Film Censorship: 0 - 9


 

 

 

 

013.Fourquan.Salil.Sawarem.Four.Oq

Directed by Unknown / 201?

In August 2017, a 62-minute DVD-Rom titled 013.FOURQUAN.SALIL.SAWAREM.FOUR.OQ was banned by the Classification Board.

The Australian Federal Police - Joint Counter Terrorism Team - Sydney was the applicant.

The reason given for the Refused Classification ratings was:

Reason: 9A
9A Refused Classification for publications, films or computer games that advocate terrorist acts
(1) A publication, film or computer game that advocates the doing of a terrorist act must be classified RC.
(2) Subject to subsection
(3), for the purposes of this section, a publication, film or computer game advocates the doing of a terrorist act if:
(a) it directly or indirectly counsels, promotes, encourages or urges the doing of a terrorist act; or
(b) it directly or indirectly provides instruction on the doing of a terrorist act; or
(c) it directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a substantial risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person (regardless of his or her age or any mental impairment (within the meaning of section 7.3 of the Criminal Code) that the person might suffer) to engage in a terrorist act.
(3) A publication, film or computer game does not advocate the doing of a terrorist act if it depicts or describes a terrorist act, but the depiction or description could reasonably be considered to be done merely as part of public discussion or debate or as entertainment or satire.
(4) In this section: terrorist act has the meaning given by section 100.1 of the Criminal Code (no matter where the action occurs, the threat of action is made or the action, if carried out, would occur).


 

 

 

 

1 Berlin-Harlem

Directed by Lothar Lambert - Wolfram Zobus / 1974 / West Germany / IMDb

1 BERLIN-HARLEM was rated R in March 1985 after footage was deleted. The reasons for the cuts were infrequent, gratuitous, high level sex.

The Australian Film Institute appealed the decision and managed to get the film passed uncut. However, the Review Board attached the following conditions.

Direct the Film Censorship Board to classify 'R' without deletions for no more than two screenings at each capital city of Australia as part of a Lothar Lambert retrospective season in 1985.


 

 

 

 

101 Acts of Love

Directed by Eric Jeffrey Haims / 1971 / USA / IMDb

In March 1976, an 1896.00-meter (69:06) print of 101 ACTS OF LOVE was banned because of 'indecency'.

Columbia Pictures were the applicant.

 

A 72m videotape passed with an X-rating in July 1984. It was awarded for sex, which was found to be:
Frequency: Frequent
Explicitness/Intensity: High
Purpose: Gratuitous

This was followed in August by a censored 54m tape, which was passed with an R-rating. In this version, the sex was described as being:
Frequency: Frequent
Explicitness/Intensity: Medium
Purpose: Gratuitous

In both cases, 14th Mandolin was the applicant. The two versions were probably released on their Pink Video label.


 

 

 

 

200 Motels

aka Frank Zappa’s 200 Motels

Directed by Tony Palmer - Frank Zappa / 1971 / USA / IMDb

In February 1972, an 8894-feet (98:49) version of 200 MOTELS was banned because of 'indecency'. United Artists made an unsuccessful appeal to the Film Board of Review in March 1972.

In August 1981, Valhalla Films had a 1053.12-meter (95:58) 16mm print passed with an R-rating. It was awarded for language, which was described as being:
Frequency: Frequent
Explicitness/Intensity: Medium
Purpose: Gratuitous

 

 

200 MOTELS on video

In September 1988, Corporate Video had a 95m tape passed with an R-rating. The reason was the same as the Valhalla Films submission.

This was followed in February 1998 by Warner Home Video, who had a 96m tape passed with an R18+ (Sexual references) rating.

Apart from the initial United Artists submission; all others went under the title of FRANK ZAPPA’S 200 MOTELS.

 

200 Motels (1971) - Warner Home Video [au] VHS


 

 

 

 

3 A.M.

Directed by Gary Graver / 1975 / USA / IMDb

In September 1978, an 1891.30-meter (68:56) print of 3 A.M. was banned because of 'indecency'.

