Ken Park
Dir Larry Clark - Ed Lachman / 2002 / USA
MRA Entertainment Group had a 92min (v) tape Refused Classification on May 21st 2003.
Here is the Board's media release on the subject.
The Classification Board has classified the film Ken Park, by directors Larry Clark and Ed Lachman, Refused Classification (RC). The classification means the film cannot be legally sold, hired, advertised or exhibited in Australia.
The film is about four teenagers as they struggle with family dysfunction and uncertain futures in suburban California.
In a 6 to 1 split decision, the majority of the Classification Board found this film warranted refused classification "RC". In the minority view the film could have been accommodated in the "R18+" classification.
In the Classification Board’s view, this film deals with matters of sex in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should be refused classification.
In the Classification Board’s view, the film contains scenes of actual sexual activity involving characters who are portrayed as minors that could not be accommodated within the "R18+"classification. The "R18+" classification permits material that is high in impact. The intensity, cumulative effect, tone and treatment of the scenes of actual sexual activity exceeded this impact test.
The Classification Board is an independent statutory body responsible for the classification of films, videos, computer games and some publications. The Board has representatives drawn from communities across Australia and includes members with children.
***
An appeal was lodged with the Review Board who gave the following response on June 6th.
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD DETERMINES KEN PARK REFUSED CLASSIFICATION
A three-member panel of the Classification Review Board met today and in the majority determined that the film, Ken Park is Refused Classification. This decision upholds the decision of the Classification Board.
Refused Classification means the film cannot be legally sold, hired, advertised or exhibited in Australia.
In the Review Board’s majority opinion, the film warrants a refusal of classification because it contains elements beyond those set out in the classification guidelines and legislation. In making its decision, the Review Board took into account written and oral submissions by the applicant, the Sydney Film Festival. The film depicted scenes of sex and violence in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it warranted Refused Classification status. These included scenes of child sexual abuse, actual sex by people depicted as minors and sexualised violence.
In reviewing the classification of Ken Park, the Review Board worked within the framework, and applied the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code, and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games.
The Review Board is an independent review tribunal. It meets in camera to hear applications for review of decisions of the Classification Board.
***
The full Review Board Report is as follows.CLASSIFICATION
REVIEW BOARD
6 June 2003
23-33 MARY STREET
SURRY HILLS, NSW
MEMBERS:
Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor)
Mr Jonathan O’Dea
Ms Kathryn Smith
APPLICANT: Sydney Film Festival
BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Ken Park Refused Classification (RC) under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Decision
The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) confirmed the decision of the Classification Board and decided to classify the film Ken Park RC.
2. Legislative provisions
The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Classification Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions. Section 9 of the Classification Act provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines.
Relevantly, section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include:
(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and
(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film; and
(c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and
(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.
The Code states that films which "depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex" and "violence" "in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified" are to be classified RC refused classification.
3. Procedure
The Review Board was dealing with an application for sale or hire and not for a film festival application. The original applicants, MRA Entertainment had lodged an application for classification of Ken Park for sale or hire (as a video).
A separate application for exemption for a film festival was lodged with the Director of the Classification Board by the Sydney Film Festival ("the Applicant") under the NSW Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995.
The Review Board was asked by the Applicant to review the decision of the Director. Because the power of the Review Board is limited to reviewing determinations of the Classification Board made under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 it found that a review of the application for exemption for a film festival was not within its jurisdiction.
The Applicant lodged an application for review in relation to the determination by the Classification Board of an RC classification in respect of the application made by MRA Entertainment. The Board considered that the Applicant was a person aggrieved because it wished to exhibit Ken Park at the 2003 Sydney Film Festival.
Three members of the Review Board viewed the film at the Review Board’s meeting on 6 June 2003.
The Review Board received a written application for review and supporting written submission from the Applicant. Mr Ross Tzannes made a verbal submission on behalf of the Applicant and submitted further written material.
The Review Board then met in camera to consider the matter.
4. Evidence and other material taken into account
In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following:
(i) the applicant’s application for review (including written and oral submissions);
(ii) the report of the Classification Board relating to Ken Park ;
(iii) Report of the New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification relating to Ken Park ;
(iv) the film Ken Park ;
(v) the relevant provisions in the Classification Act;
(vi) the relevant provisions in the Code, as amended in accordance with section 6 of the Classification Act; and
(vii) the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games, as amended in accordance with section 12 of the Classification Act.
5. Synopsis
The film Ken Park shows four non-adult teenagers, Shawn, Tate, Peaches and Claude, and their friends, parents and neighbourhood, as they negotiate their lives in a contemporary, and somewhat dysfunctional society. It showcases the teenagers’ interactions with their parents, or parent figures; their own fears and insecurities; their use of drugs and alcohol; their participation in sex with each other and others and their success or failure to negotiate the obstacles that face them and their friends.
