Warning! These films contain negative depictions of people and cultures...

This film has outdated attitudes, language and cultural depictions which may cause offence today. Iconic romance based on Truman Capote’s novella with Audrey Hepburn.” That’s what greets Sky/Now TV customers contemplating streaming Breakfast at Tiffany’s, a film that provided its star with one of her most famous roles, an Oscar nomination, the consolidation of her status as a style icon.

Tiffany’s is far from alone. The warnings have become increasingly commonplace. They appear in front of everything from classic Disney animation, to epic sci fi, to westerns, to comedies. But why the warning on an apparently gentle romantic comedy featuring a luminous performance from a star at the top of her game? That’s sure to provoke older viewers into huffing and puffing about Sky indulging in “political correctness gone mad”? Twitter’s angry brigade has already snarled its outrage.

It really isn’t hard to work out. The reason becomes abundantly clear within a few minutes of the film’s opening when Mickey Rooney makes his first appearance as Mr Yunioshi. For the role of the Japanese character, Rooney donned “yellow face” make up and wore a prosthetic. Once attired, he seemed determine to play up to every (offensive) stereotype going. If you can’t see the issue with that then, Houston, you have a problem.

The performance drew pointed criticism from at least some reviewers when the film was released, back in the pre-civl rights America of 1961.

The film has a darker heart than what many people probably remember. On the plus side, if you look hard enough, there's a commentary on class and social roles. But there’s another issue created by the unduly sympathetic portrayal of lead character Holly Golightly’s much older ex-husband. Spoiler alert, we learn that he married her at 14 when she went by the name of Lula Mae Barnes in backwoods Oklahoma. There’s a word for that sort of person today and it isn’t a terribly pretty one.

Rooney’s performance is still by far the biggest problem, as producer Richard Shepherd ultimately admitted and apologised for. It’s the sort of caricature that can inspire wounding playground taunts. They aren’t always confined to the playground. This was made clear when a free showing was planned in New York. Brooklyn resident Ursula Liang was moved to raise a petition against it.

She said at the time: “By screening this film, the organisers are sanctioning the racism it contains, and subjecting new audiences (including children and Asian-Americans) to a minstrel show of racist ideology. It’s 2011. It’s New York. Do we still have to fight the hostile, hurtful world of 1961 Hollywood?”

A different dynamic is at work when it comes to home screenings, where the debate has been brought to a head by the growth of streaming. It has opened vast catalogues of material for viewing on demand. The killing of George Floyd in the US, and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, have given it added urgency.

Disney Plus recently responded by strengthening the warnings about the questionable content in some of its older animated films. Lady And The Tramp, Dumbo and The Jungle Book et al used to be accompanied by an advisory notice that read: “This programme is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions.”

The message now reads: “This programme includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures.”

“The stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now. Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together.

“Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe.”

The strongly worded first part doesn’t quite say “watch out, there’s racism here and it was just as racist when this film was made as it is today”. But it isn’t far off.

The message is tempered somewhat by the second part which basically says: “Look we’re a multinational entertainment giant now, and we want to make clear that we don’t want to discriminate when it comes to money.”

In a couple of cases Disney has gone further. The original cut of Fantasia, a film arguably more loved by critics than by the children it was aimed at, featured “Sunflower” an apparently African American female centaur depicted fussing over and grooming a group of elegant, southern belle thoroughbred types. It was removed in 1969, although you can find the original on YouTube easily enough.

Song of the South, a musical mixture of live action, animation, and grossly stereotyped images of African American workers on a post-civil war Georgia plantation, won’t be appearing with either a beefed up warning or cuts.

“Not appropriate in today’s world,” said former CEO Bob Iger, responding to a question at a previous Disney AGM.

The issue of content advisories is one that at least one of the UK broadcasters I approached proved very reluctant to discuss. A specialist in archival material sent me away with a medium polite flea in my ear.

But to its credit Sky was prepared to explain its policy. Spokesman Rick Behari said: “We constantly review all content on Sky’s owned channels and will take action where necessary including adding additional information for our customers to allow them to make an informed decision when deciding what films and TV shows to watch.

“As a rule our policy is to provide information and guidance to customers, which gives them context around content and when it was made, rather than to necessarily remove titles but everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis.”

The advisory accompanying Flash Gordon is clearly a reference to its baddie Ming the Merciless, played by Max von Sydow and made up to look like one of the tyrannical East Asian villains that were a staple of pop culture when the character made its debut in the 1930s.

Another example is Gone With The Wind, one of the best loved pictures of all time, a favourite of one Donald J Trump, and an ugly piece of confederate revisionism that glosses over slavery and is full of horribly stereotyped Africa American characters. It’s also a slushy, soapy, overlong exhibit A for those seeking to make the case that Hollywood’s golden age wasn’t as golden as some critics would have you believe. But the latter’s just a question of taste.

