

  invention around the concept of children, adolescents and what it means in terms of age (age-ratings are a division which is supposed to be based on existing standards). So, here, I am trying to show what those standards are, and when they were set during our period of interest(1945-nowadays). I am going to give you the milestones in terms of education, sexuality, criminality and political rights for both the United Kingdom and France.

		United Kingdom		France
	Children/	1880:	school	attendance	1882: primary education
	adolescents	compulsory from 5 to 10.		compulsory (6-13)
	(education)	1918: compulsory education until	1936: school leaving age is
		14.				14
		1944: definition of the division	1945: modern split of the
		between primary (until 11) and	baccalauréat.
		secondary schools.			1947: creation of the BEPC
		1973: school leaving age becomes	1959: school leaving age
		16.				becomes 16, and split of
		1988: implementation of key	secondary education (in the
		stages at 11 and 16 (GCSE)	modern sense: collèges and
						lycées)
	Children/	1875: age of consent is 13		1863: age of sexual consent
	adolescents	1933:	age	of	criminal	is 13
	(majority, age	responsibility raised from 7 to 8.	1945: prison sentences over
	of criminal consent, responsibility)	1963: responsibility raised to 10 age of 1967: age of consent becomes 16 criminal	13 only and sexual majority becomes 15 (21 for homosexual relations)
		(21 for homosexual relations)	1974: majority at 18 (until
		1970: majority at 18 (until then, it was 21)	then, it was 21) and sexual majority for homosexual relations is lowered to 18
		1994: homosexual age of consent lowered to 18	1982: sexual majority at 15 without distinction between
		2000: age of consent is 16 for both	heterosexual	and
		heterosexual and homosexual	homosexual relations
		relations
	Women	1918: suffrage for women over 30.

  . "La television et son public".

Communication et langages.Volume 87. Numéro 1. p. 41. (UK) data from BARB (Broadcasters Audience Research Board) website. URL : http://www.barb.co.uk/resources/tv-ownership/, last seen on April 12th, 2016. For Cinema-goers: (France and UK), data from a report presented at the Senate: "L'évolution du secteur de l'exploitation cinématographique". URL: http://www.senat.fr/rap/r02-308/r02-3081.html, last seen on April 12 th , 2016.

Secretaries/Directors (change of name made under James Ferman) Entry date Name Career previous to BBFC entry

	December	J. Brooke Wilkinson	Secretary of the Kinematograph
	1912		Manufacturers Association
	July 1948	Mr. A.T.L. Watkins	Playwright, Home Office : 1941-1947,
			Assistant Secretary of the Board : January
			1948
	January	Mr. J.F. Nicholls	Formerly art teacher and journalist,
	1957		Army cultural affairs
	July 1958	Mr. John Trevelyan	Formerly Colonial Education Service,
			Chief Education Officer for Westmorland,
			Director of British Families Education
			Service in Germany and a Board Examiner
			1950-1958
	July 1971	Mr. Stephen	Journalist, worked for the BBC and the
		Murphy	Independent Televison authority
	June 1975	Mr. James Ferman	Actor, writer, and television director
	January	Mr. Robin Duval	Scriptwriter and producer for BBC
	1999

Radio, Deputy Director of Programmes at the Independent Broadcasting Authority September 2004 Mr. David Cooke Worked in the Home Office, Cabinet Office and Northern Ireland Office, headed a policy unit in the Home Office Broadcasting Department 1987-1990

  TNA, HO 45/11191, Report. British Board of Film Censors. For Year Ending December 31st, 1919. T.P. O'Connor, President. J. Brooke Wilkinson, Secretary.

156 André Gill, Satire of censorship, L'Eclipse, July 1874. She is described by Bertrand Tillier (2005) as « une vieille mégère grimaçante, au sourire sournois, aux ongles crochus semblables à des griffes de rapace, aux dents acérées, aux yeux exorbités par l'usure d'une lecture trop méticuleuse que compensent des lunettes épaisses, coiffée d'un bonnet de concierge qui voit tout pour pouvoir renseigner la police, et vêtue d'un tablier de domestique au service des puissants, armée d'une gigantesque paire de ciseaux sous le bras et dotée d'une chouette juchée sur l'épaule comme emblème de la nuit, des pratiques obscurantistes et des superstitions d'un âge reculé ».

  Unauthorised use of Royal Names, PublicCharacters and well-known members of Society, Misuse of titles actually borne of living persons. This is why 'indecorous sub-titles' was the clue to this new door towards the complexity of linguistic exceptions. Those references to language are not really new, they are the developments of the first themes discussed above. Indeed, exceptions are actual elements ruled out from specific films, and then presented under the form of a list of limits. So we are clearly in what Nathalie Goedert calls (2011: p. 12) the creation of a space of freedom: institutionalized censorship (British Board or French Commission) aims to protect freedom, as it avoids censorship by public opinion (or in our case, multiple censorships by local authorities, both in the UK and between agents, as, for example, the use of the same categories by State agents and associations" (Lagroye et al., 2002: p. 530) 162 . As stated above, in 1926, the exceptions were for the first time organized by themes: Religious, Political, Military, Social, Questions of Sex, Crime and Cruelty. The absence of a specific category for titling does not mean that linguistic exceptions are absent from the report. Here are some examples (for more, see Annex):

		-Religious:
			o Irreverent quotations of Biblical texts
		-Political:
			o Unauthorised use of Royal and University Arms
			o Inflammatory sub-titles and Bolshevist Propaganda
		-Social:
	1926	Exceptions classified	1928	First report with a	1931	Beginning of secrecy
		by themes		specific
		for the first		paragraph
		time		dedicated
		to "Titling" So, clearly, there is a double institutionalisation:
		-The first one is the institutionalisation of practices within the Board itself:
		establishment of rules and as a ricochet effect, the way examiners work

-'Indecorous sub-titles':

France) and also, it draws a space of freedom by delineating what is authorised and what is forbidden. In my viewpoint, it also creates a space of constraints by updating each year a list of what should not be found in a film. But to draw that space, there is a need to organise the practices, for a need of clarity within the institution itself and for the Film Industry primarily, but also; the political authorities (at all levelslocal authorities kept a certain degree of involvement in film censorship until the Second World War mainly), the audience etc. 6.1.1.2. 1926-1931: Thematic Linguistics. "Institutionalisation results from processes which could not be reduced to the codification of measures and rules, to the production of legislative texts, to the adoption of new terms… It officialises and gives practices and expertise of exchanges o Sub-titles in the nature of swearing, and expressions regarded as objectionable in this country -Questions of Sex: o The use of the phrase "Sex Appeal" in sub-titles In 1928, two new categories were added: Administration of Justice, and Titling. And in 1929, you can see the effect of the advent of sound on the classification: Titling becomes 'Titling and Sound Reproduction', which regroups the aforementioned elements.

What is highly interesting is that we can see tendencies appearing within the British classification, which are clearly not appearing in the French classification (for more details about this latter, see 6.1.2.). Specific words are censored, which emphasises the idea of restriction of the space of creativity: swearwords are the first ones I mentioned, but there are also specific elements, such as Free Love, Sex-Appeal, and a high sense of respect for titles, or certain professions (this last element is also present in the French classification).

162 Original text: « L'institutionnalisation résulte de processus qu'on ne saurait réduire à la codification des dispositifs et des règles, à la production de textes législatifs, à l'adoption d'un nouveau vocable… Elle officialise et donne en modèle des pratiques et des savoir-faire d'échanges entre acteurs, comme par exemple l'utilisation des mêmes catégories par les agents de l'État et les associations ».

Number of observations of scenarios per year for which I took notes (BFI Archives)

											1946	1949
										-45	-47
	27	38	41	31	44	41	20	17	32	30	36	16

  with only minor cuts and some 172 Play submitted by Gainsborough Pictures Ltd, December 29 th , 1930. BFI Archives. 173 Script of play, by Beverley Nicholls, submitted by Albemarle Film Service, March 28 th , 1931. BFI Archives.

							21
		17					18
							14
	6	6	9	10	9	8	7	6

  and what Keith Allan and Kate Burridge (p. 40) call dysphemistic euphemism (While Parents Sleep, 1935):

  not necessarily other comparable examples with different characters. Here are a few examples about what women should not be seen doing (for one case) and saying (for the two others):

	-"delete Lady Battersby's false teeth falling into her champagne glass"
	Lambeth Walk, 1938
	-"p.11 omit "basket" (which is out of place, coming from a refined
	woman) [I think 'basket' on p106 might pass]" (The Girl Who Couldn't
	Quite, 1949).

The Daily Mail. March 6 th , 1930. "Word in Film Blotted out. Complaint that it was offensive. Censorship Problems".

  "The next scene, we admit, is good fun, and if you are able to forget the state in which the hero is living and some of his remarks with sexsprung meanings, you will enjoy it."

-"Chevalier […] saying: "Let me see your underwear." Then will follow a song (all about lingerie) which will cause you to forget the previous ones and stir uneasily in your seat with the question hammering in your mind, "What is the Film Censor doing?"" This helped to nuance the extent of application of the lists of exceptions. Until now, I have assumed, supported by the observations on scenarios, that the main difference between Britain and France during the 1930s was the British strictness on language. It appears, through this example, that the observation on scenarios give a biased viewpoint on what was shown on screen at that time, and sex references were not necessarily ruled out completely. What is possible is that we are facing two different kinds of attitudes in the UK: the tastes of British audiences on one hand, and the 'elitist' attitude of the examiners on the other hand. After all, the scenarios are not the films and once in context, with the moving images, many words/sentences may have seemed more permissible on screen. One thing is sure, when compared to Britain, France had a taste of Moulin Rouge scandal. For The Smiling Lieutenant for example, it was classified A with cuts by the BBFC 174 , while in France, it was Tous Publics 175 .

FRENCH SILENCE?

  conducted a study on 543 files of the Commission between 1945 and 1975. And what appears is what can be observed in the observation of scenarios, but at a different degree. The linguistic issues are not defined as such most of the time, but as being part of other categories (created by the author, and absolutely not in use in the Commission reports).

3.2. Classification issues: what is Universal language?

-While, in France, the Commission remained bound to a global judgement of films But, these two ways of defining a classification, one strict, and the other one with less precise boundaries between age-categories, also triggered another effect: the same film in each country is not the same. It is different because it rarely has the same agerating, it does not have the same comments, or the same cuts, and consequently, not the same audience. Until now, I have concentrated my efforts on defining the language criterion through its censored elements: but what are the tolerated ones? The 'Universal' or 'Tous Publics' Language? What is a Universal film for the British and the French classifications?

6.

  Trevelyan was to create an evolution within the Board through the decision of the local /www.dvdclassik.com/article/entretien-avecjoseph-strick (Last seen on November 6th, 2014) and also on the same subject: http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-joseph-strick-20100604story.html.

	183	BITOUN	Olivier.	2009.	Entretien	avec	Joseph	Strick.	URL:
		http:/

  examiners (use of tables from 1980ssee previous chapter), there is no need to think about what is permissible for children, for adolescents, for adults. In terms of linguistic issues, until the 1980s, it is more about what is not permissible, and what is, and less about what children should hear or not. 7.2. VOSTFR and VF: what disappears through the translation process. Life of Brian (LB), A Fish Called Wanda (AFCW), Riff Raff (RR), Raining Stones (RS), Ladybird Ladybird (LL), Bread and Roses (BR), Looking for Eric (LFE). All these were rated 15 by the BBFC, except Ladybird Ladybird (18) but received a Tous Publics (Universal) classification in France.

						Number of swearwords per film
	Swearwords	Damn Hell Bloody Bugger Shit Son of a	Bitch Twat	Fuck	Cunt
								bitch		only All forms
	Total		2	37 80	1	35	3	12	6	140 462
	Nb	LB			18	1	1		1	3	7
	/films	AFCW		4	4		2	2	2	16 25
		RR		3	23		6			23 70
		RS		12 32		4			1	9	73
		LL		2	3		3		6	1	9	54
		BR	1	3			8	1	3	14 49
		LFE	1	13			11			4	66 184
			Reminder: this table is based on the first corpus of translation I created based on
		Ken Loach's films and Monty Python-related films. Legend (films are in chronological
		order):

"

  Verbal violence is a connoted term, which has to be understood only in situ, that is in the context of the following question: what counts as violence? For whom? Behind those questions stands also the question about which forms of social order are at stake and what the specific role of language in the construction and reproduction (and so, resistance and transformation) of that order is"189 (Monica Heller, 2008: p. 7).

  ).

199

BBFC reports. All the files are available on the BBFC website. Also, check the pages about the ratings on the BBFC website. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/. 200 Coren, Victoria. May 27 th , 2012. "Keep our curses in rude health", The Guardian. Last seen on June 30 th , 2016. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/27/victoria-coren-ken-loachwrong-on-oaths.

Comparison of the number of swearwords in LIfe of Brian and The King's Speech.

	Swearwords	Damn	Hell	Bloody	Bugger	Shit	Bitch Fuck
	BBFC's
	classification
	Life of Brian			18	1	1	1	7
	The King's Speech	5	3	21	9	10		17

  finds it scandalous that there is no interdiction to the under whatever age; this is what comes out [from audience's feedback]. People who think we are far too permissive. And fortunately, we do not listen to them. If not, we would go towards more censorship. In fact, people are much more in favour of censorship. Brains have to be gathered to think about this. To go in the direction of art, of the liberty of expression, of the balance between liberty of expression and protection of children" 224 (Gauthier Jurgensen).

	221 Original text: "Par exemple, le film Bienvenue à Zombieland qui est sorti en 2009, on peut dire que c'est
	un film assez osé, de manière violente, il y a beaucoup de violence graphique etc. c'est un truc qui
	pousse parfois le bouchon un peu loin. C'est très humour noir, très grinçant, pourtant le film est sorti
	tous publics. Il n'y a pas eu d'avertissements dessus parce que peut-être on considère qu'un film qui
	s'appelle Bienvenue à Zombieland est assez clair avec le public sur son parti pris. On se dit pas qu'on
	va se retrouver avec des familles entières qui vont emmener des jeunes gamins pour un anniversaire
	voir Bienvenue à Zombieland. Normalement, les choses se régulent assez bien de ce côté-là. On n'a pas
	besoin d'intervenir là-dessus".
	222 Conference "The Good, the Bad and the BBFC", at the Lighthouse Media Centre, Wolverhampton. On
	February 26 th , 2015.

223 Original text : « mesurés par le courrier que je recevais et les protestations adressées au Centre National de la Cinématographie, nous reprochaient très majoritairement notre « laxisme ». On nous aurait voulus beaucoup plus sévères, et pour tout dire, on nous reprochait de ne pas avoir interdit tel ou tel film jugé scandaleux. Et c'est vrai que ces protestations visaient souvent des films que nous avions jugés « tous publics » […] Mais il ne faut pas oublier que les gens qui sont satisfaits ne le disent jamais ! »

YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31ST, 1929. PRESIDENT T.P. O'CONNOR REPLACED AFTER HIS DEATH BY EDWARD SCOTT, AND SECRETARY J. BROOKE WILKINSON. 240

	40. Justification of marital infedelity. 2. Equivocal and objectionable bedroom and bathroom scenes Murderous gang fighting.
	41. Justification of a woman sacrificing her virtue for an ostensible good 3. Men and women in bed together Prolonged and gross brutality and bloodshed.
		purpose. 4. Vamping
	42. Puerperal pains. 5. Lives of thoroughly immoral men and women RELIGIOUS Cruelty, e.g.
	6. Bargaining on the part of a girl to sacrifice her virtue for an ostensibly Human sacrifices.
	1. The materialisation of the conventional figure of Christ. good purpose Cruelty to animals and birds.
	2. Sacred religious ceremonies. Scenes of torture.
	3. Confessions. Realistic attacks by wild animals on natives. CRIME
		4. Circumcision.
	5. Travesty of religious rites. 1. REalistic and comic hanging scenes, in actuality and silhouette Miscellaneous, e.g.
	6. Ministers of religin in equivocal situations. 2. Electrocutions and incidents connected therewith Repellent details in natural history subjects.
	7. Blasphemous incidents. 3. Methods of crime open to imitation Accidents with harrowing details.
		8. Comic treatment of incidents connected with death. 4. Stories in which the criminal element is predominant.
	9. Farcical incidents in sacred buildings. 5. Severed human heads Titling and Sound Reproduction, e.g.
	6. Blackmail associated with immorality Offensive and inexpedient main titles.
	POLITICAL 7. Preparations for suicide Speech in the nature of swearing and expressions regarded as objectionable in this
	country.	8. Cold blooded machine gun murders
	1. References to H.R.H. the Prince of Wales. 9. Murders and murderous gang fighting Equivocal and suggestive sub-titles and dialogue.
	2. Themes likely to wound the just susceptibilities of Friendly Nations. 10. "Third Degree" scenes of a harrowing nature Vulgar noises.
		3. White men in state of degradation amidst Far Eastern and Native 11. Brutal attacks with broken bottles
		Surroundings.
	4. Equivocal situations between white girls and men of other races. CRUELTY
		5. Inciting workers to armed conflicts.
		1. Cruelty to animals
	MILITARY 2. Torture scenes
		3. Carnage
		1. British Officers and Forces shewn in a disgraceful light. 4. Brutal fights
		2. Conflicts between the armed forces of a State and the populace. 5. Agonising scenes of martydom
		6. Flogging and branding
	ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 7. Self torture with knives
		8. Prolonged and gross brutality and bloddshed
		1. Soldiers and police firing on defenceless populace.
	2. Incidents which convey false and derogatory impressions of the police TITLING AND SOUND REPRODUCTION
		forces in this country.
		3. Objectionable prison scenes. 1. Offensive and inexpedient main and sub-titles
		4. Gross travesties of the administration of justice. 2. Irreverent quotations from the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and
		well-known hymns
	SOCIAL	3. Irreverent and blasphemous sub-titles
		4. Sub-titles and speech in the nature of swearing, and expressions regarded
		1. Girls and women in a state of intoxication. as objectionale in this country.
		2. "Orgy"scenes. 5. Equivocal and suggestive sub-titles and dialogue
		3. Refection on the medical profession. 6. Coarse and objectionable dialogue and song.
		4. Hospital incidents treated flippantly. 7. Unwarranted references to well-known public characters
		5. Intimate biological and natural history studies unsuitable for public 8. Vulgar noises
		exhibition. 9. Harrowing screams and groans of pain of wounded men in war films
		6. Suggestive and indecorous dancing.
		7. Nude and semi-nude figures.
		8. Unseemly displays of women-'s underclothing.

REPORT FOR

MIKE MITCHELL, MIKE BIGELOW, GIGOLO MALGRE LUI (UK:15 ; FR : TOUS PUBLICS AVEC AVERTISSEMENT)