G.H. Photography was the applicant.

 

In October 1981, a 77m tape was banned because of sex, which was said to be:
Frequency: Frequent
Explicitness/Intensity: High
Purpose: Gratuitous

Videolink was the applicant.


 

 

 

 

4 In A Bed

Producer Jack Films / 197? / USA / IMDb link required

In December 1981, a 628.50-meter (57:16) 16mm print of 4 IN A BED was banned because of sex, which was said to be:
Frequency: Frequent
Explicitness/Intensity: High
Purpose: Gratuitous

14th Mandolin was the applicant.


 

 

 

 

40 Graves for 40 Guns

Directed by Paul Hunt / 1971 / USA / IMDb

In April 1973, a 2434.43-meter (88:44) print of 40 GRAVES FOR 40 GUNS was censored by 66.84-meters (02:27) for an R-rating. The cuts were made to remove 'excessive violence'.

Regent Trading Enterprises was the applicant.

 

40 GRAVES FOR 40 GUNS was released on tape in the early 80s by K&C Video. Image courtesy of John C.

 

40 GRAVES FOR 40 GUNS - What was cut?

Review by Matt
MACHISMO (On screen title)
Sunrise Tapes (Netherlands)
90:39 (PAL)

The bulk of the 02:27 of cuts must have been in the very violent final act, when Wichita and his gang finally attack the town. THE WILD BUNCH was an obvious inspiration for the bloody mayhem. Interestingly, it was retitled THE REVENGE OF THE WILD BUNCH in 1989 for a US VHS reissue. The violent shootout begins at 81m, and does not let up for another 5-minute.

Other violent scenes include a smaller shootout when three of Wichita’s gang are gunned down by the Mexicans (50m), the Doctor being hit in the face (58m), and a nearly two-minute sequence of a topless Lil being pushed around by Wichita’s gang (73m).

If the print that was originally submitted to the censor only ran 88:44, then that is already short when compared to the Dutch Sunrise tape. After cuts, the Australian version would have run only 86:17! It would be interesting to know what print was released by K&C Video.

According to pre-cert.co.uk, the 1982 UK tape on the VRO (Video Network) ran 90:44.

 

40 Graves for 40 Guns (1971) - K&C Video [au] VHS 


 

 

 

 

6-9 the Daily Double

Produced by Leonard Kirtman / 1970 / USA / IMDb

In April 1980, a 1589.62-meter (57:56) print of 6-9 DAILY DOUBLE was censored by 10-meters (00:22) for an R-rating. The cuts were made to remove sex, which was found to be:
Frequency: Infrequent
Explicitness/Intensity: High
Purpose: Gratuitous

The censorship reduced the sex in the R-rated version to:
Frequency: Frequent
Explicitness/Intensity: Medium
Purpose: Gratuitous

14th Mandolin released it theatrically, and on tape through their King of Video label.


 

 

 

 

60 Second Relief

Directed by Rupert Owen / 2006 / Australia

60 SECOND RELIEF was a one minute short that was due to screen in 2007 at the 8th Melbourne Underground Film Festival.

 

 

MUFF 8 Program Notes

Melbourne Underground Film Festival 8
Program Notes
Mini MUFF
Local & International Short films curated by Jason Turley
Session 1 7pm Mon 24 Sept LOOP.

60 SECOND RELIEF
Dir: Rupert Owen/2006/Australia/1 min/Experimental
A challenge to the OFLC.

 

 

The OFLC prevent MUFF from screening the film

The screening of 60 SECOND RELIEF was abandoned after the OFLC's Amy Wooding refused to grant film festival exemptions to it, and six other features. This is not the first time that MUFF had run into problems with the censors.

In 2004, the OFLC demanded that THE TOOLBOX MURDERS (1978), WIFE TO BE SACRIFICED, GUINEA PIG: DEVILS EXPERIMENT and GUINEA PIG: FLOWERS OF FLESH AND BLOOD be pulled from the festival.