Other films with notices may surprise. Aliens features a strong, empowered female lead in the form of Sigourney Weaver as Ripley, but also includes Jenette Goldstein, who is white, made up to appear Hispanic in the role of Private Vasquez. This could highlight a potential flaw with the warning: It’s lack of specificity may puzzle some viewers who might wonder why it’s there if they don’t know the background.

Controversy over archival material is far from unique to film. It affects television too. It’s something ITV’s streaming service BritBox, in which the BBC also has a stake and supplies content to, has had to grapple with.

Although BritBox has its own shows – notably the re-booted Spitting Image – its chief selling point is clearly the vast reservoir of content the contributing broadcasters have built up over more than 70 years.  

Some of that material contains attitudes, language, and practices that are at the very least anachronistic, if not downright offensive. Floyd’s murder, and the events that followed, prompted BritBox, alongside ITV's compliance department, to assemble a team with the aim of tapping into fresh viewpoints, including comedy executives from black and minority ethnic backgrounds such as Rina Dayali and Darren Boshirin, as well as Satmohan Panesar, chair of ITV Embrace and its factual commissioner.

“By examining the content through a contemporary lens we have been able to contextualise material and strengthen warnings. Where possible, we also reach out to the shows' creators to assess responsible ways to present programming to our subscribers.

“We know that this will need to be an ongoing process, to reflect society's evolving views,” the service said.

Some shows will inevitably go the way of Song of the South and not be shown at all. But they will be in the minority. Spokesman Paul Moore said their number is much smaller than those featuring an advisory: “If you look back as recently as the noughties, and certainly the pre-1990s, you will find attitudes in programmes that clearly aren’t acceptable today.

“But in the streaming world where people are choosing what to watch, it’s very different to the linear broadcast world where the content is more contemporary and, you would hope, wouldn’t contain offensive material.

“When it comes to streaming, I think most people’s preference would be to make things available as long as you make clear when there is a potential issue with a programme. That way, viewers can make the decision as to whether they want to watch it or not.  And what we’ve also tried to do is move from a generalised warning to one that’s specific to the content.”

Moore pointed out that even some of the content from the relatively recent past can create difficulties.

One notable example is Little Britain, the sketch comedy  which ran from 2003 to 2006. It has come under fire over the use of blackface make up, among other things, and no longer features on the service: “Times have changed since Little Britain first aired, so it is not currently available on BritBox.”

The debate has, however, led some to express concern about it detracting from the Black Lives Matter campaign’s core message.

Anthony Andrews is co-founder and creative director of We Are Parable, an award winning film exhibition company that provides UK audiences with opportunities to experience black cinema.

He is worried about the risk of an overdue conversation about racism and its impact getting subsumed into the culture war. “Black Lives Matter is about highlighting the systemic racism that exists and it was picking up steam and gathering momentum. People were starting to understand and buy into the key objectives,” he said.

“When shows then started coming off the air, it felt like the wrong conversation. They are only a small part of a much bigger issue.”

Andrews said he preferred the use of content advisories to removals: “These shows, these films, they exist. The are reflective of our society. They contain attitudes that reflect how some people still feel. By taking them away you almost risk saying racism doesn’t exist anymore, which is far from the case.

“I think keep them up with the warning, because that holds the viewer accountable too. It says these things are there and they are offensive so understand what you’re watching.”

Andrews admits the conversation has opened his eyes to some of the programmes he had been a fan of. Friends, a show which is now increasingly sparking debate, is an example. “When I was growing up I loved Friends. I watched it a lot. Now people are becoming savvy to how it is problematic. It’s homophobic, transphobic and there are also about five black people in the whole thing.”

I didn’t necessarily need the warning to see the issues created by Rooney’s performance in Tiffany’s. It’s jarring, and, as producer Shepherd said, it casts a cloud over and spoils the film. It did serve to make me think more deeply about what I was watching, and some of the other issues with it, including the portrayal of Holly’s ex husband.

But despite what some of their critics would have you believe, the warnings are not an extension of Cancel Culture. To the contrary. They are, rather, more akin to the advisories concerning violent or explicit content, which are much more likely to be welcomed than criticised.

A case can be made for their being used more widely. To my mind, they could easily be added to almost any film in which Hollywood has featured a disabled character. That doesn’t mean these movies being censored. You can still watch Tiffany’s, the Disney classics, Aliens. Just be aware of the issues. These films do have them.

And perhaps be prepared to tweak the noses of film-makers today if they fail to pay due heed to them. They still sometimes do. Some of the films with warnings attached are of a very recent vintage.