Romance  

Dir Catherine Breillat / 1999 / France

The full Classification Board report, and their press release, can be found here.

***

Potential Films appealed against the ban. The Review Board eventually overturned the RC, and awarded it an R18+ (High Level Sex Scenes). The full report is as follows.

CLASSIFICATION REVIEW BOARD 
29TH MEETING
28 JANUARY 2000
23-33 MARY STREET SURRY HILLS NSW

PRESENT: Ms Barbara Biggins (Convenor) Mr Ross Tzannes (Acting Deputy Convenor) Ms Joan Yardley Ms Glenda Banks Ms Robin Harvey

APPLICANT: Potential Films

BUSINESS: To review the decision of the Classification Board to assign the classification RC (Refused Classification) under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to the film Romance.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Decision

The Classification Review Board decided to set aside the decision of the Classification Board to classify the film Romance RC (Refused Classification), and to classify the film R 18+ with the consumer advice "High Level Sex Scenes".

2. Legislative provisions

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions. The Act provides that films be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code and the classification guidelines.

Relevantly, para 11 of the Act require 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 National Classification Code (the Code) requires that "Classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles: a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; d) the need to take account of community concerns about: i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

Paragraph 1 of the Table under the heading "films", in the National Classification Code provides that films that:

a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime or cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such as 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; or

b) depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult a minor who is or who looks like, a person under 16 (whether engaged or not in sexual activity); or

c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence

are to be classified RC.

3. Procedure

3 1 The Board heard oral submissions from Mr Mark Spratt and Mr Alex Meskovic representing Potential Films at its meeting on 28 January 2000.

The Board subsequently viewed the film Romance .

4. Matters taken into account

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following:

(a) the applicant's application for Review (b) oral submissions made on behalf of the applicant by Mr Mark Spratt and Mr Alex Meskovic. (c) the film Romance (d) the relevant provisions in the Act (e) the relevant provisions in the National Classification Code as amended in accordance with Section 6 of the Act, and as endorsed by the Censorship Ministers. (f) the current Classification Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes determined under Section 12 of the Act.

5. Findings on material questions of fact

5.1 The film's theme and plot

Romance is a French language film with English subtitles, directed by Catherine Breillat. It concerns a woman, Marie, who is sexually rejected by Paul, the man she loves. She embarks on an odyssey of sexual exploration in an attempt to free herself from emotional subservience to her uncaring partner and to find personal independence and fulfilment. By the end of the film the woman's psychosexual angst is resolved in the birth of her and Paul's child and motherhood.

Whilst tracking her sexual encounters with other men and her related fantasies, the film seeks to offer insights about fidelity, about the interrelationship of sex and love and the female condition in couple relationships.

5.2 Sexual depictions in the film

5.2.1. At 11 minutes, Marie and Paul are in bed and arc discussing their relationship. Towards the end of the scene, Marie pulls back the bed sheet and appears to place his flaccid penis in her mouth. The scene is brief and the implied fellatio is partly obscured by the bed sheet.

5.2.2. At approximately 30-36 minutes Marie and Paolo, a casual pickup, have met in a club and gone back to his bedroom. They are shown lying together naked on the bed, he with an erection. The following sequence explicitly depicts Paolo rolling a condom on to his erect penis. After Paulo has masturbated, Marie explicitly fondles his penis. This is followed by a scene of realistically simulated thrusting intercourse and an explicit removal of the condom.

5.2.3 At approximately 39 minutes and 80 minutes there are brief explicit scenes of Marie manually arousing Paul, and in at least one instance of Marie performing seemingly explicit fellatio on him.

5.2.4 At 53-58 minutes and 73-77 minutes there are scenes of sexual bondage in which Marie consents to being tied up with ropes by a male. The sequence includes a scene where the man cuts her panties with scissors and it is implied that he digitally manipulates her. Throughout he is careful not to cause her pain and relaxes the rope at one stage at her request.

5.2.5 At approximately 66 minutes, a man approaches Marie as she is walking back to her flat at night and offers her money if he can "ea"t her. She agrees and is shown sitting on the stairs in the building with the man's head between her splayed legs. She objects when the man orders her to turn over and tries to free herself from him. He roughly turns her onto her stomach and thrusts aggressively at her, in implied rear intercourse. As he leaves her, Marie displays distress at the rape and defiantly shouts after him "I'm not ashamed".

5.2.6 At 84 minutes after Marie has been internally examined by a number of medical students to establish pregnancy, she has a fantasy in which the lower halves of women's bodies are seen protruding from holes in a wall while a number of naked men engage in a variety of sexual activities including masturbation.

5.3 The Review Board found that the graphic depictions of sexual activity would undoubtedly offend some people.

However, a majority of the Review Board also found the film to have serious intent and artistic merit. This majority also found that, with appropriate consumer advice, the film could be accommodated within the guidelines for the legally restricted R18+ classification.

5.4 A minority of the Review Board found the some of the themes had a very high degree of intensity, and that their treatment was exploitative. Therefore the minority considered the film could not be accommodated in the R 18+ category.

6. REASONS FOR THE DECISION

6.1 In arriving at the decision, the Board first considered the general principles of the National Classification Code, and noted that the first of the four principles is that as far as possible:-

"(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want".

Principles (b) and (c) supplement the first principle and relate respectively to the protection of minors and the protection of people from exposure to unsolicited offensive material. The. R18+ classification is consistent with these principles.