The Melbourne Underground Film Festival issued the following press release.

 

MUFF 8 films banned!
September 20th 2007

The Following films have been banned from the OFLC:

70k
Schulmädchen-Report: Was Eltern nicht für möglich halten (aka The Schoolgirl Report)
Sex Wish
The Farmer's Daughter
Ashley & Kisha: Finding the Right Fit
Whore
60 Second Relief

We will replacing them with other films from the MUFF program.

This Sunday 70k will be replaced with a second screening of Streetsweeper… a good MUFF Neu that we can play. Whore and 60 Second Relief are withdrawn and nothing will fill their place. The Other films will be replaced. More details on Monday.

Will the media even cover this? Do people care about censorship in this country?

Letter to OFLC

Here is a copy of a letter sent to our OFLC contact Amy Wooding. Any response we will share with our MUFF audience:

 

Hi Amy, I thought I'd write to you about this year's decision.

So the films I cannot play at MUFF 8 are the following:

70k, Schulmädchen-Report: Was Eltern nicht für möglich halten (aka The Schoolgirl Report), Sex Wish, The Farmer's Daughter, Ashley & Kisha: Finding the Right Fit, Whore and 60 Second Relief

Is this correct?

I will comply and withdraw them from screenings and replace them with films you have granted permission for me to play (like Moonlight and Magic, Left Ear, etc).

A few small questions, you might be able to answer or maybe the OFLC director can answer them (If you have his email I'll cc this to him):

Why is pornography of the most gross and offensive nature (like shitting and pissing films) available for sale in most Adult bookshops in Victoria?

Also: Are not X rated films only supposed to be available in Canberra but for sale in 90% of Adult shops in Vic and NSW and in other states?

Why is MUFF referred to the justice department for wishing to screen a couple of classy or forgotten pieces of erotica with artistic merit to an audience over 18 (who are keen to see them) and nothing done about the illegal X rated sale of videos and DVD's in sex shops that is rampant?

Is there not a hint of corruption or hypocrisy and definitely absurdity here?

Why are X rated films banned at all! It begs the question given the ready availability of it in on the Internet? Available on any PC, anywhere.

A MUFF screening is a minor problem compared to the flaunting of your rules every day of every year by the Adult Sex Industry.

Why are films like Shortbus and 9 Songs passed though they clearly contravene some of your guidelines?

Why is MIFF allowed to play a film like Exterminating Angles in a section that focussed on perversity and erotica though that too contravenes your guideline? And we cannot do it? We will comply with your absurd ruling out of fear of prosecution to our small festival but register our complaint also that this is neither fair or just. We believe strongly it represents a violation of the basic human rights of Australian citizens to freedom of speech, assembly and expression.

Enabling a festival like MUFF or MIFF to play whatever they choose from the classy end of the sex industry will lift both festivals standing in the International community and not reveal a backward 1950's attitude to sex and censorship in Australia. Your own guidelines date from over 50 years ago. Surely a review is in order?

I am cc-ing this email to the MIFF Festival Director Richard Moore for his interest. His comments and feelings on the matter I would be interested to hear.

Any answers to these questions or our complaint will be greatly appreciated from the OFLC.

This letter is not written in disrespect but in a wish for better clarification of the important issues it contains.

Best Regards Richard Wolstencroft

PS. Why is 70k banned it has no sex or violence at all does it?

MUFF opens tonight at Toff in Town come down and support a festival that believes in fighting censorship!

 

 

The Director, Rupert Owen speaks.

Rupert Owen's Blog
snuffboxfilms.blogspot.com
Friday, September 21, 2007

Film banned from screening at MUFF

My film got banned from MUFF as did Tony Comstock's "Ashley and Kisha: Finding the Right Fit", as did others. Funny how my short film played the One Minute Film Festival in Switzerland; which was not an underground festival but a fairly mainstream international one without a peep of protest from the chocolate loving Swiss.

