Dir Brad Armstrong / Prod Wicked Pictures - Adam & Eve Productions / 2000 / USA

This title had already been rated RC twice before being granted an X18+.

It is common practice for X18+ rated films to be censored of all Hardcore content so they can receive an R18+ rating. This allows the film to be stocked by the your video store. Adult Distributors are quite skilled at knowing what they can get away with in the R18+. As such there seems to be very little conflict with the OFLC.

It would appear with an R18+ DREAMQUEST, that AXIS decided to try and push the boundaries somewhat. This was a direct consequence of the film ROMANCE being passed R18+ with hardcore sequences. The OFLC obviously did not agree as the R18+ version (aka MODIFIED VERSION No1) was Refused Classifcation.

In early 2001, AXIS applied to have this, and several other decisions reviewed. Despite the applications being outside the normal time provision, it was hoped that the Board would agree to the reviews. PLEASE and DREAMQUEST R18+ were accepted, TRAUME VON LUST, CAR WASH, CODENAME ECSTASY and PRIVATE SUPERFUCKERS 7 were turned down.

The eventual appeal to the Review Board was unsuccessful. 

***

This title is being appealed on the grounds that the OFLC have in a number of well-publicised decisions allowed material which is far more graphic in nature to be given an R rating. The instances in Dreamquest which we assume (we can only assume due to the very unspecific nature of the documentation accompanying the refusal) were responsible for the Refused Classification decision have been previously passed by members of the board in other contemporary R rated films primarily concerned with sex. Dreamquest was one of the titles previously appealed, and was delayed in its application as a result of all the other titles we were preparing to go to appeal, as we desired to have them all dealt with at the same time and represented by the company during the appeal.

***

Dream Quest R Rated

This appeal is against the decision of the Film Censorship Board to refuse to classify the above named film. The grounds for the appeal are that the decision makers:

- failed to apply continuity to the classification decision across a number of adult films which depict simulated sexual activity in relation to the Refused Classification of Dream Ouest.

- failed to take full account of the wording and intent of the Classification Act and, in particular, of the Code attached to the legislation as a schedule; and

- did not reasonably apply the film classification guidelines as  they relate to depictions of sexual activity.

In our opinion the film is not so offensive that it falls into the Refused Classification category, and should be given an R classification. It does not offend, in our view, against the stricture that R films should not contain explicit sex scenes

Sarah, the heroine quests for romance and tender love in a modern world. Disappointed by her boyfriend's insensitivity, she is contemplating her lot in life when some fairies entreat her to go on a treacherous journey to find fantasy, stolen by an evil despot.

Along this journey, Sarah encounters many hazards in her quest for truth, but realizes the value in all things fantastic and erotic, including her own epiphany during her hero's journey about the projection of an essentialised 'romance' being a construct.

A truly beautiful film on all levels, capturing the essence of 'fantasy' as a human practice for sexual and erotic enjoyment, away from the potential disappointments reality often offers in relationships and the hazards when it is restricted or removed from society.

A salutary lesson for current political climates. The setting transfers from modern times to the fantasy underworld as frequently depicted in mainstream films, where magic and morality battle good, evil and all in between. This film is representative of a new genre of adult films where the sex is incidental to the strong narrative development and merely adds an adult dimension to the title.

Factors supporting the appeal

As an R rated adult film, Dream Quest has a strong narrative based around sex. The sex is not gratuitous, and is justified in relation to the text. The guidelines state that sex permissible in this category is sex which is:

a) realistically simulated; the general role is "simulation yes- the real thing no"

b) Nudity in a sexual context should not include obvious genital contact. 

c) Verbal references may be more detailed than depictions.

Dream Ouest not only has sex that is subtle but also complies with all of these guidelines, when interpreted with an adult understanding of simulation and genital contact. Any adult that is qualified to view an R rated film, by virtue of their age and assumed conceptual framework for dealing with matters which "require an adult perspective" will grasp that in R rated adult film, the main focus of the title is going to be sex, at a comparatively high frequency. The only sex that is able to be realistically seen as un-simulated is that which is actually contains penetrative sex, for which an entire classification is available.  R rated or simulated sex is anything that can be realistically simulated, i.e. oral sex, digital penetration, intercourse where the genital of the participants are covered or shot in such a way as to be unclear in their contact.

