Although it is illegal to sell or rent X18+ films in South Australia, it is legal to possess them if they are purchased from other States. This means that South Australians are not going to be able to rent the DVD from the local video store. They are however going to be able to obtain it by mail order from other States.

On the same day the SACC gave the all clear for MYSTERIOUS SKIN to screen.

Now this is going to be quite a depressing update. The conservatives are on the rise. Barnaby Joyce and Steve Fielding hold the balance of power in the Senate. Now more than ever it is important to write to those in power and express your views. Those of you in SA need to get your opinions to your local member.

Also write to the South Australian Classification Council with your thoughts on the 9 SONGS ban.

SACC Contact information:
Chairperson: Ms J Redman
Registrar: Ms W Chapman
Office Address: 14th Floor, Mercantile Mutual Centre,
45 Pirie Street Adelaide, SA 5000
Postal Address: PO Box 464, Adelaide, SA 5001
Telephone: (08) 8207 1972
Facsimile: (08) 8207 1773
Email: agd@agd.sa.gov.au

Finally, contact the SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson, the person ultimately responsible for giving backing to the views of the Religious Right.

Ministry Telephone:8207 1723
Ministry Facsimile: 8207 1736
Ministry Email: attorney-general@agd.sa.gov.au
Ministry Address: 11th Floor, 45 Pirie Street, Adelaide 5000
Ministry Postal Address: GPO Box 464, Adelaide 5000
Electorate Telephone: 8346 2462
Electorate Facsimile: 8346 5471
Electorate Address: 574 Port Road, Allenby Gardens 5009

******

More censorship from South Australia with the news that Trash Draper is behind a push that would see the government order TV shows off air.

Push to ban 'offensive' TV shows. The Age 17.08.05

Television programs considered offensive could be ordered off the air by the federal Communications Minister under a radical plan to be considered by the Howard Government.

Up to 20 Coalition MPs are backing a push for amendments to the Broadcasting Act that would give the Government power to ban programs that repeatedly breach their classification guidelines.

South Australian Liberal MP Trish Draper, who is spearheading the push, will meet Communications Minister Helen Coonan tomorrow to discuss the issue.

Trash Draper
"We don't have that power now, but once we do have that ability, the self-regulators on commercial free-to-air will certainly be examining the code a lot more closely so that they don't end up getting their programs yanked from the air.

"I am concerned about children in Australia, quite frankly, and in my electorate, and there are at least 20 of us in the parliamentary party who will be pushing for this."

Your Say. The Age 17.08.05

Too hot for TV. Today Tonight 18.08.05

Nationals MP Paul Neville said that if a television station did not observe the industry code of conduct, there was a case for government intervention.

He suggested the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) should have sweeping powers to force low-grade programs off the air, instead of the power being in the hands of politicians.

"When a series is challenged, the episode that is being challenged should be reviewed by the ACMA," Mr Neville said. "And until it's reviewed, the series suspended."

Hands off our code. The Age 18.08.05

Television executives reacted angrily yesterday to a push to allow programs considered offensive to be ordered off the air, as the proposal gathered momentum among MPs.

Channel Ten spokeswoman Margaret Fearn said giving a minister the ability to remove programs would set a dangerous precedent. "It would be extremely damaging to give the Government the right to proactively take programs off the air."

She defended Big Brother, saying that it ran at 9.40pm — when MA-rated programs can start at 9 — and carried warnings about its content.

"We have a dedicated classifier on-site at Big Brother to make sure it complies with the code," she said.

A Channel Nine spokeswoman said the code's guidelines had evolved with changing public mores over the years. The station was "extremely diligent" in making sure that their programs observed the guidelines.

Seven spokesman Simon Francis said the fact Ten was facing some bother over Big Brother reflected the strength and integrity of the code.

Labor leader Kim Beazley is also opposed to the proposal. He suggested the Australian Broadcasting Authority be given the power to decide what should be broadcast. "I don't like programs that disrespect Australian people … (but) I don't think that members of Parliament in the Coalition … are arbiters of good taste in our community.

"If you want to see a bunch of disrespectful people, look at their senators, look at the behaviour of people like (Bill) Heffernan and (Julian) McGauran."

Hands off the TV remote, minister. The Age Editorial 19.08.05

There is no small irony in the fact that a television show called Big Brother has provoked a call for the Communications Minister to be given the power to ban programs that repeatedly breach classification guidelines.

George Orwell, the author of political fables that warned of a world in which government sought total control over people's lives, would relish the situation. In 1984, he depicted a futuristic, society watched over by an all-powerful police state led by the original "Big Brother". Now South Australian backbencher Trish Draper has watched the show that appropriated Orwell's character and declared herself to be "disgusted, just disgusted". She wants amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to protect public morality and has been joined in her campaign by colleagues such as Nationals MP Paul Neville who was appalled by scenes on the late-night show. "Free-to-air television is supposed to have a code of conduct," he said. "A row of beds in a circle with young nubile girls and excited blokes and saying that 'oh no, we're just reflecting community standards', is absolute twaddle."

Government MPs may be right to be appalled by the sexually explicit nature of the program — although it could be argued that the lack of intelligent programming generally is more offensive — but that does not give them the right to create a nanny state in which a minister decides what programs are suitable for television. As Opposition Leader Kim Beazley observed this week, "Australians don't elect politicians to be arbiters of taste and morality." There is undoubtedly room for regulation, which was the reason for establishing the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the successor to the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Its charter is to develop and uphold broadcasting standards and codes of practice. If the Government is serious about the need to ensure that community standards are not offended, it should strengthen this body. It could begin by appointing a replacement for David Flint who resigned as chairman of the ABA more than a year ago. It must resist the temptation to dictate how citizens spend their time and what they can watch on television. To even contemplate such changes hints at an arrogance born of the Coalition's newly acquired control of both houses of Parliament. The Government must resist this temptation. It cannot allow Big Brother's shadow to extend beyond the television screen.

Just who is the Big Brother? The Age 20.08.05

There's something mildly pathetic about the proposal by a group led by the South Australian Liberal to give the Federal Government power to ban every program that repeatedly breaches its classification guidelines. In essence, the proposal is a sign of a conservative political elite that senses its own powerlessness in the face of a libertarianism, which, first, it doesn't understand and, second, it can't tolerate.

Despite nine years in power for the social conservatives, Australian society at large is as liberal as ever: women enjoy the right to have abortions, with the overwhelming support of the public; premarital sex, a matter of debate in conservative circles, is a simple fact among young Australians, trumpeted lasciviously on the covers of FHM, Cleo and Cosmopolitan; and, as a recent survey showed, homosexuality is increasingly of little concern to the educated classes.

All this, no doubt, infuriates the Trish Drapers and Alan Cadmans. Unable to ban those social attitudes that disagree with them, they are trying to do the next best thing: ban the television shows that display some of the more aesthetically displeasing consequences of those attitudes.