I don’t understand the processes at work here. An underground film festival with a target market of people completely prepared for challenging or sense flexing cinema, totally aware of the potential content of the films they are going to see, possibly one hundred percent supportive of subversive or fringe cinema, get audited by a kind of mauve (Pink trying to be purple - to borrow some Whistler) militia who has consulted the mob (to borrow a Henry Miller favourite) and decided that they, and only they shall have the final say on what kind of material is suitable for us as a public to subscribe to.

Why does sex cause all the controversy? It’s sex for goodness sake. It is fucking, humping, fornicating, rooting, copulating, and it is done by billions of people worldwide every day – and that is why there are billions of people worldwide to do it – even if all you want in life is kids, then you got to screw to get them. If I want to add some sort of pseudo religious mockery over the whole process, I’d say that God invented the fuck as some sort of heavenly porn channel. I imagine the angels with their robes hitched, spread eagled on the couch shaped clouds, having a wank to some couple in Greenland going at it in the kitchen.

If I made a short film that had me say spitting on the street – why not pull that film? Surely spitting on the street is considered disgusting? Surely we don’t want our impressionable minds confronted with the slow motion ricochet of mucus bouncing off the pavement and onto the sandal of someone waiting at a bus stop. Surely this anti-social act must be considered something we only do in private in the shower with the lights off and the curtains drawn. It all goes around in circles though doesn’t it? Just look at all the periods in history when values and morals loosened, you see them wedged between periods of rigid conservatism. A younger generation comes bursting through with new ideas, fresh outlooks and approaches, and then they get old becoming stifled and conservative – then their children grow up only to try and tip the scales again … so goes this revolving door of human development.

I’ve never had a film banned by the Office of Literature, Film and Classification before. The thing is that my film was a challenge to the OFLC because their definition of pornography is material intended to arouse, looks like they got aroused in sixty seconds, good for them, it that may just kick their libidos back into business.

 

 

60 Second Relief (2006) - A Brief Review

The film starts with:

60 Second Relief
A Film by Rupert Owen
The Office for Film, Literature, and Classification states that "Pornography is sexually explicit media that is primarily intended to arouse the audience" so....
Set
Go!

What follows is one minute of speeded up film of a couple having sex on a bed. It is hardcore, but contains nothing that could not make it into an X18+ (or even a R18+ art film) rating.


 

 

 

 

70k

Directed by Jamie Howarth / 2006 / Australia

In June 2006, 70K was banned by the OFLC. The applicant was The Kingdom of Sad Machines. The DVD features the work of the Melbourne graffiti crew 70k.

 

In their 2005-2006 Annual Report, the Classification Board explained the reasons for the RC-rating.

The Classification Board also refused classification for the film, 70K, because it deals with crime (the defacement of public property) in such a way that it offends against the standards of propriety generally acceptable to reasonable adults. The film features documentary footage of people, with masks, disguises or their faces blurred out, vandalising passenger trains and applying graffiti to walls in Australian cities, including Brisbane and Melbourne.

The film is edited to rock music and does not feature commentary, interpretation, justification or explanation. In the Board’s majority view, the film glamourises and attempts to legitimise what are criminal acts committed in Australia and which have a negative impact on Australia and the Australian people.

 

 

Michael Atkinson's Graffiti censorship proposal

The South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson put the issue of graffiti on the table at the 2005-2006 Standing Committee of Attorneys General Censorship meetings. His proposal was to make it even easier to ban films, games, and books that feature graffiti.

Annual Report to the Council of Australian Governments 2005-06
Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship)

In response to a request from the South Australian Attorney-General a proposal to lower the threshold of the RC guidelines to deal with graffiti crime, was added to the agenda.

 

Michael Atkinson's proposal was voted down at the 2006-2007 meetings.

Annual Report to the Council of Australian Governments 2006-07
Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship)

Ministers in relation to RC Guidelines and Matters of Crime:
Graffiti expressed their views on a proposal to expand the current guidelines so that matters portraying crime in a favorable light would be refused classification, with a majority expressing opposition to the proposal. Ministers agreed to remove this item from the agenda.

