UPDATES: 1st March 2009
Californication S2: Spineless Advertisers and Christian Nuts 
Censored Hentai - RXXX-PRESCRIPTION FOR PAIN 
Banned Aussie Porn
The Classification Board Vs. Rocco Siffredi
F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN - RB Report
FRIDAY THE 13TH: R18+ Appeal Fails
BARBARIAN QUEEN: R4 DVD is cut
New Consumer Advice: THE PUNISHER, DONNIE BRASCO, RISKY BUSINESS, PITCH BLACK

UPDATES: 8th February 2009
Banned HOLY VIRGINS DVD was already censored
Bob Debus's War on smut
Australian ratings and MMOG
Censor Flashback: TO ALL A GOODNIGHT
Advertising Standards Bureau: August- September 2008 Complaints 

UPDATES: 24th January 2009
DIRTY DEEDS: Graffiti Magazine Banned!
SILENT HILL: HOMECOMING - Censored for MA15+
Two Porn DVD's Cut for X18+
Cuts to DOLEMITE DVD
Censor Flashback: NORTHVILLE CEMETERY MASSACRE
OPEN SEASON 2: RB Report into failed Appeal

UPDATES: 1st January 2009
The Censorship of GIRLS GONE WILD
Californication S2: Christian Nuts scare 49 companies
New Consumer Advice for Censorship Ratings
Censor Flashback: THE SERVANTS and ASSAULT: CRIMINALS PART IV
Censor Flashback: THE OUTLAW BROTHERS 

Australian Censorship News  
1st March 2009

Californication S2: Spineless Advertisers and Christian Nuts 

We reported last year on the protests by Christian censors to companies that were advertising during series one of CALIFORNICATION. In January Heath M informed us  that a campaign against series two was now in full swing.  Instead of sitting back Heath decided to write to every company that was being listed as pulling their commercials following the Christian complaints. Here is what they had to say.

******

Censored Hentai - RXXX-PRESCRIPTION FOR PAIN 

In the last update we revealed that the banned HOLY VIRGINS DVD was, like MEIKING and BONDAGE MANSION, censored before being awarded an R18+. Geoff has been busy and has now written up a review of RXXX-PRESCRIPTION FOR PAIN in which he has discovered more censorship. Siren has been treading a fine line with these hentai titles with several being Refused Classification, so it is not surprising that they took a cautious approach. Unfortunately this makes it difficult for the public to find out if they will be getting the full DVD.

******

Banned Aussie Porn

As predicted, FZ (NSW) Pty Ltd got to work and censored the DVD of THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE ROAD TRIPS #2 that was banned back in December. They have now been rewarded with an X18+ (Explicit Sex) rating. In 2008 they also lost  part two and three of THE AUSTRALIAN ROSIE FINNISH EROTICA to the censors until the offending footage was removed.

WET SET is an Australian fetish magazine that specials in wet panties. It was first rated back in 1994 and aims for a Category 2 rating. Most achieve this, though several issues have been banned, and then censored. Issue 55 is the latest issue and has just been Refused Classification by the Classification Board. 

******

The Classification Board Vs. Rocco Siffredi

Since we launched this site back in 2002 we have reported on numerous banned and censored Rocco Siffredi titles. So it is not surprising that we have yet another to report. Calvista has just lost his 2008 production ROCCO: PUPPET MASTER 2 to the Classification Board who hit it with an RC rating.

Other titles that the Classification Board has banned include.

Rocco also had a role in Catherine Breillat's ROMANCE that the Classification Board banned back in 2000. This was later overturned by the Review Board, a move that paved the way for actual sex to appear in the R18+ rating. This allowed Brelliat's 2004 feature ANATOMY OF HELL to pass through with an R18+ despite also featuring the hardcore talents of Mr Siffredi.

******

F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN - RB Report

Back in November F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN became the fifth and final game of 2008 to be banned by the Classification Board. However instead of accepting the decision, Warner Bros. Interactive decided to fight and appealed to the Review Board. In December 2008 the RC rating was downgraded to MA15+, and the game was free to be released. This was the first successful appeal for a game since the Review Board overturned the banning of SILVERBALL PRODUCT VERSION 8 in November 2003.

The full Review Board report for F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN has finally been released and can be found here. We assume the Paul Hunt that is listed as the consultant for Warner Bros Interactive is the ex-Deputy Director of the Classification Board whose appointment expired in May 2007. He follows in the footsteps of John Dickie, the ex-Director of the OFLC who now campaigns on behalf of 20th Century Fox when they find themselves in ratings trouble with the censors.

******

FRIDAY THE 13TH: R18+ Appeal Fails

Paramount Pictures have failed in their attempt to get the R18+ rating of the FRIDAY THE 13TH remake dropped to MA15+. The original consumer advice has been changed from:

‘High impact horror violence and sex scene’ to 'High impact horror violence, Several sex scenes'

Looks like the Classification Board were not paying attention first time around!

Australian Government
Classification Review Board

12 February 2009 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Review announced for the film Friday the 13th The 

Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification of the film Friday the 13th. 

Friday the 13th was classified R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice ‘High impact horror violence and sex scene’ by the Classification Board on 9 February 2009. Material classified R 18+ is legally restricted to adults. Some material classified R 18+ may be offensive to sections of the adult community. 

The Classification Review Board will meet on Friday 20 February 2009 to consider the application.

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the classification website once the review has been finalised. 

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. The Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board. 

Australian Government
Classification Review Board

20 February 2009

MEDIA RELEASE 

Friday the 13th classified R 18+ upon review 

A three-member panel of the Classification Review Board has unanimously determined that the film Friday the 13th is classified R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice ‘High impact horror violence; several sex scenes’. 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion Friday the 13th warrants this classification as “the film is not suitable for minors because of the high impact violence of a recurring nature throughout the film,” said Classification Review Board Acting Convenor, Trevor Griffin. 

“In addition, there are several sex scenes which, although able to be accommodated in a lower classification, should be referred to in consumer advice.” 

Films classified R 18+ are legally restricted to adults. Some material classified R 18+ may be offensive to sections of the adult community. Consumer advice is additional information about the main content of a film which is intended to help consumers decide if they want to view this type of material. 