******

(ARCHIVED) Gambling games for kids under fire. The Courier-Mail 20.08.05

As reported in the last update, SA MP Nick Xenophon is pushing to have the latest version of the game TAMAGOTCHI banned. The OFLC are now deciding if they can legally rate the game.

.......the Office of Film and Literature Classification revealed yesterday it would review the popular Tamagotchi virtual pet toy that featured a slot-machine game.

The review – which will determine whether the office can legally rate the game – came after a South Australian anti-gambling MP revealed the toy included a gambling component and called for it to be banned or rated R18+.

Nick Xenophon, from the No Pokies party, said the gambling component of the toy was brought to his attention by a concerned father, who found his six-year-old son trying to win virtual rewards in the game.

He said the "disturbing" addition could inspire problem gambling in its young users as it rewarded players as young as four years old for placing bets.

"I don't want the kids of today to become the gambling addicts of tomorrow," he said. "I think there at least needs to be consumer advice on it. Some parents might say they're not concerned about it, but it should be an informed choice."

Mr Xenophon appealed to Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, the OFLC and games outlets for the game to be classified or withdrawn from sale.

An OFLC spokesman said the authority would soon review whether Tamagotchi could be classified.

******

Des Clark made a speech at the Australian International Movie Convention on the Gold Coast where he released the results of a survey showing that no cinemas in Sydney were fully complying with the laws covering ratings information.

Australian Government
Office of Film and Literature Classification.
14th August 2005
MEDIA RELEASE 

OFLC calls on cinema community to significantly improve Classification advice to families and moviegoers 

Survey shows cinemas failing to comply with classification advertising laws 

A survey by the Office of Film & Literature Classification (OFLC) has indicated that most cinemas are failing to display important classification details on film trailers and promotional material – raising concerns about the quality of information used to inform the choices of moviegoers; in particular the families of young children.

The OFLC Cinema Compliance Snapshot – the first survey of cinemas completed since the introduction of new OFLC classification markings in May 2005 - identified that: 

• No Sydney cinemas are fully compliant with classification advertising laws and there is an average of 12 breaches per cinema (a national audit will follow); 

• Websites and other promotional material also contain numerous breaches of classification advertising laws; 

• Many films with stronger content continue to be promoted in general exhibition movies under the generic heading “This film has advertising approval. Check classification closer to the release date” - long after receiving OFLC classification; 

• There is widespread use of the old “MA” classification characters, rather than the replacement “MA 15+” characters in session times at box offices and in flyers - creating confusion for consumers about this legally restricted classification. A total of 577 breaches of classification laws were identified in one weekend – potentially attracting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fines. OFLC Director, Des Clark considers the findings are conservative and that compliance problems are not limited to Sydney. 

Mr Clark called on Australia’s cinema community and the peak industry body for the major film distributors, the Motion Picture Distributors Association of Australia (MPDAA), to demonstrate greater responsibly towards Australian families. Mr Clark will discuss the snapshot report with the film community at Australia’s International Movie Convention on the Gold Coast from 15-18 August 2005. 

“The film sector has a very influential role in effectively communicating classification information to consumers,” said Mr Clark. “The public has a right to expect accurate, 1 prominently displayed information about the classification of a film, and parents in particular rely on this information to inform them and their children when choosing a movie. 

“This is a legal responsibility that the entertainment industry must take seriously, not only because consumers want it, but because exposure of children to strong material may cause genuine harm. Cinema owners are facing many hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties if they fail to comply,” he said. 

Mr Clark said it was disappointing to see such poor results in light of the fact that the OFLC has worked closely with the cinema industry in recent years to develop the new classification markings. 

“One of the reasons we embarked upon a redesign of the classification markings was to improve the quality of classification information provided to consumers” he said.

 “A lack of quality classification information in cinemas may explain low levels of understanding of the film classifications identified in our June research, particularly between the M and MA15+ classifications.”

 “Some cinemas we surveyed achieved high compliance results, which shows the requirements are relatively easy to achieve. These laws are in place to inform and protect our community –and reflect practices that are the in the best interests of the cinemas and the community they serve,” Said Mr Clark. 

The OFLC applauded the efforts of the Dendy Newtown which was the leader in trailer advertising in the study. 

Further compliance testing will be completed around the country in the coming months across all sectors regulated under the national classification scheme. The Snapshot report has been provided to the NSW authorities. A full copy of the Cinema Compliance Snapshot can be found under “research” on the OFLC website at: www.oflc.gov.au - ends –

Further information: Fleur Brown Ph: 0419 270 863 or fleur@launchgroup.com.au

Background: The Classification Board makes classification decisions about films, computer games and publications. All films, computer games and submittable publications must be classified by the Classification Board before they cane be sold or hired in Australia. 

The Classification Review Board makes classification decisions when a valid application has been made for a review of a film, computer game or publication for which the Classification Board has already made a decision. 

The Office of Film and Literature Classification provides administrative support to both the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board. The OFLC is responsible for policy initiatives in relation to classification matters and the legislative framework within which the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board work. 

Censor chides slack cinemas. SMH 16.08.05

Des Clark 
"It's not serving the community very well,"
"Most particularly, it's not serving families with kids especially well."

"MA 15+ is really pushing the point that this is different to M," 
"It's stronger material and it's really not suitable for kids under 15."

"This is a legal responsibility that the entertainment industry must take seriously, not only because consumers want it but because exposure of children to strong material may cause genuine harm."
"Cinema owners are facing many hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties if they fail to comply."

***

Soon after the report appeared, Steve Fielding brought the issue up in parliament. This is the first time (and I'm sure it won't be the last), that the Family First Senator has mentioned the OFLC. Remember that the vote of Fielding is going to be very important to the Government if Barnaby Joyce does not support the full sale of Telstra. You can expect them to go out of their way to address his concerns.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: Film Classification 
Date: 18 August, 2005 
Database: Senate Hansard 
Questioner: Fielding, Sen Steve (FFP, Victoria, Opposition) 
Responder: Ellison, Sen Chris (Minister for Justice and Customs, LP, Western Australia)
Page: 51 
Proof: Yes 
Source: Senate 
Type: Question 
Context: Questions Without Notice

Question Senator FIELDING (2.30 p.m.)—My question is to Senator Ellison, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Following reports that cinemas are ignoring new film classification laws and that the chief censor has little interest in pursuing prosecution, what is the government going to do to require the Office of Film and Literature Classification to protect children by enforcing guidelines and ensuring that operators who breach them are prosecuted? 

