The Silence of the Lambs

Dir Jonathon Demme / 1991 / USA

This title has been included as AN EXAMPLE OF OFLC POLICY. it has not been censored OR BANNED.

Originally passed with an R by the Classification Board, an appeal to the Review Board saw the rating dropped to M (Occasional Graphic Violence, Disturbing Concepts). At the time this was a controversial move by the Review Board, with some people believing the film deserved the R. The decision would prove pivotal in the move to have a rating between M and R. This finally took place in May 1993 with the introduction of the MA15+ rating.

When put before the Classification Board in May 2001 the rating was increased from M (Occasional Graphic Violence, Disturbing Concepts) to  MA15+ (High Level Violence, Medium Level Coarse Language).

*** 

***

Film and Literature Board of Review
Title: The Silence of the Lambs 
Applicant: Village Roadshow Corporation Limited 
Decision Reviewed: Classify 'R' by the Film Censorship Board 
Decision: In The Silence of the Lambs, based on a novel by Thomas Harris, a serial killer is tracked down by a female FBI recruit played by Jodie Foster. During her investigation she wins the confidence of an even more dangerous serial killer, a mad psychiatrist held in a high security prison, who provides her with a valuable "psychological profile" of the murderer and information which enables her to identify him. Meanwhile the psychiatrist (Anthony Hopkins) escapes from prison after brutally murdering two guards, and apparently goes free. The other killer is finally caught, but not before he has kidnapped the daughter of a US senator and subjected her to a terrifying ordeal. 
The activities of both murderers are peculiarly bloodthirsty, and audiences are spared none of the details of their atrocities. At no time, however, are the killers seen committing their serial crimes; the violence is depicted post hoc, being shown in photographs, or described verbally, or (most graphically) revealed during an autopsy, when the body of one victim is examined. The murder of the guards is also shown graphically, although much of the violence is out of shot. The film, directed by Jonathon Demme, is undeniably frightening and skilfully made. A majority of the Film Censorship Board considered its violent elements sufficiently disturbing to warrant a Restricted classification. They were concerned also by two uses of offensive language. The Board of Review, while acknowledging that the language was strong, considered it contextually justified; we were more concerned with the film's violence, with the general implications of its theme, and its power to disturb young audiences.
The applicants contended that the individual elements of the film were neither excessive nor gratuitous; that the language was not assaultive; and that although the film dealt with powerful and bizarre ideas, it was unlikely to be harmful to young people of 15 or older. With all of this it was possible to agree, although members of the Board of Review had misgivings about the film. Some of us were troubled by the killing of the guards, others by the girl's ordeal in the pit, where the killer keeps her prisoner, and where there was a tendency to linger with relish on the extremes of her suffering. In these moments the film went close to meriting an 'R' classification, but shopped just short, in our opinion, of doing so. The violence, being largely implied, was of the kind we considered in the police thriller Cop, the subject of an appeal in 1988, in which the consequences of serial killings themselves were shown in clinical detail, although the killings themselves were not seen. On that occasion we determined that an 'M' classification was appropriate, and in all the circumstances we concluded that The Silence of the Lambs should be treated similarly. 
This is an instance of the dilemmas that may be raised in the minds of censorship bodies by films or artistic and technical merit. The Silence of the Lambs is a more than usually literate and intelligent film with an element of compassion. The temptation to treat such films more leniently for purposes of censorship classification is notoriously strong; and all of us felt bound to ask ourselves whether we were justified in doing so. Are the qualities that make a "good" film more likely to ameliorate or to intensify the impact of its subject-matter? Will a "good" film be more disturbing than a rubbishy one with a similar theme? Very likely the answer is yes. But equally likely, the rewards of seeing it will be greater, and the responses set up in the minds of audiences will be more complex and subtle. There will, one hopes, be a compensating enlargement of the viewer's experience. In this instance the Board of Review felt justified in admitting such considerations. We thought it unlikely that the film's audiences would see it purely as a spectacle of gratuitous horror; the feelings of pity and terror evoked by the film may well stimulate deeper reflections. In our view the film fell just within the limits of an 'M' classification, though some of us also felt that it highlighted the need for an additional classification between 'M' and 'R', in which material of this kind could be readily accommodated. With these concerns in mind, we directed that The Silence of the Lambs be classified 'M' with consumer advice: "Occasional graphic violence and disturbing concepts".
25 January 1991

***

Office of Film and Literature Classification- Report on Activities 1991-92
Complaints
Two hundred and forty-one written and fifty-five oral complaints were received during the year.
......The Silence of the Lambs (24 Letters). 
Most of those relating to The Silence of the Lambs concerned the 'M' classification assigned by the Film and Literature Board of Review.

