Pixote: Survival of the Weakest
Dir Hector Babenco / 1981 / Brazil
This was chosen to screen at the 1982 Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals. The Commonwealth Chief Censor, Janet Strickland had a different idea, and in late May 1982 it was called in for viewing. In June 1982 the 3402mtr (124min 21sec) print was Refused Classification for "sexual exploitation of a minor".
An
appeal was hastily made to the Board of Review who overturned the RC
rating and passed it with the special condition:
"That the film will be exhibited only at
the 1982 Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals and then exported."
Consolidated Exhibitors picked the film up for commercial distribution and in July 1982 submitted a 3490mtr (127min 34sec) print. The Censorship Board again refused the film for "sexual exploitation of a minor". An appeal was once more made to the Review Board who again overturned the decision, but this time awarded the film an R18+ rating. This has a longer running time than the one passed for film festival screenings. The statement by Review Board explains this discrepancy.
Following a theatrical run, PIXOTE went on to be released on Australian video by the Palace Academy label.
A DVD is available in the US on the New Yorker Films label.
The following two articles are by Scott Murray and appeared in Cinema Papers magazine at the time of the controversy. They provide an excellent history of this case. The KEN PARK ban shows that over twenty years later, film festivals are still fighting the censors.
***
Strickland
Strikes
Scott
Murray reports:
As predicted in previous censorship items, the Commonwealth Chief Censor,
Janet Strickland, has finally achieved her ambition of removing the
censorship privileges of film festivals. Not only has she effectively
overridden the 1975 Film Festival Agreement, which gave festivals certain
censorship exemptions, Strickland has also banned one of the 1982 entries
at the Melbourne and Sydney festivals (Pixote, winner of the 1981 New York
Film Critics' Award for Best Foreign Film).
On
hearing of the banning, Melbourne Festival director, Geoffrey Gardner,
said
"The film has been shown at more than 12 major film festivals, and
has been commercially released, uncut, in the United States. To suppress
it is a decision grossly out of touch with what is happening in the best
of modern cinema."
Gardner
then went on to call for Strickland's resignation.
The
Sydney Film Festival director, David Stratton, said the ban was,
"an
outrageous intervention in the selection of programming. Mrs Strickland
has placed the festivals in jeopardy, in total foreknowledge of the
consequences... I cannot see the film festivals surviving without the
immediate intervention of the [federal] Attorney-General."
But
perhaps the most direct response came from the Premier of Victoria, John
Cain, who opened the Melbourne Festival:
"I
thought we had stopped all that nonsense 15 or 20 years ago. I believe it
should not have happened and will do all I can to ensure it does not
happen for next year's festival."
The
History
Trouble
began soon after Strickland's assumption of office two years ago.
Regarding the 1975 censorship agreement for film festivals as
"elitist" , she vowed to bring festivals In line with
regulations governing commercial importers of films.
The 1975 agreement says in part,
"(b)
Every film will be registered without screening with 'Festival Conditions'
except:
- Registration will not be made of any film which has previously been
rejected for commercial use."
Clearly,
any film not already classified by the Censor can be shown in a film
festival. This is the very basis of the 1975 pact. But Strickland has,
without consultation, abandoned that agreement.
Strickland's
action in banning a festival film has long been feared and is part of a
long campaign. Her first move came in the 1980 Annual Report of the Film
Censorship Office:
"By
1977 it had become obvious that the new, system [the 1975 agreement]
breached. . . provisions of the state film censorship Acts. . ."
This
is nonsense. In 1975 the then Chief Censor, Richard Prowse, was only too
aware of what constituted a "breach". The 1975 agreement was a
"gentlemen's agreement", In its most correct sense, and found a
way of being tolerant instead of insipid adherence to the letter of the
law. Strickland knew this and her remark merely reflects her desire to
abandon the agreement.
The
next move came from the Attorney-General, Senator Durack, on August 25, 1981.
In answer to a question from Senator Hamer about the need to amend
regulations in favour of festivals, Durack said he was having discussions
on the matter. His full reply left no doubt about his ultra-conservative
views. These were spelt out even more explicitly in the Senate in
Durack
also said (in August) that the Censor "always reserved the right to
call in a film which might have difficulty obtaining commercial
registration". Clearly that contradicts the section of the 1975
agreement quoted above.
Strickland's
next move was in May 1982 when she called in films from the Melbourne Film
Festival for approval (The Order, The
Babysitter, Red
Love, 1922
). In his
reply of May 7, director Geoffrey Gardner wrote:
"I
must protest at your action as I feel it threatens the very basis of the
film festival. I am, quite frankly, astonished to receive these requests
as it appears to me that you have either forgotten or overlooked the terms
of the agreement negotiated by the festivals, with you present, in 1975,
an agreement which, up to now, has worked quite smoothly as far as we are
concerned. . .