Answer Senator ELLISON—The government takes a very strong line in relation to the protection of children from material that could be harmful to them, be it in the print media or in the electronic media. Firstly, I might say that in relation to television there are provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act in which there are standards. In fact, programming on commercial free-to-air networks must be in line with the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice. I understand that there have been recent complaints about a particular program which went to air on Channel 10. Of course, that is television. In relation to films, we have the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. That is a regime which does set a standard and we will see as a government that that standard is enforced. I understand that there have been a number of recent film classifications—and I am not sure if Senator Fielding’s reference is to those—and I can provide him with the detail on those. But if he has any information on someone who contravenes those classification rules then I would very much like to know about it so that we can enforce them. We do not have these classifications merely to pay lip-service. I understand that there have been strict classifications imposed on some recent films, such as Mysterious Skin. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, I think, was a game that was included in one, and there are some others. Certainly, I would say to anyone who is concerned about this area that the government is deadly serious about enforcing these classification rules, and if there is any evidence of those being breached then certainly we would want them to be enforced. 

Question Senator FIELDING—Mr President, I have a supplementary question. There were recent reports in the papers about this issue. What confidence can parents have in the sincerity of government statements about protecting children from the impact of such material when its own agency, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, turns a blind eye to what really is happening? 

Answer Senator ELLISON—I understand the Office of Film and Literature Classification has indeed been monitoring the situation and I do not necessarily accept that it has turned a blind eye to the situation. But of course, if it deliberately did that, that would be wrong and the government would certainly investigate that. So again I would say: if Senator Fielding has some information where he can point to a deliberate ignoring of those classifications, we would very much like to know about it. But, certainly, as a government we want those classifications to be observed and we will take action to see that they are.

Following the questions, Fielding released this media release.

MEDIA RELEASE SF/08. 
Thursday August 18, 2005 
FAMILY FIRST WELCOMES GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT TO ENFORCING FILM GUIDELINES

I welcome the Government’s commitment to enforcing new film classification laws which are being ignored by cinema operators. 

Today, in Senate Question Time, I asked about media reports that cinemas are ignoring new film classification laws and that the chief censor has little interest in pursuing prosecution. 

A weekend survey in Sydney by the Office of Film and Literature Classification revealed a total of 577 breaches, widespread use of old classifications such as MA rather than the updated MA 15+ and adult material being promoted during children’s films. 

I am pleased that Justice Minister Chris Ellison responded to my question by saying the Government wanted the new film classification laws to be observed – and would ensure they were enforced. 

The Minister said the Government was “deadly serious” about enforcing the new classification rules and did not intend “merely to pay lip service to it”. 

It is the job of the Office of Film and Literature Classification to protect children by enforcing guidelines and ensuring operators who breach them are prosecuted. 

I look forward to the chief censor enforcing the guidelines. 

******

Still in Parliament, Phillip Ruddock finally answered the questions asked by John Murphy back in May.

Date: 09 August, 2005 
Database: House Hansard 
Questioner: Murphy, John, MP (Lowe, ALP, Opposition) Responder: Ruddock, Philip, MP (Berowra, Attorney-General, LP) 
Page: 82 
Proof: Yes 
Question_no: 1403 
Source: House 
Type: Question 
Context: Questions in Writing 
Main Committee: No

Question Mr Murphy (Lowe) asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 23 May 2005: 

(1) Can he confirm that the Classification Review Board has reviewed the decision of the Classification Board in respect of the film 9 Songs from X18+ to R18+, permitting explicit sex scenes to be viewed in mainstream theatres throughout Australia, as reported in the article titled ‘Uncomfortable position’ in The Australian on 4 May 2005; if so, can he explain the basis of this classification decision. 

(2) Does the classification of 9 Songs as R18+ conform to the standards for the R18+ classification in the (a) Classification Code and (b) Classification Guidelines. 

(3) Do all films depicting explicit sex scenes subject to assessment by the Office of Film and Literature Classification now fall within the R18+ category. 

(4) What action will he take to prevent explicit sex scenes being screened in mainstream theatres. 

(5) What is the current composition of the Classification Review Board. 

(6) What is the statutory number of positions permitted on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board. 

(7) Are churches, young Australians, elderly Australians and other persons represented on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board. 

(8) What is the background of each of the eight members of the Classification Board and in which industries have they worked. 

(9) Will he take action to broaden the representation on the (a) Classification Board and (b) Classification Review Board so that churches, consumer groups, the young, older Australians and other persons other than those currently on the board, are represented; if so, what; if not; why not. 

Answer Mr Ruddock (Berowra—Attorney-General) —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 

(1) On 17 January 2005 the Classification Review Board, in a 3:2 majority decision, classified the film 9 Songs R18+ with the consumer advice ‘Actual sex, high-level sex scenes’. In the Review Board’s majority opinion, the film warrants an R18+ classification because, while some scenes may offend some sections of the adult community, the actual sex scenes are justified by the context, narrative, tone and artistic merit. In the view of the Review Board, “while the overall impact of the material was ‘high’, there was not sufficient strength in the film to cause a higher level of impact for any individual scene or cumulatively. Scenes were dealt with in a realistic yet restrained manner that was not gratuitous or exploitative. Each scene was justified by the context and the overall theme of the film, the couple’s sexual and emotional relationship”. 

(2) Yes. 

(3) No. 

(4) Classification decisions are made by the Classification Board and Classification Review Board both of which are statutory bodies, deliberately independent from the Government. It is not the role of Government to make classification decisions. Nor is it appropriate for me to intervene to prevent classified films from being publicly exhibited. Additionally, the National Classification Scheme provides for classification categories that are legally restricted. Sexually explicit material classified X is restricted to adults and is only available for sale or hire in the Northern Territory and the ACT. Material classified R18+ is legally restricted to adults. Children under 18 are not permitted to view R18+ films in cinemas, or rent or buy them on video or DVD. 

(5) The current composition of the Classification Review Board is: Maureen Shelley (Convenor); Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor); Rob Shilkin (Review Board Member), Gillian Groom (Review Board Member), Kathryn Smith (Review Board Member) and Anthony Hetrih (Review Board Member). 

(6) The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Act) states that the maximum number of positions permitted on the Classification Board is not more than 20. In relation to the Classification Review Board, the Act provides that the Board is to consist of a Convenor, Deputy Convenor, and at least three, but not more than eight other members. 

(7) The Act requires that, in appointing members, regard is had to the desirability of ensuring that the membership of the Boards is broadly representative of the Australian community. It also requires the Attorney-General to consult all States and Territories regarding proposed appointments. Biographical information regarding the members of the Boards is published on the Office of Film and Literature Classification website (www.oflc.gov.au) and in the annual reports of the Boards. As this information indicates, members are drawn from diverse geographic areas, are of different ages and gender and have a diversity of life experiences and qualifications. 

(8) As mentioned above, details on the individual members of the Classification Board can be found in the OFLC Annual Report and also on the OFLC website. The current members’ educational and professional backgrounds span a diverse range of fields including local government, teaching, environmental health, building surveying, law, administration, retail, media and communications, film production, tourism, defence, research, community radio, employment and training, journalism and accounting. 