	Deuce Cordé	Dick Nose Employeur	Bar-Idem	rocks and Europe Elle a un Après avoir droit dans les	00:44:57 00:20:07	Beaucoup de shit, qui Tu peux compter tout faire plaisir baratiner, lui dû sentir ma cette façon qu'on trancherai sa comment elles elles vont voir Reprends-toi,	[bait=his white A lot of women Venezuelan You can believe anything to that she'll feel presence. That understand what on the bitch and the pole and they'll all know	Un tas de femmes Tu peux me croire, espèce un mot, putain. Je l'ai
		ass] would love to hookers or to POOK BROWN, BOSS'N UP (UK: 18 ; FR : TOUS PUBLICS AVEC AVERTISSEMENT) smells like ass ». Va te faire foutre, restaurant appendice femmes forniquent avec rencontré là-dessus. Espèce that, big fat fake à son mec. please her man. faire la cour, la lost without. And yeux. putain de bitch turn contrôle une I'm sayin'? -Qui ? -I don't know no putain d'gorge, cut her viennent scraping the qu'il y a du something new. vieux ! CHARLES CRICHTON,	voudraient avoir une bite de gros bouffon de Luther -Je la jette ? juste...
	Qui Un des deux enfants. Un homme, hors champ. T.J. T.J. Deuce Durant le congrés. T.J. T.J. Deuce Voix masculine hors champ. Le président du syndicat des gigolos T.J. Rodrigo T.J. Deuce L'inspecteur Deuce À qui Deuce Deuce Deuce Cadavre de Hans T.J. Deuce Chat Le fumeur de l'aquarium Deuce Deuce Secrétaire Deuce Dick Nose Le président du syndicat, Mr Buckigham. Au Deuce qui parle (retransmission tv) Qui À qui Orange Juice Cordé Le Pimp du À tous les Cordé Collègue supermarché pimps Orange Juice Cordé Un client (apparemment un Pimp) Cordé Orange Juice Cordé Le pimp du supermarché Chardonnay Cordé Chardonnay Cordé OJ assemblés Le proprio Cordé Diamond Alizée (la deuxième réplique est de Cordé) Le Pimp du Chardonnay supermarché Orange Juice Pimps ''Papa'', le À une de ces pimp du « gagneuses » Pimp du supermarché Cordé supermarché Le Pimp du Cordé OJ Cordé supermarché « Topless » Cordé Proprio de	Où Sur la plage À Amsterdam Idem Au bord de l'eau Amsterdam Devant chez Marlène Chez Marlène Aquarium Amsterdam Amsterdam, un café Amsterdam, devant l'appartement d'une autre cliente de Hans, Lili. Esthéticienne (?) Un bar Idem Bureau Congrés Où Idem Club Supermarché Il en a marre. Pourquoi Ils lui disent qu'il est un bon à rien. Il porte une chemise aux couleurs des États-Unis. Il aperçoit Deuce. 00:07:39 Quand 00:03:10 00:06:44 Il s'apprête à jeter le gigolo mort dans le canal. 00:18:17 T.J. veut le remettre au tapin pour retrouver le meurtrier. 00:22:45 00:24:00-00:26:00 Ils essayent de retrouver le tueur. 00:29:07 Le chat arrive pendant qu'il est aux toilettes. 00:31:40 Le fumeur jette pour la seconde fois son mégot dans l'aquarium. Affiche autour du cou du fumeur avec « America 00:35:55 Il se lève et le menace. 00:38:32 Il est déguisée (costume dorée, mécanique). 00:38:56 Il vient d'arriver. 00:41:42 À la tv, Scotland yard participe à l'enquête et eux, ils parlent de la prochaine cliente. 00:43:39 masculin à la place du nez. Elle veut écouter de la musique latine. 00:45:27 Il lui donne le mobile du tueur. Il est l'oncle d'Eva, et Deuce lui a annnoncé qu'elle était la tueuse, et ne voit pas qu'en fait, c'est l'oncle. 01:01:37 Il s'adresse à Deuce qui ne l'entend pas, mais les femmes autour, oui. 01:10:13 Pourquoi Quand Chardonnay. Suite de la 00:24:00 Cordé lui a piqué 01:01:33 00:09:13 conversation. toutes ses Voiture sur parking du supermarché Orange Juice dit à Jack ce qu'il doit faire s'il veut devenir un Pimp. 00:14:18 Supermarché Après que Cordé est mis le champagne dans un sac plastique. 00:15:13 Maison Cordé vient de dire qu'il ne sait pas comment mettre Chardonnay « sur le trottoir ». 00:23:31 Rue Il s'avance vers elle en l'interpellant alors qu'elle vient de se faire accoster par un potentiel client. 00:32:22 Couloir Chardonnay lui 00:35:50 Idem Il s'énerve à cause gagneuses, et il ramène l'argent. Idem À propos de 00:44:58 de ce que OJ a dit arrive, après avoir mettre ses « filles à propos des pris de la drogue. Idem Elles le veulent 00:37:00 sur le trottoir » règles du business pour Pimp. qui s'applique à tous. Près de Il l'a suivie. 01:04:44 l'appartement Rue Raconte qu'une « pute » avait regardé un pimp 00:30:25 de Cordé Il est assis à Il est énervé car 00:43:41 une table. Cherry, une de Idem S'il revoit Chardonnay sur son trottoir. 00:34:22 bénéfices. ces gagneuses, a donné sa part à Dans une Cordé est armé. 01:10:10 Cordé. Assis à une Il lui dit qu'il doit 00:52:21 ruelle doubler ses canapé business Chardonnay pour Assis sur un Il lui parle de son 00:44:39 table cogner sur	VF Tapineur de mes deux ! Aux chiottes, l'Américain, Salaud d'impérialiste ! Ma couille, ramène-toi ici ! Avant de larguer sa tête de pine dans l'canal, je tiens à déclarer que s'il avait signer avec moi, ce mec serait encore de ce monde. Avec mon esquimoule ? C'est non ! Bitoris, et chatte à boules. Tu la distrais avec ta baguette zizique. T'aimes les grosses balarchis poilus. -Gros con ! -[Il rit et s'adresse à Eva] J'ai une grosse envie de te prendre par derrière ! Mon pénis est.. il n'est pas circoncis. L'Amérique assure ! L'Europe pue la merde. sale Yankee ! Attention ! Je t'ai à l'oeil, pine de bigorneau ! Te fais pas de bite, zéro-zéro-sexe ! Je suis là, j'te perds pas de vue. J'ai rendez-vous pour faire la déco de ma petite raie du cul à midi trente. Si tu dois lui faire du broute-touffe, mets-toi une pince à linge sur le nez. voudraient avoir une bite qui pend... sur le visage. Je vais voir si l'pénis connaît un air... [réalisant son erreur] je veux dire, le pianiste... le gars qui tripote le piano. Parce qu'ils représentent le déclin de ce qui fût une glorieuse cité, qui est devenue une nouvelle Sodome et Gomorrhe pour riches étudiants oisifs qui fument du des putes vénézuéliennes ou qui défèquent sur nos pavés inscrits au patrimoine de l'humanité. Je n'ai jamais eu aucun plainte de toutes ces pétasses. -[Lili le gifle et dit] J'ai simulé ! VF de gros tas de Maintenant ce rendre, cette présence. La pute, vous enfoiré ! ramasser le fric changement Ecoutez-moi les Il faut qu'on trouve un plan pour se faire des putains de tunes, parce que je commence à en avoir marre de ce supermarché de merde. merde de sale que tu dois faire, pute, accro de pute s'est comprenez le -Cordé. à la fin de leur clair. mecs ! Ce fils de Il te faut une bonne pute. Il faut que tu te trouves une putain de chienne d'enfoiré. Porte mon sac, salope. Et tirons-nous de ce trou à rats. babouin de mes couilles qui passe son temps à s'empiffrer de poulet pourri. Va te faire foutre, négro avec ton supermarché ! Tu vas devoir lui expliquer à cette pute, quand, comment, et pourquoi elle doit te rapporter un max de pognons. Ce que tu ne dois jamais oublier, c'est qu'une salope veut plus que c'est retourner dans cette chambre d'hôtel et faire l'amour à cette pute pendant 3 jours. Il faut que tu la baises dans tous les sens, et de bas en haut, jusqu'à ce qu'elle n'en puisse plus de se faire baiser. Et entre toutes ces... séances de queutage les plus diverses et variées, tu vas devoir lui donner des bains, la toi, qu'elle se sente totalement perdue sans toi. Et ensuite, tu vas la jeter comme une merde. -Il faut que je la tèje ? -C'est soit ça, soit elle se bouge le cul et va arpenter le trottoir pour te rapporter un putain de paquet de pognons. retournée et je lui ai pas dit un mot. J'ai fait « paww » [geste du poing]. Vous voyez ce que je veux dire. La pute avait un oeil au beurre noir tellement gros, game ? Eh salope ! Eh toi, la nouvelle pute ! Eh, eh, écoute, salope ! Viens m'filer l'argent d'tes passes ! Ici, c'est pas un endroit pour les putes Putain de merde, numéro. Ouais je l'ai dit, pute, c'est pas un -J'connais pas Chardonnay ! Ce que t'es qu'un putain vrai Pimp ! Il d'mac qui C'est pas vrai. j'voudrais, c'est d'enfoiré de vous a tous baisé s'appelle Cordé, Alizée ! une pute qui jaloux. Tu veux la gueule et à vos salope ! Alors, connaisse bien que je tabasses putes aussi ! ou bien tu -Je vois que t'as son métier, qui mes putes pour Bande dégages ton cul amené une puisse refiler le pouvoir les d'enfoirés ! de c'trottoir, tu copine. virus à toutes les approcher et comprends c'que autres filles, tu m'en piquer une Putain de salope, j'te dis. -Dépêche-toi, vois ? Pour que ou deux parce tout ce que Alors je suis arrivée par derrière et elle a putain, que même de la glace n'aurait rien arrangé. Vous voyez la scène ? Cette pute m'a raconté plus de fric cette nuit-là qu'elle en avait rapporté en un mois. C'est de indépendantes ou c'genre de trucs ! Si t'es pas avec un pimp, tu dois dégager, salope ! Ou alors tu m'files ton fric ! -Écoutez, en fait, j'ai déjà un pimp. pétasse ! toutes ses que t'es t'avais à faire, -Justement, Tire-toi, salope ! chiennasses complètement c'était de choisir voilà mon... Allez, disparais commencent à fini.t'es un vrai Pimp. [Il Pimp. Si j'revois cette pute sur mon trottoir, j'lui fouillerai sa culotte, j'lui piquerai son fric, j'la baiserai sur l'trottoir et j'lui avec la barre, une barre de fer, barraque. salopes de jouer dérouilles avec casser la de ma vue. me rapporter des exactement l'assomme.] putains de liasse. comme tous les Qu'est-ce que tu Si tu décides à négros qui vas faire négro ? façon de tes que tu la j'ai réussi à enfoiré ? ce que je vois. La cette pétasse, ou te fait chier que vas foutre J'aime beaucoup cogner un peu traînent ici. Ça Qu'est-ce que tu	VO Stupid he-bitch ! …, tapinette ! VOSTFR Fuck you, American ! Imperialist bastard ! Enfoiré d'Américain ! Sale impérialiste ! Man, get on over her ! Man, amène-toi ! Before I toss your dumb ass in the canal, I ust wanna say for the record, under T.J.'s management, this would've never happened. Avant de balancer ton cul dans le canal, je dirai ceci : chez T.J., ce ne serait pas arrivé. Bait? Look, I'm not man-whoring. D'appât ? Je ne tapine pas. Vaguyna He-pussy. Pinetoris chatte à boules You distract her with your magic she-nis Distrais-la avec ta baguette zizique. You like them big hairy balls, don't you ? Tu aimes les grosses balles poilues, hein ? You dick ! -I would like to take you from behind. My penis is uncirconcised. Pauvre con ! -J'aimerais vous prendre par-derrière. Mon pénis n'est pas circoncis. Fuck off, you Yank ! [L'Amérique assure ! L'Europe pue la merde.] Salaud de Yankee ! I've got my eye on you, Small-Bellow. Je t'ai à l'oeil, p'tit bigorneau. Don't worry about it, Sherlock Ho. I ain't gonna let you out of my sight. T'inquiète, 00Sex. Je te quitte pas des yeux. I am here for my 12:30 ass-hair-bleaching. J'ai rendez-vous à 12h30 pour une déco de la raie. So if you gotta give a little mouth-to-south, put a clothespin on your nose. Pour le broute-touffe, pince-toi le nez. have a guy's dick on their face. sur leur visage. Well, I'll see if the penis knows any. I mean the pianist. The guy playing the piano. Je vais voir si le pénis en connaît. Pardon, le pianiste. Le gars au piano. Maybe because they represent the decline of this once glorious city, which has become a new Sodom and Gomorrah for rich college kids, to smoke hash, to fornicate with Ils incarnent le déclin de notre glorieuse cité, devenue une Sodome et Gomorrhe pour étudiants qui fument et copulent avec des putes latines. Ou défèquent dans nos ries pavés séculaires. defecate upon our historic cobblestone streets. I've never had any complaints from any of those freaks ! Je n'ai jamais eu de plaintes de ces tordues ! VO Luther Vandross-Vandross, mal baisé, Now, what you Maintenant, il va falloir then, that's when around. I didn't motherfuckin' motherfuckin' money after the Listen, men. This Ce fils de pute n'est pas VOSTFR … We need to do something to get out of here and to get some real motherfuckin' money. Cause these super-size shit, it cannot do with me. looking, wait for bouffeur de poulet. Va te need to do is to que tu retournes à cette you cut down -C'est soit ça, soit elle se say a tu vois ce que je veux Cordé, bitch. So throat. end of their daily motherfucker is un mac ! Il sait même pas Tu sais, mec, sans déconner, faut trouver un moyen de se faire du blé. Parce que le Super Discount, pour moi, ça le fait pas. You go find yourself a bad bitch. I mean a real motherfucker. … alors va te trouver une vraie salope. Je veux dire une chienne intégrale. Grab the bag, bitch. Let's go. Porte le sac, salope. On y va. love, chicken-eating motherfucker. Fuck you and your supermarket. faire enculer avec ton supermarché. You just have to instruct that bitch on how, when and why she needs to make you your money. Something you always have to remember is that the bitch wants more than Il faudra juste que tu enseignes à cette chienne comment, quand et pourquoi il faut qu'elle te ramène ton pognon. La chose que tu ne dois jamais oublier, c'est que ce qu'une salope veut par-dessus tout, c'est faire plaisir à son homme. go back into that room and make love to that bitch for three days and three nights. I mean fuck her, left ways, side ways, and front ways, till she can't take no more lovin'. And in-between all that dick-altering experience you will give her, you'll bathe her, you'll sweet-talk to her, you'll woo her. You'll get that bitch so used to your presence piaule et que tu fasses l'amour à cette salope pendant trois jours et trois nuits. Que tu la baises de gauche à droite, que tu la prennes de tous les côtés, de front, jusqu'à ce qu'elle soit complètement gavée d'amour. Et entre chacune de ces expériences de queutage profondément mémorables, tu lui donneras des bains, tu lui feras du baratin, tu lui feras la cour. Tu dois la rendre tellement accro qu'elle se sente perdue sans toi. Et ensuite... tu la jettes comme une chienne. that bitch loose. -Cut her loose? -It's either that or she get her fuckin' ass out on the track and makes you your motherfuckin' met direct au turf et elle se met à te rapporter ton putain de pognon. motherfuckin' thing to her. I just... you understand me? That bitch, that bitch got a eye so big that eve a steak would have dire ? Cette salope, elle avait l'oeil tellement gonflé que même une escalope aurait rien pu faire. Tu vois le truc ? Cette pute m'a plus rapporté cette nuit-là que pendant le mois. C'est comme ça qu'on les contrôle. Tu comprends ? Eh, you, the new bitch! Listen, listen, bitch, You need to give this to some pimp. It's no place for bitch on free-lance here. If you ain't with no Eh toi, la nouvelle ! Dis donc, salope, il va falloir que tu payes. On veut pas des putes free-lance, ici. Si t'es pas de mac, tu dégages. Ou alors tu me files ton blé. -J'ai déjà un mac. you get your ass Go damn, Putain, Chardonnay ! shows. I'm herin' the Des salades d'un vieux no pimp. He ce que c'est. Il vous a tous out of this track, Chardonnay! I need a bitch to Amène-moi une pute bien tale of an old mac sur le retour, jaloux don't even know possédés, et vos putes you know what come up in here affranchie pour qu'elle washed-up pimp, du nouveau cador, plus what a real pimp avec, bande d'enfoirés ! I'm sayin'? Or Alizé! Alizé ! with some game puisse leur refiler le virus, jealous that a malin et plus flamboyant. is. He got all you choose... to spread it like tu piges ? Comme ça, ces new, young, Parfaitement. T'es jaloux, nigga fool, and -Oh, you got a -Oh, t'as une copine ? malaria to these salopes pourraient smart, enfoiré. Tu veux que je les your bitches too, buddy? bitches as you vraiment me rapporter, flamboyant cogne pour pouvoir te you -Grouille-toi ! did. And then, I pas vrai ? player on the pointer et pouvoir m'en motherfucker! -Come on, bitch! can put these ground. Yes! piquer une ou deux parce Bitch, all you Salope, tout ce que t'avais bitches to really You're jealous, que t'es à la ramasse. had to do is à faire, c'était de te money. She must have felt the motherfuckin' Elle a dû sentir ma présence. Elle se retourne. Je n'ai pas dit fuckin' done nothing. You know what I'm sayin'? That bitch made more money that night than a bitch had made a whole month. That's how you keep control of it. You pimp, you need to get off the stroll. Or give me your pay rolls. -I already got a pimp. -Who? -Cordé. -Qui ça ? -Cordé. -Je connais pas de Cordé, salope. Alors tu dégages vite fait, tu comprends ce que je dis ? Soit tu choisis... some motherfucker. choose a real choisir un vrai mac. Leave, bitch! Get Casse-toi, salope. Fous-motherfuckin' You want me to motherfuckin' off my fuckin' moi le camp. good use. beat up my pimp. If I see this bitch on the track again, I'll fetch her motherfuckin' and I'll get down sliding around thune après leur numéro. snatch her purse got the bitches comment elles récoltent la a metal pipe, nouveau. game, fellow. pockets, I'll face! whores so you Si je revois cette pute sur could slide upon So what you Qu'est-ce que tu vas le trottoir, je lui vide les You batch that Si tu lui en fous sur la me and snatch gonna do, man? faire ? Tu vas faire quoi, poches, je lui pique son did, the way you trémoussent à la perche, a real hard with pigeront qu'il y a du you're out of the je lui tranche la gorge. everythin' you Comment tes salopes se mouth, or go out avec un tube de fer, elles you gonna do? them cause sac, après e me la tape et I'm lovin' J'adore ce que je vois... bitch in her gueule, ou tu la cognes one or two of What the fuck putain ?

A FISH CALLED WANDA (UK:15 ; FR : TOUS PUBLICS) DVD: ACCORD PARENTAL.

