Crash (1996)

Classification issues

• Sex
  • A sexual fetish of people becoming aroused by cars and car accidents is a theme of the film. There are frequent prolonged scenes of sex that include nudity, mechanical detail and strong verbal sex references. In one scene, a woman rubs her naked groin against a man's leg. A close up image shows semen on a woman's hand.
• Additional issues
  • Other issues include violence, threat, injury detail and strong language.

Cinema classification 

David Cronenberg's film of J.G. Ballard's controversial 1973 novel had already aroused comment in the press before it was submitted to the BBFC. Its screening at the 1996 Cannes Film Festival had provoked the Evening Standard's film critic, the late Alexander Walker, to describe the film as 'beyond the bounds of depravity'. On the day of its UK premiere at the London Film Festival (where it was shown without a BBFC certificate but with the special permission of Westminster Council) the front page of the Daily Mail demanded 'Ban This Car Crash Sex Film'. This was to mark the beginning of an intensive campaign against the film by the Daily Mail and Evening Standard.

It was against this background that the BBFC was asked to view Crash in October 1996. The sexual content of the film was unremarkable in classification terms and the violence was no stronger than could be found in many other features (comprising car crashes rather than one-on-one personal violence). However, it was the unusual combination of sexual excitement with car crashes (and their attendant injuries) that appeared to provoke outrage amongst some.

It was clear to the BBFC from the outset that, like Ballard’s novel, the film was not intended to be taken literally. Rather it attempted to examine a number of issues in a metaphorical manner, such as the link between sex and risk, the increasing importance of technology in modern lives, and the manner in which people whose lives are empty seek a connection to life through increasing and dangerous levels of thrill-seeking. The activities of the characters – and the characters themselves – were simply too bizarre for emulation to be likely. Furthermore, the film presented the crashes and even the sex scenes in a detached fashion that was unlikely to excite or attract audiences.

Although the BBFC was content that the film was acceptable for viewing by adults, the increasing barrage of charges against the film – that it was obscene, dangerous, likely to incite car crashes, offensive to the disabled – led the BBFC to seek expert advice.

A QC was engaged to give a legal opinion as to whether the film was likely to be obscene within the meaning of the Obscene Publications Act. He concluded that the film did not offend against this law. 

A psychologist was asked to advise as to whether the film was likely to be dangerous or incite copycat behaviour. He concluded that, in itself, the film would have no such effect. 

Finally, the film was screened to a group of eleven disabled people, because it had also been suggested that the film's portrayal of some of its disabled or injured characters engaged in sexual activity could be offensive. Although the invited group did not generally enjoy the film, they concluded that its depiction of disabled people as being able to be both sexually attractive and active (despite rather than because of their injuries) was generally a positive thing.

With the combined weight of legal and psychological advice, the opinions of disabled viewers, and the unanimous view of the BBFC Examiners that the film was neither harmful nor dangerous for adult audiences, Crash was classified at 18 uncut on 18 March 1997. 

Post-classification response

Predictably, the BBFC's careful and considered decision was not welcomed by the Daily Mail or Evening Standard. However, when the film finally opened in May 1997, it provoked little public comment. 

Media coverage of the BBFC’s decision intensified between the film’s classification and its release. Some newspapers published photographs and personal details of BBFC examiners and characterised them as unrepresentative ‘liberals’ who had declined to ban a film they considered offensive or harmful.

Against the backdrop of sustained media attention surrounding the film, Westminster Council – which had previously granted permission for the film to be premiered in its area as part of the 1996 London Film Festival – subsequently required that cuts be made before the film could be screened in the West End. The distributors chose not to make alterations solely for Westminster screenings, with the result that the film was not shown in the West End, including Leicester Square. Audiences were nonetheless able to view the film uncut in neighbouring Camden, where the local council permitted screenings under its BBFC certificate.

Video classification

Later in 1997, the film was submitted for a video certificate and, after careful consideration, it was agreed that the reasons for permitting the film at the cinema were equally valid on video. The video version was therefore also rated 18 without cuts in March 1998 and the film has subsequently been shown on national television.