(9) The Boards are comprised of individuals who collectively are broadly representative of the Australian community. The Act provides the greatest opportunity to achieve this by not proscribing or limiting who may be appointed to the Boards. Members of both Boards are appointed following an open merit-based recruitment and short-listing process. Whilst having regard to the desirability of recruiting a broadly representative Board (as required under the Act), the rigorous selection process also ensures that highly competent people with the practical skills and personal attributes to enable them to undertake the duties of Board members are appointed. Appointments to the Boards are generally for three to four years and membership cannot exceed seven years in total. The regular membership changes ensure that new individuals from different backgrounds are joining the Boards on a routine basis.

******

Calvista resubmitted censored versions of three previously banned hardcore titles. 

All have now been passed with X18+ ratings.

******

The full Classification Board report has now been released for PALINDROMES. The distributor, Madman Entertainment failed in their attempt to get the R18+ rating dropped to MA15+. Instead the Review Board made the consumer advice more specific. It was originally 'Adult Themes', but was changed to 'Abortion and Paedophile Themes'. The film is currently in Theatrical release, so if you are planning to catch it then be warned there are spoilers ahead.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
22 June 2005 23-33
23-33 MARY STREET
SURRY HILLS, NSW

MEMBERS: Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor) The Hon Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor) Mrs Gillian Groom 

APPLICANT: Madman Entertainment Pty Ltd, original applicant for classification, represented by: Ms Raena Lea-Shannon of M Frankel & Co. Solicitors; Mr Doug Stewart, Expert Film Classification Witness; Dr Brent Waters, Psychiatrist Expert Witness on Classification and Children; Mr Paul Tonta, Theatrical Co-ordinator Madman Cinema.

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Palindromes (the film) R18+ with the consumer advice ‘Adult Themes’. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 

1. Decision The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) unanimously classified the film R18+, with the consumer advice “Abortion and paedophile themes”. 

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 of the Act 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 3 of the Table under the heading ‘Films’ provides that: 

Films (except RC films, X18+ films) that are unsuitable for a minor to see are to be classified ‘R18+’. 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 2005 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (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 22 June 2005 to determine the validity of the application for review from, Madman Entertainment, received on 7 June 2005, view the film and consider the substance of the application. Three members of the Review Board viewed the film Palindromes at the Board’s meeting on 22 June 2005. 

The Review Board received oral submissions from Ms Raena Lea-Shannon, Mr Doug Stewart, and Dr Brent Waters, all representing the Applicant. These were provided in addition to written submissions. Mr Paul Tonta also attended on behalf of the Applicant during oral submissions. 

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) Madman Entertainment’s application for review; 

(ii) Madman Entertainment’s written and oral submissions; 

(iii) The film; 

(iv) The relevant provisions in the Act; 

(v) The relevant provisions in the Code, as amended in accordance with s.6 of the Act; 

(vi) The Classification Board’s report; and 

(vii) The Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005. 

5 Synopsis 

Palindromes is the story of a 13-year-old girl – depicted by a range of actors who are male and female, black and white, thin and obese, ranging in age from six to adult – and her desire to be a mother. She expresses this desire in her depiction as a six-year-old stating that she wants “lots and lots of babies” so that she will always have someone to love. 

The girl, Aviva, becomes pregnant at 13 and her mother arranges an abortion for her. Aviva doesn’t want the abortion but succumbs to her mother’s pressure. The procedure goes poorly and a hysterectomy is performed leaving Aviva sterile. Her parents, somewhat unrealistically given the nature of the results of the operation, keep this fact from her.

Aviva then runs away from home and has sex with a 40-something truck driver, in her bid to become pregnant. Described as a “road trip” film, Aviva travels to Ohio and lives with a religious family who have adopted many children with disabilities. Unlike Aviva’s parents, this couple, the Sunshines, value “every child”. In valuing “every child” Mamma Sunshine regularly goes to a local rubbish tip to collect the discarded aborted foetuses and buries them. Mamma Sunshine’s children have the disabilities that Aviva’s mother warns that Aviva’s child would have if she had allowed it to be born. 

Aviva participates in the shooting of the doctor who performed the abortion procedure on her. She is captured by the police and returned to her family. The film concludes following a sex scene between Aviva and a teenage boy. Aviva says, in her six-year-old depiction: “I have a feeling that this time I’m going to be a mum”. 

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 – The film contains very strong themes of abortion, paedophilia and under-age sex. The film contains a number of disturbing sexual and abortion references. At approximately four minutes, Aviva in her – six-year-old depiction – wakes from a nightmare following her cousin’s funeral. She says “Dawn was pregnant from a date rape”. The child then refers to abortion saying: “that would be killing the baby”. The actor is a six-year-old African-American child. 

At 10 minutes, Aviva – in one of her teenaged depictions – participates in a simulated sex scene with Judah. The children have been watching what sounds like a pornographic film on video. On the walls are pictures of naked and partially naked women. Judah is wearing a T-shirt displaying a cartoon figure with an erection. As Aviva lies in bed, with Judah on top of her, she says “I think about having a baby. I want one”. 

Between 15 minutes and 18 minutes Aviva and her mother discuss the baby, whilst her mother pressures Aviva to have an abortion. 

At approximately 20 minutes, Aviva’s mother tells Aviva about the abortion she had when Aviva was about three or four years old. She uses this abortion, that she says she undertook so that Aviva could have material advantages, as reason as why Aviva should have the abortion. 

At 23 minutes Aviva and her mother go to the abortion clinic. Protestors are shouting “Don’t do it, don’t do it”. Aviva and her mother both appear upset by the shouting and pushing of the protesters. 

Between 24 and 27 minutes, Aviva is shown at the abortion clinic. She is in a surgical gown, and being “prepped” for the abortion. The room is shown as being out of focus. The music is a lullaby that played whilst Aviva was playing with her baby doll in an earlier scene. Fuzzy images of the doctor telling Aviva’s parents about the hysterectomy are shown. The visuals are blurred and the sound is distorted. Aviva wakens and her parents assure her that everything is OK. Aviva questions them as she has some hazy memory of the doctor speaking to them about the hysterectomy. Aviva asks her mother whether the baby was a boy or a girl. After a tense scene, her mother tells her it was a girl. Aviva says: “Henrietta” naming the baby after the foetus that her mother aborted (whom her mother had named Henry). 

At approximately 46 minutes, a teenage girl with a visual impairment “tells her story” at the dinner table at Mamma Sunshine’s house. She says that her mother tried to have an abortion and that when it failed and the girl was born her mother didn’t speak to her for three years. The child says that her mother then put her into a home. The scene has strong impact. 