	Otto Otto George Otto	Same driver Wanda Wanda No one	In a street By the river, Court Same	bit fast and nearly aquarium and Wanda arrives, And he gets his sentence Wanda is saying down (to be nice but Otto does not Wanda just and he's leaving He steps in Georges qui	00:40:05 01:02:09 01:25:16 01:37:58	bastard who Asshole! intellectual inferior accents. [seeing -Don't call me doing robbing your blue. I like you, You bitch! You Shit! God! Fucking connexion avec « trou de son	mouchardé ! Connard ! atrophiés du quand elle Ne me traite pas vous foutiez... à bourre ! Je vous Salope ! Espèce Merde ! Putain	l'a balancé ! J'adore ce Connard ! cerveau. J'ai horreur des Ne me traite pas de dérober tout ce qui Et bonne bourre ! Je vous Sale garce ! Tu n'es Et merde ! Bon Dieu !
		apparently	sort of	hit the other car. Wanda saw him. Otto is shouty. He starts by because Otto that it was stupid and looks like a know and he's condemned Otto. with Wanda. cement. reprend les mots		squealed! I live that -I thought you British faggots. Ken listening on stupid! own house? You Archie. I just want fucking bitch! What the bloody limey cement! les hommes, la cul ». Le	J'adore ce mec ! cerveau ! Quelle fonctionne ! de débile ! cambrioler votre aime bien de salope ! de ciment	mec ! races inférieures. Ils sont débile ! t'appartient déjà ? Sale aime bien, Archie ! Je ne qu'une misérable pute ! Putain de ciment anglais !
	Who Otto An old woman Otto Wanda A driver Otto George Otto Otto Otto Otto Wanda Archie Otto Otto Wanda Wanda Otto Wanda Otto Wendy Otto Otto Otto Otto Otto Wendy Archie's friend? Otto Otto Ken George George Otto Wendy Archie Wanda Otto Otto Otto Otto Otto Qui Éditeur Georges Daisy Daisy Daisy Daisy Daisy Daisy	To whom Ken A man with a long grey coat Wanda Otto Otto and Wanda None Otto Ken's fishes Ken's fishes Ken Ken No one Wendy (his wife) Young men (considering the car) Wanda Otto Otto Archie's wife, Wendy Otto Wanda Archie Archie Archie Wanda No one Archie No one Archie Archie Archie No one Ken is there Same Ken No one George Taxis A driver Archie Archie Ken No one (maybe Wanda and Archie but they can't hear him) À qui Écrivain Daisy Georges Georges Georges Georges Georges Georges	Where George's flat Otto met Ken and Why he's laughing at his stammer. in the street He pushed her, walked above her dog In a flat They are kissing and laughing at the little trick they played to Ken and George to whom they made believe they were brother and sister. Same Same In the street on the other side of George's flat George got arrested and Wanda and Otto want to flee. Otto's driving a In the garage where they hid the diamonds Otto opens the strong-box (Wanda is also surprised: she was planning to knock him down and leave with the diamonds) and there's nothing inside. So he gets really angry and shout about George. In the visitors' room (prison) George is not happy that Otto came with Wanda. In George's flat Otto is hitting the surface of water with a bottle-brush while shouting at them. Same Throwing the bottle-brush in the aquarium. Same Ken arrived, hid the key in the chest in the Ken realizes Otto he's here too and Otto is playing his part. Near the elevator, a few stairs under the flat Otto is flirting with Ken, to avoid him believing he had sex with Wanda. Getting out of the key maker store She just learned that she cannot find out where is the hole for the key. Their bedroom He just called his wife Wanda, saying "Good night, Wanda"? Outside the court Otto is still playing his gay part to Ken to know what George asked him to do. meditating. He starts driving and again almost hit a car (same one than previouly) In the car About what Wanda might do with Archie, the lawier. In Archie's house While his wife and daughter are away, Archie is spending time with Wanda, and that does not please Otto, who comes in. Same Archie is downstairs. Otto is saying that he was "worried". Same Wife and daughter walked in. And Otto is making a diversion, but Archie's wife called him stupid. Outside Archie's house Wendy thought the necklace was for her and that helped Wanda to get out. She's shouting in whispering. George's flat He just came in and stitting on the bed, he is looking in Wanda's private effects (bag, letter) answering Wanda's question: "Then why are you here?", because he just said he had no news. Their house, sitting on the sofa (living-room) Archie is trying to get Wanda's necklace back but Wendy, despite his explanation, does not want to get rid of it. [standing up and angrily] In a flat (belongs to Archie's friends) Archie is talking to Wanda saying "how can a girl so bright have a brother so..." but he cannot finish appears. Same Otto threw Wanda out of the flat, and he's now asking Archie to apologize. And Archie just asked "Are you totally deranged?" In a diagonalley Shouting about what happened with Archie. disused port because Archie is their best lead to the loot. In his car Training to say sorry to Archie. Archie's house Archie was robbing his own house to get Wanda's locket back but Otto knocked him hero for Archie, without realizing it was Archie) Same Archie is on the floor when she goes upstairs. He swallows Wanda's locket and she realizes they've been robbed. Archie's friend's flat Archie is naked in the middle of the living room when a man, two women, a baby and 3 children come in. Archie's garden Otto is running after Archie to say he's sorry but Archie is terrified he might beat him up again. Same Archie just broke up with Wanda, giving his blessing to Archie. But he's doing that pointing a gun under Archie's nose. A flat in front of the building where the old woman he's supposed to kill live. He just missed again and killed the 3 rd dog. Visitors' room, prison Ken just told him the old woman is dead. Same Same (meanwhile, he planned their leave to Rio) George's flat Otto does not want to believe that Ken killed "Granny" (now he owes a pound to Ken) And Archie just called Wanda "darling" (his wife is also there) Same She's coming downstairs to see Archie. Prison's room Archie just came in, and there are some policemen in the room. [strange: no shouting from Archie but still "!" in the subtitles] Just outside the court She's trying to get to the airport In the street Archie just came up to the flat, Otto got in the car Airport Archie took Otto's gun but he got it back and he's now threatening Archie. Same Otto wants to kill Archie but first he wants to humiliate him. They are near a plane, and there's an oil waste barrel. And Otto makes Archie step in. Background: Ken arrives, driving a steamroller truck. Same Ken is driving straight to him and on him as well. On the plane's wing He survived because of the cement. He's covered of it and he's looking at Archie and Wanda by the plane window. Où Pourquoi de Daisy pour son Téléphone À propos d'une biographie de roman. Café Daisy lui a dit Céline mais pas qu'elle ne méritait d'accord écrit de pas son René. Café À propos de son métier. attachement. Café Récit (à propos d'argent). Idem Récit de comment elle est devenue une putain. Idem Récit. Idem Récit d'écriture de lecture d'une page Chambre À la suite de la	When 00:03:16 00:09:01 00:11:34 00:11:40 00:13:40 00:14:20 00:16:41 00:21:01 00:21:10 00:23:45 00:24:52 00:27:14 00:35:53 00:37:39 00:41:20 00:45:12 00:45:17 00:48:02 00:49:46 00:52:30 00:54:13 00:58:41 00:59:16 01:01:46 01:03:31 01:05:56 01:07:00 01:11:32 01:14:03 01:14:48 01:16:00 01:17:07 01:17:37 01:18:22 01:26:13 01:26:54 01:28:25 01:30:32 01:36:05 01:36:36 01:38:56 01:40:25 Quand 00:07:28 00:59:23 00:14:41 00:38:53 00:15:15 00:17:36 00:33:32 00:44:40	OV I had a friend in the CIA, who had a stutter. It cost him his life, dammit. Look where you are going! Chauvinist pig! Do you believe those cockney klutzes bought our story? What morons! Even if you were my brother, I'd still want to fuck you. Asshole! Son of a bitch! Piss off! Hey! Wake up! Wake up, blimey fish! Fucking insects! Isn't it terrible about George? When I find the man! [shouting] May I kiss you, Ken? -No, you fucking can't! [escaping from Otto and raising his voice] Fuck! [muttering, getting out of the shop] Sorry darling. Just a stupid case I have tomorrow with some lousy old hag. Fuck off or I'll kill you! Limey fruits! Hey! I'm merrely curious! Me, jealous of that fop? -What about my tits? -Does he get to handle them? -Yes. That's my forecast. I'll stand by that. -Nuzzling? -I think $20 million is worth a nuzzle. 80% chance there. -Sucking? weren't jealous. -I'm not. I don't believe in jealousy. It's for the weak. One thing, though. Touch his dick and he's dead! Get the fuck out of here, Otto! I was faking, you stupid jerk! The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire! Are you fucking crazy? -Hey, I saved you ass! -I had him right where I wanted, you asshole! -Hey... -I gave you one thing to do, Otto! One fucking thing! You were supposed to drive me and shut up! -Oh, relax. I'm here, because I'm bored. Bored, wandering around this awful city, shoving George's ugly pic... [sight] Talking to a lot of snottt, stuck-up, Jesus, they are up tight. They get rigor mortis in the prime of life in this country. [takes a letter from Wanda's bag] Standing there with their hair clenched just... [hesitation after seeing the name on the enveloppe]counting the seconds till the weekend, so they can dress up like ballerinas, at the flat at four, 2B, Saint... [reading] To be honest, I... er [from now, raises his voice]hate them. I mean, pretending they are so fucking "lawyer".. so fucking superior with their phoney the bedroom doorstep]Not you Ken. You've got a beautiful voice when it works. [directed at Archie (absent) and standing up to enquire Wanda about him without alarming Ken]Son of a bitch! Tell them they can't have it! You're the bloody barrister! -Don't call me stupid. -Jesus Christ! You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead asshole! [slowly, almost chanted] -How very interesting. You're a true vulgarian, aren't you? -You're the vulgarian, you fuck! Now, apologize! -You said you were not planning to see him! -I knew you'd come along and fuck it up. -Oh right! To call you stupid is an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. You think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape? -Apes don't read philosophy. [looking very proud of himself] I'm so very, very, very, very s... Fuck you! I'm s... I mean, how could you expect me to guess? -Stupid jerk! What the fuck are you asshole! [kicking Archie and shouting]You stupid, stiff, pompous English! God Almighty! Bloody hell! What the hell are you doing? -I might ask you the same question. Will you shup up? -Jesus Christ, don't kill me! Just go ahead, pork away, pal. Fuck her to help. Oh God! Unbe-fuck-alievable! Unbe-fuck-alievable! Bullshit! You're lying! -Restrain this man! [judge] -Come here, you bastard! [still running after Wanda] Bloody hell! We've got to talk. -Tell those pigs to fuck off. -Fuck off, pigs. Did you hear what I said? Fuck … off. Taxi! Taxi! Please... shit! Taxi! Asshole! hell... [Otto shoots at him] Now get your hands up! No! You spineless bimbo! You English! You think you're superior, don't you? Well, you're the filth of the planet! A bunch of pompous, badly dressed, poverty-stricken, sexually repressed football hooligans. Goodbye Archie. -At least, we're not irretrievably vulgar. Jesus, I said I'm sorry! What the fuck...? Aaagh! -Got him! Got you again! You bastard! Hey, I've lost my stutter! It's gone! Asshole! VF queue. J'la spectateur ne voit Ah bullshit un branle, j'la suce, rien, mais j'la mets dans un Georges oui. accord verbal ! d'mes trous. Mais Tu te prends pour ça r'joint jamais quoi ? Une l'coeur. Zéro merde. sentiment. Un blow job, on Pour se faire -Encore moins. en a vite fait le sucer, pour se Un néant. tour, il n'y a pas faire baiser, les Comme si j'avais de manuel de la hommes y vont été rappé par parfaite suçeuse. pas beaucoup par toutes les queues Il avait la queue quatre chemins. qui sont passées dans la main, il Il n'y a pas en moi. J'ai plus se branlait. beaucoup de d'âme. Plus Ou je les laissais C'est ma seule « vulve » et le voit des queues. montre sa voit jamais. On Scène où elle lui sentiments, on en directement. l'habitude, des demander On perd jamais le exibant ma vulve. enculer, y vont se masturber en délicatesse. Mais d'coeur.	SV J'avais un ami bègue à la CIA. Ça lui a coûté la vie ! Regarde où tu vas, mal élevé ! Ces cockneys ont gobé notre bobard ! Les cons ! Même si tu étais mon frère, je voudrais te grimper. Connard ! L'enfoiré ! Fous le camp ! Réveillez-vous, rosbifs à nageoires ! Putains d'insectes ! Pauvre George ! Si je trouve le salaud qui a Je peux t'embrasser ? -Tu te fous de moi ? Non traduit. Navré, chérie, une affaire idiote que j'ai demain avec une vieille taupe. Barrez-vous ou je vous tue ! Enculés de rosbifs ! Touche lui la bite et il est mort ! Tire-toi, Otto ! Je faisais semblant, débile ! La plus microscopique province de merde de l'Empire Russe ! T'es à côté de tes pompes ! -Je t'ai sauvé les miches ! -Je le tenais, connard ! Je t'ai demandé une seule chose ! Me conduire ici ! Ta gueule ! -Oh, relax ! Parce que j'en ai marre ! Marre de traîner dans cette ville pourrie à cause de George ! De causer à ces pédés anglais bande de coincés ! Ils sont raides morts de leur vivant dans ce pays ! Figés, les cheveux plaqués … Attendant le week-end pour se déguiser en ballerines... et se précipiter comme des dingues « à 4h au 2-B »... « et bien à toi »... Eh bien... à toi, je peux le dire. Je les déteste tous ! C'est vrai ils se croient tous si procureurs ! Supérieurs ! Si supérieurs avec leurs accents bidons ! Pas toi, Ken ! Ta voix m'enchante... Fils de pute ! Dites-leur qu'ils ne l'auront pas ! C'est toi, le foutu avocat ! Ne me traitez pas de débile ! Non traduit. Espèce de crâneur pompeux ! Snobinard ! Rosbif géant ! Avorton ! Sac à merde ! Branleur ! Tête de noeud ! Trouduc ! -Très intéressant ! La vulgarité personnifiée ! -Vulgaire vous même, enfoiré ! Excusez-vous ! Tu ne devais pas le voir ! -Je savais que tu foutrais tout en l'air ! -Te traiter de débile, c'est insulter les débiles ! Y'a des moutons plus futés que toi, des tailleurs moins cintrés ! Mais tu te crois un intellectuel, pauvre singe ! -Je lis les philosophes. Je suis vraiment vraiment... Enculé ! Je sss... Comment j'aurais pu le savoir ? Dites -moi comment ! Pauvre crétin ! Qu'est-ce que maison ? Pauvre con ! Stupide Anglais coincé et prétentiard ! Non traduit. Quelle merde ! Que faites-vous ? -Je vous retourne la question. Fermez-la ! -Mon Dieu ! Ne me tuez pas ! Allez-y ! Baisez-la !Et bonne Archie ! Je ne veux que vous aider ! Mon Dieu ! Foutrement pas croyable ! Foutrement pas croyable ! Foutaises ! Tu mens ! -Retenez cet homme ! -non traduit. Quelle merde ! -Nous devons parler. -Dis à ces pourris de se barrer ! -Barrez-vous, pourris ! Vous avez entendu ! Barrez...vous ! Taxi ! Je vous en prie ! Merde ! Connard ! -qu'est-ce que vous... Mains en l'air ! -Non. -Pauvre clown invertébré ! Vous, les Anglais ! Vous vous croyez si supérieurs ! Vous êtes la fiente de la planète ! Un tas de pompeux ! De mal fringués, de miséreux, de refoulés sexuels ! De hooligans de football ! Adieu, Archie ! -Nous ne sommes pas vulgaire, nous ! anglais ! J'ai demandé pardon ! -Je l'ai eu ! Je t'ai encore eu, mon salaud ! Je ne bégaye plus ! C'est fini ! Connards ! VO Nope	DV J'avais un copain à la CIA qui bégayait. Il est mort, le pauvre. Regardez où vous marchez ! Les bonnes manières se perdent. Quand je pense que ces cockneys à la con ont gobé toutes nos salades ! Non mais quel bande de demeurés ! Même si t'étais mon frère, j'aurais envie de te baiser. Connard ! Quel salopard ! Barre-toi, connard ! Debout, les angluches ! Putains d'insectes ! C'est vraiment affreux pour George. Quand je trouverai le salopard qui Laisse-moi t'embrasser ! -Non, il n'en est pas question ! Non traduit. Désolé, chérie. Ce n'est qu'une affaire stupide que je dois plaider demain matin pour une espèce de vieille sorcière. Barrez-vous les anguleux ou je vous descend ! Rosbifs de merde ! Touche-lui la zigounette et je le tue ! Mais tire-toi tout de suite, merde! Mais c'était du cinéma ! T'es complètement débile ! La plus microscopique province de merde de l'Empire soviétique et rien de plus ! Mais t'es complètement malade ? -Héé, j't'ai sauvé les miches ! -J'l'avais chauffé à blanc, il était à point, connard ! -Hé hé hé -J't'ai demandé qu'une chose, Otto, une seule. De me conduire ici et de fermer ta gueule, con ! -Relax. J'suis v'nu ici parce que j'en ai marre. Marre de me balader dans cette saleté de ville, voir partout la seule gueule de G... de passer ma vie à causer à ces pédés de rosbifs constipés du tous complètement éteints, c'est le pays des mort-vivants. C'est vrai, quoi, il n'y a qu'des zombies ici. Ils sont tous au garde-à-vous, les dents serrés, à toute la... en comptant les secondes, là, jusqu'au week-end pour pouvoir enfin s'habiller comme des ballerines et puis se préciper à l'appartement n°4 et bien à toi... eh bien, à toi, j'peux l'dire. Je les hais cordialement. Les enfoirés ! Les enfoirés ! Ils se croient tous avocats ces connards ! Euh supérieurs, ils se croient tous supérieurs. Avec leur foutu accent tonique. Non pas toi, Ken. Toi, t'as une voix magnifique, quand elle veut bien sortir. Fils de pute ! Dis-leur que je ne leur rendrai jamais ! Tu es avocat, oui ou non ? Ne m'traite pas d'bile ! -Nom de Dieu ! Gros pompeux ! Sale type ! Enquiquineur ! Espèce d'Anglais, de grand canari déplumé ! Gros tas de merde ! Vieil enflure ! Connard ! Sale con ! -Oh, vraiment très intéressant. Vous êtes le roi de la vulgarité et de l'insulte ! -C'est toi qui es vulgaire, espèce d'enfoiré ! Et je veux des excuses ! Tu m'avais pas dit que tu projetais de le revoir ! -C'est parce que je savais que tu viendrais foutre ta merde ! -Oh t'as raison ! Te traiter de débile, c'est carrément une insulte à tous les débiles profonds ! Y'a sûrement des vaches aussi intelligentes que toi, j'ai conduit des bagnoles qui étaient plus rusés que toi ! Mais toi, tu t'imagines que t'es un intellectuel, espèce de veau-marin ! -Les veaux-marins ne lisent pas de philosophie. Je suis vraiment vraiment vraiment dé... Enfoiré ! Je ssssuis... Hé, comment est-ce que j'aurais pu le savoir ? C'est vrai ! Comment j'aurais pu deviner que... que tu étais déranger au point de venir toi-même con ! Andouille ! Connard ! Saloperie d'Anglais ! Oh, Dieu tout puissant ! Putain de merde ! Mais qu'est-ce que vous foutez ici ? -Je pourrais vous retourner la même question ! Fermez-la ! -Nom de Dieu ! Otto, ne me tuez pas ! Alors, continuez ! Baisez-la comme elle le mérite ! veux qu'vous aider ! Oh, mon Dieu ! Sacré putain de bordel ! C'est pas croyable ! Sacré putain de bordel ! C'est pas croyable ! Menteur ! C'est des conneries ! -Retenez cet homme ! -Viens ici, salopard ! Bon de Dieu de merde ! Il faut que nous parlions. -Demandez d'abord à ces enfoirés de se barrer ! -Barrez-vous, enfoirés ! Vous avez entendu ce que j'ai dit : Ba-r-rez-Vous ! Taxi ! Arrêtez-vous ! Chiotte ! Taxi ! Connard ! -Vous n'êtes pas un... Levez les mains en l'air ! -Non. -Pauvre clown invertébré ! Vous, les Anglais ! Vous vous croyez si supérieurs aux autres ! Mais vous êtes la fiente de toute cette planète ! Une bande de crève-la-faim, pompeux, anguleux, mal-fringués ! Vous n'êtes qu'un tas de hooligans sexuellement sous-développés ! Allez, au revoir, Archie ! -Au moins, nous ne sommes pas irrécupérablement vulgaires ! J'ai dit je m'excuse ! Ça va... aaah ! -Je t'ai niqué ! Ça t'apprendra ! Hey ! Je ne bégaye plus là ! Ça y est ! Connards ! VOSTFR Nope

JON HURWITZ,

HAYDEN SCHLOSSBERG, HAROLD ET KUMAR S'EVADENT DE GUANTANAMO (UK:18 ; FR : TOUS PUBLICS AVEC AVERTISSEMENT)