".
. . it is obvious that you are uni- laterally disregarding the terms of
the agreement and rendering it worthless, if you are of the opinion, as
you seem to be, that the agreement should not be honoured by at least one
party to it, then surely it is up to you to notify the other parties
concerned of this so that all are aware of your actions and
representations can be made to the various responsible Governments for
discussion."
Strickland
replied on May 10, saying
"...... you state that you are 'astonished' to receive such a
request and charge me with having 'either forgotten or overlooked the
terms of the agreement negotiated by the Festivals' in 1975...... I draw
your' attention to sub-para. (ii) In the second paragraph of that letter
in which I stated, '. . that Festival films are processed on receipt of
applications and synopses without censorship screenings provided they are
not called in for screening by the Chief Censor, . .' In the light of this
advice, your astonishment is a little difficult to understand.
"None
of the conditions as set out in the 1975 'agreement' to which you refer
affects the Chief Censor's right to require that the Film Censorship Board
screen any film before registration may occur. Moreover, if the Film
Censorship Board is of the opinion that Regulation 13(1) of the Customs
(Cinematograph Films) Regulations is applicable, the Board has a statutory
obligation to refuse the film's registration.
"No
'agreement', including the 1975 'agreement', can invalidate the legal
responsibilities of the Chief Censor or the Film Censorship
Gardner
has also raised the issue of time delays caused by the Censor calling in
films. Strickland replied,
",
. . you claim that the Film Censorship Board has held a film (which you
have failed to identify) for a lengthy and unreasonable time. Our records
would indicate that you are referring, to the film The Order which was I
received for screening on April 27, I 1982, screened five working days
later and your office informed by telephone the following day of the
decision to register. I enclose the Certificate of Registration."
Despite
Strickland's protestation, Gardner was given to reply:
"I
must confess to having little confidence that this [getting films
processed] can be done quickly especially in the light of the experience
with the previous film, The Order, which I would point out has
still not arrived back at this office, 17 days after it was received in
your office."
Gardner
continued,
On
May 17 Gardner Issued a statement of concern over Strickland's actions,
and on May 20 issued a second release. In it he said,
"We
remain strongly of the opinion that the Customs (Cinematograph Films)
Regulations should be Immediately amended to a position similar to that
which applies in Britain whereby British Customs and Excise Regulations
permit the direct Import of films for showing at approved Festivals.
"The
Shadow Attorney-General, Haddon Storey, has sent a telegram to the
Commonwealth Attorney- General, Senator Durack, which endorsed the view
taken by the [Victorian] Premier, Mr Cain, on Festival censorship. Mr
Storey's telegram reads as follows: 'I am concerned at the decision of
chief film censor to examine four films for Melbourne Film Festival. This
appears to depart from previous practice over many years and to be
contrary to spirit of last Ministers' meeting. I urge maintenance of long-
standing position pending resolution at next meeting. Haddon Storey,
Shadow Attorney-General.'"
But
the matter didn't rest with Strickland's action on these four films (two
of which are now cleared; decisions are awaited on the others). Late In
May, Strickland called In the Brazilian
Stop press: On June 9 the Films Board of Review upheld an appeal against the banning of Pixote and released it for the festivals. As well, the remaining two films of the four called in by Strickland ( Red Love and 1922) were cleared for screening So, a few, small victories have been won But the issue of festival censorship - and censorship in general - is unresolved.
***
The
decision of the Film Censorship Board to ban Pixote from the Melbourne and
Sydney film festivals has continued to arouse controversy.
First,
an appeal was lodged by the Sydney Film Festival and on June 9 the Films
Board of Review overturned the ban and release the film for festival
screening.
Then
the Australian distributor, Consolidated Exhibitors, applied for.
censorship certification for a commercial release of Pixote. Despite some
cuts having been made (the new print was claimed to have been the U.S.
version), the Censorship Board again banned the film.
This
was an act of defiance on its part as it knew the Pixote ban had been
overruled in the past and would most likely be again.
Not
surprisingly, this is what happened, the film being cleared by the Films
Board of Review for general release. Contrary to usual practice. the
So,
twice in two months, on the same film, the Censorship Board's views
More
disturbing, however, is the Censorship Board's reliance on state Acts of
Parliament to 'support' its actions. In particular, the Chief Censor,
Janet Strickland, said in explanation of the first ban that the Board
considered Pixote to contravene the Victorian Police Offences
Act 1958. But the Censorship Board is not the adjudicator or enforcer
of state police Acts. This was pointed out only too clearly in the letter
of the Victorian Attorney- General, John Cain, to Strickland on June 15:
"This
Act Is subject to my administration and if its terms are breached, I can
assure you that prosecutions
Cain
also wrote to the Federal Attorney-General, Peter Durack, Informing him of
this. (See both letters below.)