Between 51 and 54 minutes, Peter Paul – one of Mamma Sunshine’s children – a boy of 10 to 12 years, takes Aviva/Henrietta to a rubbish dump where aborted foetuses are thrown. He tells Aviva/Henrietta that this is where “they throw out the babies”. He says that some are wrapped in plastic and says: “There’s one”, picks it up and shows it to Aviva/Henrietta. A foetus is shown in a plastic bag. Aviva screams. Peter Paul prays to God for the aborted foetuses. He lists all the stages of foetal development at which they are aborted; he lists the disabilities that they may have. He refers to them as missing body parts, “having no brains or noses”. The scene has high to very high impact. 

At approximately 62 minutes, three men – Mr Sunshine, the doctor who examined Aviva, and Earl (who is Joe the truck driver) - look at photographs that the doctor has taken of Aviva when he examined her. “That girl of yours. That girl’s a child whore,” the doctor says. Mr Sunshine answers saying: “I’ve never had a slut in my house before.” The doctor says, “I took some pictures. I just got them developed.” He passes the photographs around and the men all look at them intently. 

At approximately 66 minutes Aviva/Henrietta runs to Earl/Joe’s trailer home. He tells her that she is too young for him. She replies that she feels comfortable with him. He says he “Can’t know her” and she answers “But you do, you do”. 

At 68 minutes Earl/Joe and Aviva/Henrietta are depicted in bed together. Earl/Joe says that women don’t like him and he doesn’t like them. Aviva protests that he likes her. He says: “You’re not a woman, not yet.” She asks “What am I then?” He hesitates and then answers: “You’re different.” 

Between 69 and 73 minutes, Aviva says to Earl/Joe: “You could make love to me tonight, even if it isn’t the regular way”. He cries. She says: “It’s OK, I understand”. The scene is a disturbing one where the adult is shown as childlike and the child is shown being understanding and sympathetic to the man. 

At approximately 90 minutes Aviva and Mark have a discussion about the accusations of people that he is a paedophile. He says: “I am not a paedophile”. She agrees saying: “Paedophiles love children.” 

(b) Violence – There are a number of violent scenes in the film. At approximately 19 minutes Aviva’s father knocks at her bedroom door saying “I’m going to have to force open the door.” He hits the door violently while shouting at Aviva. She screams and appears visibly distressed. 

At approximately 76 minutes Earl/Joe cocks his rifle to shoot Dr Fleisher, the doctor who performed the abortion on Aviva. Dr Fleisher is shown with his children and wife at his home. Aviva yells at Earl/Joe to “Do it, do it”. He shoots twice. After the first shot Dr Fleisher’s daughter is depicted falling and the window shatters. The second shot hits Dr Fleisher and he falls. The scene has strong impact. 

Back at the motel, Earl/Joe and Aviva are trapped with the police outside and they discuss the shooting with Aviva saying Earl/Joe did what he had to do. Earl/Joe talks about being born again and that: “I’d be a dad and you’d be a mum. We’d have lots of babies.” He cries out: “How many more times can I be born again?” At 81 minutes he opens the door to the motel room and the police shoot him repeatedly. 

(c) Sex – The film depicts a number of simulated sex scenes between the 13-year-old Aviva and an adult male and a teenage boy. 

At approximately 11 minutes there is a simulated sex scene between Aviva and Judah. It takes place under the covers and is implied by the rhythmic movement of Judah as he lies on top of Aviva. The scene has high impact. Following the scene, the children discuss the sex. Aviva says: “I thought you’d done this before”. Judah answers: “I did, you were supposed to move your hips more”. Aviva is shown vomiting into a toilet at 12 minutes. Soon after, Aviva and her mother are talking at a doctor’s surgery. Her mother says: “Who did this to you? Who the fuck did this to you? Aviva did he rape you?” 

At 32 minutes a simulated sex scene is shown between Aviva and a truck driver called Joe. The room is darkened. Aviva is in bed with the truck driver on top of her. They are both covered by the blankets. The lullaby music is playing. An implicit sex scene is depicted. Joe is shown moving rhythmically on top of Aviva. After the scene is finished Aviva asks Joe his name. He tells her it is Joe. She tells him her name is Henrietta. The next morning Aviva is speaking to Joe and says: “I had a good time last night. I never knew it was so beautiful.” She says: “Next time, you could try coming inside me”. He replies, “Yeah, I could do that.” The scene has high impact. 

At 95 minutes a simulated sex scene is shown involving Aviva and Judah, who now calls himself Otto. Aviva lies down on the ground in the woods. Judah/Otto gets on top of her. The lullaby music is heard again. An implicit sex scene takes place where Judah/Otto moves rhythmically on top of her. They discuss the sex afterwards. She says “It’s good. It’s much better. A lot got inside of me, then it slipped out.” During the sex scene the depiction of Aviva changes from the adult, obese African-American woman, through to one of the teenaged depictions, and then – after the sex scene – to the six-year-old depiction. As a six-year-old, Aviva says: “I have a feeling that this time, I’m going to be a mum.” 

(d) Drug use – There is little drug use in the film. 

(e) Language – There is some use of strong coarse language throughout the film, which could be accommodated at an MA15+ classification. 

(f) Nudity – There is little nudity in the film. Aviva and her sexual partners are shown either fully dressed or under covers. At approximately eight minutes, Aviva and a teenage boy, Judah, are depicted looking at photographs with photographs of nude and partially nude women on the walls in the background. 

7 Reasons for the decision 

The Review Board based its decision to classify the film ‘R18+’ with the consumer advice ‘Abortion and paedophile themes’ on the content of the film as set out above. 

Palindromes is a serious film that confronts a range of issues that face some children in teenage years. The Review Board believed that the various potentially controversial scenes were depicted in context and were not gratuitous or glamorised. 

The Review Board therefore found that the treatment of the strong themes was justified by context, as were the sex scenes. Further, the Review Board found that the impact of the material was high, but not so high as to warrant a Refused Classification. However, the Review Board found that to allow unrestricted viewing to persons less than 18 years would fail to protect minors who would be likely to be harmed or disturbed by the film. 

Palindromes was a challenging film to classify as it depicts simulated under-age and paedophile sex scenes involving a 13-year-old girl. However, the depictions are very restrained, they are neither prolonged nor detailed and there is no nudity or genitalia shown. Further, filmic techniques commonly used to increase the impact of such scenes are avoided in this film. 

Careful consideration was given to the Code in regard to films that depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or who appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not). The Review Board unanimously determined that the scenes did not reach this standard but did consider that the scenes were such that the film should be restricted to adult audiences. 

8 Summary 

While the classifiable elements and the impact in the overall context of Palindromes did not justify the film to be Refused Classification, they did make the film unsuitable for minors and warranted specific consumer advice relating to the paedophile and abortion themes contained in the film. 