	sécurité américain Elle enlevait son aurait rien eu à They know one Found a nest Trying to use negotiate a price Fiaman stands decides to make Hitting him with he's seen in what Talking about the Flat, bedroom She was shooting Idem Vanessa, Building Same Site manager Both in their Une fille, Another To the one Stevie Going out of Others Same Susan Susan Same Site manager Same guy Raza A young Unclear The chief Susan Larry Stevie Steve Same Getting angry	00:25:09 00:06:48 00:14:43 00:22:42 00:45:57 00:57:21 01:12:20 01:15:39 01:20:43	temps les restes Hey, remets ce avec sa tout bandante, il se coupe les cat fucking bury a turd Put that back on cut your fucking sa crotte sous un Remets ça et garde-le ! … de Tic-Tac, j'ai les the councils put Put your leg up. Allez, empêche-les de Ah he's picking them Putain, il les touche ! For Christ's sake, will Pour l'amour du ciel, You have no clue. T'y connais rien. C'est Talkin' about shithole, À propos d'endroits What the fuck are you Qu'est-ce que tu fous, It's a fuckin' nightmare. C'est un cauchemar. smile on you fucking Get on your bloody Démerdez-vous pour
	man	H&K young man picking up	Colton (flats) in the offices. the theatre	était une passoire. haut de maillot. foutre de lui. RIFF RAFF, KEN LOACH (UK: 15; FR: TOUS PUBLICS) du bong] soutif ! [...] petite bite. passe pas un jour couilles. [Il le (enculé, on a frozen pond. together... flat is empty but -Thank you for the up with his fuckin' both the phone somebody speak to me? and keep it on! with some hot, balls off. iceberg ! -Un putain de squat! Tu te crois où ? valseuses en folie. -Châtré. passer. -Merci du parlez-moi ! for his service. up. him a joke. her sheet music They're all wankers in tous des enculés dans -Look, Susan, you're -Tu vis dans une state they are. site, and then of this is a bit of a merdiques, c'en est un up (?) doing? bordel ? And it doesn't get any Et ça va pas en face. bike and find him, for le trouver ! On peut
	Qui Un gars avec un flingue Un gars avec un flingue Un secrétaire d'État Le secrétaire d'État Terroriste Big Bob Harold Raza Le secrétaire d'État Un ami à Kumar Le fermier H&K À qui Kumar Aux passagers Idem Avion Où Président de la NSA Aéroport Harold et Kumar Salle d'interrogatoire H&K Guantanamo H&K Idem Kumar Sur un bateau H&K Propriété de Raza Parents de H&K Pentagone Kumar Téléphone, Forêt en Alabama Chez le fermier Vanessa Kumar Rêve Kumar Harold Forêt, Alabama, la nuit Site manager A worker Same (adolescent?) stairs the little rats A white Fiaman Same Fiaman Mo Same Owner of the Children Car park near Mo Shem (jean Same Susan Stevie Site Site manager On the phone Site, a roof Who To whom Where (just arrived) Stevie Young man Stevie's flat worker (black truck Stevie's flat jacket!) Larry Others Same Harold Vanessa Mariage in his flat worker) Stevie Susan Same Jean Jacket Fiaman Same White Fiaman and Site (on a Mo Larry Same Site manager Building In a portacabin Explaining them Pourquoi Il vient de faire tomber son bong. Kumar et Harold sont maintenant tous les deux arrêtés. Le président vient de suggérer qu'il faudrait prévenir un autre secrétaire, alors à la pêche. Le secrétaire s'énerve contre eux, croyant qu'ils ont pensé que le système de Ils parlaient de nourriture. Ils sont sur le point de passer à table. Ils se dirigent vers les États-Unis Ils viennent d'arriver en plein milieu d'une fête. Ils prends les parents pour des immigrés. Il vient de lui demander ce qu'est un pumpkin (?) On toque à la porte pendant le repas. H&K paniquent, s'expliquent et le fermier décide de les aider. Ils sont au lit. Ils se disputent et en viennent à parler de Maria, la copine de Harold, qui est à Amsterdam. The worker they don't want and the walkie-Same Fiaman raises his He starts to run Laughing at its conditions. She wants to talk Why wanted to give the others to get Stevie arrived talkie. Chief got voice. when the others Larry. Same and the only Ils viennent d'interrompre le him his P-45 in (they saw them and found his angry. "Oh shit" are laughing. The He said she has thing he answers (chomdû) arriving) door unlocked. is about his foot. Same children took him Just has time to to find something From "we're is "nothing to Second-in-workers Outside on the Told them what A man with To the young Same They want to go He pinned him He hurt it and his jacket and worker (the two others roof) say that and then, worth and she all..", Larry is say". Site manager Shem Same Question of work 01:19:12 Quand 00:11:37 00:12:04 00:13:09 00:14:48 00:17:19 00:18:47 00:21:23 00:23:20 00:28:49 00:37:48 00:42:35 00:42:49 00:48:39 00:03:14 00:29:37 00:30:45 00:36:39 00:52:28 01:14:37 01:19:04 When 00:15:34 00:57:29 01:25:09 00:51:09 00:29:57 00:46:33 00:52:40 00:03:44 00:07:07 Kumar Membres du Ku Kux Clan Réunion dans les bois Ils racontent ce qu'ils ont fait à un membre d'une minorité. 00:52:12 mariage et workers what's happening chief site to do. [Margaret Larry man with his upstairs. against the wall. that's why he said radio. first one who almost falls. mentioned already running, Shem Others Same Talking about the 00:57:40 Susan Steve Same 01:14:45 Susan Steve Same 01:15:51 Kumar Colton Aéroport Il les a vendus. 01:12:38 expliquent ce qu'a fait Colton. if they clock on → because he leg up Larry Stevie Same About his tools 00:09:50 "bloody war Jean Jacket Fiaman Same Fiaman is getting 00:31:24 Stevie "business A pub Apparently, 00:40:00 refused to boxers. does not listen unions. late. said Thatcher Larry Two workers Site From the roof, 00:11:33 zone" (see nervous, tries to man" Stevie nicked sth give £5) = Stevie Susan Same He said she 00:51:24 anymore. Fiaman Same guy Same 01:20:51 was asking for it] on top of a they are throwing previously) obtain £5 from and he's now Kevin should talk about Larry Site Site manager Telling them 00:58:45 Site manager Fiaman Same A problem: no 01:19:40 Second-in-A worker Inside a The worker told 00:04:23 Larry Jean Jacket? Same Another worker 00:06:15 builging garbage in the Site manager Workers A building About 00:21:25 Larry To the men Pub Susan was 00:24:44 each. trying to sell it Stevie Susan Flat. Bedroom Trying to wake 00:49:48 something else manager, "office" about the bad Steve Susan Same 01:15:58 rolls. Site manager Workers Same No signing of the skips: one said he 00:02:23 chief building him he was from provoked Larry skip. plasterboards in the pub singing but they Fiaman White Same Same 00:30:00 without making it her up. Reproach than herself second-in-conditions. Site manager Not really Same 01:19:46 Site manager Shem Same Shem used the 01:21:04 Bristol. The saying he voted Larry The two Site Larry 00:11:58 all started to worker know that it's Shem Larry Lunch room Larry is clean 00:55:12 chief anyone in (Seamus) phone to call his Le secrétaire Goldstein et ?, amis de H&K Pentagone Il veut savoir le complot terroriste d'H&K. 00:55:53 Un ami en voiture, Neil Patrick H&K Sur la route vers le Texas Ils parlent de leurs ex. 00:57:42 Neil H&K Idem Ils viennent de passer le barrage de police. 01:02:11 Harold Kumar Propriété du futur époux de Ils viennent d'arriver. 01:08:31 Harold Colton Idem Il vient de lui dire qu'en fait, s'il n'avait pas copier sur H en économie, il n'en 01:12:55 didn't know they second then Thatcher. workers chant "get off!" nicked. Susan Stevie Same He stepped over 00:50:12 (used the mother particular could do that. Site manager A black worker Same The worker asked what type of things the site manager saw. 00:02:29 sends him with a Stevie Site manager Second-in-Same About a guy 00:21:36 puis "off!" Larry ? unseen Fiaman Same Fiaman is getting 00:31:42 Stevie The two A theatre They are talking 00:45:15 her, and took the bathroom) Site manager Someone Same Same problem 01:20:00 Mo None Same About the police 01:22:01 worker from Larry To someone Same He is checking on 00:08:36 (Gus?) chief waiting for the is coming on Fiaman Jean Jacket Same Same 00:30:10 angry. producers during Susan's duvet. She throws Shem Larry Same One wants to go 00:56:52 Larry Site Same Same 00:58:54 unseen down Steve Mo Same Mo wanted to 01:22:07 Site manager A black worker Same Site manager (no pissing in the Site manager A worker Same Worker (any chance for the sun?) 00:02:55 worker, Mo. bank. He tries to out asking Mo if are from another rat going to the 5, which makes chair, Larry the theatre room angry suddendly gets while Larry talks privatization. Unclear Unclear Lunch room Trying to catch a 00:13:57 do that as he's gives 3 instead of with a beach Susan Stevie Going out of Reproach. 00:45:44 Susan Stevie Same living Both getting 00:50:52 toilets and paradise. ashed papers. Larry Stevie Same Interventions 00:06:00 criticizing site) him if he could money. White went upstairs producers clapping. Elton John. Mo Larry Site Larry entered the 00:52:23 said it was a swinging the on everyone. problem = hygienic) Jean Jacket Larry Same Larry is again 00:09:22 Site manager A worker Outside (on Shouting 00:22:06 worker) cash and asked bank with the help. So when he Stevie The Same They are all three 00:45:37 who roadied for Fiaman Black worker Same Black worker 00:57:13 Robbie Woman Garden She spreads them 01:09:37 Steve Susan Same 01:15:14 Site manager Same guy Same Apparently, 01:20:12 (not very smoking. going up. worker (black and they'd like worker back from the bit reluctant to "Banty". not call the guy I have for Africa. Jake corners) Worker 00:02:44 are all sitiing, Site manager Man in suit Same Same 00:12:12 the workers were A white Fiaman Site They got checks 00:29:28 White Fiaman Lunch room Fiaman came 00:30:40 of the truck is a one is calling for Susan Stevie Same Because he didn't 00:50:33 was in fact saying (brother?)= them up as they site window downstairs and worker in, and the owner producer angry. The other the flat. have". But he family wants them. did not wake Site manager A man in suit Room near the Looking at the 00:12:09 wanted to go Susan Stevie Stevie's flat She's dressing up. 00:28:03 White Fiaman Same Same 00:30:14 Larry No one Stevie's flat Susan is moving 00:36:13 Stevie One of the Same Stevie's getting 00:45:24 the duvet through Larry said "I member of smoking. maybe Robbie delivered. jacket asking them if he the manager hear him. calm him down. producers dragging her with end. in Liverpool. Stevie Another Outside, When he said 01:07:02 Site manager A guy Same Rolls not 01:20:04 with a jean lunch. Jean Jacket Larry Same Larry arrived, 00:09:00 (jean jacket) broken because everyone could Larry Fiaman Same Larry is trying to 00:32:12 Stevie The two Same 00:45:20 And he's And crying in the hasn't even been chief A worker Stevie Lunch room They're having 00:44:56 A worker Site manager Same A plasterboard is 00:21:49 and he asked if not listening. duvet, angry. door She's shouting. He told him he second-in-the police. Liverpool. else the gas. manager scene to speak songs, obviously herself on the Susan Stevie Same, near the He's leaving. 00:51:42 back to Africa. manager, the building throw bricks at	VF T'es tombé dans le mauvais avion, sale enculé d'terroriste ! Dites au pilote de faire demi-tour. Ces deux salopards retournent aux États-Unis. Bon alors écoutez, docteur trou de bite, vous n'avez encore jamais pêché sur la banquise apparemment. On savait que vous reviendriez, bande d'enculés. [Il jette en même Vous avez déjà entendu parler de sandwichs à la viande de bite ? Se faire sucer la bite, ça n'a rien d'un truc gay. Tu nous as bien baisé, toi. Il faut trouver c'qu'on va faire quand on va débarquer aux États-Unis. Moi je lance une nouvelle mode, la chatte à l'air. Putain, je déteste la vulgarité. Ils vont y r'tourner, ces enculés ! Morts ou vifs ! C'est quand une fille te suce sur les chiottes quand t'es en train de chier. Nous aussi, c'est pas la première fois que le gouvernement il nous baise. C'était horrible de faire semblant d'avoir du plaisir Elle a sûrement deux bites non circoncises devant sa bouche et elles se les frottent contre les amydales. sans que je pense à Tashonda. Chaque fois que je vois une pointe du doigt après être sorti de la voiture] Les couilles ! What's this about -What's that? compliment but you hands! Fuck all. You lying man! Get back here, you this business. They livin' in a fuckin' Shem, he still uses that You picked the VO wrong plane, you terrorist fucker! Tell them to turn the plane around. These two assholes are going back to the US. Well listen, Dr Deepshit, you've obviously never been on a ice-fishing before. We knew, you fuckers would be back! Ever heard of a cock-sandwich? Fuck no! There's nothing gay about being sucked. You're the ones who're gay for sucking my dick. How about you focus? We've got to figure out what to do when we go to the States. Yeah, but I'm starting a bottomless trend. Hence, the bottomless party. … what fucking party do you think this is? These fuckers are going down! Dead or alive. It's when a girl gives you a hand when you're sitting on a toilet taking a shit. The government also screwed us before. That was agony pretending his puny little penis could satisfy me. Right now, she's probably got two uncircumcised random trim, a day hasn't gone by where I haven't thought -Jesus, ok! Balls! Garde-les tes compliment, mais tu Tu t'es gouré d'avion, VOSTFR terroriste de merde ! Que l'avion fasse demi-tour. On les ramène aux États-Unis. Eh bien... Dr Grochieur, vous ne connaissez pas Glacier Bay. On vous attendait ! Le sandwich-bite, tu connais ? N'est pas pédé celui qui se fait sucer, mais celui qui suce. Tu parles d'un merdier. Comment on va faire ? Je lance cette nouvelle mode. Donc : soirée chatte à l'air. On coincera ces enfoirés ! Morts ou vifs. Elle m'en a taillé une pendant que je chiais. Le gouvernement nous a aussi baisés. Comment sa petite bite aurait pu me combler ? En ce moment, elle a deux bites devant elle, qu'elle s'apprête à enfourner. -Va ! Que dalle. Sale menteur. Revenez là, petits ce métier. On te bulle, bordel ! Shem, il va toujours shithole, isn't it ? ici, non ? Jesus, you don't give a Putain, tu veux pas better. s'arrangeant. T'es une For Christ's sake, get Magne-toi le cul, j'ai Christ's sake. plus rien foutre à salopard, lancé à OV SV DV fuckin' P-45? papiers ? -He only wants a Il demande qu'un Not translated. don't seem to take any t'en fiches, hein ? Listen to me, wanker! I Ecoute, branleur, j'ai -Oh for fuck sake! -Oh, fait chier. Et little bastards. salopards ! fuckin' don't give you respecte pas. bubble! bug, the soft git. dans ces chiottes-là, We should stand up to Et on y vit. On devrait soddin' inch, do you? céder d'un pouce, junkie. Tant pis ! your finger out. I've assez de problèmes cause de vous, bande Colton) Mais au lieu de ça, il s'est But instead, he arranged us to Pas de fuckin' squat! squat, bordel! -Just put your fuckin' notice of it, do you? got a fuck home same rien ici. Comme toi. merde. -Blimey, he's a terrible -Ça c'est vrai, méfie-respect. If you're gonna Si tu veux détruire ce con. thos fellas in the office réclamer de hein ? You're a junkie though. enough troubles as it comme ça. Everything's at a stand de branleurs ! … s'est arrangé pour nous doublage. leg up. -On t'écoute pas. as you. If I ever found Si je te retrouve ici, Oh shit. They're ripping us off Ils nous arnaquent liar. I'd watch him if I toi. Tiens voilà mes 2 Fuck it, Camer... Je l'encule, le smashed somebody' mon rêve, fais-le Listen, Larry, you're And demand better meilleures conditions is. still through you Ecoute, Larry, t'es renvoyer à So the crux of it is, if Alors, ceux qui … = Fair enough, Bien, Margaret. -... the rest of the Move your leg, lad. Or Je te pète la jambe ! -We don't want to you or your asshole toi ou tes copains,t'es enough with the déjà, ils vont pas nous was you. Here's me two livres. Cameroun. dreams, try and get it bien ! bloody stupid. You gland. T'as qu'à bleedin' conditions. de travail. I'm not, I'm fuckin' not. It's out, for Christ's Quand c'est wankers, is it. dicks dangling in front of her throat. You know what she's gonna do with them? Down 'em into her tonsils. J'ai pris la brosse à dents d'un Coréen et je l'ai frotté sur ma teube. I took a Korean guy's toothbrush and I rubbed it all over my dick. barquette de fraises, je me mets à bander comme un Tchétchène. of Tashonda. Every time I see a bag of Hershey's Kisses, my balls get so -[Geste des mains] Vas-y ! débrouillé pour be sent back to Guantánamo,où on aurait you clock on late, you'll pointent tard... ils se quand Margaret. country... I'll fuckin' break it. listen. pals in here again, un homme mort. bleedin' tax. enculer pour la paie. pounds. -Fuckin' hell! [a fuckin' right, will ya? know where to go: up monter au quatrième, Well what have we got Et qu'est-ce qu'on a ? So what, I take some OK, ça m'arrive de You don't know Tu ne sais rien. T'as sake. That's the trouble commencé, faut pas -Go! T'es pire qu'une grosse merde en fait ! T'es qu'un You are a douchebag! A fucking T'es vraiment un putain d'empaffé ! nous renvoyer à Guantanamo où t'es obligé de sucer la grosse bite de Big Bob Guantanamo Bay, where we'd clock off a bloody sight repointent plus ici. phrase Not translated. -Change de ton. Billy Connolly L'Ecossais you're a fuckin' dead Five pounds? Cinq livres. Oh fuck off! Give it Putain ! Filez-moi ça. worker] -Bordel de merde ! the fourth floor, get et aller dans l'apprt now? We still got Bernique ! smack now and then. me shooter. C'est pas anything. You don't aucune idée ! with the bloody job. arrêter, c'est le I try to run a bloody... été obligés de sucer Big earlier, right? C'est compris ? divisée en -You're a fuckin' idiot. -He only asked for a You just fuckin' bottle There're people Y a des gens ici, man. You understand Dégage maintenant ! They're gonna put here. For fuck sake, try to Essaie de parler onto the scaffold, into témoin. C'est là qu'on bleedin' nothing. It's not the end of the la fin du monde ! Je fuckin' know. problème. Go around the corner Courez-lui après, Bob. deux fuckin' squat! it. -Ta gueule ! walking up and down, bande de glands ! me? You fuck off! themselves in shit to be -Five pounds. -C'est ça. talk about something d'autre chose, the show flat. We're are va tous. Quel gland, And you know one of Et le gars aurait pu se bloody world. I know sais ce que je fais. [shouting] I know there are no Je le sais bien ! and chase the man, bordel ! be forced to suck parties Oh right, a Un enculeur de Margaret Thatcher got Elle a eu 41 % des you dopy pair of sods! If you ruin any more, S'il y a de la casse, je I didn't know assholes Tiens, ça parle les fuckin' our wages over. For fuck sake, Susan, T'as raté le mec hier, else for a change! putain ! all bloody usin' it. celui-là. the lads had a bad turn briser les reins, avec what I'm doing... What happens when Quand t'en auras hey. bloody rolls. Big Bob's fat dick. You'll be surprised what some of you Tu serais surpris, sheepshagger. moutons... 41% of the votes. There suffrages mais 59 % You can fuck off. -Va te faire foutre ! I'm getting it out of retiens ça sur votre would speak! trouducs ? Five pounds, eh? Cinq livres. -You've got more -Va te faire voir chez you missed the guy bordel ! Stupid. Friggin' stupid. there on the l'échaffaudage. -Mes couilles, tu le you get fed up? When marre... et que tu te There's bloody fellas Local asshole. I don't Mon cul ! J'aime pas Ils se tournent les mon salaud. was another 59% voted ont voté contre elle. Hey there smartass! Tiens, ducon ! your bloody money, paie. chance of knittin' les Grecs. yesterday. […] […] God blimey! Who's Merde, alors ! Qui scaffolding, ha could've -You don't have a sais ! T'as la tête dans you start sellin' the mettras à vendre les standing idle up here. pouces, ici ! like smartasses. les petits malins. J'ai frotté la brosse d'un Coréen sur toute ma bite. C'est la fin de ces enculés ! These fuckers are going down! On va se les faire ! Le problème les mecs, c'est que bien que j'adore fourrer une bonne grosse pouffiasse bien The point is, boys, even though I love havin' sex Le fait est... que même si j'aime baiser des chaudasses à l'occasion, il n'y a pas un jour où je ne pense pas à Tashonda. Et dès que je vois une boîte wet. Je vais aller faire un tour dans un bordel, j'ai envie d'aller tremper ma queue. Si vous n'avez pas envie de tremper la vôtre, ce n'est pas un problème. I'm going to a whore-house and I'm gonna get my fuck on. If you two don't wanna get your dicks wet, that's fine with me. On ne discute pas ! Je vais au bordel pour tirer un coup ! Si vous voulez pas niquer, ça me dérange pas. Kumar, tu ouvres cette portière et j'te promets, j'te Kumar! Open the door and I will Kumar ! Si tu sors, je te châtre ! -D'accord. enfoiré ! -Oui, j'n'allais pas vous laisser foutre en l'air mon mariage. douchebag, fuck you! -Yeah, last thing I would let you guys do is ruin my wedding. -Pas question que vous flinguiez mon mariage. Dès que je serai sorti de ce merdier, j't'éclaterai ta putain d'gueule connard ! When we get out of this I'm gonna fucking kick your fucking ass, man! Quand je sortirai, je te démolirai ! si on veut déjeuner. bastards get up to. against her, son. No hassle off you. -Fais pas chier et ça lad. -I don't fucking like -Enfoiré. fuckin' fog Fuck you! Don't ever Enculé ! Ne me refais given you a scrubbin' c'est qui t'as broken his bloody fuckin' clue what you're un rêve ! Tu crois que fuckin' furniture, putains de meubles ? Thievin'! Signin' on under a false name, a casual approach to work, laziness, and fucking foul language -Putain, il veut qu'un ira bien. -You're a fuckin' loon -[not translated] Oh bollocks. Oh, fait chier. you. We've all got families... Not translated. I'm fuckin' talkin' to J'ai à vous causer ! fuckin' do that to me! jamais ça ! -Fuck you! I don't like -Sale con, j'aime pas down? détartré ? back! doin'. You wander c'est Noël ! anything you can get a Well, what the hell do Fuckin' bastard! Salauds ! Pourquoi vous croyez Du vol ! Travailler -He only wants a squat ! We use to own this C'était à nous avant by the way! Five pounds. Cinq livres. you. football! le foot ! You go every bleedin' T'y vas tous les 15 Every time, you pick Chaque fois, avec le about the fuckin' day fuckin' price for? -Salaud, espèce de you think we're qu'on crie ? On le We'll do the bastards. -sous un faux nom, You have more chance of seein' a one-legged on about it. zone. important people. j'essaie. for Christ's sake. Put a unijambiste enterrer rest of the country, all lourder! debate the way you go toi ! over there. confusion. Oh Christ. Bloody war C'est Beyrouth ici ! -Fucking bastard. do? Those were des gens importants. least.... fuck you! I try! rien, mais, merde, -Watch your language them. anything to please you, de voir un chat got tea-bagged. The travailliste s'est fait else. bleedin' parliamentary parlementaire avec The fucker sent him Not translated but I'll bloody bite it off. Baléares. Et merde ! What the hell did you Ça va pas ? Ce sont I might fail but at J'arriverai peut-être à that, do ya? dedans ? was drippin' out of coulait. only ever done some... bordel. for Christ's sake. Dieu ! T'as plus de chance What happened is, they Puis la municipalité fuckin' squat, nothing your mouth, it's like a droit à un discours shit! your finger out of it or toi. T'es pas aux bastard. you're taking three. -Enculé. bordel ! You don't fuckin' use Tu vas pas là-merde. done it! Thanks, Fi... travail ! fuckin' arms. Blood fichues, le sang en hurt you. Never! I've essayer de sourire, the paperwork's done, est en règle, nom de Jock? -But he only wants a Every time you open Chaque fois, on a happy as pigs in fuckin' la fange à rien foutre. You're on the job. Get Toi, là-haut, magne--You're a mean -Salopard de radin. a plunker and we hear Fuckin' clap! Applaudissez, bloody ring him. outside.] Matardi is a shithole ! Matardi est un trou à Now, you've fucking Putain ! Bravo. Beau No veins left in their Leurs veines étaient me. Fuck you! I never Merde, tu pourrais What paperworks? All Quels papiers ? Tout You're all right there, ass all day and they're comme cochons dans Fiaman. But you been chier, donc c'est 3. know. You could Appelle-le au moins. words: they are Espèce de salaud ! what you are. You don't fucking know plaisir, toujours. down. It's bloody downright filthy! -Right, yeah, Stevie. l'Écossais ? house, haven't ya? veut, c'est un squat ! Ask them to sit on their Ils sont heureux You can fuck off, mate. Que dalle, mon pote. Of course you did, Oui, mais tu nous fais You can bloody try, you Essaie, merde. creep! [these last -Va te faire foutre ! -Don't fuckin' tell me You don't know me. J'ai voulu que te faire bloody wagon go dire. -Oui, Stevie. Ça va, You've got a little -Putain, tout ce qu'il bastards. paresseux. aille. robbin' bastard. voleur de mes deux. wheels back, will ya? bordel ! ducky, clap! connard, applaudis ! fuckin' care about! -Fuck you! You fuckin' jamais fait de mal ! I've just seen the camionette ! Dégueulasse, tu veux -Stevie. mouthin' off all mighty. front there. Look at them, lazy Regarde-moi ces Shit! I've got to go! Merde, il faut que j'y Five pounds it is, you Va pour cinq livres, Hey, put them bloody Remettez les roues, Don't fuck it push it, Me gonfle pas, I don't see what you -Pousse-toi ! snort them. con ! -Don't you... You don't know... fuck! aucune idée. Je t'ai haven't been delivered? viens de voir la dégueulasse ! -Stevie. all right for you, t'as ton pavillon ! bleedin' awnings off the dégager les fenêtres. or anything. God. bastards yet. wouldn't charge that! Charles ferait pas ça. dieu ! "come on"]. I hate you! rien à foutre. -Move. [muttered] He'd probably fuckin' Il les snifferait, ce connais pas. T'en as What do you mean they Comment ça ? Je putain de vocabulaire Jock? -I know, he does. It's gueule. Toi, ça va, We just pulled the Putain, je viens de could have been a kid gosse. fuckin' done now. Oh que t'as fait ! you'll have them enculé. Blimey, Prince Charles Même le Prince Fuckin' clap, now. Applaudissez, bon [interspersed by his toute façon, t'en as pas ! minute. bastard! connais pas. Tu ne me rolls left. travail, paresse et un You're all right there, Ça va, l'Écossais ? -D'accord, grande pinched it off us. -Yeah, crackers, that aurait pu être un Ah look what you Putain, regarde ce -Give him fuck all, -T'auras que dalle, of shit, you know. Je te déteste ! De dare bloody go! pas, bordel, ne pars bloody electruc shock jus. party' goin' to start any t'es, bordel ! -Fuck you! You hit him] Tu ne me there are no bloody mauvaise attitude au friggin' squat! bloody stuff, till she qu'elle nous le pique. -T'es malade. Ça -I don't need this kind You creep! Fuck! Salaud ! Et merde ! Fuck you! Don't you Je t'emmerde. Ne pars two weeks to sign on! jours, pour l'ANPE. the Kango, you got a Kango, on prend le just lookin' like the Me dis pas ce que salopard ! [trying to shouting? Of course sait, bordel ! Yeah.

  -Il ne s'agit ni de classer méticuleusement des films selon un ordre bien particulier ; -Ni de classer les films selon leur genre (comédie, horreur, policier, etc.) -Mais il s'agit bel et bien de classification selon l'âge des spectateurs. Au Royaume-Uni, l'institution en charge de la classification est le BBFC -British Board of Film Classification, qui délivre des certificats de classification. En France, il s'agit de la Commission de Classification des OEuvres Cinématographiques, qui s'intègre dans un ensemble plus large, le CNC (Centre National de la Cinématographie). Elle délivre un visa d'exploitation, qui a deux faces distinctes dans le cadre de productions ou co-productions françaises : un visa d'exploitation nationale et un visa d'exploitation internationale.

