PRIVATE GOLD 41: MADNESS

Dir Pierre Woodman / Prod Milcap Media / 2000 / Sweden / IMDb

Stell Bay Pty Ltd had a 148min (v) tape Refused Classification in March 2000. An appeal to the Review Board failed and it was confirmed RC in May 2000.

Board Report  T00/819

REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

In the Board's view, the film warrants an RC classification. In accordance with 1 (a) of the film and video table of the National Classification Code, this film "...,...deal(s) 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 they should be classified RC.

The film revolves around the story of a woman seeking revenge on a man who had her committed to a mental asylum. She traces him to his home and employs a prostitute to have sex with him. She then has him arrested for an invented rape,

There are two depictions of sexualised violence which occur at the following intervals:

At approximately 70-75 minutes, Cheryl has persuaded a man she has had sex with to seduce his maid. She watches them for a short time, and then she leaves the room and gets a long bladed knife from the kitchen- She walks back up the stairs and sits on the floor at the foot of the bed, holding the blade behind her back, and continues to watch the man and the maid.

Suspenseful music can be heard and post action visuals show her sitting in a pool staring blankly into space, and we are left wondering if she inflicted any harm on them.

At approximately 143.145 mins, the prostitute and the man are having sex and the woman watches and then gets a kitchen utensil and enters the room. The man ejaculates and she then approaches them.  Post action visuals show him lying with his head against the couch and he is not moving. It is implied that she hit him with the ladle. She them masturbates herself saying, "now it will be impossible for this bastard to say he didn't fuck me". It becomes clear later that she was rubbing his semen on herself. Post action visuals show police cars outside and the man is being led down the stairs. He struggles. saying. "I didn't do anything" and the police say. "you're under arrest for the rape of Cheryl..". A porter identifies the man as asking for Cheryl and he is shoved into the police car.

The above depictions connect sex and violence in the story and as "no depiction of sexualised violence is permitted" in a film which contains sexually explicit material, this film is appropriately classified RC.

It is a minority opinion of the Board that the scene from 143-145 minutes also constitutes an offensive fantasy as the female set up a situation where she tricked the man into coming to her house, organised a prostitute to have sex with him and then, while he was unconscious, used his semen to set it up so that she could cry rape, which resulted in the man being led away confusion as he was arrested by the cops.

***

APPLICANT Stell Bay Pty Ltd

BUSINESS
To review the decision of the Classification Board to assign the classification RC under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to the videotape Madness

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Decision

The Classification Review Board - decided to confirm the decision of the Classification Board to classify the videotape Madness RC (Refused Classification).

2. Legislative provisions

The Class(fication (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 1 of the Table under the heading "Films" provides that films that "(a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or -. abhorrent phenomena 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. Paragraph 2 provides that "films

The Guidelines provide, in relation to X18+:

"This classification is a special and

No depiction of sexual violence,

3. Procedure

Five members of the Review Board viewed the videotape Madness at the meeting on 26 May 2000.

The Review Board heard oral submissions from Mr Anthony Strahan on behalf of the applicant.

4. Evidence

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following: (a) the applicant's Application for Review, and oral submissions in support of that Application;

(b) the videotape Madness;

(c) the relevant provisions in the Act; 

(d) the relevant provisions in the National Classification Code as amended in accordance with Section 6 of the Act;

(e) 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

The content

5.1 In the context of a sexually explicit video, Cheryl seeks her revenge on ex-lover Alan who years before had had her committed to a

5.2 The Review Board considered the scenes cited by the Classification Board as causing the videotape to be classified RC for its depiction of sexualised violence. These occurred at 68 and 140 mins approximately.

5.3 The Review Board unanimously found the scene from 68 minutes (in which Cheryl watches her casual lover and his maid make love, gets a knife from the kitchen and continues to watch, rocking back and forth) to constitute a scene of sexualised violence.

The Review Board was divided in opinion as to whether the scene from 140 minutes constituted a scene of sexualised violence.

5.4 In regard to the minority opinion of the Classification Board that the last scene constituted an offensive fantasy, the Review Board found no indicators that this was the case.

5.5 The Review Board found the scene at 5 minutes, in which Alan says to his maid "If you want to work here, be nice to me", and thereby induces her to perform fellatio on, and have sex with him, to constitute a verbal threat, though not of sufficient force, of itself, to constitute coercion.

5.6 The Review Board concluded, on the basis of the above several findings, that the video contained a scene or scenes which constituted "sexualised violence" and the video was therefore appropriately classified RC.