******

The full Classification Board report has now been released for FANTASTIC FOUR. The rating was dropped from M (Moderate Violence) to PG (Mild Stylised Violence). It's interesting to see that the former head of the OFLC, John Dickie, is now working as a consultant for the film industry when a case goes before the Classification Review Board. He had previously been called in April as an 'expert witness' by Twentieth Century Fox during the rating review of GUESS WHO.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
6 July 2005
23-33 MARY STREET
SURRY HILLS, NSW

Members: Mr Rob Shilkin (Chair) Mr Anthony Hetrih Mrs Gillian Groom

Applicant: Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributors Pty Ltd (Fox), original applicant for classification, represented by Mr Chris Smith and Mr John Dickie ("Applicant")

Business: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Fantastic Four ("the film") ‘M’ (Mature) with the consumer advice ‘Moderate violence’.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Decision

The Classification Review Board ("Review Board") classified the film ‘PG’ (Parental Guidance) with the consumer advice ‘Mild stylised violence’.

2. Legislative provisions

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 ("Act") governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions. Section 9 of the Act provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code ("Code") and the classification guidelines (as in force from time to time).

Relevantly, the Code in paragraph 6 of the Table under the heading ‘Films’ provides that:

Films (except RC films, X18+ films, R18+ films, MA15+ films and M films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15 without the guidance of their parents or guardian are to be classified PG. The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible.

Section 12 provides that the classification guidelines are to "assist the (Review Board) in applying the criteria under the Code".

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;

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film;

(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.

The four principles under item one of the Code are:

(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want;

(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;

(c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive;

(d) the need to take account of community concerns about:

(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and

(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

Three essential principles underlie the use of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005 ("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 met on 6 July 2005 in response to the receipt of an application for review from the Applicant.

The Review Board determined the application to be a valid one, watched the film, and took written and oral submissions from the Applicant.

The Review Board received the Applicant's application on 4 July 2005. The film had a wide national release scheduled for 7 July 2005. The Convenor of the Review Board, Maureen Shelley, and the Deputy Convenor, The Hon Trevor Griffin, were not available to attend the hearing, given the tight time frames and need for a quick hearing.

Mr Shilkin informed the Applicant that the Convenor had constituted the Review Board for the purposes of the review as comprising three ordinary members (Mr Shilkin, Mrs Groom and Mr Hetrih), with Mr Shilkin appointed by the Convenor to act as Chair.

The statutory bases for this course of action were:

(a) Section 77 of the Act, which empowers the Convenor to give directions as to the constitution of the Review Board for the purpose of considering a particular matter, and to give directions as to the arrangement of the business of the Review Board; and

(b) Section 78 of the Act, which provides that the Review Board is to be constituted by at least three members, nominated for that purpose by the Convenor, without specifying any other requirements or limitations on nomination.

Mr Shilkin informed the Applicant that the Review Board’s interpretation of this legislation is supported by previous AGS advices obtained in relation to proceedings other than todays.

The Applicant stated that it had no objection to the action of the Convenor, the constitution of the Review Board or the Review Board's process.

4. Evidence and other material taken into account

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

(i) The application for review;

(ii) The Applicant's written submission;

(iii) The Applicant's oral submissions;

(iv) The film;

(v) The relevant provisions in the Act;

(vi) The relevant provisions in the Code

(vii) The Classification Board’s report; and

(viii) The Guidelines.

5 Synopsis

Fantastic Four is an adventure story in which four comic book characters obtain super powers after being exposed to radiation during a trip to outer space. One character (Reed) has powers which allow his body to stretch into incredible proportions, another (Johnny) becomes the Human Torch whose body can become engulfed with flames, another (Sue) has the power to become invisible and project powerful force fields, while another (Ben) becomes a super strong muscle man. The benefactor of the space voyage, Von Doom, becomes the evil character who the group of superheroes (the Fantastic Four) must confront and defeat.

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" are defined in the Guidelines as "social issues such as crime, suicide, drug and alcohol dependency, death, serious illness, family breakdown and racism". The Review Board found that, to the extent that they were present, the film glossed over such issues very quickly. The treatment of themes in the film was very mild and not menacing.

(b) Sex - Von Doom kisses Sue's hand at approximately 10 minutes. Sexual activity in the film was very mild. There was some mild sexual innuendo throughout the film, involving the character of Johnny.

(c) Drug use - At approximately 67 minutes, Ben drinks alcohol. Drug use is very discreet.

(d) Language - The word "ass" is used in a non-aggressive manner at approximately 7minutes and again at approximately 75minutes. At approximately 15 minutes the term “god-damned” was used in a non-aggressive manner. No further coarse language was used.

(e) Nudity - There is no nudity in the film.

(f) Violence - The Review Board found that violence in this film is infrequent. The Review Board found that the violence generally involves superheroes with supernatural powers and is depicted in an unrealistic, stylised manner. The relevant scenes of violence are as follows:

• At approximately 15minutes, Ben throws a mirror at Johnny which smashes. It misses him by a wide margin and the scene is humorous in nature.

• At approximately 20minutes, Johnny becomes the Human Torch while skiing. His neck is seen to be on fire and the fire slowly engulfs him. There is no hint of any burning flesh or other effect of the fire. Johnny is not in pain. There are no burn marks or scars.

• At approximately 34 minutes, a sequence begins during which police officers draw guns, shots are fired, a truck explodes and a fire engine falls off a bridge. No character is depicted as being in pain during this sequence. The scene is essential to establish that the characters have super powers.

• At approximately 53 minutes, Von Doom grabs a man by the throat and throws him a very long way into a glass panel. The man slumps to the ground. The man does not scream. There is no blood. A post-action mid-range shot very briefly shows the man motionless with his eyes open (impliedly dead), which does indicate that the violence has a serious consequence. This visual lasts for approximately one second. The scene is essential to establishing Von Doom as the evil character in the movie. The film clearly shows that this violence is evil in nature and to be condemned.

• At approximately 58 minutes, there is a scene in a car park in which Von Doom is seen to shoot some form of energy through another character's chest. The victim has a large hole in his chest. There is no blood or flesh wound and the hole looks clean and very unrealistic. The shot is filmed in medium-shot with no close-ups. The victim has a brief look of horror on his face and quickly falls to the ground (impliedly dead). The scene is critical to establishing that Dr Von Doom has supernatural powers. It is depicted as an evil, unacceptable act.

• At approximately 65 minutes, two guards are shown lying on the ground at Von Doom's office. The chest of one appears to be smouldering. Von Doom is shown departing the scene. The scene is dark, in medium shot and very brief. There is no blood detail or burn marks although it is clear that the violence has a serious consequence.

• At approximately 73 minutes, there is a fight scene between the superheroes and the super-villain that is unrealistic and involves no, or very little, detail or actual blows.