***

Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment had the two-disc collectors DVD rated MA15+(Strong Violence, Strong Coarse Language) on March 22nd 2007.

DVD Comparisons

Hannibal

Dir Ridley Scott / 2001 / UK-USA

United International Pictures had this 131m (f) sequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS rated MA15+ (High Level Violence) on 6th February 2001.

Following a request from the Queensland Attorney General, Judy Spence, the film was referred to the Classification Review Board. This saw the rating raised from MA15+ (High Level Violence) to R18+ (High Impact Violence).

***

The full Review Board report is as follows.

Classification Review Board
34th MEETING
15th & 22nd FEBRUARY 2001
23-33 MARY STREET
SURRY HILLS NSW

PRESENT; Ms Barbara Biggins (Convenor)
Mr Jonathan O’Dea (Deputy Convenor)
Ms Joan Yardley
Ms Glenda Banks
Dr Robin Harvey

APPLICANT: The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP

BUSINESS: To review the decision of the Classification Board to assign the
classification “MA15+” with the consumer advice “High Level
Violence” under the Classification (Publications, Films and
Computer Games) Act 1995 to the film and sale/hire videotape
Hannibal.

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 Hannibal “MA 15+” with the consumer
advice “High level violence”, and to classify the film “R 18+” with the consumer advice “High impact violence.”

2. Legislative Provisions

The Classification (Publications, Film 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, the National
Classification Code (the Code) in paragraph 4 of the Table under the heading
“Films” provides that films (except RC films, X films, and R films) that depict,
express, or otherwise deal with sex, violence, or coarse language in such a
manner as to be unsuitable for viewing by persons who are under 15 years, are to be classified “MA”. Para 3 of the table provides films (except RC and X films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see, are to be classified “R”.

3. Procedure

3.1 Having received a request from the Queensland Attorney General, the
Hon Judy Spence MLA, the Federal Attorney General, the Hon Daryl
Williams AM QC MP, requested the Review Board on 13 February 2001
to review the classification of the film Hannibal as a matter of urgency.

3.2 Five members of the Review Board viewed the film Hannibal.

3.3 At the request of the film’s distributor, United International Pictures
(UIP), the Review Board postponed its meeting planned for 15 February
to allow UIP sufficient time to prepare a submission to the Review Board.
The written submission from UIP was received on 21 February 2001.

3.4 The Review Board met on February 22nd to review the film.

3.5 The Review Board heard oral representations from Mr Michael Selwyn
and Mr John Dickie representing the distributor at its meeting of February
22nd.

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) The distributor’s oral and written submissions to the Review Board
(c) The film Hannibal
(d) The relevant provisions in the Act
(e) The relevant provisions in the National Classification Code as amended by
section 6 of the Act and as endorsed by the State and Territory Ministers
responsible for censorship matters.
(f) The current Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes
determined under section 12 of the Act.

5. Findings on Material Questions of Fact
The Plot

5.1 In this sequel to The Silence of the Lambs, Dr Hannibal Lecter, the former psychiatrist who engages in cannibalism, has escaped and is now living a cultured life in Florence. He is pursued for revenge by Verger, who had been horribly mutilated during an encounter with Hannibal some years earlier. Verger enlists the aid of law officers to trace Hannibal, and their paths cross with that of FBI agent Clarice Starling.