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the original applicant, Paramount Pictures Australia to review the decision made by the Classification Board on 9 February 2009 to classify Friday the 13th R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice ‘High impact horror violence and sex scene’. 

In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games. This is the same framework used by the Classification Board. 

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. This Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board. 

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the Classification website when finalised. 

******

BARBARIAN QUEEN: R4 DVD is cut

In 1985 when Héctor Olivera's BARBARIAN QUEEN went to be rated, the censors were particularly strict on any sexual violence. The film ended up being censored of several rape scenes, and then released on VHS by CBS/Fox with an R18+ rating. 

So it was with great interest that we greeted the news in May 2008 when Big Sky Video received an MA15+ (Strong violence and sexual violence) rating for a DVD. This was finally released late last year by Beyond Home Entertainment label and we have finally caught up with it. 

Both have nearly exactly the same running times, yet the DVD contains much of the footage that was censored from the 1985 VHS. On the other hand the VHS contains dialog scenes not found in the DVD, and even a small amount of extra violence. Confused? Then read on for a full explanation.

******

New Consumer Advice: THE PUNISHER, DONNIE BRASCO, RISKY BUSINESS, PITCH BLACK

Time to look at four more titles that have recently been back before the Classification Board for new ratings. All retain their original ratings, but have been awarded new consumer advice.

THE PUNISHER: New rating for Extended Edition

2004's THE PUNISHER has just been re-rated in an extended edition. The consumer advice had been increased from 'Medium Level Violence' to 'Strong Violence'. The extended edition reportedly adds another twenty minutes of footage.

11/08: THE PUNISHER: EXTENDED EDITION MA15+ (Strong Violence)
10/04: THE PUNISHER Film (DVD) MA15+ (Medium level violence)
05/04: THE PUNISHER Film (35 mm) MA15+ (Medium level violence)

DONNIE BRASCO: New Consumer Advice for Extended Edition

Mike Newell's DONNIE BRASCO has just been rated for a third time, this time in an Extended Edition. The MA15+ has remained, but the consumer advice has gone from 'Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language' to 'Strong violence and coarse language'.

12/08: DONNIE BRASCO (said to be DONNIE BRASCO EXTENDED EDITION) Film (DVD) MA15+ (Strong violence and coarse language)
05/06: DONNIE BRASCO Film (DVD) MA15+ (Strong violence, Strong coarse language)
04/97: DONNIE BRASCO Film (35 mm) MA15+ (Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language)

RISKY BUSINESS: New Consumer Advice

The two most recent submissions for RISKY BUSINESS have both been rated M. Only the 'Low Level Violence' warning has been changed to 'Mild Violence'.

12/08: RISKY BUSINESS DELUXE EDITION Film (DVD) M (Sex scenes and coarse language)
01/99: RISKY BUSINESS Film (DVD) M (Medium level sex scenes, Low level coarse language)

PITCH BLACK: New Consumer Advice

In for its first re-rating since its initial release was PITCH BLACK. The M-rating has been retained, but the consumer advice has been changed from 'Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language' to 'Violence and coarse language'.

12/08: PITCH BLACK Film (Blu-Ray) M (Violence and coarse language)
11/00: PITCH BLACK Film (DVD) (Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language)
02/00: PITCH BLACK Film (35 mm) M (Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language)

Update 1st March 2009
Refused-Classification.com 

Australian Censorship News  
8th February 2009

Banned HOLY VIRGINS DVD was already censored

In March of last year the Classification Board awarded an  R18+ (High level animated sex scenes) rating to the DVD, HOLY VIRGINS. In July it became one of the four hentai titles that Bob Debus, the Minister for Home Affairs requested that the Review Board examine. CLASSES IN SEDUCTION, BONDAGE MANSION, and T&A TEACHER all retained their R18+ ratings, whilst HOLY VIRGINS was banned.

This follows recent titles such as BAISE-MOI, SALO, and MANHUNT that lost their ratings and were banned by the Review Board. BAISE-MOI and SALO only ever had theatrical releases so there were no annoying tapes or DVDs to clear up. In the case of HOLY VIRGINS it has been released so it is much more likely to follow the in the footsteps of  I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE when the Review Board banned it back in 1998. After all, those dusty R18+ rated VHS tapes from the 80's didn't suddenly disappear from video store shelves once the Review Board ruling was handed down.

In the past Geoff has discovered that Siren Visual censored MEIKING and BONDAGE MANSION prior to getting them rated by the Classification Board. Now we can add HOLY VIRGINS to the list as he reveals the banned DVD is actually a cut version. Siren's caution was obviously justified as it looks like the scene that caused the problems may run significantly longer in the uncut version.

******

Bob Debus's War on smut

A we mentioned above it was Bob Debus, the Minister for Home Affairs who requested the Review Board examine the four hentai DVDs back in July 2008. He has now used his powers again, this time to get the consumer advice of CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR changed. The Review Board's decision was to increase it from:

M (Moderate coarse language and drug references, Violence)
to 
M (Moderate coarse language, drug references and violence; partial nudity)

The 2007-2008 Annual Report of the Classification Board revealed that two people had complained to them about the nudity in the film. In this case the Classification Board does not even seem to know that they awarded it an M rating, and not a PG.

Classification Board and Classification Review Board Annual Report 2007-2008
Complaints
Film – Public exhibition
Two complaints were received about nudity in the PG classified Charlie Wilson’s War

Now the film was released theatrically back in January 2008, and has been on DVD since June. So what exactly was the point of this money wasting exercise? Do you really believe that Universal are going to recall all copies of the DVD just to warn the public that they may seen some partial nudity? If a member of the public is able to get Debus to act for such a trivial matter, then what else would he be prepared to do? 

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
15 January 2009 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Review announced for the film Charlie Wilson’s War 

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the consumer advice for the film, Charlie Wilson’s War. 

Charlie Wilson’s War was classified M with the consumer advice ‘Moderate coarse language and drug references, Violence’ by the Classification Board in early 2008. 

The Classification Review Board will meet on Monday 2 February 2009. The decision and reasons will appear on www.classification.gov.au. 

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision. The Review Board’s decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board. 