	Annex 3 : Summary in French Introduction
	Combo Wiseguy l'équipe/ Le chef des Chris Mack Mari Père de	Shaun, Banjo, Milky To the Gary Gary Personne Femme Giselle	Same Same Idem Idem Cockpit Toilettes Maison	Talking about (dead?). And "ex-leper" reverse his palace. The man Because he vient de dire que Gary lui dit qu'il palais mais les vraie tête de du Nord mais Susan Sarandon, reconnaissent pas Il s'apprête à Elle lui passe sa À propos de	01:22:37 01:15:28 00:32:28 01:15:35 00:33:24 00:51:47 01:12:24	said, yeah? Know what I And he just, like, do you think fucking smile at I fucking hate you! him. I want some -[Combo] Do you out. [Starts talking suppose. Well, what fifth legion straight to Wiseguy: Miserable stone hard, you Roman c'est ça qu't'as flambeau à Quoi, il a genre vois, mon pote, comme ça, de merde ! lui en mettre une du tout à toi, doigt dans le vais lui J'en ai assez de notre base. Ça Ces sales connard de t'approche pas the fuck away les fourre dans your ass so that Ah c'est vrai. On Pull over? Yes, of couilles, vraiment balls, Hans. têtes de noeuds. three kinds of tu les as laissés quitter!! You J't'emmerde, Fuck you, she pacte. C'est un bond that cannot l'conduit, tu désobéir, on more step and Not like gay-Testicule 1 2 Testicles 1 2 Si je te dis Yeah, when I say. J'avais perdu change, it's been Et tu me dis que And you're tellin'	Il les a laissées et s'est t'ont rien fait. Fous-leur raconte, blair m'sieur. Dieu Oui, oui, oui, et de votre Désolé d'avoir Pauvre minable dure que tu vas Se ranger ? Bien sûr ! On cul. […] Les p'tites chattes Elle veut nous aider ! … s'agenouiller pour vous pipe, suçage de bourses, tes godasses en faux Rien à voir avec les gays, Testicules 1 2 Quand je dirai ''Arrête, D'habitude, c'est ''trou du Et tu ne vas pas y aller à
	Chris terroristes Giselle	Milky) Crucifixion	Aïe, putain, Écoute-moi, dit ? -je vais vomir... d'autres. -oh putain, je largué sa famille pour toi, ça putain. Arrête de Enfoiré ! -Connard, aussi. -Quoi ? Mais va putain. Laisse-les nez ! -Qui t'as demander s'il cette attitude, de ne fait rien, -Allez vous Romains ! Romain ! -J'ai l'ordre de TREY PARKER, TEAM AMERICA (UK:15 ; FR : TOUS PUBLICS AVEC AVERTISSEMENT) -Could I just have -Yeah. It's all right, mean? Milky's family. left these families makes a bad dad? me, cos I'll wipe You fucking Shaun is out. of this. We want want it, as well? to Milky] Milky... MONTY PYTHON, LIFE OF BRIAN (UK:15 ; FR : TOUS PUBLICS) Bignose's Wife: Don't Bignose's Wife: thing. So the ex-Brian: Oh, who cured situation. the thing was I was has been pushed Pontius Pilate: Shut our official head Crowd: [Silence] suggested to be bloody Romans! No git! his release. … est un expert trop de moi, from me! l'cul. Comme ça, the next time you devrait se ranger. se range, ils nous course! Pull se range, ils passent et on -Non, je vais bosser. Je Tu as dit renard ? Rectum -C'est à toi, c'est réel. tiré ? Sale enfoiré de nègre. Je -Lui ? la paix. Ils t'ont rien fait. d'âne ! -Surveille ton vous bénisse. j'pourrais, ça, -Ben mon puéwilité ! amené la légion -Allez vous faire de Romains ! appeler ta mère ! -J'ai ordre de le soldats vous me cassez You're breaking noeud. Y'a aussi les people: dicks, ont parfois les glandes Gary se propose tomber. walked out, ligotée, leur connard, elle wants to help us ! homme tellement be broken. He's a sucer la bite. JESSY TERRERO, SOUL PLANE (UK:18 ; FR : TOUS PUBLICS AVEC AVERTISSEMENT) -Sexe ? -Yeah, sex. gobage de sperme, -Et aussi piges. -Espèce de p'tit leur employeur. t'enterreras le we'll bury your croco. les gays. Tu sais man, two men les mecs qui baisent parler au micro. ceinture autour du « lâche-moi, "Get off me, you salope'', tu arrêtes de -Ah ouais, il l'a l'habitude. Ces a while. Usually, cul'' ou ''ducon''. Nashwan (Giselle tu n'y vas plus à me you're not cause de ce petit
	Combo Gadget Lol Meggy Milky (he's accompanied by a girl). Milky's girlfriend Combo Combo Meggy Combo Combo Milky Shaun Banjo Who Mother Mother Wiseguy Wiseguy Wiseguy Bignose Ex-leper Brian Ex-leper Ex-leper Reg Terrorists' leader Prisoner Prisoner Prisoner Pontius Pilate Pontius Pilate Astonished man A revolutionary Centurion Brian Eremite Brian Prisoner A man Fat centurion Bignose Woody Puke Combo Gadget Combo Milky Gadget and then the others (Meggy, Milky Combo Milky Milky Combo Milky Combo To whom Melchior, Balthasar and Gaspar Brian Bignose Bignose Brian Bearded man's wife To a donkey-owner Ex-leper Brian Brian The PFJ The PFJ Brian Brian Brian/guard Brian Legionaries Brian Brian Matthias Reg Brian's followers His followers Same Smell's house Same Street near Lol's work Combo's flat Watching TV Her birthday. Woody's leaving because of Combo. They're leaving. (whispering) She doesn't want to see him or speak with him. Street, sort of wasteland as well. When Combo asks for an ounce of weed. (he also whispered a "fuck", which is not translated, when he saw him). Same He just said she could walk home on her own. Combo's flat Song at the same time. They are "getting stoned" Same Same Same He wants to eat because he's "starving". Same About Milky's grandma. Same While Milky was talking, he was about to cry and suddenly, he's tightening his jaw, as if getting angry by Milky's happiness. In this sequence, he kind of whispers. Same Combo is standing, and looks angrier at every second. Music during the fight: making the shouts less noisy. Same Combo stopped beating Milky. And Banjo finally let go Shaun, who's standing up and goes to Milky. Same Milky is lying unconscious Where Why In a sort of barn, cowshed They want to see the Messiah Same The three wise men left (she pushed them out). Judea A.D. 33, Saturday afternoon, about tea time on a hill Trying to listen to Jesus Christ, but Bignose's wife is preventing the others to listen because she's criticizing her husband who's picking his nose. Same Same. According to Beardedman, Jesus said blessed the cheesemakers but they don't understand why. Same Continuing the provocation by naming him "bignose". But fist line is for Brian. And then the two means Brian + Bignose. Same She got in the way, because she stepped ahead when he was about to hit wiseguy. Market Trying to have some change but did not success, so complaining about the donkey-owners. Same Trying to bargain some money from Brian but Brian reacts on the leper tells his story. Same Brian asked him what he did not ask Jesus to Same Still trying to bargain. over by the Romans pursuing Brian PFJ's base About the Romans. Roman palace They have the same plan. Prison Brian's just been thrown in a cell and the guard spit on his face. Same The prisoner just told Brian that for a first offence, it might be crucifixion. Same Brian wanted to be moved to another cell and the guard laugh and spit on his face again. Roman palace Pilate is talking to Brian. Same One legionary said that Naughtius Maximus was a joke (name of Brian's father), a bit like Biggus Dickus Caesar Square Brian survived the crash of the spaceship. PFJ's base Brian just escaped the Romans and has come there to hide. But the Romans followed him. Same Matthias opened the door, the Romans entered, did not find anything. Same After the Romans left. Somewhere outside the city. The Ermiter is not happy Brian indicated his followers the junipers bush. Brian is trying to get rid of them. Supervisor quick. To the crucifixion party In a street/he's in prison He's insulted them, attached upside down. The centurion Market The centurion just pushed him. Crucifixion place Wiseguy Brian Crucifixion place Wiseguy ust said they have a couple of days to get rescued. Brian Members of the PFJ Same The PFJ just said to Brian they won't rescue him. Wiseguy Romans Same He just said he was Brian so he was released, but he does not want to, so he finally tells them the truth but it's too late. Qui À qui Où Pourquoi Gary Spotswood Arrière-cour du théâtre Il lui demande de monter dans sa voiture. Spotswood Gary Limousine de S. Ils viennent de rentrer dans la limousine Expert arts martiaux de Gary Base S. présente tout le monde à Gary et en arts martiaux (n'apprécie pas Gary). King Jong Ill (?, Corée) Terroriste tchétchène Corée, palais Le terroriste disait qu'ils n'étaient pas encore prêt. Chris À tous Base Gary vient de revenir à la base. CHANSON Ils partent en mission, au Caire. Chris Gary Caire Ils viennent de débarquer. Le blond Personne Caire, près de la taverne Ils pensent que Gary est repéré. Chef des terroristes Gary/ Acmed Taverne Ému par le discours de Gary sur la perte de ses chèvres dans une flambée de pétrole. Le blond Chris Course-poursuite dans le désert. Gary agite des bras pour leur dire que c'est lui. Chris Le blond Idem Ils ont perdu le contact avec Sarah. Chris Le blond Idem Ils viennent de les dépasser. Chris Le blond Idem Ils viennent de faire exploser la voiture avec les terroristes sur le Sphinx et Lisa a sauvé Gary. Présentateur Télé Journal du soir Après la mission. 00:33:45 01:06:40 01:07:14 01:11:? 01:15:30 01:16:48 01:17:19 01:20:12 01:20:53 01:21:52 01:23:51 01:24:15 01:24:58 In the continuity In the continuity. When 00:02:05 00:03:35 00:08:10 00:08:36 00:08:48 00:09:39 00:14:00 00:14:48 00:15:06 00:15:22 00:27:07 00:32:27 00:34:27 00:35:29 00:35:44 00:37:56 00:40:16 00:42:41 00:47:19 00:48:55 00:49:08 00:58:17 00:59:16 01:16:53 01:19:32 01:19:34 01:21:29 01:23:11 01:23:51 Quand 00:09:45 00:10:12 00:13:42 00:19:17 00:19:40 00:22:17 00:24:27 00:26:00 00:29:36 00:31:16 00:32:10 00:32:33 00:33:24 KJH Hans, de l'ONU Au palais Hans veut inspecter tout le 00:35:33 l'empêchent de voir certaines pièces. KJH Hans Idem Il vient de le balarguer au requin. 00:36:17 Chris Gary Base Durant le coktail pour fêter la réussite de la mission. 00:37:20 Un vieux Gary Au bar Gary dit qu'il fait du mal aux gens et qu'il est une 00:55:30 Le barman, et une femme depuis son appartement Gary Dans la rue Il vomit. 00:56:40 Lisa KJH Dans la prison Ils emmènenet Lisa. 01:01:54 Spotswood Gary Base Ils veut faire exploser la Corée 01:04:48 pour y aller. Samuel L. Jackson Alec Baldwin Corée du Nord, Congrés mondial de la Paix Alec répète son discours aux dirigeants du monde entier. 01:10:50 Chris Gary Prison Gary vient les sauver. 01:12:22 Spotswood À l'équipe Prison Il dit que Gary fait parti à 100 % de l'équipe. 01:12:58 Chris Le blond Couloir du palais Mission en cours. 01:14:22 Chris Gary Idem Ils se séparent, et Gary doit aller avec Chris. 01:14:51 propose de les aider, mais Gary flaire un piège. Alec Baldwin Salle de conférence Team America fait irruption. 01:21:34 Gary Aux dirigeants assemblés Idem Il fait un discours d'opposition à Baldwin, en reprenant ce que lui avait dit le vieux au bar. 01:23:34 Spotswood Aux dirigeants Idem Il leur dit qui est vraiment Gary. 01:26:28 Lisa Gary Idem Il dit que la police du monde est de retour. 01:27:18 Qui À qui Où Pourquoi Quand Les deux Pareil. Elles chantent 00:14:43 cou et ils ne veut pas le Nashawn Personne Dans l'avion Casque sur les oreilles, il écoute un album. 00:03:34 contrôleuses/ Gaman, Mack Idem Il verrouille la 00:34:26 conviennent d'un Mack Cousin Cockpit En parlant de sa 01:03:08 quitter pour partir copilote porte. mot de passe pour femme. faire ses études). Frère Soeur Aéroport Sa soeur vient de lui dire qu'il était mignon en lui touchant la casquette. 00:11:15 Soeur Père Aéroport Elle était en train de flirter avec un serveur et son père lui rappelle qu'elle n'a que 17 ans. Elle conclue en lui disant qu'elle ne lui devra plus aucun compte. 00:12:51 sécurité au contrôle bagages. agent de sécurité bagages physique des hommes qui passe. Agent de sécurité au contrôle bagages. Une autre agent de sécurité Contrôle bagages Nashawn fait sonner le portail et elles ne 00:17:19 Nashawn Son cousin Idem. Il a engagé un pilote au références douteuses. 00:23:14 Mack Ingénieur de bord Cockpit En parlant de la « tapette » qu'il a rencontré juste avant de rentrer dans le cockpit. 00:24:00 Bianca, hôtesse de l'air espagnole Le cousin À bord Il la drague. 00:33:12 la purée. mis le doigt dans supérieur au bar. toilettes pas croire qu'il a Père Fille, Isa Pont Elle vient le voir 01:05:10 Le mec des Aveugle Toilettes L'aveugle ne veut 00:48:56 min. copilote aussi). de coqs dans 5 supérieur femme, Barbara. (capitaine mort, La « tapette » Personne Classe business Le cousin vient de dire qu'il y avait un combat 00:42:19 toilettes. Père Nashawn Pont En parlant de sa 01:02:55 montagne. pas Nashawn Cousin Nashawn Sas Il veut fuir, mais 01:11:29 cockpit. sa femme dans le Ingénieur Capitaine Cockpit Il veut aller aux 00:58:44 l'avion contre une qu'il vienne avec voulait lancer lui dire oui, pour mettre. comme s'il capitaine vient de copilote venait de le capitaine a fait Mari Mack Idem Il croit que le 01:07:23 Agent de Une autre Contrôle Elle commente le 00:14:13 sécurité au contrôle bagages. agent de sécurité bagages rappeur fait sonner le portail. Mack bombes. musique que le Cousin Mack Idem Il a eu très peur, 01:03:55 Mack Copilote Idem En parlant de la 00:35:41 supérieur regardé. bord/capitaine tagage de pont récupérer sa fille. Pareil Une voyageuse Pareil. Elle l'a juste 00:15:25 de largage mais manettes sécurité escaliers du passer pour boire. commandant sur son CV. Pas Mack Personne Idem En parlant de 00:34:56 Mec de la Père Devant les Il essaye de 00:57:43 Isa la barmaid Idem Commande à 01:06:17 Agent de Une autre Contrôle Un jeune au style 00:14:55 Le Nashawn À bord Faute de frappe 00:22:37 qu'elle arrête. Qu'est-ce que la classification des films ?	j'me suis fait mal. Allez, Woody, merde putain. J'ai ramené à boire et tout ça, tu vois ce que j'veux dire. On se reverra, Pukey ! -Toi t'es qu'une connasse, mec. Un enfoiré d'connasse. Putain, merde. Et que t'as brisé le coeur de Woody, c'est ça ? Mais moi j'ai pas l'temps, tu vois, faut que j'y aille ! putain. Tout ce que j'voudrais, c'est deux minutes avec toi. -Non, y'a pas. Je dois bosser. Et puis j'suis pas ton conseiller, Combo. Tu voulais deux minutes c'est ça. Et ben tu vas les avoir tes deux minutes. -OK. Arthur Rectum. -Rapine. -Gratte-moi l'rectum. Rapine, -Ouais. -Fourrer l'rectum. Aah, putain de Dieu. Tu fais chier ! T'es qu'un vrai bâtard. -Putain d'Dieu, man ! Il veut vomir, ramène-le. -Ça va aller, t'inquiète pas. Oh il est blanc, il est tout blanc. Putain il était tout blanc, le mec. Et tu vois, cette musique, elle a une âme. Et c'est ça qui nous faisait vibrer, putain. Tu vois ce que j'veux dire ? -Ouais, y'a plein de mecs, c'est des skinheads comme toi, j'te jure. Des skinheads comme toi qui passent le -Ouais. On était unis. C'était les Noirs et les Blancs ensemble. Tu vois ce que j'veux dire. -Ouais, c'est sûrement quelque chose qu'il faut pas oublier. Il faut que ça continue. -Ben toi, tu l'fais encore vivre dans la façon que t'as d'choisir tes fringues, tu vois d'quoi j'parle ? C'est vrai. Ah ça, c'est réel, mec. m'étais pas marré comme ça pendant des années, des années, man. Mais putain, comment vous arrivez à vivre comme ça ? Y'a même pas d'biscuits pourris. J'ai trop la dalle, moi j'meurs de faim. Putain ! -Combo, c'est toi qui as bouffé les gâteaux ? -Non. -Fait chier. et filé en douce ? -Non. Il les voit encore. Elle a l'air d'être trop gentille, on dirait. Putain de Dieu, t'es vraiment vernis, toi, en fait. -Quoi ? -t'as vraiment la totale, non ? T'as tout ce qu'il fait, tout est parfait pour toi, en fait, non ? Putain de dieu. T'as eu tout ce que tu voulais, non ? Putain de Dieu. Bon... tu serait quoi un mauvais père ? C'est quoi ton truc ? -Les nègros.. -Qu'est-ce qui a avec les négros ? -Y'a que t'en es un, toi aussi ! T'es un enfoiré de négro. Pas vrai ? T'en es un ? Je vais l'tuer putain. -Combo, laisse-le tranquille, merde. -Allez... ne me souris pas m'sourire. -Milky, arrête un peu de sourire à Combo, s'te-plaît. -Enfoiré, arrête d'me sourire parce que tu vas pas m'sourire longtemps, hein ? J'vais t'faire passer l'envie de sourire, hein ? Fils de pute ! Enfoiré de sale nègre ! -Combo, non !!! -Enfoiré d'fil de pute de ta race -Non, arrête, Combo, t'es fou ! -Putain je te hais ! Putain, j'ai la haine ! J'ai la haine, putain ! -Milky !!! -Sale connard ! J'ai la haine contre toi ! J'ai la haine putain ! Je te hais négro ! Sale connard de négro de merde ! Sale connard de gros nègre ! -Milky ! connard ! -Combo ! Milky, milky,ça va ? -Mais ferme ta gueule, putain ! Petit con ! Casse-toi ! Connard ! -J'ai cru que tu voulais déconner un peu. -on fait quoi les mecs ? On a passé toute la journée à l'écouter. Je veux -Ce mec ? Ce mec ? -Aow ! -t'es malade, putain ! -espèce de tête de pine ! Espèce de gros connard de merde ! -t'es félé, mec, t'es malade ! -Mais te mêle pas d'ça, putain ! T'en veux une aussi ? -t'es félé, putain ! te faire enculer ! Sale connard, sinon j'vais t'étrangler, moi ! Putain de bâtard de merde ! Casse-toi d'ici, putain! Casse-toi espèce de connasse à lunettes ! Casse-toi ! Casse-toi ! -Fait que tu vois quelqu'un, merde ! -Casse-toi ! J't'ai dit, casse-toi ! J't'ai dit, casse-toi ! Ok, laisse-les tranquille, ok. ? Ils t'ont rien fait un peu tranquille ! Laisse-les ces deux-là ! Ils t'ont rien fait du tout, putain ! Non ! Oh non ! SV Allez adorer un autre petit morveux ! bloody minds, but still, Come on, Wood. Fucking hell, I've brought booze and everything. See you later, Puke. -You're a twat, mate! You're a fucking w... For fuck's sake (Whispered). [...] You've broken Woody's fucking heart? […] Well, I can't fucking wait. […] fucking two minutes with you? -No, I'm going to work. I'm not your fucking counselor, Combo. […] You can have two minutes now. You've got two fucking minutes. -OK. Sound. MEGGY: R for Rectum. -Rabbit. -Rub your rectum. (Sniggers) -Oh, rabbit, you -Furry rectum. Fucking hell! Oh, fuck you, you selfish bastard. -Fuckin' hell, man.[She can't hear that, comment addressed to Combo] Take him home, love. He looks fucked. [Song] Gadge, lad. Have you fucking seen how white he is! I've never seen anyone look that fucking sick! That fucking kid's arse went white! -The soul of that music just fucking resonated within us, do you know what I mean? -And it's people... it's skinheads, like you, true skinheads, like you, keeping that flame alive. -Yeah. It was fucking unity. It was black and white, together. -It's something that should not be forgotten. It shouldn't die. -You're still flying that flag in that fucking get-out that you're wearing. It's proper. It's real, man. [...] -Hand the spliff over. -I haven't had a laugh like this for fucking years. How can you fucking live like this? There's not even a mouldy Twiglet. I'm really starving, man. I've got the munchies badly. -[Banjo] Combo, have you eaten the biscuits? -No. -[Meggy] Fucking hell. and fucked off? Nah, he still sees 'em. She sounds dead lovely, don't she? Fucking hell. You've got everything, haven't you? -What? -You've got the whole lot. You've got the whole fucking perfect package. Fucking hell. [gets up] Got everything, you, didn't you? Fucking hell, man. So... What... What -What do you reckon? -Niggers. -What's with the "nigger"? -Because you are, aren't you? You're a fucking nigger. Aren't you? Aren't you? Fucking coon. -[Shaun] Combo! Just leave him. -[Milky] Go on. Don't fucking smile at me. Don't smile at me. -[Shaun]Milky, just stop smiling at him, please. -[Combo]Don't the fucking smile off your fucking face. Yeah? You fucking cunt! [Combo is beating Milky] SHAUN: No! -Fucking horrible... -Fucking bastard! (Shaun screams) I fucking hate you! I fucking hate you! I fucking hate you! SHAUN: Get off! Milky! -No, Combo, get off him! -You fucking black bastard! I fucking hate you! I fucking hate you. nigger! -You fucking nigger! -Milky! Fuck off! Fuck off! (Sobs) Combo! Milky! Milky, man, are you all right? -[Combo] Shut up! Shut the fuck up and get the fuck out now! You little fucking cunt. Fuck off, you little bastard![Throwing Shaun out of the flat] -[Meggy] I thought you was winding us up. -What are you doing, boys? BANJO: Fucking all day we've sat and listened to our bit.[From behind the door, we're with Shaun at that moment] -[Combo, pointing at Milky, breaking a bottle on Banjo's neck] This man? -[Banjo] Aargh! -You fucking mad cunt! -You knobhead! You fucking horrible fucking cunt! -[Meggy] You're fucking mad as a March hare. What's wrong with you?Fucking leave them alone! -[Meggy] You're fucking potty. -[Combo] What? Fuck off, you fucking dickhead! I'll fucking throttle you, you fucking fat piece of shit! Get the fuck out of here, you fucking goggle-eyed twat! Get out. Get out. [Meggy and Banjo go out] -[Meggy, from behind the door] You need to fucking see someone. -[Combo] Get out. (Panting): I said, get out. I said, get Leave them alone, will you? They haven't done nothing to you. Fucking leave them two alone. Leave them alone. They've done... They've done nothing to you. You fuck... Ah! (Groans) No-o-o! (Sobs) (Combo groans) COMBO: Fucking hell. OV Go and praise someone else's brat ! Go on ! Well. Were they nice? Hm. Out of their look at that! [to Brian] Ils étaient gentils, non ? Complètement cinglés, mais regarde ça ! Wiseguy: Well, can't you talk to him somewhere else? I can't hear a bloody thing! Bignose: Don't you swear at my wife! Wiseguy: Well, I was only asking her to shut up so that I can hear what he's saying, Bignose! Allez parler ailleurs. J'entends rien ! -N'insulte pas ma femme. -Je lui disais juste de la fermer, Gros Pif. -N'appelle pas mon mari « Gros Pif ». you call my husband "Bignose"! Wiseguy: See, if you hadn't been going on we'd have heard that, Bignose. Bignose: Hey, say that once more, I'll smash your bloody face in! À cause de Gros Pif, on n'a rien entendu. -Encore une fois et tu t'en prends une ! Wiseguy: Oh, you're not so bad yourself, conkface. Where are you two from? Nose City? Bignose: One more time, mate, I'll take you to fucking cleaners! -T'as vu ton blair, toi ? Vous venez d'où ? Tarinville ? -Si tu continues, je te casse la gueule. -Surveille ton langage ! Et ne te mets pas le Language! And don't pick your nose! Bignose: I wasn't going to pick my nose! I'm gonna thump him! -J'allais juste lui mettre un bourre-pif ! Silly bitch, getting in the way! Pauvre conne, fallait pas rester là ! Ex-leper: Alms for an ex-leper! [then talking to the leper newt to him] Bloody donkey-owners, all the same, ain't they? Never have any change. L'aumône pour un ancien lépreux. Ceux qui ont des ânes sont tous pareils. Brian: Cured? Ex-leper: Yes, a bloody miracle, sir. God bless you! Guéri ? -Un putain de miracle. you? Ex-leper: Jesus did, sir. I was hopping along, minding my own business, all of a sudden up he comes, cures me. One minute I'm a leper with a trade, next minute I'm alive and newsgone. Not so much as a bye or league! "You're cured, mate". Bloody do-gooder. guéri ? -Jésus. Je ne demandais rien à personne. Et voilà qu'il me guérit. En une minute, j'ai perdu mon gagne-pain. « Tu es guéri ». Satané bienfaiteur ! Ex-leper: Aah, I could do that sir, yeah. Yeah, I could do that, I C'est une idée. Je pourrais lui demander. Je going to ask him if he'd make me a bit lame in one leg during the middle of the week. You know, something peckable but not leprosy, which is a pain in the ass, to be blunt dispute my French servant. peut me rendre un peu boiteux. Boiteux mais pas lépreux, parce que c'est la plaie. Ex-leper: Thank you, sir. Than...half a dinare for me bloody life story? Brian: There's no pleasing some people. Merci. Un demi-dinar pour mon histoire ? -Il y en a qui ne sont jamais contents. Reg: They bled us white, the bastards. Ils nous ont saignés à blanc. Terrorists' leader: You bastards! We've been planning this for months! Rogers: Well, tough ticking for you, fish face! Aoh, ooh! Sorry! All terrorists and revolutionaries except Brian: Ah, ouh! You slime! Sorry! Arrgh! On prépare ça depuis des mois. -Dommage pour toi, abruti. -d'accord ! -Faux-cul ! Prisoner: You lucky bastard! Brian: Who's that? Prisoner: You lucky, lucky bastard! Sale veinard ! -Qui est là ? -Sale petit veinard ! Prisoner: Oh, yeah. If we didn't have crucifixion, this country'd be in a right bloody mess. Oui. Sans la crucifixion, ce serait l'anarchie. Prisoner: Oh! Look at that! Bloody favouritism! Regardez ça ! C'est du favoritisme ! Pontius Pilate: Now, Jewish vapscalion... Alors, crapule juive... Pontius Pilate: He has a wife, you know. Do you know what she's called? She's called...Incontinentia. Incontinentia Buttocks. [All legionaries: Pffhrpffpfff...hahaha...] Il a une épouse, vous savez. Vous savez comment elle s'appelle ? Elle s'appelle … Incontinente. Incontinente Vessie. Silence ! Qu'avez-vous ? up! What is all this? I've had enough of this wowdy webel, spickely behaviour! Silence! ces ricanements. Silence ! Astonished Man: Oh, you lucky bastard! Sale veinard ! Map of Pontius Pilate's Palace: Fucker off! Door: 17*[Knock] All revolutionaries except Brian: Oh, shit! Casse-toi ! Merde ! Centurion: But don't worry, you've not seen the last of us, weirdo. Matthias: Bignose! Centurion: Watch it! Ne t'en fais pas, on se reverra, espèce de maboul. -Gros Pif ! -Fais gaffe ! Brian: I'm sorry, Reg. Reg: Oh, it's all right siblings, he's sorry. He's sorry he lead the Désolé, Reg. -C'est bon. Il est désolé. Désolé d'avoir mené la légion à quarters. Well, that's all right then, Brian. Sit down! Have a scone! Make yourself at home! You klutz! You stupid, bird-brained, flat-headed... Door: 17*[Knock] Brian. Assied-toi ! Fais comme chez toi. Espèce d'empoté ! Espèce d'abruti de crâne de piaf sans cerveau... Eremite: They're all I've bloody got to eat. Ouf! I say! Get off of those bushes! Come on! Clear off, the lot of you! C'est tout ce que j'ai à manger. Ne touchez pas à ce buisson ! Fichez le camp, vous autres ! Brian: All right! I am the Messiah! Crowd: He is! He is the Messiah! Brian: Now, fuck off! D'accord, je suis le Messie. -C'est lui ! C'est le Messie ! Man in crowd III: How shall we fuck off, oh Lord? Brian: Oh, just go away! Leave me alone! Eremite: You told these people to eat my juniper berries! You break my bloody foot, you break my vow of silence, and then you try and clean up on my juniper bushes! faire foutre ! -Où ça, Seigneur ? -Allez-vous en ! Laissez-moi ! -Tu leur as dit de manger mes baies. Tu m'as cassé le pied, tu as brisé mon voeu... et tu as touché à mon genévrier ! sense of humour. Ouh! Aucun sens de l'humour. You lucky bastards! You lucky jabby bastards! Sales veinards ! Sales petits veinards de merde ! Bloody Romans! Saleté de Romains ! Fat Centurion: Up you go, Bignose! Bignose: Oh, I'll get you for this, you bastard! Fat Centurion: Oh, yeah! Bignose: Oh yeah, don't worry. I never forget a face. Fat Centurion: No! Bignose: I warn you. I'm gonna punch you Et voilà, Gros Pif ! -Tu me le paieras, salaud ! -Ah ouais ? -Je n'oublie jamais un visage. -Non ? -Tu es prévenu. Je vais te mettre une raclée, Fat Centurion: Shut up, you Jewish turd! -Ta gueule, sale Juif ! Wiseguy: Oh, yeah. My brother usually rescues me. If he can keep off the tail for more than twenty minutes. Huh. Brian: Aah? Wiseguy: Randy little bugger. Up and down like the Assyrian empire. D'habitude, mon frère me délivre. S'il arrête de baiser cinq minutes. Ce petit obsédé ! Toujours en train de baiser ! Brian: You bastards! You bastards! You vacuous malodorous bastards! Centurion: Where is Brian of Nazareth? I have an order for Salauds ! Salauds ! -Où est Brian de Nazareth ? -Bande de salauds ! Brian: You stupid bastards! la relâcher ! -Salauds ! Wiseguy: Put me back! Bloody Romans, can't take a joke! Arrêtez ! Ces Romains n'ont pas le sens de l'humour. VF VO Ah j'ai compris. Je dois monter dans la voiture et accepter que vous me mettiez un doigt. Ensuite, si je vous fais une turlutte, j'aurais le rôle. Oh, I get it. I'm supposed to get in your car and let you put your finger inside me. Then, if I go down on you, I get a movie part. Je vois. Ensuite, je devrai Wood, j'ai ramené de l'alcool... T'es un crétin. Une vraie tête de noeud. [Not translated] De ce que tu as fait subir à Woody ? Je peux pas attendre. -Tu me donnes deux minutes ? suis pas ta conseillère. Entendu, tu as deux minutes. Tu as deux minutes, compris ? -D'accord. R comme Rectum. -Renard. -Rince ton rectum. poilu. Bon sang. Va te faire voir. Sale égoïste ! -Putain de merde. [Not translated] L'âme de cette musique résonnait en nous. Tu comprends ? -Et ce sont les vrais skinheads comme toi qui ont maintenu le flambeau. -On est unis. Noirs et Blancs ensemble. -Faut pas que ça disparaisse. -Tu le portes toujours en toi. [...] [Milky]Ça faisait des années que je m'étais pas autant marré. Comment vous faites ? Y'a rien à se mettre sous la dent. J'ai les crocs. -Vraiment ? -T'as mangé les biscuits ? -Et merde. -Non, il les voit toujours. Elle a l'air super. Tu as tout pour toi, hein ? -Quoi ? -Tu as tout ce qu'il faut. Tout ce qu'on rêve d'avoir, hein ! Bordel de merde ! Tu as tout eu. Et merde ! Alors... qu'est-ce qui fait qu'on est un mauvais père ? À quoi tu penses ? -Les nègres... -ça veut dire quoi ? -C'est ce que tu es. Un putain de nègre. C'est pas vrai ? Hein ? Je vais le buter. -Combo ! Laisse-le ! -Allez... Ne me souris pas comme ça. -Milky, arrête. -Arrête ou je te passe l'envie de sourire. Connard ! te hais, sale nègre ! Enfoiré ! Va te faire foutre ! [Meggy stood up] Milky, ça va ? -La ferme ! Ferme-la et casse-toi ! Petit salopard ! Dégage, petit enfoiré ! -Je croyais que tu déconnais. -On fait quoi ? On l'a écouté toute la journée. Moi aussi, je veux le frapper. -T'es malade ? -Espèce de glandu ! Sale connard ! -T'es complètement chtarbé ! -Te mêle pas de ça ! T'en veux, toi aussi ? -T'es malade ! -Va te faire foutre, connard ! Je vais t'étrangler, grosse merde ! Fous le camp, tête de noeud ! Cassez-vous ! -Il faut que tu consultes. -Je vous ai dit de foutre le camp ! Laisse-les, ils DV (#DVD) Allez donc vénérer les mouflets plus loin ! Allez, dehors ! Eh ben, qu'est-ce qu'ils sont gentils ! Ils sont complètement frappés mais regarde donc ça ! Eh bien, adressez-vous à votre époux ailleurs ! J'entends rien, bordel de Dieu ! -Soyez pas grossier envers ma femme. -J'lui ai seulement demander d'la fermer pour entendre c'qu'il -Ne traitez pas mon époux de blair d'âne. Tu vois, si tu l'avais pas ouvert, on l'aurait entendu, blair d'âne ! -Hey ! Tu dis ça encore une fois et j'te mets ma main sur la figure ! Oh toi aussi, tu t'débrouilles bien côté blair. Vous venez du même bled ? Nezarette ? -Un mot d'plus de toi, et j't'éclate la poire, connard ! langage ! Et te trifouille pas l'nez ! -J'allais pas me trifouiller l'nez, j'allais lui mettre un bourre-pif ! C'est cette vieille peau, là ! L'aumône pour un ex-lépreux ! Putain de propriétaire d'âne, c'est toujours la même chose, hein ? Guéri ? -Oui, m'sieur. Un putain d'miracle, -Mais qui vous a guéri ? -Oh ben c'est Jésus, m'sieur. J'vivais d'ma vie d'lépreux, j'me mêlais d'mes affaires et tout d'un coup, hop ! Il arrive et finit la lèpre. J'suis passé de lépreux professionnel à chômeur professionnel en même pas trois s'condes. Sans même me demander mon avis, allez hop, t'es guéri. Salut, à plus. Prophète à la noix ! Ah ben oui, ça c'est une bonne idée, m'sieur. j'pourrais. J'avais dans la tête d'aller l'voir et d'lui demander juste un p'tit boitement, juste pendant la s'maine, vous voyez ? Un truc mendiable, pas trop léprosé, c'qui fait hyper chier, si vous m'passez l'expression. Excusez mon langage, m'sieur ! Oh merci, m'sieur, merci. Un d'mi-dinare ! Ben dis donc ! Ça fait pas cher la souffrance ! -Y'a des gens qui sont jamais contents. Ils nous dépouillent, ils nous saignent, ces salopards ! Bande de pourris ! On prépare ça depuis des mois ! -Eh ben tant pis pour vous, et nananananè-re ! Aah ouh ! -Tu l'as cherché ! Ben mon cochon, t'as un d'ces bols ! -Qui est là ? cochon, t'as un d'ces bols ! Si on avait pas la crucifixion, ce pays partirait en quenouille à la vitesse grand V ! Oh, regagrde ça ! Putain de favoritisme! Alors, tewworriste, hébwaïque... Il a une femme, à propos. Vous savez comment elle s'appelle ? Elle s'appelle Incontinencia... Incontinencia Péta. Arrêtez ! Que veux dire ceci ? Je suis cowoucé de votre anque de wespect Silence ! Oh, t'as un d'ces bols toi ! Va-t-en ! Oh, merde ! Mais ne crie pas victoire, on va r'venir ! Vraiment bizarre ! -Blair d'âne ! -Fais gaffe ! Je suis désolé, Réggie. -Oh, écoutez ça mes frères, il est désolé. Désolé. conduire une fouille en plein quartier général. Mas c'n'est rien, Brian. Assieds-toi ! Prends un gâteau. Fais comme chez toi. Pauvre naze ! Pauvre abruti ! Cervelle de piaf ! Parasite de mes... C'est tout c'que j'ai à bouffer, moi. Eh, vous là-bas, fichez l'camp d'ici, laissez ce buisson tranquille ! Il est à moi ! Barrez-vous ! D'accord, c'est moi l'Messie. -C'est lui ! C'est lui l'Messie ! foutre ! -euh... où irons-nous nous faire foutre, Seigneur ? -Oh, ça suffit, laissez-moi tranquille ! -Tu as dit à toute cette populace de manger toutes mes baies de genièvre, tu as applati mon putain d'orteil, tu m'as fait briser mon voeu de silence et tu as essayé de t'envoyer mon putain de buisson, salopard ! [putain d'insoumis ! Aucun sens de l'humour. Bande de petites vermines ! Bande de faillots ! Espèce de chouchous ! Saloperie de Romains ! Allez monte, blair d'âne ! -Alors ça, tu vas me le payer, mon salaud ! -Ah ouais ? -Ouais, t'inquiète pas ! J'oublie jamais un visage ! -Non ? -Je t'ai prévenu ! Tu vas t'en prendre une si -La ferme, Youpin d'mes deux ! Ah oui, mon frangin, il me secourt régulièrement. S'il arrive à contenir sa libido plus de vingt minutes. Uh, celui-là, quel obsédé. Il monte et il descend comme les eaux de la Mer Rouge. Bande d'enfoirés ! -Où est Brian de Nazareth ? -Espèce de pauvre imbécile ! relâcher. Mais remettez-moi en croix, bon Dieu d'Romains ! Aucun sens de l'humour ! VOSTFR vous laisser me mettre un doigt et vous sucer pour avoir le rôle. My god, elle est super cette limousine. -Oui, maintenant, sucez-moi la bite. [Regard affolé de Gary et rire narquois de S] Je plaisante. Jesus, this is a nice limo. -Yes, it is. Now, suck my cock Haha! Just kidding. Quelle belle limousine. -N'est-ce pas ? Maintenant, sucez-moi. Je plaisante. Exactement, l'acteur. Alors That's right, actor. Just stay Ouais, l'acteur. Alors, t'approche pas de moi. enfoiré. Maintenant, tu prends tes armes de destruction massive et tu dégages, connard ! Now, take your weapons of mass destruction and get the fuck out of here ! Prends tes armes de destruction massive et dégage, connard ! J'continue de penser que c'est une putain d'erreur. I still say this is a fucking mistake. Pour moi, c'est une connerie. America fuck you ! … To lick my butt and suck my balls ! America fuck you ! … To lick my butt and suck my balls ! L'Amérique te nique … Elle te nique et te pisse à la raie Si tu nous trahis, je t'arrache tes putains de couilles et je te And if you betray us, I'll rip your fuckin' balls off and stuff 'em up Trahis-nous et je te fous tes couilles dans le cul et quand t'iras chier, tu chieras sur tes couilles. quand t'iras chier, tu t'chiras sur les burnes, t'as pigé ! shit, you'll shit all over your balls! Got it?! Oh Fuck ! Oh shit ! Shit ! Je t'aime bien. Tu as des couilles, et j'aime les couilles. I like you. You have balls. I like balls. Je t'aime bien. Tu as des couilles. J'aime les couilles. J'ai l'impression qu'il dit : ''Baise-moi, Baise-moi''. -Cet enfoiré fait l'malin. Looks like he's sayin' ''kiss me, kiss me''. -Smart-ass motherfucker ! On dirait qu'il dit : ''Baise-moi, baise-moi''. -Putain d'enfoiré ! C'est pas grave. On bute ces connards et on verra après ce qu'elle voulait. It's alright, we'll kill these guys, then we'll find out what she wants. Tant pis ! Tuons-les, on verra ce qu'elle veut après. dépassent et après, on leur fonce dessus. J'adore tes couilles. over, let them pass us, and when they turn around, we charge them! I love your balls ! fonce dessus. J'adore tes couilles. Fuck ! On les a doublés ! Shit, they got by me! On les a dépassés ! Super ! Putain, on a réussi ! All right, we've fucking did it ! Putain, on a réussi ! Team America a réussi une fois de plus à foutre les boules au monde entier en détruisant la moitié du Caire. Team America has once more pissed off the entire world after blowing up half of Cairo. Team America a de nouveau foutu les glandes au monde en détruisant la moitié du Caire. Hans, vous me cassez les Hans, you're breaking my Hans, vous me cassez les couilles. les couilles. my balls. Alors, ça te plaît, espèce d'enculé d'ta soeur ! […] Enfoiré de connard de merde ! How do you like that, you fucking cocksucker ? .. you buttfucking piece of shit ! Ça te plaît, enculé de ta soeur ? .. enfoiré de merde ! Si tu nous plantes, je te f'rai deux trous dans ta bite, et comme ça, quand tu pisseras, le jet ira dans trois directions différentes, est-ce que c'est clair ? [s'en va] The next time you pull a stunt like that I'll drill two holes through your dick so that when you pee, it shoots out in all different directions, you got it?! Recommence et je te troue la bite ! Et tu pisseras dans deux directions à la fois!C'est clair ? Oh, c'est pas la pire des catégories, les Well, uh being a dick ain't so bad. See, there are Y a pire que tête de noeud. Y a deux autres catégories. P'tites chattes et trous du p'tites chattes et les trous du cul. [..] Mais il arrive parfois que les petites chattes aient les glandes et que les têtes de noeud les baisent. Mais les têtes de noeuds baisent aussi les trous du cul. pussies and assholes. [...] So pussies may get mad at dicks once in a while because... pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes, Chuck! parce que les têtes de noeud les baisent. Mais les têtes de noeud baisent aussi les trous du cul. Fous le camp, putain d'alcoolo ! Dégage d'ici, clodo de merde ! All right, that does it ! Get out of here, you drunk lowlife!Get out of here, I said ! Ça suffit maintenant, putain d'alcoolo ! Fous-moi le camp ! Non, laisse-là, fils de pute ! Leave her alone, you son of a bitch ! Laisse-la, fils de pute ! Toi, t'es qu'un enculé d'lâcheur, You!! You're a buttfucking Toi ? T'es qu'un enculé de lâcheur ! Gary! Tu vas leur trouer l'cul, Alec ! You're gonna knock them dead Tu vas leur trouer le cul, Alec. Il manquait plus que toi, connard ! What the fuck are you doing here ? Qu'est-ce que tu fous là ? Il me l'a prouvé hier soir en me suçant la zigounette. He proved it last night by sucking my cock. Il me l'a prouvé hier soir en me suçant la bite. Motherfucker, c'est quoi ça ? [tirs] -Je crois que c'est George Clooney et Liv Tyler. Jesus, what is it ? -Looks like George Clooney and Liv Tyler at 20 yards ! Seigneur, c'est quoi ça ? -George Clooney and Liv Tyler à 20m ! Qu'est-ce que t'attends, connard ? I guess you're with me, cough-bag ! On fait équipe, bite molle ! veut nous aider. […] [Gary tire sur Susan] Putain de nom de Dieu de merde, j'aurais juré qu'elle disait la vérité. … Jesus Titty-fucking Christ ! I could have sworn she was telling the truth. Putain de nom de Dieu, J'ai cru que c'était la vérité. Bordel of God ! God Damnit ! Bordel of God ! Mais la seule chose qui puisse baiser un trou du cul, c'est une tête de noeud, avec des couilles. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick with some balls. Mais pour baiser un trou du cul, il faut une tête de noeud avec des couilles. C'est un homme qui sait que mettre la bite d'un autre homme dans sa bouche établi un He's a man who knows that when you put another man's cock in your mouth, you make a pact. A C'est un homme qui sait que sucer un autre homme crée un pacte. Un lien indéfectible. Un homme impliqué au point de dévoué qu'il peut s'agenouiller sans hésiter et vous sucer la bite. man so dedicated that he will get down on his knees and put that cock right in his mouth. On va les niquer. -On va les niquer. Fuck yeah. -Fuck yeah. On va les niquer ! -Les niquer ! VF VO Missionary, branlette espagnole, branlette Et s'faire bourrer It's your C'est ton annif, on va se cul ! Ça a sonné cul dans tes ass in them fake-les PD qui sucent fucking together, ensemble. À poil, dans une Testicule 1 2 Testicles 1 2 Testicules 1 2 espèce de crazy bitch", you m'étouffer. pilonnée sec. derniers temps, it's shithead or cause d'un goin' because of merdeux ? VOSTFR Et je vais te trouer le cul.... [Brrrrla !] That's the sound of my gun ! [Brrrrla !] -Oui ! Sexe. Le doggie-style, sandwich de mortadelle ! espagnole, car c'est ton bon birthday, we bourrer parce que c'est godasses en faux ass iguana shoes les couilles. Tout naked, in a chambre. Pas moi. Cette putain de This Cette putain de porte est pute »... stop chokin' me. Cette salope me This Pension alimentaire pour c'était plutôt trou asshole or pauvre.. un petit some little poop Voilà le son de ma missionnaire, par rockin' the baby, sandwich de jour. gonna party. d'la merde et la cuir d'iguane. you're wearin'. nu, dans une bedroom. Not porte est motherfucker is fermée. réclame la moitié motherfuckin' les gosses. Elle sait que je duc, ducon, ou something. merdeux à la con butt ass nigga mitraillette ! Quelle pute, je te jure ! [marmonnant] -Qu'est-ce que t'as dit ? -T'es sourde en plus. You're such a whore! -What did you say? -Did I stutter? Sale pute ! -Qu'est-ce que tu as dit ? Oui, c'est vrai, je n'ai que 17 ans... pour quelques heures encore. Et à 18 plus 1 seconde, je pourrai me marrer et m'éclater sexe. Fine, for a couple more hours, I'm 17 and then I'll be 18. Then I can party and have sex. -Sex?! No, no. Oui, pour quelques heures encore, j'ai 17 ans. Et à 18 ans, je pourrai m'éclater, me mettre au sexe ! Oui, au sexe ! Le missionnaire, par derrière, la levrette, en 69, fellation, lustrage du joyau, astiquage du trombone, taillage de trombone, pendant que je lui nettoie son p'tit bout, taillage de pipe, suçage de bourses, engloutissage de zobe. [en augmentant le volume sonore]. -Aurais-tu bu de la bière ? blow jobs. Gettin' a pearl necklace, ridin' the bologna pony... sucking... -Enough! -...whenever I want, and best of all, I won't have to listen to you. moi, je fais mon boulot. Mais si Denzel Washington pointe ses fesses si sexy à cette saloperie de contrôle, j'prends aussi sec ma journée de congé et j'vais dans le premier hôtel avec lui me faire ramoner know about all that, but if Denzel walks his fine sexy ass in here right now, I'm takin' the rest of the day off and getting' straight down with the get down. You know what I'm sayin'? mais si Denzel pointe son joli petit cul ici, je prends mon aprèm et je descends m'occuper de son membre viril. -Ahah, frangin, est-ce que tu sais lire ? L'écriteau dit de mettre tous les objets de métal dans les corbeilles. Dégage ton cul de quincaillerie et repasse ici sans tes merdes. -Sans tes merdes... you read? The signs say put all metal objects in the container. Take your ass off. Get on back there. Cheap ass! Shit goin' off 'cause that shit cheap. That's why it's goin' off. le panier. Retourne là-bas. Magne tes fesses ! Ça sonne parce que c'est de la merde et la merde, ça fait sonner. quelque chose à dire ? V'là 15 jours que j'ai pas baffé une connasse. Et j'ai une grosse réserve d'énergie pour baffer les connasses. [en faisant le geste] ain't slap a bitch in two weeks. Yeah, and I got a lot of strength in the slap-a-bitch arm. démange, connasse. On en a rien à chier de qui tu es. Si ton cul a l'audace de We don't give a damn about who you are. Let your little ass get one On en a rien à foutre de qui tu es. Un pas de plus, et on t'enterre le cul dans l'Irak », « Sadam bande mou », « à bas Bagdad », c'était moi. That was me, secret agent. T'es vraiment un enfoiré. You somethin' else, Muggs. Drew on bombs. Autre chose, Muggs. Un bombeur de bombe. Ce couillon m'a littéralement bouffé le slip. I just seen one of them fruity motherfuckers in the hallway. Nigga was eyeballin' me. Cet enfoiré me bouffait des yeux. chattes comme toi, hein ? [rires] -Là j'te capte. -comme j'te le dis, mec, tout le Je parie que tu as un pénis ''muy'' minuscule. I bet you got a penis, muy pequenito. fils de pute ! believe it. appelé papounet. me daddy for a italique] pourri, sale vieux of a bitch! -Yeah, I can que tu m'aies glad you called m'aies appelé papounet. muy riquiqui. [muy en disco-citron disco lemon. Son esquinté. Je suis content Actually, I'm just prematurely. Je suis content que tu Je parie que tu as un pénis Sale ringard Lookin' like a …, face de citron. complètement damaged. prématurément. ejaculate pilote. l'atterissage. fond de la gorge her vocal cord va éjaculer make my chute merde sur l'auto-cloque avant parler, elle a le she must have foutre cette mon parachute cord. You gonna prématurément. enjoy myself. monde s'ra en -I can dig it. will be pregnant by the end of this flight. ship. Il y a d'la couille, c'est magnifique. Cock fight? I'm your men. Une bataille de queues ? Je suis votre homme. dois aller m'égoutter la saucisse. to go drain the monster. asperge. Elle peut plus me She can't talk, Elle a la gorge défoncée. reviennent. -D'accord, cousin, je vais nigga. I'm gonna put this bitch on autopilot so I can poignée, sinon grabbin' my parachute va éjaculer peu à moi. Touche pas à ma Hey, don't be Touche pas à ça ou mon automatique et penser un triangle poilu. man. Je vais foutre le pilote nichons et son and everything, -All right, my dig it. Everybody motherfuckin' Yo cap'taine, je Yo captain, I got Je dois aller égoutter mon Ricks ne pouvoir voir ses see her titties -D'accord, cousin. -Yeah, you can putain d'avion. this martyr. que Gayman et poule. Tu vas probably gonna Riggs come back. cloque avant la fin du vol. le capitaine de ce the captain of que tu meures en worth dyin' for. couilles avant Gay-dude and chercher ma her. You're verras ses nibards. Riggs ne reviennent. -Tout le monde sera en ta merde. Je suis outta here. I'm navire. rend fou mérite lookin' for is dégourdir les bounce before avant que Gayman et Bon je vais I'm fixin' to get Je vais la chercher. Tu -J'aime les -Tu es sourde ? derrière, en fellation, on ouvre la braguette et astiquage du bagged, playin' the trombone while I'm tossin' his salad, hand jobs, ear jobs, -Avec qui je veux, où je veux. Et encore mieux, je n'aurai plus de comptes à te rendre. sodomie aux salamis. -C'est assez. Je t'le dis, là, Look, I don't Moi, je fais mon boulot, ce grotesque frangin là ! C'est pas un rapeur, c'est un raté ! little nigga here. Look more like -Nigga, can't -Tu sais pas lire ? Tous les objets métalliques dans espèce de connasse ? T'as wanna say something? I connasse depuis 15 jours. Et j'ai le bras qui me bombes « j'encule Iraq, Saddam eat a dick, you know. truc. you. Uh? foutre. Vire-moi Get it the fuck suis le capitaine de ce petite pute qui te bitch you're Je vais aller me I'm gonna Je vais vider mes couilles C'est un cocktail. It's a drink. -J'ai pigé. J'en ai rien à Get that shit out. Vire-moi cette merde. Je et j'espère que la hope the little vaut la peine. j'ai du boulot. I got this job. choqué du père] C'est une boisson. -I like pussy, like five cent. chose à dire, something? You dire ? J'ai pas claqué de gentilles sur nos the bomb: fuck C'était moi l'agent secret. -Chacun son petit trou du cul. motherfucker. blanc par ton cul ass-whippin'. I la pute que tu cherches en qu'elle sait que 'cause she heard cunnilingus. [air job? comme toi. un raté. T'as quelque You wanna say Tu as quelque chose à nos phrases those things on ''Saddam, suceur de bite''. -Whatever... joysticks dans ce switches in this dans ce putain d'oiseau. sortir ta tête de the best damn dans le cul. J'espère que gosses parce support money, un autre another blow-orgasme ? -J'aime les chattes, C'est pas un rappeur, c'est sonner. taguais toutes that drew all nos bombes : ''Fuck Iraq'', pas moi. Oh, y'a des Oh, Nigga got Y en a des commandes Je vais faire te You about to get Je vais t'enfoncer la tête s'occuper des more child Tu peux me faire Can I have Je peux avoir un autre garder son job. keep a job! levrette, en 69, gettin' tea--Ça suffit ! mortadelle, Ah, regarde-moi Ah, look at this Regarde ce petit gars. merde, ça fait C'est moi qui I was the nigga Je taguais des phrases sur chambre. Mais me. -Peu importe. sécurisée. locked. du blé pour bitch wants some bosse ici. pauvre naze. incapable de who can't even
	472						501 505