The content 

The Review Board focussed on the scenes listed by the Classification Board in its report, but also made findings, as below, in regard to other scenes.
5.2 The Review Board considered the content cited by the Classification Board
These were the following six scenes:

1) The stakeout in the marketplace in which policewoman Clarice Starling
is cornered by a female drug dealer and her cronies, after much gunfire.
Clarice is forced to fire on the female who is carrying a baby in a pouch.
The female is shot dead. The sequence contains slow motion shots of
falling bodies, and blood spurts. Splattered blood is washed off the
baby.

2) The flashbacks which occur at several points in the film, but notably
around 25mins, in which Verger, as a younger man, is seen swinging
from a rope, and slashing at his face with broken glass given to him by,
and at the suggestion of Hannibal. Verger peels flesh from his face, and
Hannibal feeds the flesh to a dog. Verger is horribly disfigured as a
result of the event.

3) Hannibal implicitly stabs a male who has been following him. The
pursuer falls with flows of blood shown from his mouth and leg.

4) Hannibal renders unconscious the Italian policeman Pazzi, who has
discovered his identity. He gags and straps Pazzi to a trolley, wheels
him to the edge of the balcony, puts a rope around his neck, asking
“bowels in or out?” Hannibal implicitly slits the officer’s gut, and
pushes him over the balcony. Pazzi is hanged and his bowels fall out
and are seen on the ground below, with the body swinging above.

5) Hannibal has been captured by Verger’s accomplices and taken to his
farm where Verger plans to have Hannibal killed by his trained pigs.
Clarice arrives and rescues him, shooting two guards who fall in the pig
pen and screams are heard as the pigs attack. Verger is also thrown in
the pigpen and is likewise attacked.

6) Hannibal drugs the law officer in the pay of Verger, and removes the
top of the agent’s skull revealing his brain. He slices a piece of brain
off, cooks and feeds it to him.

5.3 In reviewing these scenes, the Review Board found:

Scene (1) had high impact, with some elements of stylising which did not
diminish the overall impact, and was prolonged

Scene (2) While scene 2 contained some elements of a stylised approach, it
had high impact. The Review Board also found that this scene required an
adult perspective in relation to the dialogue: “when you hang yourself it
feels good”.

Scene (3) contained violence, but did not have a high impact

Scene (4) had high impact, and was prolonged, and had elements of
gratuitousness

Scene (5) had high impact (despite some stylised elements) and was
prolonged

Scene (6) had high impact and was prolonged.

5.4 In relation to other scenes considered by the Review Board, a majority of the Review Board found the scene in which he apparently cuts off Clarice’s hand with a cleaver to have high impact. The Review Board also
considered that other scenes or threats of violence, such as the threat to eat the heart of Pazzi’s wife, Hannibal’s slitting the throat of one of Verger’s
men, and picture galleries of Hannibal’s victims added to the general
impact of the violent depictions in the film.

5.5 The Review Board also found that while some of these scenes, and the film as a whole, had elements that could be considered to be stylised, this did
not diminish the overall high impact of the violence. Furthermore, most of
the above scenes were portrayed as “real life” events and stylistic elements
did not diminish this perception. 

5.6 The Review Board also considered the themes of the film and found that
the powerful portrayal of the serial killer as a “hero” without any credible
alternate role models or an explicit or implicit moral resolution could be
disturbing to adolescents in the age range of 13 to 16 years (even if
accompanied by adults). The Review Board was also concerned about the
theme of feeding of body parts from live humans to animals and people. It
was considered that both these themes required an adult perspective.

5.7 The Review Board found that the film contained scenes of high impact
violence which were not infrequent and which were sometimes prolonged
and/or contained gratuitous elements. In addition the Review Board found
that the film required an adult perspective in dealing with some of its
themes. The Review Board therefore found that the film was unsuitable for
persons under the age of 18 years and was appropriately classified “R18+”.

6. Reasons for the Decision

6.1 The Review Board based its decision to set aside the decision of the
Classification Board, and to assign the classification “R 18+” to the film
Hannibal on the content and themes set out in 5.2 –5.6 above.

6.2 As described in 5.3 and 5.4 above, the Review Board found that there were a number of depictions of violence that, in the view of the Review Board, had high impact, and some of these were, additionally, prolonged or had elements of gratuitousness. The Guidelines for violence in the MA
classification require that such scenes be infrequent.