To suggest that one simulated cunnilingus differs from another simulated cunnilingus when it is a case of a mouth being placed on or near female genitals in a facsmliee of oral sex begs a modicum of sense in the classifier. To describe the scenes in Dream Ouest as being 'sexually explicit' is to make a definition of simulation that cannot be substantiated.

This usage of 'explicit' in a film where there is frequent sex makes the definition of explicit fall within the parameters of clear sexual activity, not the occurrence of the sex itself. A male and female simulating vigorous rear-entry sex would be described by most reasonable adults as explicit - i.e. the practice and intention of the users is overt. Therefore without the OFLC guidelines being at all detailed or specific, the industry has regulated along an understanding of what is permissible in R, a category which hasn't changed its guidelines for content in the recent amendments.

All attempts are made by AXIS to submit films that comply with guidelines, and in the light of recent decisions on films such as 'Romance' which contain very explicit sex to be housed in the R category, the denial of Dream Quest with its partially clothed and art house style filmic techniques to be denied this rating smacks of hypocrisy and discrimination.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, Section 9, requires that films are to be classified in accordance with the Code and the classification guidelines.

Section 11(a) and (d) of the Act requires the classifier, in making a decision, to take account of:

(a) the standards of morality, decency, and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults;

We are of the view that, in respect of S 11(a) no reasonable adult would see this as so offensive in relation to community standards that it should be refused classification, especially as the scene that ultimately refused classification is entirely appropriate within an R category, hence its inclusion after lengthy prior debate with the OFLC on this title and that the sex shown in Dream Ouest is concomitant with OFLC and industry understandings of the R category in the guidelines as it has been previously dealt with.

In respect of S 11(d) people who view this film will be well aware of the conventions attached to sex films, and be actively seeking to see realistic simulated sexual activity between consenting adults

The National Classification Code (Amendment No.2) requires that:

We are of the view that an R classification for this film would give effect to these principles. (N.B. We believe that principles (b) and (c) are satisfied in this case by the restricted category into which the material is likely to fall.)

The Code further states within Amendment No 3 the following definition of the classification process with regard to this matter:

"The board makes classification decisions based on the impact of individual elements and their cumulative effect. The content and treatment of such elements contributes to the impact. The board takes into account factors such as tone duration frequency and the amount of visual or verbal detail. The relationship of classifiable elements to the narrative also contributes to the impact of a film and therefore its classification." (My emphasis)

The 5 occurrences in "Dream Ouest" of so-called explicit sexual activity are tenuous examples at the best of times when held up against so many decisions on R rated adult films historically permitting the same kind of visuals.

The guidelines for R classified films states that sexual activity may be realistically simulated and nudity in a sexual context should not include obvious genital contact,

In our view the Classification Board did not reasonably apply the film classification guidelines as they relate to depictions of explicit sexual activity making a literal interpretation of the guidelines which in this case in highly inappropriate for a film which falls directly within the guidelines on all matters relating to sexual activity.

In conclusion we would reiterate most emphatically that the film "Dream Ouest" in no way conveys images contrary to those appropriate within the R category as stated in the classification guidelines. It blatantly depicts consenting adults partaking in simulated sexual activity.

To suggest that "Dream Ouest" is any different to a slew of comparable titles which have been classified recently is to make a complete mockery of the classification process in trying to limit offensive depictions and images. As an industry, great investment is being made to comply with the guidelines with little in the way of actual solid benchmarks or definitions. In cases such as this where films of significant artistic and erotic merit are being released, providing the adult viewer with material that is wholly accessible to women, couples and singles which presents all parties in a decent and respectable fashion are being refused classification on such spurious terms, the board seems to be in breech of their charter of care to the community of reasonable adults they purport to represent

The film therefore fits into the R classification as specified in the guidelines. We can only add to this conclusion that the board is urgently in need of a flexibility of their rigidly literal interpretation on a title-by-title basis, paying some heed to the consistency of their decision making it is used by necessity to guide content editing decisions. While the goal posts are so frequently shifted, the onus of responsibility is grossly unfairly placed on the industry to second-guess the compliance and then be forced into lengthy and extremely costly appeal procedures for want of a more flexible and user-friendly system.