The four principle deals with community concerns but expressly confines them to depictions that condone or incite violence, and to the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

There is no suggestion in the Classification Board's decision that the film condones or incites violence, and the Review Board concurs. For a film to depict a person in a demeaning manner, the guidelines require that the depiction must be either indirectly or directly sexual in nature and must debase or appear to debase the person or the character depicted. In the Board's majority view the film is a serious study from a feminist viewpoint of one woman's journey from emotional subservience to the man she loves who physically rejects her, to personal independence and fulfilment. As such, it is anything but a demeaning portrayal. The film does not depersonalise her nor does it invite hatred or ridicule in the viewer.

6.2 The Board then considered the relevant guidelines for the R18+ classification as applied to this film. The film contains an implied depiction of sexual violence, adult themes of very high intensity, and depictions of simulated and seemingly actual sexual activity.

6.3 The scene of sexual violence is described above at 66 minutes. It is of high intensity. The activity at first is consensual but this later changes and the man handles her roughly. The depiction of the assault is not detailed and the sexual violence is implied and not graphically shown. The context is not gratuitous or exploitative and the film contains no other scenes of non-consensual violence. As such the Review Board agreed with the Classification Board that this scene can be accommodated in the "R18+ Restricted" classification.

6.4 The scenes at 53-58 minutes and 73-77 minutes are prolonged sequences showing bondage in a sexual context. This fetish activity occupies two lengthy sequences and so constitutes an adult theme with a very high degree of intensity.

However, in the opinion of the majority of the Review Board, the scenes are not exploitative which is defined in the guidelines as " appearing to purposefully debase or abuse for the enjoyment of viewers, and lacking moral, artistic or other values". Nor is it gratuitous. The woman is a consenting party, and the man in question is shown at all times to be solicitous of the woman's physical well-being. The scenes are integral to the film's plot and theme. The majority of the Review Board accordingly agreed with the Classification Board that this element could be accommodated within the R18+ Restricted classification.

6 5 The film contains a number of graphic depictions of sexual activity. Whilst there is no obvious portrayal of explicit sexual intercourse, there are two scenes containing strong images of male genitalia and two other brief scenes involving male and female masturbation and scenes depicting partly obscured fellatio. The scenes are integral to the plot and are not considered to be either exploitative or gratuitous.

ln the R18+ Restricted classification, "sexual activity may be realistically simulated; the general rule is "simulation, yes - the real thing no".

For the most part the sexual activity depicted is simulated albeit at times very realistically. "The real thing" possibly may have occurred in the fellatio scene, aud certainly in the masturbation scenes.

The "rule" referred to above is expressed to be a general rule, implying the possibility of exceptions in a limited number of instances.

After careful consideration the majority of the Board decided that the limited discretion implicit in the application of the rule should be exercised in this film's favour. ln coming to this conclusion the Board took into account matters required by section 11 of the Act and found that the film was:-

(a) of serious intent and considered by many to have artistic merit.

(b) not exploitative or gratuitous.

(c) generally a thought provoking discourse on the role and experience of a woman in a couple relationship from a radical feminist perspective and that it contains few popular entertainment values.

(d) likely to appeal to a relatively sophisticated section of the public with some familiarity with the issues it raises.

6.6 Finally, the Board considered whether the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults would be breached to an unacceptable extent if the film were to be screened.

Undoubtedly the film would offend some people. The guidelines define "offensive" as material which causes outrage or extreme disgust to most people. However, the Board is of the view that a majority of reasonable adults (even if some would choose not to see the film themselves) would not be offended by other adults being able to do so if they chose.

In reaching this conclusion the Board was influenced by the belief that the Australian community is more accepting of a film containing controversial elements that arc sexual in nature, are not violent or exploitative of women, are placed in a serious artistic context, and are unlikely to cause harm to an adult viewer.

In this respect, the majority of this Board agreed with the minority view of the Classification Board that an R18+ Restricted classification with the consumer advice "High Level Sex Scenes" for this film would be consistent with the general principles governing decisions under the Code and "effectively balance the rights of adults to see, hear or read what they like; the rights of minors to be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; and. everyone's right to be protected from unsolicited material they find offensive."

7. Summary

7.1 The Review Board's decision is to classify the film Romance R18+, with the consumer advice "High Level Sex Scenes".

This decision is taken after full consideration of the applicant's submission, and after assessing the film as a whole against the relevant legislative criteria, including those contained in the Code and in the current Classification Guidelines for Films and Videotapes determined under Section 12 of the Act.

Barbara Biggins 
Convenor

***

Thanks to all the free publicity, it went on to have a successful theatrical release. Further information, and media reports on the controversy can be found here.

The film was released on VHS by Siren and is uncut at 98m 32s (NTSC). The R4 DVD from Madman Entertainment that followed runs 94m 30s (PAL). Thanks to Don for pointing out that this version is actually missing an ejaculation scene.

Before - Man says "As if crudeness is all one can expect"

Cut at 81:41 - 1s ejaculation shot.

After - Doctor squirting gel on woman's stomach and saying "There we see the head"

The origin of this print seems to be the UK where in 1999 the BBFC demanded this shot removed for the DVD release. 

In June 2003 it premiered on the World Movies Pay-TV channel. it is unclear if this was the uncut or BBFC version.

Madman Entertainment had it passed again in November 2005. Once more it was rated R18+ (High Level Sex Scenes).

The eventual passing of this title opened the way for other films that include actual sex scenes to be passed with R18+ ratings. So far these have included:

* Denotes database entry on this site.

The passing of hardcore sex in the R18+ category was seen by Adult Distributors in Australia to be a clear sign of hypocrisy. It is common practice for X18+ titles to have all the hardcore removed so that they can be rated R18+ and stocked in the local video store. In 2001, an R18+ version of DREAMQUEST was taken to the Review Board, and in 2006, the X18+ rating of VIVA EROTICA was challenged.

DVD Comparisons

Continue...

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com