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
2 February 2009 
MEDIA RELEASE 

Consumer advice for Charlie Wilson’s War amended upon review 

A four-member panel of the Classification Review Board has unanimously determined that the consumer advice for the film Charlie Wilson’s War is ‘Moderate coarse language, drug references and violence; partial nudity’. The film maintains its M (Mature) classification. 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion Charlie Wilson’s War warrants this change in consumer advice because “an initial hot tub scene, which sets the tone of the movie and contributes to the M rating of the film, depicts some partial nudity” said Classification Review Board Acting Convenor, Trevor Griffin. 

“In addition, the Review Board considered that the consumer advice should raise the description of violence to ‘moderate’ level”. 

Films classified M are not recommended for viewing by persons under 15 years of age. Consumer advice is additional information about the main content of a film which is intended to help consumers decide if they want to view this type of material. 

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the Minister for Home Affairs to review the decision made by the Classification Board to apply the consumer advice ‘Moderate coarse language and drug references, Violence’ to the film Charlie Wilson’s War on 15 January 2008. 

In reviewing the classification, the Classification Review Board worked within the same framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games. This is the same framework used by the Classification Board. 

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. This Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board. 

The Classification Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the Classification website when finalised. 

***

Australian ratings and MMOG

The lack of ratings for Massively multiplayer online games (MMOG) such as WORLD OF WARCRAFT has again hit the news. This will no doubt lead to a tightening of the law, and further restrictions. Any concerned parents out there remember all you have to do is drop an e-mail to Bob Debus and he will get the ball rolling.

MMOs defy classification in Australia massively.com 28.01.09

"In Australia, the Classification Board will classify a computer game with online content if it receives a valid application," a spokeswoman for the Federal Attorney-General's Department told us, "It can and does provide consumer advice that 'gaming experience may change online'."

The onus to actually apply for classification is on the publisher, importer or distributor. While it appears that they are scrupulous about application for video games in almost every category, MMOGs are notoriously absent. When we first noticed the discrepancy, we wondered if the Classification Act contained some manner of exemption for MMOGs. 

We were assured that this was not the case. She told us, "Online games are computer games within the meaning of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Under the cooperative arrangements for the National Classification Scheme, State and Territory legislation contains the requirements that games be classified as well as setting out the effects of classification, such as age restrictions."

"Where a sale is within the jurisdiction of the relevant State or Territory legislation," the AG spokeswoman informed us, "it is a criminal offence under those laws to sell unclassified computer games. Enforcement of those laws is a matter for the States and Territories."

No classification: online games legal minefield SMH 03.02.09

A spokesman for NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said the NSW Classification Enforcement Act prohibited publishers and retailers from selling unclassified computer games.

"The NSW legislation covers computer games bought online as well as those bought in stores, and treats single, multi-player and online games the same way," he said.

The spokesman added that enforcement of the act was the responsibility of police but penalties for breaking these laws ranged from $1100 to $11,000 for individuals and/or 12 months' imprisonment. For corporations the fines were approximately double.

"If there is any suggestion that any business is trading illegally, police need to know, and it should be reported," he said.

A spokeswoman for Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland said that, although it was up to each state and territory to enforce game classification requirements, Commonwealth legislation also had no loopholes for online games.

"The National Classification Scheme does not distinguish between games based on whether or not they contain a single player component," she said.

"Online games are computer games within the meaning of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 and are covered under the existing legislation."

But Ron Curry, chief executive of games industry body the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia said he believed that online games without a single player component did not require classification by the Classification Board.

He said the issue centred on how one defined the term "computer game".

"There are different classification requirements for games depending on how they are accessed by consumers. For instance, for a game sold off the shelf, where the media material is stored on a disk in the package, the classification requirements are straight forward and you will see the classification label on the box," he said.

"However, in some instances the box sold in a retail outlet contains an access key to the game which can only be accessed online. If such a game is hosted locally it falls under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Services Act, but if it is hosted internationally, it’s classified in the country that hosts the game, rather than in Australia."

***

Censor Flashback: TO ALL A GOODNIGHT

Matt has been kind enough to send in the details of the cuts made to the 1980 slasher movie TO ALL A GOODNIGHT. This ran into problems with our censors in 1982, and was not passed until the violence was toned down.

Incidentally, with this David Hess has the distinction of running into problems with the Australian censors both as a director, and as an actor with LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, and the customs favourite THE HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK.

***

Advertising Standards Bureau: August- September 2008 Complaints 

Worried parents were firing off complaints to the ASB about everything during the August -September period. Here are a couple of interesting ones, which like the vast majority were quite rightly dismissed. As always,  take a look at the adstandards.com.au website to read many more spurious complaints. 

DEXTER Poster Complaint

1. Complaint reference number 342/08 
2. Advertiser Network Ten Pty Ltd 
3. Product Media 
4. Type of advertisement Outdoor 
5. Nature of complaint Violence Other – section 2.2 Other - Causes alarm and distress 
6. Date of determination Tuesday, 16 September 2008 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

This outdoor advertisement for the television program "Dexter" features a man depicted from the shoulders up, wearing a white shirt and resting his chin on the palm of a hand. Text alongside reads "I'm Dexter and I'm a serial killer." 

THE COMPLAINT 

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

The poster is advertising a MA program. These posters are situated in areas that have a high level of young students passing by. As a result it may bring alarm & distress to a number of children. It certainly brings alarm & distress to me. And if a child (a previous refugee for example) who had previously witness similar violence (lets say their family or even their mother being murdered) in their former homeland, were to see these posters it would bring up unpleasant memories. 

It also glamorizes the serial killer. The poster portrays Dexter as highly intelligent with a wicked sense of humour. Cool! Actually; it's not cool. If people want to watch this stuff on television, fine. But I'm forced to confront this stuff every time a take a trip to the city. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

TEN takes great care to ensure compliance with the Code, as well as other relevant regulation. The outdoor advertisement promotes a new award-winning TEN fictional television series, Dexter, broadcast on Sunday at 9:40pm, and classified MA or AV in accordance with the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice depending on the content of the episode. The program follows the story of a complex character named Dexter, who is depicted in the advertisement. From a young age Dexter has exhibited tendencies towards being a serial killer, but has been taught by his adopted father to repress these tendencies and now leads a 'normal' life as a respected blood spatter expert for the Miami Police. However, Dexter's father, who was also a senior police officer, recognised that Dexter would not be able to repress his urges forever. He therefore taught Dexter to harness his own instincts to track and kill other serial killers, justifying these acts as a form of justice in the interests of the greater good. The show explores the ambivalent moral universe in which Dexter operates as well as the challenge of leading a double life. 