6. Findings on material questions of fact
The Review Board found that Ken Park contains:
(a) scenes which depict actual sex, and a fetish
(b) a number of "high impact" scenes
(c) several "High Impact" Themes
(d) scenes which depict child sexual abuse and sexualised violence and deal with matters of sex and violence in a way which offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults
These findings are explained below.
The Review Board is assisted by a detailed and informative report from the Classification Board relating to Ken Park . In these reasons the Board adopts some of the descriptions made by the Classification Board in relation to certain critical scenes as it found those descriptions to be accurate.
Finding that the Ken Park contains scenes which depict actual sex and a fetish
In relation to the scenes at 54 minutes and 83 minutes.
The Classification Board report states
"54 mins – After having taken a bathrobe belt from the bathroom, Tate returns to his bedroom, where he has been watching women’s tennis on his television. He loops the belt around the doorknob and tests it around his neck before putting a pillow against the door, taking off his underwear, leaning back, and wrapping the belt around his neck. He then engages in explicit auto-erotic asphyxiation as he is aroused by the women’s tennis match in the background. The shots of Tate range from close ups of his genitals as he explicitly masturbates or his face to medium full length body shots. The tennis players are heard grunting as they play. At 55 minutes the camera focuses on his face as he implicitly orgasms and then pans down to his penis (which he still holds), with a semen trail. His eyes are closed."
The Review Board noted that Tate tugs at the belt around his neck throughout this two minute scene.
83 mins – A four minute sequence involving Shawn, Peaches and Claude commences with the three of them lying naked on a bed, Peaches between the two young men [sic]. They fondle and kiss. At 83 minutes there is obscured fellatio and rear entry intercourse (the latter by Claude to Peaches, who is implicitly fellating Shawn) seen in a medium shot. The side view scene shows Claude thrusting and her [Peaches] head in Shawn’s lap. The scene is inter cut with their post coital ruminations as they lie back and chat. At 84 minutes there is an explicit shot of Peaches’ tongue on Shawn’s penis and then an obscured shot of Shawn giving cunnilingus to Peaches. At 85 minutes there is a shot of an erect penis in-between Peaches’ thighs, with some movement visible. The camera shot is only of her thigh area. Then there is a long shot of Peaches seated astride Claude. They kiss as she moves up and down. Shawn is standing nearby at the kitchen counter, flipping through a magazine and watching them. At 86 minutes there is a medium shot focusing on Shawn’s buttocks as he thrusts, followed by Peaches’ hand over Claude’s penis as she explicitly fellates him. There is a saliva trail visible between her mouth and his erect penis as she lifts her head up. There is then a shot of Claude’s hand in slow motion masturbating Peaches, including some digital penetration. The camera pans up from her thighs up her body and ending in a three-quarter length shot. Shawn licks her nipples as Claude masturbates her.
The Review Board noted that, contrary to what is stated in a report from the New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification (the Classification Office) submitted by Mr Tzannes, this scene was romanticised and appeared choreographed. Mr Tzannes submitted the Written Reason for Decision Section 12 from the NZ Classification Office. He said that the decision showed that the film had serious merit and was worthy of serious discussion.
The Review Board noted that the NZ report states:
Though the activity [the reference here is to the scenes of sexual activity] is depicted explicitly, it is not shown in graphic detail or in close up but more as observational, and does not present as being choreographed merely for the sake of the viewer.
Contrary to this view the Review Board found that the sex scenes were detailed (erect penises, semen or mucous trails, open vagina) and there were shots in close up. The Review Board noted that the scene at 83 minutes
•Had an overlaid sound track of relaxed Van Morrison-style music – in contrast to the skate punk and alternative music played by the characters when they were listening to music;
•Was bathed in a mellow golden light which lent considerable romantic atmosphere; and
•The movements of the participants appeared graceful and at times balletic and the scene seemed choreographed.
It was a visually appealing, romanticised scene depicting three attractive teenagers participating in extended sex and sexual play. The Review Board found that the scene contained actual sex in that it depicted actual digital penetration.
Finding that Ken Park contains a number of "High Impact" Scenes
There were several scenes throughout the film that were of high impact. These are detailed within the Classification Board’s report and took place at 17 minutes, 39 minutes and 50 minutes.
The Classification Board report states:
17 mins – Shawn and his girlfriend’s mother, Rhonda, are lying on her bed. She lies back with her legs up as he engages in obscured masturbation and cunnilingus with her.