***

The premise for Dream Quest's appeal is much more far reaching than the contested vision housed in this title alone.
It is a synecdoche for some very alarming trends in repressive and backward classification for R rated video's, removing all but the most basic sexual moves, a trend that in no way reflects the wants and needs of the viewers, the changing attitudes to sexual imagery across the mainstream and more importantly, previous decisions made by the appeals board.

If the refusal of long shot, simulated cunnilingus and hazy hand movements over a vagina are being interpreted by the board as the hallmarks of explicit hardcore which need to be housed in the X 18+ rated category for the good of society, we are really making some retrograde steps in the literal interpretations and understandings of the board.
Particularly in the light of decisions made by the review board in respect of Romance, an R rated title that shows absolutely explicit footage with no simulation which was given an R classification despite its content.

According to the guidelines, 'the board makes classification decisions based on the impact of individual elements and their cumulative effect. The content and treatment of elements contribute to the impact. The board takes into account factors such as tone, duration, frequency and the amount of visual or verbal detail. The relationship of classifiable elements to the narrative also contributes to the impact of a film, and therefore its classification' .

The board report for Romance advises that this title has high-level sex scenes, and yet Dream Quest returns an RC classification.
I put it to the board that the title Dream Quest has significant artistic merit, contains simulated and non explicit sex scenes as should be viewed by an 18 year old or over, but has every right to be classified as an R rated film.
As there have been no changes to the R classifications, Dream Quest complies with the new benchmarks set by the board in explicit material that is accommodated in Romance and justifiably needs to be awarded an R18+ classification.

Dream Quest is a hoary old chestnut of classification controversy. To suggest that the scenes in Dream Quest are too explicit is insulting to the intelligence and intellect of society. In R rated film's we can see a man eating another mans brains out of his skull, but we can't see a woman eating another women's pussy, albeit discreetly, simulated or from a distance. We can see an art film that depicts visually and graphically the erect penis and gratuitous penetration of a woman by a man, but we are unable to see the flat handed and superficial rubbing of a woman's genitals.

If the rule is simulated yes, real no for classifying R, then I would pose the question that if a man and woman are engaged in what appears to be actual sex, it stands to reason that a viewer happening across the scene may actually interpret that scene as a graphic representation of consensual sex.

It is not that they know the couple on the screen are doing it, it is rather that they have no proof that they are not doing it except their understandings of the classifications such as they are. The simulation is then really for the benefit of the OFLC's peace of mind and moral code, not the viewers

Sex is a part of our society, on every level, it has become the essential commodity of our time, for better or for worse.
Films like the R rated version of Dream Quest are so tame, so nice, so vanilla as to make the RC classification totally laughable.

I vehemently argue that this film is well and truly housed within the R 18+ guidelines, and to refresh your memories on the recent benchmarks, I have for you some shots from Romance juxtaposed with the supposedly offending material from Dream Quest.

Not only are the scenes in Dream Quest ethereal and shot so as the sexual contact could easily be simulated, the scenes and the film is so wholly stylised as to be firmly in the realms of fantasy at all times. It is a film that focuses on sex yes, that is not in doubt, that it is explicit however is a highly contestable decision and again one that I would propose to the board has a lot more to do with various other agendas.

Whether it is discrimination, ignorance or just incompetence, the fact that I am able to show you these images is disturbing to say the least. The board's notable inconsistencies both in decisions and in their haphazard reporting style is something which will undoubtedly become an albatross when forced to be substantiated in a court of law.

Cannibalism, penetration but no oral please, we're censors. It is a pathetic joke that the industry which is treated like pariahs is more accountable and dedicated to benchmarking and sanitising unsafe images than the bureaucrats who condemn us.

Romance is a film that portrays sex as a dark, dirty and violating experience that is tantamount to rape and abuse. Dream Quest portrays sex as an experience that is fun, sensual, uplifting and liberating. The brief snatches of what I argue are just as easily simulated scenes are nowhere near as explicit as others that the board has classified with an R.

The board and the adult industry need to urgently reach a position of mutual training and agreed definitions, as well as making sure that their decisions and board reports have some kind of continuity for ongoing relationships and communication between themselves and the industry to be strengthened and productive.

Continue...

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com