The advertisement, including the portrayal of the main character is consistent with the program storyline and these themes and justifiable in the context of promoting the program. The advertisement does not depict any actual violence or injury. Any implication of violence or injury in the advertisement is restrained and consistent with the program storyline regarding a serial killer. The red smudges suggestive of blood are inexplicit and stylised. The main character is not depicted in a violent or aggressive manner. No weapons are depicted. Hence, TEN submits that the advertisement complies with clause 2.2 and all other relevant provisions of the AANA Advertiser Code of Ethics. TEN submits that the outdoor advertisement is not directed primarily to Children within the meaning of 2.4 of the Code. As such, the AANA Code of Advertising To Children is not applicable. The television program itself is not intended or directly primarily to children but rather is only suitable for viewing by persons aged 15 years or over. 

THE DETERMINATION 

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). 

The Board considered the application of Section 2.2 of the Code, relating to violence. The Board discussed whether the advertisement could be regarded as presenting or portraying violence. The Board considered this was highly debatable. The Board noted that the image is subtle and that any violence is implied only, having regard to a prior knowledge of the product itself. To this extent, the Board considered the complaint may have been directed more towards the product itself than to the advertisement. 

In any case, the Board concluded that any violence depicted in the advertisement was justifiable in the context of the product, being a television series about a serial killer. The Board therefore found no breach of Section 2.2. 

Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

THE DARK KNIGHT Kid's Meal

1. Complaint reference number 297/08 
2. Advertiser Hungry Jacks (Dark Knight Kid's Meal) 
3. Product Food & Beverages 
4. Type of advertisement TV 
5. Nature of complaint Advertising to Children Code - Food & beverages – section 2.4 Food and Beverage Code (Children) – premium 
6. Date of determination Wednesday, 13 August 2008 
7. DETERMINATION Dismissed

DESCRIPTION OF THE ADVERTISEMENT 

This television advertisement for Hungry Jacks promotes the new Batman movie "The Dark Knight". As scenes from the movie are shown, a male voice over announces "Look out kids - the Dark Knight has descended on Hungry Jacks, and he's brought cool new toys from the new Batman movie. Buy a Kids' Club meal and you'll get a hamburger, small fries and a small drink - plus a toy featuring the Dark Knight (images of products are shown as described). There are four to collect (each toy model is shown). So fly into Hungry Jacks for your Dark Knight Kids' Club meal today." The scene ends with the movie logo and the announcer stating "The burgers are better at Hungry jacks." 

THE COMPLAINT 

A sample of comments which the complainant/s made regarding this advertisement included the following: 

The advert is selling to kids a meal, which is closely tied to the promotion of the "Dark Knight" movie which is clearly rated "M". Surely this puts undue pressure on parents to expose their kids through a 'happy meal' to this particular Batman, which is quite a 'dark' and scary movie. 

Children who have this meal purchased for them will receive a toy relating to this movie. I disagree with this due to the Batman movie being rated M? MA? if the movie was G or PG I would not feel concerned over this matter but I feel it is irresponsible to sell a product or by-product of a movie that is not classified for children. 

It is enticing children to eat unhealthy food on a regular basis (collect them all over the limited offer time), using toys for a movie that is rated M and has therefore been deemed unsuitable for children by the Film Censorship Board. (Acknowledge it is not rated MA therefore not enforceable, but have noted recent media publicity reminding parents of the rating following feedback that their children were disturbed by the film, clearly supporting the censorship classification!) 

Given the recent focus on Australia's poor status in obesity and emerging knowledge of the associated poor health outcomes, this marketing campaign is irresponsible on several levels. In reading the Food & Beverage Standards, it seems there is grounds for review of this marketing campaign. 

THE ADVERTISER’S RESPONSE 

Comments which the advertiser made in response to the complaint/s regarding this advertisement included the following: 

As a responsible corporate citizen, with a long history in Australia, Hungry Jack’s takes its responsibilities very seriously, particularly when it comes to advertising to children. 

It has always been our intention to comply with all the relevant guidelines in regard to advertising to children and we believe the commercial in question has not breached any of these guidelines. 

The central thrust of the complaint seems to be that the advertisement in question is designed to “entice children to eat unhealthy food on a regular basis”. 

We would like to refute that allegation and any allegation that the commercial is urging children to “collect all the toys over a limited offer time”. 

Firstly, the commercial makes no claim or encouragement in either voice-over or visuals with regard to any frequency or regularity of eating at all. It does not use the word “hurry” or give any urging whatsoever for children to rush in because the toys are only available for a limited time. 

On the contrary the commercial simply states that the toys are available, they have a tie-in to the Batman character from the movie and that there are four of them to collect. 

If you refer to the copy of the advertisement and the script attached, you will note that we make no statement in regard to toys such as “collect them all”. In fact the script simply states of the toys, that “there are four to collect”. This is done in order not to mislead children as to how many toys are available in the collection. It is our obligation to inform them that there are simply four toys on offer. 

In regard to the “limited time offer”, this is not mentioned in the voice-over at all and simply appears as a small super, again to fulfil our legal obligations to properly inform consumers that these toys will only be in store for a limited time and that they are subject to availability. A small super, appearing for a brief time only, could hardly be considered as “enticing” children to do anything. 

With regard to the issue of the rating level of the movie that these toys are associated with, we thank the Standards Board for clarifying that in fact the movie is rated MA, not M as claimed in the complaint. Apart from the fact that the MA rating is not enforceable as noted, we think it is important to note that the central character of the movie, Batman, is a character with timeless appeal to people of all ages. In fact Batman as a character has been depicted for decades in comic books, cartoon series, television shows and feature films, making him one of the world’s most popular super heroes with appeal ranging from the young boy who reads the comics and wants to be Batman to the avid collector of Batman merchandise who grew up reading the original DC comics. 