39 mins – Rhonda puts her hand down Shawn’s briefs and implicitly masturbates him. The camera pans up to them kissing before again showing her hand moving under his pants.
50 mins – Side view of the genital areas of Peaches and Curtis as he lies with his wrists tied to the bedhead. She first rubs his clothed crotch area, after which she implicitly puts her finger into her vagina and then into his mouth.
There is a brief shot of Curtis’ erect penis. Peaches then implicitly fellates him. Her father enters the room and, horrified, throws his daughter from the bed. He hits Curtis’ head, grabs his neck and shakes the young man’s [sic] head aggressively. Peaches is on the floor, sobbing and screaming at her father to stop.
In addition to these scenes, another of high impact took place at 1 minute when a teen boy, whom we later learn is Ken Park , sitting at a skate park smiles, holds a gun to his head and shoots himself. There is blood spray as the shot is heard. The camera pulls back to show a panoramic scene of the teenager lying prone on the ground with blood pooling around his head and other teenagers and younger children – mostly young boys – standing around looking at his body.
At 120 minutes Claude’s father is shown urinating into a toilet. He removes his trousers, his penis is shown, the sound of urination is heard, the camera moves closer to the penis and the urination stream is shown. At approximately 1 minute in duration, the scene is prolonged and gratuitously detailed.
Finding that Ken Park contains several "High Impact" Themes
In addition to particular scenes of high impact, the film contains several themes of high impact. These were
a) psychological abuse of children by their parents (Claude with his brutal father and Peaches with her morbidly-obsessed religious father),
b) neglect by parents of their children (Rhonda with her younger daughter - who is depicted as about 5 years old put in front of a TV watching what appears as first to be porn a movie but what we discover later to be the Playboy channel - whilst Rhonda has sex with her older daughter’s boyfriend upstairs) and
c) the misuse of power by a clearly disturbed teen over his frail grandparents (Tate’s verbal and physical abuse of his grandmother and grandfather).
Whilst these themes of themselves would not necessarily warrant an "R" classification, they add to the overall impact of the film ensuring – in addition to thehigh impact and very high impact scenes – that the film is very confronting.
Finding that Ken Park contains scenes which depict child sexual abuse and sexualised violence and deal with matters of sex and violence in a way which offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults
The Review Board considered that the cumulative impact of the scenes at 54 minutes, 69 minutes, 75 minutes and 83 minutes depict or deal with matters of sex and violence in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. The Review Board found that this impact was such that the film can not be classified.
The Classification Board’s report states
69 mins – Claude is asleep in his bed. His drunken father enters his room and crawls into bed next to him. He [the father] then gets up and sits at the end of Claude’s bed, at which point he starts stroking Claude’s calf and inside knee. His son’s sleep is disrupted and he stirs restlessly at the contact. The father puts his hand up the left leg of Claude’s boxer shorts and puts his head down, either implicitly fellating or attempting to fellate. The angle is from behind the father’s head. Claude wakes and struggles, throwing him [the father] off the bed. His father says "it’s okay Claude, it’s just me Dad", before he [the father] falls to the ground. He comments "nobody loves me" as his son leaves the room.
75 mins – In a flashback sequence Tate walks, naked, to the kitchen, where he cuts a piece of cake and eats it as he walks into his grandparents’ bedroom with the cake knife. As they lie asleep, he implicitly stabs his grandfather twice. The motions are seen and there is some blood spray and blood visible on the grandfather’s face but there is no visible entry wound. He [Tate] comments that "the skin was thick, like leather. He twitched a little, like a chicken". He then implicitly stabs his grandmother, again with no injury detail. Before he kills her she says "I love you Tate". He comments "she’s a passive aggressive bitch who doesn’t respect my privacy." After he kills them he is heard in voice-over saying "then I saw them like that, I started to get an erection. Then Legs started barking and I went soft".
In addition, the scene at 69 minutes where Claude’s father attempts to fellate his son, or implicitly fellates his son, is one that depicts child sex abuse. Claude’s father has his hands inside his son’s boxer shorts in the groin area. The fly of the shorts is open. Claude is depicted in the film as a teenage schoolboy.
Also the scene at 75 minutes where a naked Tate implicitly stabs his grandparents and is shown with blood spatter on his face as he narrates – in flashback – that he "started to get an erection" is one of sexualised violence.
Claude and Tate like the other teenage characters in Ken Park are depicted as being of school age. They are shown getting on to the school bus with their schoolbags. They are intended to represent teenage schoolchildren. Mr Tzannes said in his evidence that the characters were depicted as 15 to 17 year olds. The Board found that none of the teenage characters was depicted as an adult
7. Reasons for the decision
In reaching its decision to refuse classification for Ken Park the Review Board took particular note of the Code in regard to films section 1 (a). The Code states that films which "depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex" and "violence" "in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified" are to be classified RC refused classification.