  Ces statistiques sont extraites des rapports de la Commission de Classification des OEuvres Cinématographiques et du BBFC. Ces rapports sont disponibles en ligne aux liens suivants.BBFC CNClangage dans le cadre d'un commentaire plus large : il s'agit d'un film d'animation, mais il n'est pas destiné à un jeune public, contrairement à beaucoup de films de cette catégorie.Ainsi, selon la société dans laquelle on se place, le film ne pourra pas toucher le même public.Le langage a donc sa propre histoire dans chacune des classifications : est-ce une histoire culturelle et sociale des « mots interdits, impolis, offensants etc » qui est retracée dans ces deux systèmes ? Ou bien une histoire institutionnelle du langage, telle qu'envisagée par le BBFC et la commission du CNC, et qui conjugueraient les attitudes des examinateurs à celles de professionnels de l'audiovisuel (en particulier, maisons de production et réalisateurs), audiences (une partie plus ou moins importante de la société suivant les époques), et personnes ou entités publiques diverses et variées (associations, autorités locales, institutions religieuses etc) ? Dans ce deuxième cas de figure, le langage serait aussi compris dans sa dimension politique et économique, et ne serait plus seulement envisagé du point de vue d'une société donnée, mais dépendrait également d'une culture d'institution, qui pourrait parfois provoquer des changements, tout comme adopter des attitudes très conservatrices, pas toujours partagées par la majorité des usagers des salles de cinéma. Dès lors, le propre d'une étude sociolinguistique dans le domaine des recherches cinématographiques, c'est de faire apparaître le discours que ces institutions utilisent pour définir ce qu'est le langage en tant que critère de classification d'un film, mais aussi de faire ressortir les préoccupations des audiences à propos du langage au fil du temps. Ainsi, la question principale de cette étude est donc : Comment le travail des examinateurs ainsi que les évolutions institutionnelles et sociales ont-ils façonné la création et le développement d'un critère langage au sein des classifications britanniques et françaises ?