What is important to note is that these toys simply represent the Batman character and have no direct tie-in or relationship to any plot or story element in the Dark Knight movie. So children do not have to see the movie to understand or desire the play patterns of the toys. Two of the toys, actually have no play association at all, one being a swing tag and the other a bag dangler, neither of which convey any “disturbing” nature whatsoever. The other two toys advertised were a “stamper” and “ pointer” both which again have no direct relationship to the Dark Knight movie story, plot or characters, but simply relate to the Batman character himself. 

As a result of this, our advertisement does not in any way encourage children to see the movie but is simply designed to advertise our Kids Club Meal. 

As you may be aware, the Kids Club Meal has been a standard menu item at our restaurants for some 20+ years. Whilst it has undergone some modifications over the years, the general contents are a burger, some fries, a drink and a toy. The toys themselves change over the year in order to introduce some variety through tie-ins to various movies and so forth, however, a toy is always an integral part of the Kids Club Meal. It is not an incidental item or a “premium”. These toys are not available to be sold separately and therefore have no value in themselves. 

When there is a tie-in to a movie, we sometimes, but not always, make a commercial to promote the fact that the toy available during this promotional period with the kid’s club meal is a toy with some relationship to the movie. 

However the Kids Club Meal is a standard menu item available all year around and always comes with some sort of toy, irrespective of any TV advertising. Through most times of the year, we have no TV support for our Kids Club Meals at all and they are only promoted on our menu boards. 

As to the issues regarding the nutritional value of a Hungry Jack’s Kids Club Meal, we encourage all children to maintain a healthy balanced diet at all times. For a child who has a balanced diet, including fresh fruit and vegetables, an occasional Kids Club Meal would be considered part of that overall balance. 

We believe that there are many issues at play today in regards to Childhood Obesity – exercise and active lifestyle being equally if not more important than diet alone. 

We respectfully request that this complaint against our advertisement be dismissed on the on the above grounds. 

THE DETERMINATION 

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches the AANA Advertising to Children Code (the Children’s code). 

To come within the Children’s Code, the material being considered must be an “advertisement”. The Children’s Code defines an “Advertisement” as follows: 

“matter which is published or broadcast in all of Australia or in a substantial section of Australia for payment or other valuable consideration and which draws the attention of the public or a segment of it to a product, service, person, organisation or line of conduct in a manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly the product, service, person, organisation or line of conduct”. 

The Board decided that the material in question was broadcast in all of Australia or a substantial section of Australia for valuable consideration, given that it was being broadcast on television in Australia . The Board determined that the material draws the attention of the public or a segment of it to a “product” being Hungry Jack's Kids Club Meals “in a manner calculated to promote…that product”. 

The Board then needed to determine whether the advertisement is an “Advertisement to Children”, which is defined in the Children’s Code as meaning: 

“Advertisements which, having regard to the theme, visuals and language used, are directed primarily to Children and are for Product”. 

“Children” are defined in the Children’s Code as being 14 years old or younger. The Board determined that noting the product, music, theme and visuals used in the advertisement, the advertisement was directed primarily towards children and was therefore within the scope of the Children’s Code. 

Having concluded that the material is an “advertisement to Children” as defined by the Children’s Code, the Board then had to determine whether the advertisement is for a “Product”. “Product” is defined in the Children’s Code as meaning; 

“goods, services and facilities which are targeted toward and have principal appeal to Children”. 

The Board determined that the Hungry Jack's Meal is a “product” targeted toward and having principal appeal to Children. 

The Board determined that the advertisement should be considered under the AANA Children's Code but did not find it in breach of any Sections of the Children's Code. 

The Board then considered whether this advertisement breaches the AANA Food and Beverages Advertising and Marketing Communications Code (the Food Code). 

The Board considered the advertisement did not breach Section 3.1 of the Food code as it does not encourage excess consumption of the product. 

The Board then considered that the advertisement did not breach Section 3.5 of the Code as it does not contain an appeal to Children to urge parents and/or adults to buy particular products for them. The Board then considered the advertisement under Section 3.6 of the Food Code which provides: 

"Products shall not use popular personalities or celebrities to advertise or market products, premiums or services in a manner that obscures the distinction between commercial promotions and program or editorial content". 

The Board determined that the amount of time given during the advertisement to promotion of the Dark Knight movie was not excessive and did not therefore breach Section 3.6. 

The advertisement could not be considered under Section 3.7 of the Food Code because the toy contained in the Kids Club Meal did not constitute a premium as it is an integral part of the Kids Club Meal and cannot be purchased separately. 

The Board considered that the advertisement did not breach the Food Code. Finally, the Board considered whether the advertisement breached the AANA Code of Ethics (the Code). The Board considered that the advertisement did not breach any provisions of the Code. Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on other grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.

Update 8th February 2009
Refused-Classification.com 

Australian Censorship News  
24th January 2009

DIRTY DEEDS: Graffiti Magazine Banned!

Only nine days into 2009 and we have our first banned item of year!

Issue eight of the Aussie graffiti magazine DIRTY DEEDS has just been banned by the censors. It does not look as though the previous seven issues have ever been classified. The applicant in this case was Dirty Deeds Streetwear.

In the 2005-06 annual report of the Standing Committee of Attorneys General (Censorship) it was mentioned that the SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson wanted to change the RC-rating to make it even easier to ban films, games, and books that feature graffiti. However this was opposed by the other ministers and the issue was dropped from the agenda by the time of the next annual report.

As you can see this has not prevented the censors from going ahead and banning items with graffiti themes. 

In November 2005 Atari Australia were awarded an MA15+ (Strong Violence, Strong Themes) classification for Mark Ecko's graffiti game GETTING UP: CONTENTS UNDER PRESSURE. However, following protests from local government the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock called for the MA15+ to be examined. The Review Board met in February 2006 and did their masters bidding by withdrawing the rating and banning the game.

A few months later in June 2006 a graffiti DVD titled 70K was also hit with an RC-rating. The Melbourne Underground Film Festival attempted to screen it in 2007 but were warned against doing so by the OFLC.

******

SILENT HILL: HOMECOMING - Censored for MA15+

Atari Australia have now censored SILENT HILL: HOMECOMING, and have been rewarded with an MA15+ (Strong horror violence and themes) rating. 