• At approximately 86 minutes, the climactic fight scene between the superheroes and Von Doom commences. This involves a number of instances of punching and throwing of characters. Some guns are drawn by police officers and bullets are fired. The entire scene is unrealistic and cartoon-like, with each character demonstrating their special superpowers in an attempt to overcome the powers of Von Doom. The superheroes work as a team and use violence as a last resort to save themselves and others. No character is seen to be injured or in pain, although it is apparent that the violence of Von Doom poses a serious risk to the superheroes and surrounding civilian onlookers. There is a very short nasal blood trickle to demonstrate the exertion undertaken by one character, rather than blood deriving from any injury or blow. The violence is unrealistic and cartoonish and involves primarily the use of superpowers such as force fields and energy blasts.

7 Reasons for the decision

The Review Board considered the matters listed under section 11 of the Act and in the introduction to the Code. Relevantly, the Review Board had regard to the general character of the film as a comic-book fantasy film. By its nature, such a film needs to follow several standard aspects of the genre, such as the need to establish the powers of the superheroes and the malevolence of the super-villain.

The Review Board also considered item 1 of the Code, which states, relevantly, that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them. The Review Board therefore considered whether the protection of minors who may view this film was best achieved by an M, or a PG rating.

The Review Board considered Item 3 of the National Classification Code entitled "Films".

Paragraph 5 of Item 3 states that "films...that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15" are to be classified M.

Paragraph 6 of Item 3 states "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.

Pursuant to section 12 of the Act, to assist the Review Board in its application of the criteria in the Code, the Review Board considered the Guidelines. In relation to "PG", the "impact test" in the Guidelines states that "the impact of the classifiable elements for material classified PG should be no higher than mild."

The Review Board considered that the relevant classifiable element of the film was that of violence.

In relation to "violence" the Guidelines for PG state: "Violence should be mild and infrequent, and be justified by context."

The Review Board found as a matter of fact that the depictions of violence in the film were sparse and infrequent.

The Guidelines state that the impact of a scene may be "higher" where it contains, relevantly "close-ups and accentuation techniques" or is "prolonged or realistic, rather than stylised"

In considering impact in accordance with the Guidelines, the Review Board considered that all of the scenes containing violence were "over the top" and unrealistic. The scenes of violence involved the use of energy bolts and super-strength by, primarily, characters who are either invisible, or flying, or on fire, or stretched to impossible shapes.

There was no depiction of any character being in pain or of any realistic wounds that may disturb children. By way of example:

• In the scene in which a character has a hole in his chest after being struck by an energy bolt, the hole is clean and the character is not shown as suffering;

• The character who is on fire is not in pain and is seen to be enjoying the experience;

• No character is seen to be hurt or wounded by a bullet or punch; and,

• The other scenes of violence were fleeting and filmed in mid-shot with no wounds or injuries visible.

However, the film made it apparent that the violence posed a risk (by showing brief visuals of the consequences of the violence and by showing civilians cowering in fear from the violence). The superheroes' response to the violence was depicted as a last resort and as an effort to protect themselves and others. While attempting to make the Fantastic Four's superpowers look "cool", the film did not condone or glamorise violence. Indeed, the most impactful violent acts were committed by Von Doom who was unambiguously portrayed as an evil villain. The Review Board therefore did not consider that the film would have the impact of desensitising children to violence or teaching them that violence is acceptable or has no consequences.

There were no close ups of violent acts.

The Review Board found that the overall nature of the film, together with its positive resolution, positive messages about teamwork and attempts at humour, further lessened the impact of the infrequent scenes of violence.

The violence was all in the context of a superhero-versus-super-villain comic-book storyline.

Bearing all of this in mind, the Review Board concluded that the impact of the violence was no higher than mild (albeit higher than very mild and therefore exceeding the "G" Guidelines) and was justified by context.

After deriving this assistance from the Guidelines, the Review Board formed the view that the film was such that it could not be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15 without the guidance of their parents or guardians. A PG classification was therefore appropriate. The Review Board felt that the most appropriate way to protect minors from the material in this film was for proper parental or guardian guidance, to explain and discuss the material with their children. This may be especially important for younger viewers.

8 Summary

The Review Board determined that Fantastic Four should be classified PG, with the consumer advice "Mild stylised violence", which was an accurate description of the unrealistic nature of the relevant violent scenes in the film.

The Review Board's decision was unanimous.

******

The full Classification Board report has now been released for KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. The rating was dropped from MA15+ (Medium Level Violence) to M (Moderate Violence and Frequent Battle Violence)

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
4 May 2005 23-33
23-33 MARY STREET
SURRY HILLS, NSW

MEMBERS: Ms Maureen Shelley (Convenor) The Hon Trevor Griffin (Deputy Convenor) Ms Kathryn Smith Mrs Gillian Groom Mr Anthony Hetrih 

APPLICANT: Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributors Pty Ltd (Fox), original applicant for classification, represented by Mr Sunder Kimatrai (Managing Director, Fox) 

BUSINESS: To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film Kingdom of Heaven (the film) MA 15+ with the consumer advice ‘medium level violence’. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 

1. Decision 

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board), in a four/one majority, classified the film M with the consumer advice ‘Moderate Violence’ and ‘Frequent Battle 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 of the Act 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 films, R films, MA films) that cannot be recommended for viewing by persons who are under 15 are to be classified ‘M’. The Code also states various principles for classifications, and that effect should be given, as far as possible, to these principles.

Three essential principles underlie the use of the 2003 Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (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. 

Section 11 of the Classification 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. 

3. Procedure 

The Review Board convened on May 4, 2005 to determine the validity of the application for review from Fox, received on April 26, 2005, view the film and consider the substance of the application. Five members of the Review Board viewed the film Kingdom of Heaven at the Review Board’s meeting on May 4, 2005. 

The Review Board then received an oral submission from Mr Sunder Kimatrai representing the Applicant, which was provided in addition to a written submission. Mr Chris Smith also attended on behalf of the Applicant during Mr Kimatrai’s oral submission. 

4. Evidence and other material taken into account 

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

(i) Fox’s application for review; 

(ii) Fox’s written and oral submissions; 

(iii) The film, Kingdom of Heaven; 

(iv) The relevant provisions in the Act; 

(v) The relevant provisions in the Code, as amended in accordance with s.6 of the Act; 2 

(vi) The Classification Board’s report; and 

(vii) the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2003. 

5 Synopsis 

The film is set around the time of King Baldwin IV (1160-1185), and the disastrous rule of Guy de Lusignan as king-consort to Sibylla of Jerusalem (1160-1190) from 1186. It follows events leading up to the battle of Hattin in 1187 when the Muslim leader Saladin, fought and won the city of Jerusalem. Balian, a young blacksmith, (in the film) leads the people of Jerusalem to defend the city against the Muslim army. 