6.3 The Classification Board had taken the view that these scenes were
“stylised”. The Guidelines permit depictions of violence with high impact
to be more frequent if they are “stylised”. “Stylised treatment” is defined in
the glossary to the Guidelines as being such that “the viewer is conscious of
the unreality: examples include musicals, horror, animation, and fantasy”.

The Review Board took the view that the film as a whole was not stylised
in that the characters and actions were realistic and the scenes were
seemingly real.

In regard to individual scenes such as (1) –(6) above, the Review Board
concluded that, while it could be argued that some scenes contained
stylistic elements, in some cases these elements increased the impact.

For example, scene (2) in which Verger is mutilated, is depicted as a real
happening, with stylised elements to convey that it is a flashback. The
scene is set up to explain the cause of Verger seeking revenge, and was
seen as a realistic depiction of an actual event, that is a key to the film’s
action. In scene (3), the disembowelling of Pazzi is depicted as a real
event, and the depiction includes a gratuitous closeup of Pazzi’s intestines
on the ground. In scene (4) the filming techniques added to the chaos and
scariness of the pig mauling and therefore increased the overall impact of
the depiction. The depiction in scene (6) of the removal of the skull with
the victim continuing to talk, was physically possible and was not
considered unreal.

The Review Board concluded that, overall, it did not find the film or
individual scenes to be stylised in a way that the frequency of high impact
scenes was acceptable under the guidelines for the MA classification.

6.4 The Review Board considered that the portrayal of characters in the film
contributed to a theme in which the viewer was invited to admire the
culture and intelligence of the serial killer, despite the terrible crimes he
had committed, and to empathise with his reasons for his violent behaviour.
Adolescent viewers, at this point in their development, could be vulnerable
to the ambiguous behavioural and emotional messages implicit in the
characterisation of the film. The impact of this portrayal is increased in the
final scene, in which Hannibal is seen to encourage a young child to eat a
piece of human brain. This was perceived to be an attempt by the older
man to corrupt the young child, with no sense of remorse or concern.

Further issues or depictions which require an adult perspective include:

1) the brief comment by Hannibal as Verger hangs and slashes at his face,
viz “ When you hang yourself it feels good”. This was taken by the
Review Board as a reference to the use of asphyxiation to produce
heightened sexual arousal, which is an issue requiring an adult
perspective.

2) the feeding of body parts taken from live human beings to animals or
people.

6.5 The distributor argued in part that
a) the film was in the “horror” genre, and the violence was stylised. The film
took a flippant approach and had an absence of menace
b) the Hannibal character was well known and his excesses would not surprise
c) in regard to specific scenes cited by the Classification Board, scene (4) (as in 5.2 above) was dimly lit, brief, stylised and in long shot; scene (5) had brief
visuals, the action was chaotic and not detailed, and was unreal which
lessened the impact; scene (6) in visual delivery did not live up to its
conceptual strength, and was stylised.
d) The appeal was lodged before people had seen it, and that public concern had lessened after the film began national release.

6.6 In relation to these points, the Review Board took the view that :
a) see 6.3
b) Hannibal was likely to be well known among those who saw the thriller
Silence of the Lambs, but that does not reduce the overall high impact of
violence in this film
c) See 5.3 and 6.2, 6.3.
d) This is not relevant to the Board’s determination.

6.7 The Review Board concluded that the film contained depictions of high
impact violence that were not infrequent, and which were sometimes
prolonged and/or contained gratuitous elements. The treatment of these
scenes and of the film as a whole was not considered to be stylised in a way
that would make the high impact violence acceptable under an MA
classification. Further the film contained depictions and raised issues
which required an adult perspective. The film is therefore appropriately
classified R 18+. The Board’s decision to assign the consumer advice line “High impact violence” is made having regard to the content and view set out in 5.3 and 6.2. above.

7. Summary

The Review Board’s decision is to classify the film Hannibal “R 18+” with the
consumer advice line “High impact violence”.

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

Barbara Biggins
Convenor

***

With the MA15+ raised to R18+, the film continued on with a theatrical release. A DVD followed from Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment.

DVD Comparisons

Continue...

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com