The final tally of banned games in 2005 stands at five. Three of these, SILENT HILL: HOMECOMING, FALLOUT 3 and DARK SECTOR,  were censored for MA15+ ratings. One, F.E.A.R. 2: PROJECT ORIGIN, was passed uncut with an MA15+ rating on appeal, and one, SHELLSHOCK 2: BLOOD TRAILS, remains banned. MANHUNT 2 was never even submitted for classification so we will never know if this would have passed. After all we have a nervous distributor to blame for the pre-cuts to GRAND THEFT AUTO IV that proved to be unnecessary.

This is equal to 2004 when five games were also banned. Though you could argue that was slightly worse as only two out of the five were eventually modified. The full list can be found here.

******

Two Porn DVD's Cut for X18+

A couple of banned porn DVDs have just been passed with X18+ (Explicit Sex) ratings. KILLER GRIP #4 and CHICKS GONE WILD 2 were both banned in late 2008, but following some censorship by Homesafe DVD they are now free and ready for release.

At the time of writing the statistics for 2008 are twenty-one banned adult titles. Thirteen were censored by the distributors for X18+ (Explicit Sex) ratings, and nine remain banned. The full list can he found here. Note that this does not include details of the titles that were pre-cut prior to submission. This practice is very common, and there is no easy way to identify what has been censored.

Also be aware  this does not include the approximately twenty five titles submitted by the ACS, Police, or State fair trading bodies. These can be found by searching the Classification Board's database. The vast majority of these came from the NSW Police, and to a lesser extent the Victorian Police. Presumably most of these came from one of the periodic crackdowns on adult stores found selling and renting hardcore DVD's.

******

Cuts to DOLEMITE DVD

DOLEMITE is one our favourite blaxploitation films so it was sad to hear that the recent DV1 DVD release is taken from a censored print. We first caught up with this by way of the old 80's VHS release from Gold Key Video. From the information that Craig has given us it sounds like both the VHS and DVD are the same version. Presumably the footage that was removed for its original U.S. release has never been restored. Whatever the story, it's still worth tracking down the DV1 release as it can be had for as low as $8 in some stores.

******

Censor Flashback: NORTHVILLE CEMETERY MASSACRE

Another new title just added to the database is THE NORTHVILLE CEMETERY MASSACRE. A tip off from Matt got us digging into its history and confirming that it was indeed censored during its initial release. Anyone have a cover scan and running time for the K&C Video release?

******

OPEN SEASON 2: RB Report into failed Appeal

Back in November, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment failed in their attempt to have the PG awarded to OPEN SEASON 2 dropped to a G-rating. Instead the consumer waring was softened from 'Mild violence and coarse language' to simply 'Mild animated violence’. It's interesting to note that a group such as youngmedia.org.au were accepted as an interested party, and argued against the reduction in the rating having not even viewed the film!

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
5 November 2008 
23-33 MARY STREET SURRY HILLS, NSW 

MEMBERS: 
The Hon Trevor Griffin (Acting Convenor) 
Ms Irina Kolodizner 
Mr Brook Hely 

APPLICANT 
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment 

INTERESTED PARTIES 
Young Media Australia 

BUSINESS 
To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Open Season 2 PG with the consumer advice ‘Mild violence and coarse language’. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 

1. Decision 

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) classified the film ‘PG’, with the consumer advice ‘Mild animated 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. Section 9 provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the classification guidelines. 

Relevantly, the Code in paragraph 5 of the Table under the heading ‘Films’ provides that: 

Films (except RC films, X 18+ films, R 18+ films, MA 15+ films and M films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15 without the guidance of their parents or guardians are to be classified ‘PG’. 

The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible. 

Section 11 of the Act requires 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. 

Three essential principles underlie the use of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005 (the Guidelines), determined under s 12 of the Act: 

• the importance of context 

• the assessment of impact, and 

• the six classifiable elements – themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity. 

3. Procedure 

The Review Board convened on 5 November 2008 to consider an application for review received from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment on 29 October 2008. 

Three members of the Review Board viewed the film on 5 November 2008. 

The Review Board heard oral submissions from Ms Gail Grant, Mr Dario Falzon, Ms Jackie Cooper and Ms Claire Summers representing the applicant. These submissions were in addition to written submissions provided prior to the hearing and a summary of key points distributed to the Review Board at the hearing. 

The Review Board also received a written submission from Young Media Australia, as an interested party. The Review Board then considered the matter. 

4. Evidence and other material taken into account 

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

(i) Sony Pictures Home Entertainment’s application for review 

(ii) Sony Pictures Home Entertainment’s written and oral submissions 

(iii) Young Media Australia’s written submission 

(iv) the film, Open Season 2 

(v) the relevant provisions of the Act, the Code and the Guidelines, and 

(vi) the Classification Board’s report 

5. Synopsis 

The film is an animated feature about the efforts of a dachshund, Mr Weenie, to escape his owner and join his freewheeling friends in the wild. The film centres on the adventures of Mr Weenie and his friends, including a bear ‘Boog’, a deer ‘Elliot’, a female deer ‘Giselle’ and others in their efforts to secure Weenie’s place in the wild. The film is a sequel to the film Open Season. 

6. Findings on material questions of fact 

The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes of importance under various classifiable elements: 

(a) Themes – themes of fun, adventure and challenge, as well as of friendship and camaraderie, could be discerned in the film. 

(b) Violence – There are a number of instances of violence throughout the film, including the following:-

At 5 to 7 minutes there is an extended sequence where live rabbits are thrown at other animals or objects in volleys, as if the rabbits are ammunition, hitting animals or other objects; 

At 11 minutes Elliot, the deer, holds a live rabbit with hands around its neck as though throttling it, and slaps the rabbit; 

At 19 minutes Fifi, the poodle, threatens to tear apart a live rabbit which has its back to a large rubbish bin; 

At 31 minutes Bob, the husband of Mr Weenie’s owner, experiences an electric shock; 

At 35 minutes, Mr Weenie is interrogated harshly by Fifi and her cohorts, in which Mr Weenie looks frightened and vulnerable. 

At 38 minutes Fifi is almost electrocuted as she rushes through an electrified perimeter fence. Fifi is momentarily replaced by an image of her skeleton. Then smoke is seen rising from her head and she appears temporarily to have been seriously injured. When next seen, she shows physical signs of a burn injury to the head. 