In addition, the Guidelines state in the R classification that "sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is ‘simulation, yes – the real thing, no’." The Guidelines state that for the X classification "No depiction of violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence or coercion is allowed in this category". Further the Guidelines for X state "As the category is restricted to activity between consenting adults, it does not permit any depictions of non-adult persons, including those aged 16 or 17, nor of adult persons who look like they are under 18 years. Nor does it permit persons 18 years of age or over to be portrayed as minors". Under the Refused Classification section of the Guidelines, it states:
"Films and computer games will be refused classification if they include or contain any of the following" under the headings crime and violence "Depictions of child sexual abuse" and later under the heading of sex "Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of: (i) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent".
There was no evidence before the Board about the actual age of the actors in Ken Park, nevertheless the Board found the actors were depicting characters who were not adults and so the actual age of the actors was not relevant. It was the Review Board’s determination that the scenes at 54 minutes, 69 minutes, 75 minutes and 83 minutes were of a cumulative impact such that they exceeded material that could be accommodated in the R classification. The Review Board noted that the film could not be accommodated in the "X" classification as the Code does not allow for "violence" "sexualized violence" "or fetishes". A number of the scenes detailed contained these elements including those at 1 minute, 54minutes and 75 minutes.
Additionally, the Guidelines state "films and computer games will be refused classification if they include or contain any of the following" and a list is given which includes "depictions of child sexual abuse". It was the Review Board’s determination that the scene at 69 minutes was such a scene. It was prolonged and contained gratuitous detail. In addition that scene and the other depictions of sexual activity depicted non-adult persons (that is people under 18 years). The X guidelines exclude the depiction of sexual activity involving non-adult persons or adult persons who look like they are under 18 years.
The Review Board noted Mr Tzannes’ very cogent arguments in relation to the principles within the Code and section 11 (b) and (c) of the Act. It also noted the applicant’s submission in regard to the educational merit of the film, the social justice agenda of the film maker and the film’s "gritty, naturalistic Dickensian" approach to the issues facing the teenagers depicted.
The Review Board determined that the film had some artistic and potential educational merit in facilitating debate or discussion upon important social issues.
However, the Review Board determined, in the majority, that the masturbation scene at 54 minutes was prolonged and contained elements, such as the use of the asphyxiation device and a "semen trail", which were gratuitous and offensive. Also the prolonged sex scene at 83 minutes depicts actual sex in that it contains actual digital penetration. It also contains detail of a penis with mucous trail – possibly semen or possibly saliva, and views of an open vagina during digital stimulation. Some of the details within this scene were considered gratuitous.
It was the determination of the Review Board that, despite the film making a serious attempt to grapple with issues facing many teenagers and having significant artistic merit, the cumulative impact of several scenes was more than what could be accommodated in an R classification for a "sale or hire" classification review application. Two of the relevant scenes contained actual sex. One of the sex scenes included details of a fetish, namely auto-erotic asphyxiation. Another scene depicted child sex abuse.
The Review Board noted that the application for review was for sale or hire (as a video). Under section 11 of the Act the intended audience of the film is relevant. The Review Board noted that for a sale or hire application, as contrasted with a film festival audience with a single restricted screening, the audience is much broader and the screening of the film less controlled.
Overall the purpose, tone, treatment and cumulative effect of the various elements already identified (including numerous scenes that appear prolonged or contained gratuitous detail) result in a higher overall impact such that the film should be refused classification.
8. Summary
The Review Board found that the film contained elements beyond that which could be accommodated in R or X and the film was Refused Classification.
***The original applicant MRA Entertainment Group had submitted the film with the intention of giving it a DVD/Video release. Had they not done so, then it would not have been rated and the Sydney Film Festival would have been able to go ahead with its planned screenings on the 17th an 18th on June. The Festival tried to get permission to show the film despite its RC rating. This appeared on their website on June 10th.