	Définir une problématique.
		Universal films in British and French classifications
					in % (2004-2014)
	80,2	79,8	81,8	80,3	81,7	86,2	82,5	83,3	82,7
	7,3	10,7	9,5	6,3	10,8	9,5	12,4	14,4	10,2	13	13,4
	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014

Commission : http://www.cnc.fr/web/fr/rapport-de-la-commission. BBFC : http://bbfc.co.uk/aboutbbfc/annual-reports.

  Partie II : elle s'organise autour de la question de la méthodologie et du contexte historique dans lequel cette problématique s'est définie. En effet, il s'agit d'une part de se placer à un niveau plus global en s'intéressant à la partie terrain de ce sujet, mais aussi de définir les évolutions qui ont façonné la création d'un critère langage.-Partie III : en se consacrant à l'évolution du travail des examinateurs, il s'agit de mettre en valeur la façon dont le critère langage s'estou nonconstruit, mais aussi d'en présenter les principales caractéristiques, afin de le placer également dans une perspective plus contemporaine. En effet, de nos jours, le contenu langage de la classification au sein de ces deux systèmes dépend de dynamiques qui se sont mises en place au cours du siècle dernier. De plus, cette étude était placée sous le prisme de la diachronie et de la comparaison, afin d'expliquer les différences, telles qu'on les connait aujourd'hui, entre les classification britannique et française des films.Mais une fois ceci énoncé, quel est le rapport entre langage, classification des films et censure ? Ou pour le reformuler autrement, qu'est-ce que censurer un film ? À cette question, il y a plusieurs éléments de réponse. Un premier élément de définition qui apparaît comme le plus évident est l'interdiction totale d'une oeuvre. Un deuxième qui serait plus emblématique de ce qui se fait encore au Royaume-Uni et qui est symptomatique de cette procédure quand il s'agit des films est les scènes coupées.Cependant, censurer, et donc couper des scènes, couvrir des paroles, interdire la diffusion d'un film, c'est décider pour le ''grand public'', pour toutes les audiences potentielles, avant même sa projection en salles, si le film peut être vu par tout le monde ou si cela ne convient qu'à un certain type d'audience. Mais dans ce cas-là, classifier, est-ce censurer ? D'une certaine façon, si l'on considère que suivant la classification on peut interdire à une certaine audience comme les moins de 15 (GB) ou 16 (FR) ans de se rendre en salles de cinéma pour assister à une séance, alors oui. La classification pourrait être définie comme une sous-catégorie de la censure : après tout, jusqu'en 1984, BBFC signifie British Board of Film Censors.Pour conclure, la censure des films peut être :1. des scènes coupées/dialogues coupés (on parle de ''Bowdlerised versions'' : cas où le réalisateur ou la maison de production considère que l'institution est allée trop loin dans le découpage du film). Les dialogues coupés sont parfois plus fréquents qu'on le croit dans la mesure où la quantité de ''bad language'' joue sur le niveau de classification : « The Disney animated feature, Pocahontas II -Journey to a New World had three instances of the use of 'bloody' removed from a video where the appeal and address were wholly at 'U', and which was 'U' in all other respects » 246 . Il peut parfois s'agir de pré-censure (le script est consulté par le BBFC par exemple, avant même sa réalisation) : « Of course, we cannot say with any certainty till we see the film, as the treatment is what really matters. But I BBFC Annual Report. Document disponible en ligne. p.18. should think that most of it will turn out all right for ''U'' » 247 ; ou d'autocensure requise : ce fut le cas de Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Lors de sa soumission pour classification au BBFC, la maison de production demandait un ''PG'' alors que les examinateurs voyaient plutôt un ''15'', certaines scènes étant considérées comme inacceptables au niveau ''PG''. Ainsi, le 17 mai 1984, après un visionnage par un examinateur et un autre en groupe, une lettre contenant une pièce jointe mentionnant « The following modifications are required for the 'PG' category » fut envoyée à la maison de distribution UIP. La censure est alors l'objet de négociation : pour obtenir une certaine classification, il faut parfois sacrifier certains aspects du film et assurer l'avenir économique du film, car c'est bien là l'enjeu principal. 2. une interdiction de diffusion : au Royaume-Uni, ce fut le cas entre 1933 et 1958 pour Island of Lost Souls, réalisé par Erle C. Kenton (interdit en salles de cinéma pendant toute cette période). En France, la situation peut parfois même s'avérer encore plus complexe : Albert Montagne souligne qu'une interdiction de diffusion peut passer totalement inaperçue, car « La difficulté est aggravée du fait que l'interdiction totale n'est mentionnée que dans des revues spécialisées et demeure donc confidentielle » (2007 : p.15).

	Partie I: Les contours théoriques
	Qu'est-ce que censurer/classifier ?

246

BBFC. 1999.

  par l'implication des autorités locales, via le Cinematograph Act

	censure sont marqués
	Transcription	Year	Title	Director(s)
		1979	Life of Brian	directed by the
				Monty Python
		1988	A fish called	directed	by
			Wanda	Charles Crichton
		1991	Riff Raff	directed by Ken
				Loach
	English version	1993	Raining Stones	directed by Ken
	transcribed first			Loach
		1994	Ladybird,	directed by Ken
			Ladybird	Loach
		2001	Bread and Roses	directed by Ken
				Loach
		2007	This is England	directed by Shane Meadows

  Commission est le visionnage de la version soustitrée, et donc en version originale des films, et non pas de la version doublée. Ce qui fait qu'il n'existe pas de prise en compte de la traduction par les examinateurs, car ce serait isoler les dialogues du reste. Que prennent donc en compte les examinateurs français lorsqu'il s'agit du langage ? Le langage peut tout au plus être la cible d'un avertissement (J.F. Théry) C'est le cas notamment des films qui font partie de mon second corpus. Cependant, on peut remarquer que la mention langage est plus un appui pour justifier le décalage entre les apparences du film (par exemple, film d'animation) et la violence des images et des propos.Cela vient notamment s'inscrire dans le cadre des films de Ken Loach. Certes, le langage est cru, mais comme il est représentatif du contexte dans lequel évoluent les personnages, il n'y a pas de raison de le mentionner, dans la mesure où le message du film est clair : il est destiné à un public qui sera en mesure d'en comprendre l'ensemble des dimensions. Ainsi les examinateurs français, contrairement aux examinateurs britanniques, font confiance aux parents pour juger et trier les 80% de films Tous Publics et sélectionner ceux que leurs enfants sont en âge de visionner.L'aspect principal de la prise en compte du langage dans la classification française d'aujourd'hui est : l'accentuation d'un décalage.

	Un langage cru, vulgaire n'est pas un problème s'il s'inscrit dans un
	contexte spécifique (J.F. Tardy)

Extrait de la lettre de James Ferman, Secrétaire du BBBC, 15 Mai 1984, à UIP (UK) dans

  Si l'on s'en tenait à un strict test de fréquence, la comparaison entre le maintien de Life of Brian (y compris dans ses versions DVD) à un interdit aux moins de 15 ans et le passage de The King's Speech à un interdit aux moins de 12 ans, malgré le nombre d'occurrences de fuck mènerait à une incompréhension quant au système de classification britannique. Dans le cadre de cette comparaison, il est possible de se dire que le contexte d'utilisation de fuck explique la différence de classification et que la présence d'usage les films et des débats que cela peut occasionner, il est un réalisateur qui fait figure d'incontournable au Royaume-Uni : Ken LOACH. Ces propos sont fréquemment repris par la presse et son différend avec le BBFC n'est plus un secret : « The British middle class is obsessed by what they call bad language […] But of course bad language is manipulative language. They're very happy with that. But the odd oath, like a word that goes back to Chaucer's time, they ask you to cut » 253 . Et l'occasion pour lui d'utiliser le local comme levier politique fut la sortie en 2002 d'un de ses films, Sweet Sixteen. Comme le BBFC le remarque, « The film deals with poverty, violence, drug dealing and teenage crime. However, the key classification issue for the BBFC was strong language -the film's screenplay containing the harsh colloquialisms of Greenock's roughest estates » 254 . Et de fait, ce film reçut un interdit aux moins de 18 ans, en raison de la présence de langage vulgaireet nous verrons plus tard que le fait que l'histoire soit centrée sur des adolescents peut faire la différence d'une catégorie d'âge à l'autre. Cependant, à Inverclyde, une division administrative d'Écosse, situé à l'Ouest de Glasgow, là où le tournage eut lieu, le film fut interdit aux moins de 15 ans seulement, soutenant ainsi la position du réalisateur. Ces différends entre le local et le BBFC ne sont bien entendu pas limités à des films britanniques et portent aussi parfois sur des films étrangers, comme dans le cas de Spider-Man (2002), réalisé par Sam RAIMI 255 . Ce qu'il est intéressant de remarquer, c'est que la force des autorités locales s'appuie notamment sur la question du contexte : un film avec des adolescents à destination des adolescentsélément que les examinateurs du BBFC tendent progressivement à s'approprier dans leur évaluation des dialogues. Dans le cas de Juno, il y avait deux occurrences de fuck. Le BBFC a donc pris en considération deux arguments. D'une part, du point de vue des examinateurs, deux occurrences faisaient figure d'exception. D'autre part, dans le cadre de la question du contexte, les deux fuck présents ont été analysés comme n'étant ni agressifs ni dirigés envers quiconque : « The two uses of strong language ('f**K') are not aggressive nor directed at anyone. They occur firstly when Mark (the prospective adoptive father for Juno's baby) is trying to appear 'cool' in a conversation about horror movies, and secondly when Juno realises she is going into labour. Though strong language is not 253 Déclaration à l'occasion de la sortie du film The Angel's Share: Kev Geoghegan, « Ken Loach bemoans censors' cuts », BBC News, 22 Mai 2012, http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-18157711, consulté le 25/06/2016.

	Prise en compte du contexte.
	Swearwords	Damn Hell Bloody Bugger Shit Son	Bitch Twat Fuck	Cunt
	from BBFC's					of a		(toutes
	classification					bitch		formes)
	Life of Brian,			18	1	1	1	7
	1979
	The King's	5	3	21	9	10		17
	Speech, 2010

254

Site du BBFC, consulté le 25/06/2016 : http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/sweet-sixteen.

255

Site du BBFC, consulté le 25/06/2016 : http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/spider-man.

The CNCor Centre National de la Cinématographieis the institution in which the Commission of Classification of Cinematographic Works exists.

It means suitable for 12 years and older. A means that it requires any child under 12 to be accompanied by an adult.

Skyfall (2012), Insight from the BBFC website. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/skyfall-2012-2. Last seen onSeptember 23 rd , 2015.

Thesis for students in their second year of master.

BBFC files, Hook[START_REF] Hook | House of Cards (Michael LESSAC[END_REF]: about the use of little buggers said by Mr Smee about Peter's children. The expression used by the examiner is: "a term of endearment".

Original text: « il est une tendance qui ne change jamais: les questions de censure et d'interdiction sont d'abord des questions de territoires et de frontières ».

The information about the corpus of films is later in this chapter, and in chapter 3 as well.

Original text : « il est une tendance qui ne change jamais les questions de censure et d'interdiction sont d'abord des questions de territoires et de frontières ».

A fish called Wanda is in this corpus as it was produced by a member of the Monty Python's team, and seemed to cause the same kind of issues within the British classification.

Two years! That's how long it took before someone told me I was not pronouncing it properly. So here it is, the right pronunciation: /ɪgˈzaemɪnəʳ/.

For more precisions, please, see chapters 4 and 5.

[START_REF] Lamberti | Behind the scenes at the BBFC: Film classification from the Silver Screen to the Digital Age[END_REF] Behind the Scenes at the BBFC. Film Classification from the Silver Screen to the Digital Age. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

National Archives, Kew, HO 265/2, 1977-79, Home Office, BBFC submission to the Williams Committee.