At 56 minutes Fifi ties up Giselle, the female deer, and McSquizzy, the squirrel, threatening them and ordering that they be fitted with electric collars, implying that they will be electrocuted – the scene is shot in low light and has a sinister character; 

At 59 minutes Fifi has tied up Elliot with Giselle and is threatening to electrocute the pair at the end of a 60 second count down; 

At 62 minutes a gas station explodes in a large explosion, with the gas station attendant blackened in a comical manner. 

At 63 to 65 minutes several snipers appear suddenly, aiming and subsequently firing their guns (containing what appear to be tranquiliser darts) at Boog and Elliot. The sequence is extended and involves many near misses and darts being fired into bystanders, walls etc. 

At 64 minutes Fifi receives an electric shock from the collars she had attempted to use on Elliot and Giselle, and then collapses. 

(c) Language – there is one occasion where McSquizzy, the squirrel, uses the word ‘crap’, referring to a statement regarded by the squirrel as untrue. In the Review Board’s view the word is not easily discernible and could easily be missed. 

7. Reasons for the decision 

The submission of the Applicant was that the PG classification and the consumer advice determined by the Classification Board were too severe. The Applicant submitted that the consumer advice ‘coarse language’ was unwarranted in light of the fact that any strong language used is justified by context, is ‘comedic in nature and tone’ and ‘is used within the context of a “character trait’. The Applicant further submitted that the violence in the film is mild and comedic in nature and context, and that its animated nature substantially mitigates any on-screen impact. It also submitted that the consumer advice ‘mild violence’ may give the misleading impression that the film contains actual (i.e., non-animated) violence and, accordingly, any such consumer advice should at least refer to ‘animated violence’.

 Young Media Australia did not view the film and based its submission on the Classification Board report and its general experience in relation to the impact on children and young people of violence in films. It submitted that the Classification Board report indicated that the depictions of violence and other scenes in the film were not very mild and consequently did not justify a lower classification. It also submitted that 

o Animated films are just as real to young children (under 7-8 years) as those featuring real people and animals. 

o A comic context does not lessen the effect of many scary scenes and violence for young children. 

o Young children are often confused by, or unable to follow, a plot and thus focus on worrying scenes without appreciating that things turn out OK in the end. 

o Children can be particularly upset by danger and harm to animals. 

The Review Board concluded: 

(i) In relation to themes - the treatment of themes in the film has a very low sense of threat or menace, is justified by context and could be accommodated in a lower classification. 

(ii) In relation to violence - all acts of violence in the film occur in an animated setting and where acts or threats of violence occur, in most instances, there is quick diffusion of such violence and the violence is often comic in nature. However, due to several instances of prolonged and potentially impactful depictions of danger, threat or application of actual violence (particularly in relation to the interrogation of Weenie at 35 minutes, the threatened electrocution of Elliot and Giselle at 59 minutes and several scenes of live rabbit throwing), the Review Board felt that despite the animated nature of the film, some scenes could disturb young children if unsupervised. The Review Board concluded that the violence in the film was mild and infrequent and justified by context, particularly in light of its animated nature, but more substantial than having a ‘low sense of threat or menace’. It concluded that a PG classification was appropriate. It considered that the consumer advice should be ‘mild animated violence’ to more accurately convey the nature of the violence depicted. 

(iii) In relation to language – coarse language in the film, as exemplified by use of the word ‘crap’ on one occasion, is confined to a single character, McSquizzy, and is justified by context. The coarse language in the film was considered by the Review Board to be very mild and infrequent and justified by context and as such could be accommodated in a lower classification. The Review Board also considered that no consumer advice was warranted in relation to language. 

8. Summary 

The Review Board concluded that the film, Open Season 2 should be classified PG and is so classified with the consumer advice ‘Mild animated violence’.

Update 24th January 2009
Refused-Classification.com 

Australian Censorship News  
1st January 2009

The Censorship of GIRLS GONE WILD

We have now created a separate page for all the entries in the GIRLS GONE WILD series that have been subjected to some kind of censorship. This follows the recent banning of the GGW title, SEXES UP LAS VEGAS. In March it received an R18+ (High level sexualised nudity, High level sexual activity), by November it was RC.

We try and avoid covering X18+ rated titles that are censored down to R18+. If an adult film is supposed to be hardcore, and is rated R18+ then it is cut, simple as that. However, the GIRLS GONE WILD series is interesting as they often sit on the border of the X18+ and R18+ ratings. Indeed the whole GIRLS GONE WILD series seems to be aimed squarely at the R18+ market for soft-core sex. 

This majority of titles have been passed with R18+ ratings, with a few getting hit with X18+. These are then usually censored down to a more commercial R18+. We have yet to find any proof of these X18+ rated titles getting any kind of Australian DVD release. A couple of titles have even been Refused Classification, though we would guess that this is for content other than sex. 

We have a real problem with the way the Australian distributor has been marketing these censored versions. They still carry the U.S. covers which proclaim them to be UNCENSORED! This is a blatant case of false advertising so if you feel duped then we recommend you ask for your money back.

Finally, a number of titles that have previously been rated and released as R18+ have been resubmitted and increased to X18+, and in one case RC. This would seem to indicate that they may have been pre-cut before their original submissions, though it does not explain why they were resubmitted.

If you know of any censorship of other entries in the series then please send in the details. 

******

Californication S2: Christian Nuts scare 49 companies

Last year we reported on the campaign by Christian wowsers to pressure companies whose advertisements screened during the first season of Channel Ten's CALIFORNICATION. The outcome was sixty-four gutless companies withdrawing their ads. The controversy seemed to have died down during the screening of season two which began on October 5th. However Heath M has just written in making us aware that the campaign is alive and well and (as of December 23rd) has pressured forty-nine companies into withdrawing. We have added all the details to the CALIFORNICATION page.

My favourite report comes from the Salt Shakers website on September 5th 2007. 

'Californication' continues... 
Catholics and others in Sydney have held candlelight vigils outside Channel 10 in Sydney while the show is being broadcast. 

And they wonder why Christianity is loosing support!

Here is Heath's e-mail regarding the Season Two campaign. It shouldn't take long to shoot off a quick e-mail to a few of these companies, and we would love to hear if any actually reply. So get writing! 

You can read more about Salt Shakers at unbelief.org. 