The Sydney Film Festival Director Gayle Lake responded over the opening weekend of the Festival to the decision of the Classification Review Board to uphold the decision of the Classification Board to refuse classification to the film Ken Park, which means that the Sydney Film Festival is banned from screening the film on 17 & 18 June as scheduled:
"The Sydney Film Festival is disappointed by the decision and extremely surprised that, in making its decision, the Classification Review Board refers to scenes of ‘child sexual abuse’. Child sexual abuse was not cited in the original decision of the Classification Board and the Sydney Film Festival is seeking clarification as to the use of this terminology, as the film depicts youths of 16 or 17 years of age who are portrayed by actors over the age of 18"
The nature of the film and of the scenes causing concern can be gauged from the attached quotations from the decision of the New Zealand Classification Office which permitted the film to be screened at film festivals there. Gayle Lake went on to tell audiences that "Anybody familiar with Larry Clark's work will know what to expect from his latest film. It is tough and confronting, however, it has been cleared for festival screenings worldwide, including Rotterdam, Venice and Toronto. It is actually in commercial release in Spain, Russia, Denmark and a number of other European countries and is expected to go into release in the US later this year"
You, as a discerning and adult audience will be denied the opportunity to make up your own minds about the film. We are asking festival-goers to help us in our campaign to allow Ken Park to be screened next week. You can help by emailing or faxing the Federal and NSW Attorney Generals asking them to grant exemption to the
Sydney Film Festival to screen the film to a festival audience. It seems ironic that in the 50th year we are still fighting censorship battles. Some of the concessions won in the past have been withdrawn and we are back in a situation of defending the festival's role of screening groundbreaking, provocative work that pushes the boundaries.
Your support is much appreciated -- details of email and fax numbers are below.
THE HON. DARYL WILLIAMS AM, QC,
MP FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL
Email: daryl.williams.MP@aph.gov.au
Fax: (02) 6273 4102
Postal address: House of Representatives, Parliament House,
Canberra ACT 2600
THE HON. (BOB) ROBERT JOHN DEBUS,
MP NSW ATTORNEY GENERAL
Email: bob.debus@minister.nsw.gov.au
Fax: 9228 3166
Ministerial Office Postal address: PO Box A290, Sydney South 1232
***
Unfortunately the protest was not enough to allow the film to show. On June 16th, a day before its first planned screening, the Festival dropped the film and announced:
The Sydney Film Festival today announced that it will not screen the film KEN PARK. The film has been refused classification by the Office of Film & Literature Classification and the Board of Review.
The Festival has exhausted all avenues of appeal.
The Festival this morning received a letter from the State Attorney General Bob Debus which said: "The situation at law is complicated. It is unprecedented that a film festival has requested an exemption for a film that has been classified RC. Festival Guidelines, agreed to by State and Territory Censorship Ministers, clearly state that films that have been either classified X or RC(Refused Classification) will not be granted an exemption to be shown at a film festival. These Festival Guidelines have the status of an intergovernmental agreement and I am under an obligation to uphold the terms of this agreement. I regret therefore that I am not in a position to direct that an exemption be granted for Ken Park to be shown at the Sydney Film Festival."
Sydney Film Festival Director Gayle Lake said that, despite calls from some Festival patrons to screen KEN PARK regardless of the ban, the Festival Board had decided that an illegal screening would be counter-productive.
"Not only would such a screening be illegal with all the consequences that entails, but it could also affect the future status of the Festival. Our focus is not just on the issues surrounding this particular film, but on the broader issues of censorship, the classification process and the parameters of the current set of festival guidelines. Reaching the decision not to screen the film was very difficult and I am extremely disappointed that our adult Festival patrons won’t have the opportunity to see and debate the film," Ms Lake said.
Ken Park was scheduled to screen at the State Theatre on Tuesday and Wednesday. Festival director Gayle Lake announced that in place of the screenings a public forum and debate on censorship will be held at the State Theatre on Tuesday 17. On Wednesday, the acclaimed feature American Splendor – a hit at the 2003 Sundance Film Festival and Cannes Film Festival– will screen in place of Ken Park.
The Sydney Film Festival, lobby group Watch on Censorship (WOC) and the Film Critics Circle of Australia (FCCA) will jointly present the forum on censorship and the challenge to the ‘approved organisations’ status of Australia’s film festivals at 3pm on Tuesday June 17 at the State Theatre. Co-director of Ken Park, Larry Clark, will speak via satellite and other panellists are Margaret Pomeranz representing WOC, Julie Rigg representing FCCA and former Deputy Chief Censor David Haines. Journalist and WOC representative David Marr will chair the forum.
For lots of media reports on the initial ban and the Sydney Film Festival fight, see here.
***
With the Sydney Film Festival over, several groups decided to fight the ban, and screen the film anyway.
The first protest took place on Tuesday July 1st in Melbourne. An anonymous group screened it at the Irene Community Arts Warehouse in Brunswick to an audience of around 40-50 people.
On Friday June 27th, a report had appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald that a group called Free Cinema would attempt to screen the film at Balmain Town Hall on July 3rd.
This prompted Fred Nile of the Christian Democratic Party to write the following letter the NSW Police.