 

 

70K at MUFF 8

70K was due to screen in September 2007, at the 8th Melbourne Underground Film Festival.

Melbourne Underground Film Festival 8
Program Notes
70K (2006)
Australia
Dir: Jamie Howarth
[Dur: 46 mins]

The work of 70K can be regularly seen sprayed on trains and other parts of public transport systems across the country. I had to walk underneath a 70K adorned bridge to get here. But besides aerosol cans, 70K have also been aiming cameras at their walls and the result is essentially a clip collection culled from more than a few years of regularly going on and off the rails. While the quality of a lot of the footage is understandably rough at best, there’s not a lot to learn about the artists at work in 70K other than their ability to digitally mask any recognizable presence and their choice in music that includes Thin Lizzy, Dolly Parton and the obvious Ozzy Osbourne track, “Crazy Train”.

At 26 minutes there’s 30 seconds of narration but other than an even shorter snatch of a train Left Ear worker reporting graffiti over a radio, the only brief footage towards the end demonstrates that, “there is more to life than just vandalism”, like vomiting, staggering and falling down. Recommended for gunzels, potential gunzels and those who just can’t get enough graffiti.

tullski@gmail.com
www.thekingdomofsadmachines.com
6pm Sun 23 Sept 2007
LOOP
23 Meyers Place
Melbourne
VIC 3000

 

 

The OFLC prevent MUFF from screening 70K

The screening of 70K was abandoned after the OFLC's Amy Wooding refused to grant film festival exemptions to it, and six other features. This was not the first time that MUFF had run into problems with the censors.

In 2004 the OFLC demanded that THE TOOLBOX MURDERS (1978), WIFE TO BE SACRIFICED, GUINEA PIG: DEVILS EXPERIMENT and GUINEA PIG: FLOWERS OF FLESH AND BLOOD be pulled from the festival.

The Melbourne Underground Film Festival issued the following press release.

 

MUFF 8 films banned!
September 20th 2007

The Following films have been banned from the OFLC:

70k
Schulmädchen-Report: Was Eltern nicht für möglich halten (aka The Schoolgirl Report)
Sex Wish
The Farmer's Daughter
Ashley & Kisha: Finding the Right Fit
Whore
60 Second Relief

We will replacing them with other films from the MUFF program.

This Sunday 70k will be replaced with a second screening of Streetsweeper… a good MUFF Neu that we can play. Whore and 60 Second Relief are withdrawn and nothing will fill their place. The Other films will be replaced. More details on Monday.

Will the media even cover this? Do people care about censorship in this country?

Letter to OFLC

Here is a copy of a letter sent to our OFLC contact Amy Wooding. Any response we will share with our MUFF audience:

 

Hi Amy, I thought I'd write to you about this year's decision.

So the films I cannot play at MUFF 8 are the following:

70k, Schulmädchen-Report: Was Eltern nicht für möglich halten (aka The Schoolgirl Report), Sex Wish, The Farmer's Daughter, Ashley & Kisha: Finding the Right Fit, Whore and 60 Second Relief

Is this correct?

I will comply and withdraw them from screenings and replace them with films you have granted permission for me to play (like Moonlight and Magic, Left Ear, etc).

A few small questions, you might be able to answer or maybe the OFLC director can answer them (If you have his email I'll cc this to him):

Why is pornography of the most gross and offensive nature (like shitting and pissing films) available for sale in most Adult bookshops in Victoria?

Also: Are not X rated films only supposed to be available in Canberra but for sale in 90% of Adult shops in Vic and NSW and in other states?

Why is MUFF referred to the justice department for wishing to screen a couple of classy or forgotten pieces of erotica with artistic merit to an audience over 18 (who are keen to see them) and nothing done about the illegal X rated sale of videos and DVD's in sex shops that is rampant?

Is there not a hint of corruption or hypocrisy and definitely absurdity here?

Why are X rated films banned at all! It begs the question given the ready availability of it in on the Internet? Available on any PC, anywhere.