Heath M
Below is the full list of companies who have withdrawn their advertisements from season 2 of Californication in response to an email campaign run by "Salt Shakers".

Salt Shakers warn their members against reading their children Harry Potter because it may indoctrinate them into witchcraft, but the following companies would rather adhere to the values of these people than to those of mainstream society.

They probably think that this can do no harm to their brand's image, simply because very few people other that the Christian nutters themselves will know about them withdrawing their adds. However, you could change that by listing these companies on your site, in addition to the season1 advertisers who are already listed.

I am planning on writing to as many of this companies as I can now that I have a lot of free time on my hands over Christmas, and it would be good if I could point out that withdrawing their advertisements to appease some crackpot fringe Christian group can also result in negative publicity elsewhere.

Telstra
Intrust Super
Chemmart
1300 Flowers
Peter Shearer Menswear (SA)
Rosendorffs (WA)
Fridge and Washer City (WA)
Just Car Insurance
WA Police (Step Forward)
Bridgestone
Estee Lauder
Mentos (Stewart Alexander)
HBF
Colgate-Palmolive
Ambulance Victoria
Wrigley (Extra gum)
Avon
Nivea
Young Real Estate (Toowoomba)
Bank of Queensland
Autobarn
Dads4Kids (Community Service Organisation CSO)
Camp Quality (CSO)
McCains
Whiskas (MARS Petcare)
Trading Post
Bluescope Steel
Amart All Sports
The Saddle Club
Health World
Crown and Andrews
iSelect Insurance
Good Guys
Johnson & Johnson
Carsales.com.au
Dodo
Limich Gifts
Green Brothers
Pepsi Australia
Telechoice
Max Factor
Nathan Trailers
Commonwealth Bank
Suncorp
Chrisco
McDonalds
Allans Music
Harvey Norman - Rockhampton
Myers

Isn't that amazing? 49 advertisers succumb to the pressure of a tiny online campaign carried out by an organisation run by a husband and wife! There was no negative media coverage this season, so they cannot claim otherwise.

Of course, it is not surprising that some of these companies requested their advertisements be withdrawn from the program. With the way TV advertising works, most companies only buy specific add places for major prime time shows. Therefore, most of the adds appearing in Californication are "bonus" adds, which come as part of the bundle Channel Ten sells for shows like Australian Idol. These adds can be placed anywhere Ten choose to put them. Therefore, it's not surprising that Crown and Andrews would ask Ten to withdraw their advertisements, considering they deal mainly in board games aimed at families and children etc. In this case, Californication is not consistent with the demographic they are targeting.

However, what shocks me the most is the sheer number of large, mainstream companies, even those targeting young markets, who have also withdrawn their advertisements from the show. Just Car Insurance (a subsidiary of AAMI), who's website boasts of understanding the needs of young drivers and drivers of modified vehicles, signed up as a major sponsor of the show. However, they pulled out after a few weeks when Salt Shakers contacted them!

******

New Consumer Advice for Censorship Ratings

Four more titles have been re-submitted to the censors for re-rating. LETTER FROM A KILLER, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, STREET FIGHTER, and CLIFFHANGER all retain their original ratings, but have had the consumer advice changed. Is it just us, or do the Classification Board make this up as they go along? Just check-out the four changes to CLIFF HANGER. 

LETTERS FROM A KILLER: New Consumer Advice

Maintaining its MA15+ rating, but suffering an increase in consumer advice is LETTERS FROM A KILLER. The original 'Medium Level Violence' has now been upped to 'Strong violence'. The film is due for re-release from Umbrella.

11/08: LETTERS FROM A KILLER Film (DVD) MA15+ (Strong violence)
10/03: LETTER FROM A KILLER Film (DVD) MA15+ (Medium level violence)

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN: New Consumer Advice

The two most recent submissions for YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN have both been rated PG. Only the 'Low Level Violence' warning has been changed to 'Mild Violence'.

12/08: YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN - BLURAY PG (Mild violence)
09/00: YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN Film (VHS) PG (Low level violence)

STREET FIGHTER: New Consumer Advice

1994's STREET FIGHTER has been re-rated for the first time. The M is retained, but the consumer advice has been changed from 'Low Level Violence' to 'Violence'.

CLIFFHANGER: New Consumer Advice

Stallone's CLIFFHANGER has been M-rated five times in fifteen years. Four times the consumer advice has been tweaked so what started out as 'Medium level violence, Coarse language' in 1993, has in 2008 morphed into simply 'Violence and coarse language'.

12/08: CLIFFHANGER Film (Blu-Ray) M (Violence and coarse language)
06/06  CLIFFHANGER Film (DVD) M (Moderate violence, Moderate coarse language)
05/01: CLIFFHANGER Film (VHS for DVD) M (Medium level violence, Medium level coarse language)
04/94: CLIFFHANGER Film (35 mm)  M (Medium level violence, Coarse language)
07/93: CLIFFHANGER Film (35 mm)  M (Medium level violence, Coarse language)

******

Censor Flashback: THE SERVANTS and ASSAULT: CRIMINALS PART IV

The two latest entries to go in the database both come from Hong Kong and had problems in1979.

First up is Ronny Yu's first feature, THE SERVANTS which was censored prior to playing the Australian-Chinese cinemas.

Next up is what sounds like a prime piece of 1970's sleaze,  ASSAULT: CRIMINALS PART IV. This is the fourth film in Shaw Brothers THE CRIMINALS series. A Hong Kong VCD appeared a few years ago under the more common title of THE CRIMINALS 4: ASSAULT. Although made in 1977, it didn't go before our censors until 1979 when they immediately banned it.

******

Censor Flashback: THE OUTLAW BROTHERS

Continuing the Hong Kong theme, Matt has posted a review of the uncut version of Frankie Chan's THE OUTLAW BROTHERS. It sounds like the 2005 UK DVD is missing much the same footage as what caused our censors to ban it back in 1990. This is not the first time that a Hong Kong film had problems with the Australian Censorship Board due to animal cruelty. Ten years earlier a scene of a monkey fighting a cobra to the death had to be removed from the martial arts film SNAKE IN THE MONKEY'S SHADOW.

Update 1st January 2009
Refused-Classification.com 

Updates: October - November 2008  

   www.refused-classification.com

| Online Since April 2002