Monday, 30 June 2003
The Commander
Superintendent Katsogiannis
NSW Police
Leichhardt-Glebe Local Area Command
1 Talfourd Street
Glebe NSW 2037
Fax: 02 9552 8039
Re: Screening of banned film "Ken Park" at Balmain Townhall
Superintendent Katsogiannis
I wish to make an official complaint concerning the proposed deliberate public screening of the banned film, "Ken Park", by the group Free Cinema on Thursday evening July 3rd at 8.15pm at the Balmain Town Hall.
As the film has been refused classification by the Office of Film and Literature Classification I request that you take immediate action to prevent the screening of this film and charge the organisers of this event should they purposefully break the law.
Yours sincerely
(Rev) Fred Nile MLC
Parliament House
cc CMR Ken Maroney, NSW Police Commissioner
***
The proposed screening was given heavy publicity by the organisers who made themselves available to various media outlets. The following press release was issued by the group on the evening of the screening.
Ken Park, a film sold for general distribution in over 30 countries, has been banned in Australia. Free Cinema has organised a screening of Ken Park in Balmain tonight to protest that banning and allow Australians to see the film for themselves.
Ken Park is a confronting film about teenagers. It is not porn. It is not about young children. The film has been highly praised by mainstream critics. Ken Park is the work of American director Larry Clark (Kids, Another Day in Paradise and Bully) and renowned cinematographer Ed Lachman (Far From Heaven, Erin Brokovich).
Ken Park has been seen at the major film festivals of the world including Venice, Rotterdam, Toronto, Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Jerusalem, Vancouver and Wellington. But Ken Park could not be shown at the Sydney and Melbourne film festivals because of the ban.
This is the first time since the darkest days of film censorship in Australia in the late 1960s that these festivals have been forbidden to show even the most confronting and controversial films.
Australia's Review Board banned Ken Park on 6 June, claiming it offended against Australia's standards of 'morality, decency and propriety'. The decision was taken by -
* Maureen Shelley, convenor of the board, former Liberal Party candidate and former CEO of the Australian Council of Businesswomen;
* Jonathan O'Dea, deputy convenor of the board, lawyer and senior insurance manager; and
* Kathryn Smith, former social worker, TAFE teacher and counsellor.
WHAT THE CRITICS SAY ABOUT KEN PARK
Melbourne critic Peter Craven: The only explanation of the ban on Ken Park is that the subjects it represents so matter of factly are intolerable to adult Australian contemplation unless they are dressed up in a tumult of moral hysteria. This is a pity because it is a profoundly adult film, at once compassionate and cold-eyed. (SMH 30 June 2003)
Movie Show SBS TV: Ken Park does not portray underage sex, all the performers were 18 or over, it is a sad, bleak portrayal of teenage lives in California.
David Stratton: a confronting, abrasive, brutally honest depiction of the shattered lives of a group of small-town teens. . . . . Social workers would recognise these characters and situations only too well, and in its unflinching depiction of the way parents treat their children -either neglecting them, demeaning them or, in the most extreme cases, preying sexually on them - the film is unquestionably important and relevant. James Hewison, executive director of the Melbourne International Film Festival: "Ken Park is Larry Clark's most accomplished film and in many respects his most tragic".
WHAT THE REVIEW BOARD SAID ABOUT KEN PARK
"The film depicted scenes of sex and violence in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it warranted Refused Classification status. These included scenes of child sexual abuse, actual sex by people depicted as minors and sexualised violence."
Maureen Shelley told a forum at the Sydney Film Festival that the board had "some discretion" about allowing the depiction of actual sex but the "cumulative high impact" of Ken Park resulted in their decision to ban it.
Important Note: The Review Board defines 16 and 17 year olds as "children". According to director Larry Clark, actors in the film were all over 18.
FREE CINEMA
Is a group of critics and filmmakers who believe that:
Adults should have the right to see hear and read what they choose Children should be protected from demonstrable harm.
That the uniform classification system, designed to provide a system of consumer guidance for films, videos and other publications is being progressively and deliberately undermined by restrictive classification guidelines and their conservative application.
We believe the banning of the film Ken Park is a case in point.
We believe Ken Park should be shown - and we are prepared to act on that belief.
JANE MILLS, MARGARET POMERANZ, JULIE RIGG, DAVID MARR for Free Cinema
FREE CINEMA SUPPORTERS
MARTHA ANSARA, CHRISTINA ANDREEF, GEOFF BURTON, ANNE DEVESON, OA, GARY DOUST, RICHARD HARRIS, SACHA HORLER, CATHY LUMBY, DAVID PERRY, FRANK MOOREHOUSE, ALBIE THOMS, TOM ZUBRYCKI
COUNTRIES IN WHICH KEN PARK HAS BEEN SOLD.