Hence, the topic of the last Sociolinguistics Symposium (to come, when I am writing those lines): (SS21, Murcia) "Attitudes and Prestige".

CNC, Direction de la Communication. 2007. La Commission de classification des oeuvres cinématographiques. (brochure).

Indeed, the new healthy diet is not anymore "Eat five fruits and vegetables a day" but "Eat organic and local". If anyone is interested in the subject…

I will have a couple of things to say to my fairy godmother during my oral defence.

Marble Bust, Ph. ©Archives Labor. National Archeological Museum (Naples), found on the Larousse encyclopedia online, at: http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/images/H%C3%A9rodote/1007785, last seenMarch 23 rd , 2016.

InLitosseliti, Lia. 2010. Research Methods in Linguistics. London: Continuum.

Evelyn in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (John Madden, 2011).

Except if a simplified procedure has been asked by the producer: in this case, only the opinion of the subcommission is needed.

 100 For confirmation, you can check: Albert[START_REF] Montagne | Histoire juridique des interdits cinématographiques en France[END_REF], Frédéric[START_REF] Hervé | Censure et cinéma dans la France des Trente Glorieuses[END_REF], Laurent[START_REF] Garreau | Archives secrètes du cinéma français[END_REF], etc.

« Mener un entretien de face à face », In Paugam, Serge. 2012. L'enquête sociologique. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.

The interview with Jean-François Théry was only a list of question that I sent by e-mail, which gives a particular characteristic to the tone, which is written. But there was no possibility of doing it otherwise because of distance.

Only one interview is not transcripted: it took place in April 2016, when I had to spend time on writing all this.

Some people, as film historian Martin Loiperdinger, consider this episode as a founding myth of cinema, but also as a very exaggerated story. People were probably astonished, but not necessarily terrified. It is a good story anyway.

This debate is about defining the freedom of speech: "Does the freedom of speech enable anyone to say anything?" (Bernard Quentin, philosopher, imagined this possible subject for the 2015 session of the

This explanation is the result of articles 91 and 99 (April 5 th , 1984): the original document is available on Gallica.

National Conference on Problems connected with the Cinema. Saturday, 27th February, 1932, convened by the Birmingham Cinema Enquiry Committee, held at the University, Edmund Street, Birmingham. Morning session, J.A. Wilson. TNA: HO 45/15206.

Original Text: "le regime le plus original que le cinema ait connu en France".

BFI Archives. BBFC Verbatim Reports. 1932-1935. National Conference on Problems connected with the Cinema, conveyed by the Birmingham Cinema Enquiry Committee, University ofBirmingham, Saturday, 27th February, 1932.

This debate has had an important place within the media for the past few years, leading to studies as in psychological sciences: studies which go from one extremevideo games trigger violent behaviors (Craig A. Anderson, Brad J. Bushman, 2001)to the othervideo games have positive effects(Andy Przybylski, 2014).

TNA, HO 45/10551/163175: Minutes. Cinematograph Pictures. 20 April 1912, Mr Sylvester Horne to the Secretary of State, for the Home Department.

Original text: « à compter de 1966, c'est la jurisprudence censoriale qui court après l'évolution des moeurs et la transgression culmine avec la déferlante érotique et pornographiquede 1974-75 »

18.02.2016 (F) Interview: « Dans les années 70, la liberté de parole était vraiment pas la même, la liberté de la jeunesse était vraiment pas la même, la liberté de s'affirmer que ce soit sur ses tendances sexuelles,[…] ses croyances politiques, pour plein de choses, c'était vraiment pas la même chose avant. Y'a vraiment eu un avant et un après ».

(France and UK), data from a report presented at the Senate: "L'évolution du secteur de l'exploitation cinématographique". URL: http://www.senat.fr/rap/r02-308/r02-3081.html, last seen on April 12 th , 2016.

Original text: « elle s'est progressivement éloignée de son rôle de 'gardienne des tabous' pour devenir une institution de protection de l'enfance et de l'adolescence ».

For more details about the differences between plenary commission and sub-commissions, see part 3.

19.01.2014 Interview: "On ne peut pas avoir d'emprise là-dessus".

19.01.2014 Interview: "la Commission n'agit que sur ce qu'on peut contrôler. Ce qui n'est pas contrôlable, n'est pas contrôlable donc il est inutile de faire quoi que ce soit".

19.01.2014 Interview: "il faut se rendre compte que sur le marché des DVD, on n'est pas au cinéma, on ne peut pas interdire à une tranche d'âge d'acheter le DVD. On n'a aucune prise sur qui va le regarder ensuite".

19.01.2014 Interview: "ce qui sort c'est des recommandations, parce que pareil, on n'a pas d'emprise sur qui va jouer au jeu vidéo dans le cadre privée".

Channel 4. 1998. The Last Days of the Board.

The data about the career of each of the BBFC Secretary has been found at the TNA, HO 300/159, 1973-75, Home Office, Note attached to a brief to Mr Witney. Note prepared by Mr Turney about history of film censorship. Brief dated June 18th, 1973; And also in the online archives of the British Film Institute, Website BFI Screenonline, section People, URL: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/, last seen onApril 13 th , 2016.

For more information, BBFC Website, "The Video Recording Act". Education Resources. URL: http://bbfc.co.uk/education-resources/student-guide/legislation/video-recordings-act, last seen on April 13 th , 2016.

TNA, HO 300/171: From K.P. Witney, General department, To Mr Graham-Harrison, July 24 th , 1974 "Film censorship and the GLC".

"Director's Report for 1999". BBFC AnnualReport. 1999. p. 4.

BBFC Website. The Video Recording Acts "Digital media". URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/educationresources/student-guide/legislation/video-recordings-act, last seen on April 14 th , 2016.

148 Closing of the conference by Ms. Sylvie Hubac, president of the French Commission of classification of films, Report from the annual conference of European Commissions of Film Classification, December 10 th , 2004. p. 23. Original text: "Diversité. Elle est réelle et elle est un témoignage de nos identités, de l'histoire de nos différences et de nos particularités. Nous y sommes tous attachés. […] Cette situation est liée à nos histoires, à la place qu'occupe la famille dans nos sociétés, à la place du cinéma. […] Ces diversités sont source de richesse et elles sont

légitimes".149 Images taken from PEGI Website. URL: http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/33/, last seen on April 14 th , 2016.PEGI classification system (another traffic lights classification)PEGI descriptors (when present, they indicate the criteria relevant for a particular video game) Violence, bad language, fear, sex, drugs, discrimination, gambling, online gameplay.

BBFC Website, Digital Age Ratings, URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/digital-ageratings, last seen on April 14 th , 2016.

 151 But I can suggest something to any future Ph.D. student: If you are interested in the comparison between video games and films, there is a lot to do with adaptations of video games on screen. Just to let you

know… 152 20.01.2016 Interview : « il y a deux associations dans le Sud-Est de la France, qui se disent associations familiales, […] qui choisissent un juge qu'ils connaissent dans une petite ville, qu'ils saisissent en disant 'ce film sort sur les écrans de la ville, c'est une atteinte aux bonnes moeurs, je vous demande l'interdiction de ce film'»

"Observations on scenarios" is the way those reports were called.

BFI Archives, Observation on scenarios: "Hindle Wakes" (M.S. & Scenario) submitted by Gainsborough Pictures Ltd, April 22nd 1931. From the stage play by Stanley Houghton. Passed as a Silent film Jan 17th 1927 (CHH. JCH.A.).

Mark Duguid on the BFI Screenonline website. URL: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/437722/, last seen on June 2 nd , 2016.

Same year for France, with Les Trois Masques(André Hugon, 1929).

TNA, HO 45/11191: Report. British Board of Film Censors. For Year Ending December 31st, 1919. T.P. O'Connor, President. J. Brooke Wilkinson, Secretary.

TNA, HO 45/22906 (1929) and HO 45/14275 (1930)

TNA, CO 875/51/4.

Quoted in JamesRobertson (1985: p. 20).

TNA, HO 45/13808: Letter from J. Brooke Wilkinson, BBFC Secretary, To A. Crapper, Esq., Home Office, October 29 th , 1928

TNA, HO 45/13808: Letter from BBFC President, T.P. O'Connor, June 24 th , 1929.

TNA, HO 45/13808 : ibid.

According to the elements I have been able to gather through the archives, it seems that intelligible is referring both to the introduction of American slang through films, but also to dialects.

TNA, HO 45/13808 : ibid.

For a complete list of all the films, see BFI Archives website.

See BBFC website, URL: http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/smiling-lieutenant-syn-1931, last seen on June 10 th , 2016.

From the information I have, I have not been able to find any censorship for this particular film in France.

Original text: « tout est écoeurant et vulgaire, la situation, le style, le caractère des personnages, la grossièreté du langage, qui s'apparente fort peu à la langue française, l'érotisme, la brutalité des scènes ».

Original text: « Ce que révèle ce chapitre consacré à la morale du discours censorial, c'est que ce sont presque toujours les moeurs des jeunes, leur langage, leurs pratiques amoureuses que le censeur entend soustraire à la vue des mineurs ».

BBFC website, URL: http://bbfc.co.uk/what-classification/u, last seen on June 11 th , 2016.

The study was not only based on taboo words, but on taboo in general. There was the idea of comparing the verbal form of the taboo and its behavioral form. The example mentioned in TimothyJay (1992: p. 145) is: fuck and witnessing intercourse.

"This is a poster for Zazie dans le Métro. The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, the publisher of the film or the graphic artist." Source: Wikipédia. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zazie_dans_le_M%C3%A9tro#/media/File:Zazie-dans-le-metro-

Original text: « ces deux films, présentés dans le cadre de festivals d'été, étaient suivis par un public comportant aussi des jeunes et de très jeunes spectateurs, donc nous avons nous aussi fait appel à la variation diaphasique ».

GLAAD Media Reference Guide -Terms to avoid. URL: http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive. Last seen on June 16 th , 2016.

BBFC Archives. Letter from KRP to Eric Rattray, Twentieth Century-Fox Productions Ltd.October 8 th , 1975.

Examples taken from the subtitled and dubbed versions of Life of Brian, A Fish Called Wanda, Raining Stones, RiffRaff, Ladybird, Ladybird, Bread and Roses and Raining Stones.

William Labov, "Rules for ritual insults", In Sudnow David, Studies in social interaction, New York, The FreePress, 1972, pp. 120-169

Original text: "la "violence verbale" est un terme connoté, à saisir uniquement dans son sens situé, c'està-dire dans le contexte de la question à savoir ce qui compte comme violence et pour qui. Derrière la question se trouve aussi celle de savoir de quelles formes d'ordre social il s'agit et quel est le rôle spécifique de la langue dans la construction et la reproduction (et donc la résistance et la transformation) de cet ordre"

190 Original text: « La Commission propose une interdiction aux mineurs de 18 ans, en raison du caractère d'exemplarité qui peut s'attacher aux agissements criminels retracés et surtout en raison de la sorte de justification idéologique et morale que nombre de propos tenus, sur le thème de l'anarchie et sur la nécessité de faire appel au meurtre pour résoudre les problèmes de la vie en société, s'efforcent d'apporter à ces agissements. En outre, une coupure de texte est demandée, affectant les propos du chef de la sûreté : « Avec des voyous, c'est simple ; on est entre gens du même monde » ».

Original text: « « Dans un univers peuplé de poulinières militantes et de tapins malchanceux. » La Commission a considéré en effet que même dans le contexte où elle intervient, cette appréciation portée sur les maisons d'aide maternelle est de nature à porter un certain discrédit sur l'oeuvre de ces institutions ».

Original term: Période obsidionale.

National archives (Pierrefitte-sur-Seine). 19960031/49. Films with a visa of exportation (meaning: authorised for export in other countries).

BBFC Seminar. February 10th, 2015. Soho Square.

BBFC website. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/kings-speech-film. Last seen on June 21 st , 2016.

BBFC website. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/juno-0. Last seen on February 25 th , 2016.

BBFC website, Insight of Sweet Sixteen, in the "Case Studies" section, last seen on June 2 nd , 2016. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/sweet-sixteen.

BBFC website, Insight for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, last seen on July 25 th , 2014. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/et-extra-terrestrial-1982.

BBFC website, Insight for Frozen, last seen on June 24 th , 2014, URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/frozen-2013.

BBC News, URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/7633749.stm, last seen on June 25 th , 2016.

Masters, Tim. "Swear-free King's Speech to get lower US rating", BBC News, URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12590443, last seen on June 25 th , 2016.

BBFC Website. Insight for La vie d'un chat. Last seen on June 21st, 2016. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/une-vie-de-chat-2010.

A script can be sent before the shooting, and the BBFC examiners then suggest some modifications that have to be done in order to get a lower rating. See the Archives section of the BBFC website for further detail, especially the documents attached in .pdf for the film Clash of The Titans. Last seen on June 29 th , 2016. URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/archive%E2%80%A6we-look-back-clash-titans.

Direction de la communication du CNC. Janvier 2007. "La Commission de classification des oeuvres cinématographiques". Brochure de découverte du travail de la Commission

Original text: « un dispositif à la fois technique et social qui organise des rapports sociaux spécifiques entre la puissance publique et ses destinataires en fonction des représentations et des significations dont il est porteur ».

Combination of the definitions of 'certificat, attestation' from the CNRTL website. URL: http://www.cnrtl.fr.

Combination of the definitions of 'visa, autorisation' from the CNRTL website. URL: http://www.cnrtl.fr.

Original text: « On est dans la protection des mineurs et on est dans un système où la classification est une recommandation... forte dans certains cas, et qui a des conséquences économiques, ça on le sait ».

Original text: "Moi, en tant que parent, quand mes enfants voulaient voir un film, j'allais le voir avant pour savoir ce qu'ils allaient voir. Ils allaient pas à 10 ans au cinéma tout seuls"

Original text: "on ne peut pas faire une grille, un tableau dans lequel on jette les films, ce n'est pas possible"

BBFC website, Student FAQs, Last seen on June 26 th , 2016. URL: http://bbfc.co.uk/educationresources/student-faqs#5.

TNA, HO 45/10551/163175.

[START_REF] Trevelyan | Sociolinguistics Patterns in British English[END_REF]. What the censor saw. London: Michael Joseph LTD. p.32-33.

[START_REF] Trevelyan | Sociolinguistics Patterns in British English[END_REF]. What the censor saw. London: Michael Joseph LTD. p.34-35.

TNA, HO 45/24084.

TNA, HO 45/23091.

Team America. Directed by Trey Parker. In BBFC Website. 2004. Consulté le 19/08/2014. URL : http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/team-america-world-police-2004-0.

Team America. Directed by Trey Parker. In Commission de Classification des OEuvres Cinématographiques. Mars 2004-Mars 2005. « Rapport d'activité ». Paris : CNC. Consultable sur le site du CNC.

Copilote Gaeman Mack Idem En se présentant. 00:24:15 Rien à voir avec Annex 4 : Primary Sources References for TNA (Kew) CAB 14/675 CAB 24/193/12 CAB 37/157/2 CO 875/51/4 FO 740/5 HO 139/6 HO 244/383 HO 265/14 HO 265/2 HO 265/64 HO 300/159 HO 300/160 HO 300/162 HO 300/163 HO 300/164 HO 300/166 HO 300/167 HO 300/171 HO 300/28 HO 300/28 HO 300/29 HO 300/88 HO 45/10551/163175 HO 45/10811/312397 HO 45/10812/312397 HO 45/10955/312971 HO 45/11191 HO 45/13808 HO 45/14275 HO 45/14276 HO 45/14277 HO 45/15206 HO 45/15207 HO 45/15208 HO 45/15248 HO 45/17036 HO 45/17072 HO 45/17073 HO 45/22906 HO 45/23091 HO 45/24084 HO 45/24945 HO 45/24945 HO 45/25914 INF 1/178 MEPO 2/1696 PRO 57/5348

Representative of the

Ministry of Agriculture

Hughet (René), Chef du 1er bureau à la Direction de l'Agriculture, Ministère de l'Agriculture Representatives of film producers -Charles

Sympathy for the Devil (Jean-Luc GODARD, 1968) Talent For the Game (Robert M. YOUNG, 1991) The Abyss (James CAMERON, 1989) The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes ' Smarter Brother (Gen WILDER, 1975) The Americanization of Emily (Arthur HILLER, 1964) The Bengali Night (Nicholas KLOTZ, 1988) The Best Man (Franklin J. SCHAFFNER, 1964) The Best Pair of Legs in the Business (Christopher HODSON, 1968) The Bodyguard (Mick JACKSON, 1992) The Commitments (Alan PARKER,1991) The Contraption (James DEARDEN, 1978) The Day of the Dolphin (Mike NICHOLS, 1973) The Entertainer (Tony RICHARDSON, 1960) The Face of Fu Manchu (Don SHARP, 1965) The Fast Lady (Ken ANNAKIN, 1962) The Front (Matin RITT, 1976) The Great Rock 'N' Roll Swindle (Julien TEMPLE, 1980) The Great St. Trinian's Train Robbery (Sidney GILLIAT, Frank LAUNDER, 1966) The Gun in Betty Lou's Handbag (Allan MOYLE, 1993) The Incredible Hulk (Kenneth JOHNSON, 1979) The Jazz Singer (Richard FLEISCHER, 1980) The Land That Time Forgot (Kevin CONNOR, 1974) The Last American Hero (AMONT JOHNSON, 1973) The Last of England (Derek JARMAN, 1987) The League of Gentlemen (Basil DEARDEN, 1960) The Lion In Winter (Anthony HARVEY, 1968) The Long Duel (Jen ANNAKIN, 1967) The Man Who Haunted Himself (Basil DEARDEN, 1970) The Man Who Would Be King (John HUSTON, 1975) The Mask (Charles RUSSEL, 1994) The Passenger (Michelangelo ANTONIONI, 1975) The Ploughman's Lunch (Richard EYRE, 1983) The Rocky Horror Picture Show (Jim SHARMAN, 1975) The Sandwich-Man (Robert HARTFORD-DAVIS, 1966) The Sure Thing (Rob REINER, 1985) The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three (Joseph SARGENT, 1974) The Thrill of It All (Norman JEWISON, 1963) The Wild Geese (Andrew V. McLAGLEN, 1978) The Wind And The Lion (John MILIUS, 1975) The World's Greatest Lover (Gen WILDER, 1977) Thoroughly Modern Millie (George Roy HILL, 1967) Till Death Do Us Apart (Norman COHEN, 1968) To Kill a Mockingbird (Robert MULLIGAN, 1962) Tron (Steven LISBERGER, 1982) Ulysses (Joseph STRICK, 1967) Umberto D (Vittorio DE SICA, 1952) Un Coeur en Hiver (Claude SAUTET, 1993) Up The Front (Bob KELLET, 1972) Victim (Basil DEARDEN, 1961) War of the Buttons (John ROBERTS, 1994 Wargames (John BADHAM, 1983) Watch Your Stern (Gerald THOMAS, 1960) Watership Down (Martin ROSEN, 1978) When The Legend Dies (Stuart MILLAR, 1972) White Fang (Randal KLEISER, 1991) Wittgenstein (Derek JARMAN, 1993) Young Frankenstein (Mel BROOKS, 1974) Zazie Dans Le Métro (Louis MALLE, 1962)

Data extracted from BBFC reports (URL: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/annual-reports) and Commission of Classification's reports (URL: http://www.cnc.fr/web/fr/rapport-de-la-commission). The reports for 2013 and 2014 are not yet public for the Commission.

Annexes

REPORT FOR YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31 ST , 1914 232 :

Added content from BBFC report 1914: (5) Funerals and death-bed scenes treated with levity. (7) The careers of notorious criminals. (8) The 'modus operandi' of criminals. (9) Cruelty to young infants. (10) Excessive cruelty and torture to adults. (11) Unnecessary exhibitions of feminine underclothing. (15) Incidents injurious to the reputation of Governmental Departments. [START_REF]Bolshevik propaganda[END_REF] Gruesome murders, suicides, strangulation scenes and massacres. (18) The effect of vitrol throwing. (19) Realistic horrors in warfare. (20) Incidents tending to scare the public, and produce panic during the War. ( 21) Scenes depicting the movement or disposition of troops and other incidents calculated to afford information to the enemy. ( 22) Incidents having a tendency to disparage our Allies. [START_REF]Women fighting with knives. 24. Doubtful characters exalted to heroes[END_REF] Subjects dealing with White Slave traffic. ( 27) Scenes depicting the effects of hereditary disease. [START_REF]Procuration, prostitution, and immoral relationships. 29. Unbridled and illicit passions. 30. Liaisons with blodd relations. 31[END_REF] Stories tinctured with salacious wit. [START_REF]Serious crimes lending themselves to imitation[END_REF] Incidents suggestive of incestuous relations. [START_REF]Executions and hangings, treated seriously and in comic vein. 31[END_REF] Outrages on women. (31) Themes relative to 'Race Suicide'. (33) Scenes laid in disorderly houses. [START_REF]Antagonistic relations of Capital and Labour and scenes showing conflicts between the Protagonists[END_REF] Sensual exposition of Eugenic Doctrines Ce schéma résume assez bien ce que j'ai essayé de montrer tout au long des deux chapitres historiques de cette partie. Dans le cas des deux classifications, les premières censures de films, ainsi que les premiers débats autour de la nécessité d'un système unifié de censure commencent en 1909.

A partir de là, les deux systèmes vont suivre des trajectoires à la fois similaires sur le plan des acteurs impliqués dans la censure des films, et à la fois différentes sur le plan de la forme donnée à l'institution. Au Royaume-Uni, comme en France, les débuts de la Seize The Day (Fielder COOK, 1986) Shadow (John CASSAVATES, 1960) Shoot the Pianist (François TRUFFAUT, 1960) Silent Running (Douglas TRUMBULL, 1972) Star Trek -The Motion Picture (Robert WISE, 1979) Steptoe And Son Ride Again (Peter SYKES, 1973) Stormy Monday (Mike FIGGS, 1988) Strangers on a train (Alfred HITCHCOCK, 1951) Subway (Luc BESSON, 1985) Sunset Boulevard (Billy WILDER, 1950) Sunstruck (James GILBERT, 1972) Superman (Richard DONNER, 1978) Superman II (Richard LESTER, Richard DONNER, 1980)