A MUFF screening is a minor problem compared to the flaunting of your rules every day of every year by the Adult Sex Industry.

Why are films like Shortbus and 9 Songs passed though they clearly contravene some of your guidelines?

Why is MIFF allowed to play a film like Exterminating Angles in a section that focussed on perversity and erotica though that too contravenes your guideline? And we cannot do it? We will comply with your absurd ruling out of fear of prosecution to our small festival but register our complaint also that this is neither fair or just. We believe strongly it represents a violation of the basic human rights of Australian citizens to freedom of speech, assembly and expression.

Enabling a festival like MUFF or MIFF to play whatever they choose from the classy end of the sex industry will lift both festivals standing in the International community and not reveal a backward 1950's attitude to sex and censorship in Australia. Your own guidelines date from over 50 years ago. Surely a review is in order?

I am cc-ing this email to the MIFF Festival Director Richard Moore for his interest. His comments and feelings on the matter I would be interested to hear.

Any answers to these questions or our complaint will be greatly appreciated from the OFLC.

This letter is not written in disrespect but in a wish for better clarification of the important issues it contains.

Best Regards Richard Wolstencroft

PS. Why is 70k banned it has no sex or violence at all does it?

MUFF opens tonight at Toff in Town come down and support a festival that believes in fighting censorship!

 

 

70K wins at MUFF 8

Although 70K did not screen, it was still given an award at MUFF 8.

 

MUFF 8 Winners!
October 1st 2007

Announced at Closing Night Sunday 30 September at F-Four Nightclub.

You will notice that 70K and Ashley and Kisha have been given awards. Though these films did not screen at MUFF due to the ban from the OFLC the jury saw them and were so impressed as to present them with awards.

Thanks you to all entrants and winners especially the stand out MUFF Neu films A Nocturne, Left Ear, Black Water, Taber Corn, Garth Goes Hitch Hiking and Moonlight and Magic and great shorts Forged and The Interrogation Of Bryan – MUFF Festival Director Richard Wolstencroft

Best Documentary (Tie) Garth Goes Hitch Hiking Director: Gregory Pakis
70k Director: Jamie Howarth

That’s it for MUFF 8! Ciao.

 

 

2011: Community attitudes to vandalism on film

In October and November 2011, the Australian Law Reform Commission conducted a study to gauge community attitudes to 'high-level material'. It was carried out as part of their research for the Classification: Content Regulation and Convergent Media Final Report that was released in March 2012.

The study, which includes an explanation of the methodology, and the final report, can be found at alrc.gov.au

One of the topics examined was vandalism.

 

Community attitudes to higher level media content
Community and Reference Group Forums conducted for the Australian Law Reform Commission
Final Report: 7 December 2011

CG = Community Groups
RG = Reference Groups

 

1. Depictions of Vandalism in a Short Film

Description

The footage is of masked people, and others whose faces have been strategically blurred, vandalising trains in Australian cities. The footage went for two minutes. There is no commentary or explanation for what is being shown. The only audio is a soundtrack.

 

Personal Response

Each participant’s immediate personal response was indicated by raising one of three cards immediately after the viewing of the footage and then recording this response in the questionnaire. Based on the metaphor of the traffic light, a red card implies 'yes, this content is offensive to me', a yellow card implies 'I’m unsure whether the content is offensive or not to me’ and a green card implies 'no, the content is not offensive to me'.

Community Groups
4: Yes, offensive
1: Unsure
25: No, not offensive

Reference Groups
0: Yes, offensive
1: Unsure
27: No, not offensive

 

Depictions of Vandalism – Detailed Analysis

Was the material offensive?

The material was regarded by very few of the community participants as "offensive". Instead, the footage was described as "stupid", "silly", "mischievous" and "pointless".

Footage was described as annoying and "a waste".

There were no major differences between the community groups (CG) and reference groups (RG), although discussion in the RG was more likely to focus on the criminality of the behaviour depicted

It was mentioned that it would be offensive to a parent who had lost a child who had died while vandalising a train.