Hong Kong, Greece, Hungary, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Peru, Iceland, Brazil, Czech, Republic, Slovakia, Montenegro, Serbia, Finland, Thailand, Norway, Sweden, Singapore, France, Japan, Portugal, Mexico, Israel, Spain, Austria, Italy, South Africa, Plus a sale is expected to close within the next day or so for the United States and Canada.
The NSW Police, acting on Fred Nile's letter of complaint arrived early on in the evening. They waited until the hall filled to capacity, and for the film to begin screening. As soon as play was pressed on the DVD player they moved in.
Free Cinema clarified their position in the following letter that was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on July 12th.
We'd like to explain a few things about why we took the action we did to screen Ken Park.
We're not on about a censorship exemption for film festivals. That's an issue for film festivals to fight. We want to uphold the right of all adults to read, hear and see what they choose, unless it does demonstrable harm to children.
Ken Park should have been released with an R18+ classification. We want the nonsense removed from the classification guidelines restricting how legal teenage sex can be shown, and in what form.
We want to see the classification system return to being an advisory system for consumers instead of an ideological battleground.
And we want the major political parties to stop rolling over to appease what is a fairly small but active alliance of wowser groups and act on the understanding that Australians are mostly pretty tolerant and intelligent people able to make their own decisions.
Christina Andreef, Martha Ansara, David Marr, Jane Mills, Margaret Pomeranz, Julie Rigg, The Free Cinema group, Sydney, July 10.
***
NEW SOUTH WALES COUNCIL FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES INC
149 ST JOHNS ROAD GLEBE NSW 2037 AUSTRALIA • PHONE (02) 9660 7582 • FAX (02) 9566 4162
MEDIA RELEASE
KEN PARK RAID - SURELY POLICE RESOURCES SHOULD BE USED ON REAL CRIME INSTEAD
Friday, 4 July 2003 NSWCCL media release: 16/2003
The banning of acclaimed film Ken Park is totally out of step with community values. Last night's police intervention to prevent a planned screening in Balmain, and confiscation of the film demonstrates the stupidity of this decision.
NSWCCL President, Mr Cameron Murphy, said: --
"This film has been screened across the world yet our Classification Board has decided that we are not mature enough to view it."
"I think that adults should be entitled to go and see a film of their choice. After all they are the ones paying their twelve to fifteen dollars and they should be allowed to choose the films that they think are appropriate for them, not some bureaucrats in Canberra."
"This decision is totally out of step with community values, and makes Australia an international joke."
"A number of recent decisions by the Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC), to refuse classification for films including Romance, Baise Moi, and now Ken Park show that this is clearly a censorship regime."
"Nothing is forcing people to go out, spend money and sit through this film. If some people are offended by certain films then they shouldn't go and see them."
"The decision to ban this film is nothing more than sycophantic pandering to ultra conservatives - at the expense of the rest of us."
"Last night we saw more than a dozen police reluctantly halting a screening of the film in Balmain because of a single written complaint. The audience of over 300 adults knew what to expect in the film and were exercising their right to choose to see it."
"There is no justification for the waste of valuable policing resources to arrest innocent film enthusiasts while real crime goes unsolved."
"We now have a situation resembling that of three decades ago, where censors are adopting the views of the extreme minority of ultra conservatives and forcing them on the rest of Australia's cinema going public."
For further information contact:
Cameron Murphy, NSWCCL President: 0411 769 769
CORRESPONDENCE TO: THE SECRETARY PO BOX 201 GLEBE NSW 2037 • DX 1111 SYDNEY
***
Meanwhile, a second Melbourne group had plans to screen the film.
"Paul Moder, from the group "The Free", will be screening the film "Ken Park" by Larry Clark at an undisclosed location between Monday 7th July and Friday 11th July.
The intended screening on Tuesday 8th July was cancelled at the last minute after pressure from the police. The crowd that had turned up were instead shown the 1971 feature, Punishment Park.
TONIGHTS SCREENING OF KEN PARK CANCELLED
To all supporters of anti-censorship and
freedom of speech and art, We regret to inform you (at this late stage)
that tonight's screening at the F4 bar has been cancelled. Earlier this
afternoon. Victoria Police cautioned the proprietors that they risked
being fined and losing their liquor licence if they allowed the screening
to take place. The management decided under the circumstances to disallow
the screening of any RC material at the venue.
Alternative arrangements were considered for unrestricted films, however
it was decided this would not be satisfactory given the original intent of
the screening. Plainclothes detectives will be present on the night (in
the audience) and although we, the Free would defy their presence and wish
to commence screening, we cannot take responsibilty for the legal
ramifications for the F4 bar. Once again, our sincere apologies.