When
the Censorship Board banned Pixote for the second time, however,
Strickland again claimed that it violated, among others, the Victorian
Police Offences Act 1958. Consequently, it appears as if the
Censorship Board is knowingly acting outside its jurisdiction,
specifically in regard to Victorian state laws. This, and its second
banning of Pixote suggests that the
Censorship Board is acting in a somewhat cavalier and isolationist
fashion. It is time the Federal Attorney- General, under whose wing
censorship falls, acted to see sanity prevail. But so far the
Attorney-General's office has been notable for its lack of direction and
action, Several issues need instant attention: whether film festivals
should be outside usual censorship requirements; whether one should
introduce an "X" certificate to cover explicit violent and
sexual material; whether the Censorship Board is acting outside its legal
Jurisdiction in banning
In
May, I telexed the Attorney- General to voice, among other things, concern
over the Censorship Board's banning of Pixote and what I felt to be
destructive power games being played by the Chief Censor, Janet
Strickland. The Attorney-General replied on July 29, saying:
Dear
Sir,
I refer to recent correspondence concerning the film Pixote - Survival of
the Weakest, which was imported for the Melbourne and Sydney Film
Festivals.
While
certain concessions have been extended to recognized festivals for some
years, both the present Chief Censor and her predecessor have made it
clear to the festival organizers that they cannot ignore their statutory
responsibilities under the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and
complementary state legislation. It is implicit in any arrangements made
with the festivals that the Film Censorship Board retains the right to
refuse registration If, in the opinion of the Board, a film contravenes
the Regulations.
In this instance, the Board formed the opinion that the film Pixote - Survival of the Weakest should be refused registration. On appeal, the Films Board of Review took a different view and directed that the film should be registered for festival exhibition. There can be no doubt that both independent statutory boards formed the opinions conscientiously on the information available to them and in the light of their perception of contemporary community attitudes.
Whether
the community at large would see it as appropriate that film festivals
should be exempted from censorship altogether remains open to question.
The matter is to be discussed at a forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth and
State Ministers with responsibility for censorship and the views you have
expressed will be kept in mind.
Peter
Durack Attorney-General
As
can be seen, the issues raised in the telex were ignored. Promises of
discussions in the future do nothing to solve the turmoil film censorship
is in today.
Kingsland
Statement
Statement
by Sir Richard Kingsland, chairman of the Films Board of Review, July 30,
1982:
The
applicant, Consolidated Exhibitors, requested the Films Board of Review to
review the decision of the Film Censorship Board to refuse to register the
Brazilian film Pixote.
The
Films Board of Review viewed Pixote yesterday. This was a slightly
different version to the print viewed in relation to an earlier appeal to
the Board of Review. It has a new introduction and deletes or reduces some
unpleasant language and scenes. None of these changes weakened the film's
dramatic impact.
The
new introduction to the film points out that the roles are acted by
children who have a common background to that of those portrayed in the
film. This sharpens the impact of Pixote as a film dealing responsibly
with the plight of underprivileged young people in a corrupt society.
The Film Censorship Board rejected the film under Regulation 13(1)(d) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations on the grounds that the film depicts matter which is undesirable in the public interest. Judgements under Regulation 13(1)(d) require considered assessment of current community attitudes and standards.
The
major points of contention relating to this application raise the issues
of child pornography and sexual exploitation of children. In this regard,
it should be recognized that the Films Board of Review has specific
responsibilities. These are not to register material which is blasphemous,
indecent, obscene; injurious to morality or an incitement to or encourage
crime; or undesirable in the public interest. In essence, it must satisfy
itself that a film can be screened for general or restricted audiences
without offending on any of these grounds.
Particular
attention was paid by the Board of Review to scenes in Pixote where a
child is in the presence of people engaged in sexual activity. These
scenes, which made important dramatic points, were an integral part of the
film. Their treatment was neither salacious nor prurient.
The
Films Board of Review takes into account all relevant states' legislation,
which although representing diverse opinions, nevertheless provides an
important indication of general community attitudes. In reaching its
judgement, however. the Board did not consider itself obliged by its
charter to comply with any individual state act. In dealing with the
application, the Board took into account all states' legislation dealing
with child pornography and sexual exploitation of children.
The
Board considered that from the point of view of child pornography Pixote
does not breach the NSW Indecent Articles and Classification Act, the
Victorian Police Offences Act or the South Australian Criminal Law
(Prohibition of Child Pornography) Act. It considered that the context of
the child's brief association with persons engaged in activities of a
sexual nature was not indecent, obscene, injurious to morality, nor
undesirable in the public interest.