 

Was the material impactful?

The material was generally not regarded as being impactful to themselves and there were no major differences between the RG and CG participants in this regard.

It was acknowledged that production qualities (especially the use of music and editing) could make the behaviour displayed in the footage attractive, to especially young men.

The lack of commentary or the provision of a context may contribute to a sense of confusion for the viewer. There was discussion over whether the footage is simply describing what"s going on, without casting judgment

 

Should the material be banned or restricted?

The dominant view was that the material should not be banned but be restricted to PG. Some questioned whether restricting it would make any difference.

There was a minority view in both CG and RG that it should be banned since it might glamorise and encourage illegal behaviour and also that the behaviour has a ripple effect on other people (e.g. train drivers).

No major differences between the RG.

There was support for a view that material should not be age restricted, since it could be used as an educational tool for young people to show them what not to do.

There was a minority view that it should be banned, since such footage would encourage especially young males (including adults 28-30), driven by one-upmanship, to tag and give them information for how to do it

 

Discussion in the small groups focused particularly on the effects of such material on young people, including the impact on the developing brain. However, as noted above, there were differing views as to whether the material encouraged illegal and dangerous behaviour, or whether it could serve as a warning to young people not to engage in such behaviour. There was a mention that other similar films, for instance Trainspotting, did not result in an increase in graffiti, so there was doubt this one could have such an effect. This also influenced respondents‟ views as to whether the material should be age restricted. This discussion did not seem to alter the opinions of the few participants who would seek to have the material banned.

Amongst RG respondents, the footage engendered discussion about film genres that highlight extreme activities and civil disobedience, for instance other extreme sports and artists expressing unpopular views. There was a question about whether one would ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’ if one were to ban or restrict any material of this kind. The counter viewpoint was that its intent was to glorify illegal and dangerous behaviour and that ultimately the footage would be making money out of the proceeds of crime, i.e. that this was enough legal justification for banning the material. In short, the material appeared to encourage debate on the interactions between legislation pertaining to footage of illegal material and the portrayed activities themselves.

 

 

70K (2006) vs JISOE (2005)

In March 2007, the Classification Board passed the documentary JISOE (2005) with an MA15+ (Strong themes, Strong coarse language, Strong drug use and references) rating. It contains many scenes that are similar to 70K.

Review by Eddy
The 70K documentary begins with:

The makers of this DVD don’t condone or encourage illegal acts.
The 70K family do though.

What follows is 46m of the 70K crew spraying Melbourne’s train network with graffiti. There is no dialog, only a soundtrack by the likes of Thin Lizzy, Big Audio Dynamite, and Dolly Parton singing 9 to 5.

I viewed the whole thing on YouTube (its natural home) and found it boring and little depressing, but still don’t believe it should be banned. The full feature runs 46:51.

It is interesting to the OFLC’s reaction to 70K with that of JISOE (2005) which was passed with an MA15+ (Strong themes, Strong coarse language, Strong drug use and references) rating in 2007. This fantastic documentary was released on DVD by Siren Visual.

It is a portrait of Melbourne graffiti artist Jisoe (aka Justin Hughes), and contains many scenes that would not be out of place in 70K. Jisoe and his mates are shown spraying trains, and tagging inside carriages. The difference is that there is some context to the scenes of vandalism.

Jisoe is a likeable character, but a bit of a loser. You begin to question if the whole thing is not really a spoof as he shows off his photo album of his work. His earnest descriptions of the petty rivalries between Melbourne’s various graffiti artists is hilarious. 70K is a 46-minute advertisement for their work, but with no background, whereas JISOE gets closer to the truth of the scene.

The 70K crew were eventually caught and charged with causing $50,000 of damage to property and trains in Melbourne between 2001 and 2006.

 

 

Graffiti and the Australian censors

The following games, magazines and DVDs have been banned in Australia because of graffiti. All are covered in more details in the specific databases on this site.


 

 

Next Films: 9 Songs (2004)  or  A to Z Listing