We will of course maintain contact and inform you all of future
developments.
Yours in resolve - The Free
An article that appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald on 17.07.03 reported that the film did eventually screen in Sydney. The event on Wednesday 16th July took place at at an undisclosed location. The organisers were an unnamed group who promoted it by e-mail and word of mouth. It seems to have worked as the film screened to an audience of over 200 people with no problems from the police.
The planned screening at the Melbourne International Film Festival was also abandoned. Like in Sydney it was replaced by a censorship debate.
On September 11th a copy was screened at a private residence in Hobart. The audience of around 150 people had heard about it through word of mouth. Despite the media covering the intended screening the previous day, no action was taken against the organisers. The Hobart Mercury quoted Acting Sergeant Peter May of the Hobart Police as saying that there had been no specific complaint in relation to the showing of the film.
October 29th saw another underground screening of KEN PARK. The film was shown to an audience of around sixty people who had been informed through word of mouth. The event was organised by the Sydney University Film Society and was attended by several academics.
The resulting publicity from the protest screenings had the desired effect. Censorship was now firmly in the media spotlight.
***
The OFLC 2002-2003 Annual Report includes this piece about the controversy.An application in respect of the film Ken Park was the subject of extensive media reporting in 2002-2003.
In a split decision on 21 May 2003, seven members of the Board classified Ken Park refused classification for depictions of actual sex. One member considered the film should be classified R. In the Board’s majority opinion, the film warranted a refused classification decision as it deals with matters of sex in a way that offends against the standards of morality, decency or propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. Films that are refused classification cannot be legally sold, hired, publicly exhibited, advertised or imported into Australia.
The Sydney Film Festival subsequently asked the Director to approve a film festival exemption application for Ken Park, even though the film had been refused classification. The Film Festival
Exemption guidelines do not permit the Director to approve an exemption application for a film that is, or is likely to be, refused classification. Therefore, the Director could not approve the Sydney Film Festival’s application to screen Ken Park.
On 28 May 2003, the Director, acting in accordance with the guidelines made under the New South Wales Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995, declined to grant a film festival exemption for Ken Park.
Following an application from the Sydney Film Festival, the Review Board confirmed the refused classification decision. See page 82 for more information about the Review Board decision.
These decisions prompted significant media interest and debate, with the NSW Attorney-General foreshadowing a proposal to amend the Film Festival Exemption guidelines to enable the screening of certain refused classification films at festivals. Censorship Ministers are expected to consider this matter in November 2003.
Issues
raised by the Ken Park review
The
Review Board's decision to refuse classification to the film Ken Park stimulated
significant controversy: Media commentary regarding the film 1 commenced
in May 2003 and continued until late September. Media
In
comparison to the controversy stimulated by the refusal of classification
of Baise-Mai, the
The
Ken Park application for review was complex and raised some issues
that were unusual or
Firstly,
the application for review was from the Sydney Film Festival (SFF) a
not-for-profit organisation that provides a film festival each year and
has done so for 50 years. However, the original applicant for
classification of the film was MRA Entertainment an organisation from
Queensland. MRA had applied for classification for sale or hire for a
video release. It is usual that an application for review will come from
the original applicant or an organisation involved in the making or
distribution of the film, or less frequently from the Attorney-General.
The Review
Secondly,
in addition to lodging a review application on the Classification Boards
for sale or hire Ken Park decision, SFF asked the Review Board to
review the Director of the Classification Board's decision to refuse the
film festival exemption application. The Review Board, after taking advice
from the Australian Government Solicitor, determined it did not have
jurisdiction to review such decisions of the Director of the
Classification Board. A request for review of a film festival exemption
had not been received by the Review Board before.
Leave for interested parties to participate in an application for review had been given previously and was granted to the Australian Family Association, which had written a submission to the Baise-Moi review in 2002.
The Review Board met for a second time to consider the application for review. MRA Entertainment and Independent Films chose not to participate in the meeting. The Review Board decided in the majority that Ken Park should be refused classification.
Maureen Shelly
Convenor
***
The KEN PARK controversy saw the issue of Film Festival Exemptions discussed at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General Censorship meetings.
STANDING COMMITTEE OF
ATTORNEYS-GENERAL CENSORSHIP
Annual Report 2003-2004
Film
Festival Exemption Guidelines.
Ministers approved the amended Film Festival Guidelines and agreed to the public
release of the amended Film Festival Guidelines;
Film
Festival Guidelines
Exemption for RC films. Ministers agreed that jurisdictions interested in
developing guidelines to exempt film festivals from the classification scheme
would develop options for consideration;
***
There is one confirmed customs confiscation of a DVD.