The
only state legislation which Pixote appears to contravene in this regard
is the wider Tasmanian Restricted Publications Act. This Act prohibits the
appearance of a child in the presence of a person engaged in an activity
of a sexual nature - apparently even if the quality and intent of the
context are unexceptionable.
The
Films Board of Review does not consider that a decision applicable to all
states should be adjusted to meet the legal requirements of individual
states alone, when it is the Board's considered judgement that the
material is not offensive. Accordingly, the Films Board of Review upholds
the appeal and classifies Pixote for Restricted Exhibition.
***
The
Cain Letters
Mrs
J. Strickland, Chief Censor,
Film Censorship Board.
Piccadilly Court,
222 Pitt Street, Sydney,
N.SW., 2000
Dear Mrs Strickland,
Re: 1982 Melbourne Film Festival
I
enclose a copy of a letter sent this day to Senator, the Hon. P. D.
Durack, whom I understand is the Minister in charge of your Office. You
will note my dissatisfaction with your action in banning the film Pixote.
I note from your press statement that part of the foundation for your
action was a purported substainance of the Victorian Police Offences Act.
This
Act is subject to my administration and if its terms are breached, I can
assure you that prosecutions will ensue. However, it is the function of
the appropriate Victorian law officers to decide whether that is the case
and it is not a function which resides with you.
You
will doubtless be familiar with the terms of the Victorian Films Act
You
may care to comment upon the terms of this letter and that of the enclosed
letter to Senator Durack.
John
Cain
Attorney-General
Senator
the Hon. P. D. Durack, Q.C.,
Attorney-General,
Parliament House,
Canberra, A.C.T 2600
Dear Attorney-General,
Re: 1982 Melbourne Film Festival
You are almost certainly aware of press reports concerning the action of
the Chief Censor in calling in and initially banning the film Pixote from
screening before the Melbourne Film' Festival. I understand you are the
Minister having responsibility for the office of the Chief Censor. Now
that the appeal process has been completed and the film Is available for
screening, I write to you on matters of principle without the attendant
glare of publicity,
The
Censor attempted to Justify her action in calling in that particular film
and subsequently banning it upon the basis that its contents offended the
Victorian Police Offences Act 1958, particularly those sections dealing
with child pornography. Whilst one would hope there was universal support
for the proposition that children must be protected from exploitation, it
is not the function of the Chief Censor to take it upon herself to decide
the application of Victorian domestic law. Certainly her actions must not
appear to have prejudged the application of that law. Further she should
not do so without seeking my advice, or advising me of her intended
actions.
You
may recall that at the last meeting of Ministers, it was agreed that the
status quo should be maintained until the next meeting. In spite of this,
the Censor has taken unilateral and unprecedented action In an apparent
attempt to bring to an end the 1975 agreement with the Film Festivals.
Shortly before the 1981 Melbourne Film Festival, I understand that the
Chief Censor called in one film for screening. The film was supplied under
protest by Festival organizers and was subsequently released by the Censor
without comment. The matter was then discussed at the Ministers' meeting
and it was agreed that the previous practice of registering Festival films
without screening would continue for the time being. This year, instead of
maintaining the status quo and leaving it to the Ministers to decide what
the future arrangements should be, the Censor has called in five films for
screening and had banned one. In my view her action is unwarranted.
I
am sure you will further appreciate that the Chief Censor's intrusion into
these matters of films before the Film Festival can and, in fact, has done
immense harm to the International reputation of the Melbourne Film
Festival. It is not too extreme to suggest that her action could affect
the continued viability of that Festival. My Government supports the
contribution that Festivals make to the diversity of cultural life in
Australia and my Government is strongly of the view that the terms and the
spirit of the 1975 agreement with the Festivals should be followed so that
the independence and integrity of Festivals is protected.
In
other words, provided that the organizers of Festivals comply with the
conditions laid down in the 1975 agreement, films for Festivals should
never have to be screened by the Chief Censor.
Incidentally,
I note that as a result of the last Ministers' meeting you were taking
action to amend the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations to remove
the apparent requirement for films to be screened before registration. I
understand that this action has not been taken and, therefore, I wonder
why only five films were chosen. If the Censor believes that she is merely
following legal requirements, what basis is there for her to act in this
discretionary manner?
I
would be interested to know whether you were aware in advance of the Chief
Censor's intended actions. If so, why was I not given a chance to consider
whether Victorian legislation would in fact prevent the screening of the
film Pixote at the Festival? In any case, you are now aware of the
Censor's actions and I would like to know what action you propose to take.
I
enclose for your information a copy of a letter I have sent to the Chief
Censor.
John
Cain
Attorney-General
|
|
|