Reasons for the Decision

6.1 The Review Board based its decision to classify the videotape Madness RC (Refused Classification) on the content referred to in 5.2 and 5.3.

6.2 The Review Board found that the scene from 68 mins showed Cheryl, who has had sex with her casual partner, subsequently watching the maid have sex with the partner (the maid having been ordered to do so by both the partner and Cheryl). Cheryl watches the two while stroking her breast and rocking back and forth. She grabs a large knife from the kitchen in a hold consistent with an intention to stab someone, returns to the room with the knife concealed behind her back, and, kneeling on the floor, continues rocking and watching.

In the view of the Review Board, the scene demonstrates an example of Cheryl's madness, in that she is aroused by watching sex to perform a violent act. In this instance, as she sits naked and rocking, she gives the appearance of readying herself to stab the couple with the knife. No act of violence is seen (the video has a cut at this point), but there is an impactful threat of , violence. In this connection the Review Board noted that that definition of "violence" in the guidelines "includes not only acts of violence, but also the threat or .. result of violence."

The Review Board therefore concludes that this scene constitutes a scene of sexualised violence. The sex acts and the threat of violence are directly connected in the storyline.

6.3 In the scene from 140 mins, the actual connections between sexual acts and Cheryl's acts of revenge (framing Alan for rape, including implied clawing of his face and drawing blood, seen at the end of the scene) are less clear. Cheryl has plotted to get her former lover to her flat, has not had sex with him, and this time, clothed, watches him with the prostitute (apparently without being aroused), waiting for the opportunity to knock him out, and put his semen on herself, to provide evidence of "rape".

Some members of the Review Board thought that this scene constituted a consolidation of the theme of sexualised violence (an outcome of her madness), which was established earlier (in the scene at 68 mins), and as such constituted a scene of sexualised violence. Other members considered that the violence or threat of violence (hitting over head with ladle, implied clawing of Alan's face) was not sufficiently connected, in this part of the story, with sexual elements, except as part of her scheme.

6.4 The applicant conceded that the sexual content of this video precluded it from receiving the classification Rl8+ and argued in relation to the application of the Xl8+ category to the video in part that:

a) The Act indicates that there is an "ascending" order of classification category, and that this implies that material which is allowable in a lower category (say R) should therefore be allowable in a higher category (eg X). There are films in R which contain sexualised violence, and such depictions should therefore be allowable in a "higher" classification;

b) Subpara (d) of the Preamble to the national Classification Code is subservient to subpara I) of the Code, viz "adults should be able to read, hear, and see what they want" is the preeminent principle;

c) The concept of "sexualised violence" only appears in the Guidelines, and sits anomalously with other prohibitions. It is intended to extend the concept of sexual violence, and has elements of needing to take pleasure from the act of violence;

d) In the first scene (68 mins) there was no sexual or sexualised violence, but perhaps a mild fetish (with the knife);

e) In the second scene (140mins) there were no particular acts of violence, but some implied violence. This was not put in a sexual context, and the sexual acts and implied violence are separate elements of the narrative.

6.5 The Review Board took the view that:

a) While the Act Para 7(2) does list classifications for films "in ascending order", this does not necessarily imply an ascending order of content in the classifications. At the very least, it can be taken to indicate an ascending order of restriction in respect of audience. Furthermore, the guidelines characterise the X category as a special category with special features, which are not necessarily related to the content of other categories;

b) The Review Board considers that subpara (d) of the Code must be held to qualify subpara(a) and is not subservient to it;

c) The Review Board is required to take into account both the Code and the Guidelines in making its decisions (the Act, para 9). The definition of "sexualised violence" given in the Classification Guidelines is "where sex and violence are connected in the story, although sexual violence may not necessarily occur";

d) The Review Board did not accept this view. See 6.2;

e) The Review Board was divided on this view. See 6.3.

The Review Board therefore concluded that the video breached the requirement for the X18+ category that "no depiction of sexualised violence or coercion. . . is pennitted in this classification."

As the video, because of the explicit nature of its sexual content, cannot be accommodated in the R18+ classification, and because of its depiction of sexualised violence cannot be classified X18+, it follows that it must be classified RC.

7. Summary

7.1 The Review Board's decision is to confirm the decision of the Classification Board to classify the videotape Madness RC.

This decision is taken after full consideration of the applicant's submission, and after assessing the videotape 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: 26 May 2000.  

Continue...

   http://www.refused-classification.com

refusedclassification@gmail.com