6 Findings on material questions of fact 

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

(a) Themes – There are a number of themes depicted in the film including suicide and the religious view that suicides were damned to hell, the fanaticism of some religious extremists, the horror and consequences of war and the political opportunities created by religion and war for those willing to take advantage. However, the treatment of these themes was no more than moderate. 

(b) Violence – There were a number of scenes of violence, including the consequences of violence, throughout the film. As the film starts, the shrouded body of a woman is shown being buried. Those burying her rip a cross from her neck. The wind blows, lifting the shroud from her face. Her dead face is seen. As she is a “suicide” her head is implicitly cut off. The beheading takes place off screen. 

At approximately 10 minutes Balian kills a priest by stabbing him and pushing him into a forge. The priest staggers and dies. 

At approximately 16 minutes there is a battle scene between Balian, who has been re-united with his father Godfrey and his men, and those who come to arrest Balian for the killing of the priest. There is a battle scene involving hand-to-hand combat with swords, and arrows. There is little or no blood, the sword fighting is stylised. A German man is shot through the neck with an arrow and there is some blood. His face is shown, blood comes from his mouth. He dies. 

At approximately 18 minutes, a primitive “medical” scene is depicted where the arrow is removed from Godfrey’s stomach area. 

There is a shipwreck at approximately 27 minutes. There are sounds of screaming, the ship founders and many die. Balian survives. There are bodies littering the beach. Dead cows and distressed horses are shown.

At approximately 32 minutes there is a sword fight between Balian and a Muslim. Balian kills the Muslim, blood spurts from the Muslim. 

At 41 minutes, after Balian has entered Jerusalem, there are two men depicted hanging. The scene is shot from a distance and there is little detail visible.

At 58 minutes there is an attack on a caravan. The men cry “God wills it” as they attack. There is some blood spurts shown. 

At approximately 65 minutes the battle outside Kerak castle is engaged. There is a battle scene of approximately two minutes’ length. There are several blood spurts shown. Dead horses are shown. 

At 84 minutes, the king is shown removing his mask, he has leprosy and he is depicted with resulting facial deformities. 

Balian is shown with blood on his face as he kills three men. 

At approximately 87 minutes another battle is shown. Raynald of Châtillon is shown killing Muslims. Knights Templar are shown covered in blood. 

At approximately 89 minutes Guy de Lusignan stabs a messenger in the neck. A blood spurt is shown. The blood pools on the floor. 

At approximately 95 minutes the bodies on a battlefield are shown. There are some fleeting bloody images of wounds. Raynald of Châtillon is killed. He is implicitly drawn and quartered off screen. 

At approximately 97 minutes there are carrion crows shown hovering over the battlefield. There is a pile of corpses. There is a head on a stick. There is a pile of heads. 

There is a final battle scene commencing at approximately 103 minutes, which is prolonged. The battle violence is shown mostly in long shot. Some men are shown on fire. Corpses are shown being burned (during a respite at night). Battle resumes. There are further scenes that depict some bloody wounds, blood on the face and hands of some and blood on the face of Balian. Generally, little detail is depicted. 

(c) Sex – There are no sex scenes depicted in the film. There are two brief sexual references both of which have a mild impact. At approximately 57 minutes Princess Sibylla is shown entering Balian’s room. At approximately 78 minutes Saladin’s sister is shown after her caravan has been sacked by Raynald of Châtillon. There is an implied threat of rape to her by Raynald, however, there is no depiction of any attack. 

(d) Drug use – There is no drug use depicted in the film. There are no drug references. 

(e) Language – There is no coarse language used in the film. 

(f) Nudity – There is no nudity depicted in the film. 

7 Reasons for the decision 

The Review Board in the majority accepted Mr Kimatrai’s submission that the scenes were generally brief, that while there were some graphic elements of violence they were not gratuitous, the graphic scenes were not repeated frequently and nor were they prolonged. The Review Board also accepted Mr Kimatrai’s submission that the director had made some efforts to provide a well-balanced, historically-accurate film. 

The Review Board also noted Mr Kimatrai’s submission that there was no sexual violence, no coarse language and no sex scenes depicted in the film. Further the Review Board accepted in the majority that as an attempt at an historical epic that some attempt at “realism” was necessary and that the violence was justified by the context. 

The Review Board found that the violence was not exploitative, nor gratuitous. Further it was a finding of the majority of the Review Board that the scenes were depicted with some compassion, that while scenes of violence and the consequences of death were shown they were depicted without a high sense of menace. 

8 Summary 

In the Review Board’s majority opinion, the film warrants an M classification because the scenes of violence were moderate in impact. Whilst, one member asserted some scenes had a strong impact, the majority did not concur and found that scenes of violence, including the battle scenes, had moderate impact and were mitigated by the film’s historical nature and possible educational merit. 

The Review Board determined, in the majority, that the classifiable elements in the overall context of the film did not warrant an MA15+ classification. The Review Board found that while the film contained one moderate to strong scene of violence and some scenes of moderate violence they were justified by the context and the impact is mitigated by the film’s historical nature and possible educational merit. 

The Review Board determined in the majority that the film, Kingdom of Heaven is classified M with the consumer advice ‘Moderate violence and frequent battle’. 

******

GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS has lost its MA15+ rating following an investigation by the OFLC into the 'Hot Coffee" mod. It is now banned in Australia. If an R18+ rating existed for games then it would almost certainly still be available, all be it with a higher rating.

******

In what must rank as one of the most stupid calls for censorship, South Australian MLC Nick Xenophon is pushing for a ban on the game TAMAGOTCHI VERSION 2. Failing a ban he would settle for an R18+ rating.

(ARCHIVED) MP seeks ban on game. The Adelaide Advertiser 04.08.05

His reasoning is that....

....the hand-held electronic toy has a feature which requires children to activate a "slot" machine and place a "bet".

(ARCHIVED) Crusader seeks Tamagotchi ban. News.Com.Au 03.08.05

"This virtual pet encourages children as young as four to participate in poker machine-style gambling," Mr Xenophon said today.

"Kids become so emotionally attached to these toys that they grieve for them when they die.

"This version ... should not be available to children.

"Research here and overseas shows that these games can turn the kids of today in to the gambling addicts of tomorrow."

Maybe he should contact his Attorney General, Michael Atkinson who is fond of providing support to dumb calls for more censorship.

******

More on the changes to the OFLC consumer advice warnings.

(ARCHIVED) Films under scrutiny. News.Com.Au 03.08.05

A soon-to-be-released film will, for example, receive a classification which includes the phrase "family breakdown themes". Another will receive a description including the words "abortion themes".

"Often they won't want to see something that has bad language or very much violence," OFLC director and head of the classification board Des Clarke said.

******

Calvista recently ran into trouble with a couple of DVD's. BELLADONNA: DO NOT DISTURB and BITCHES IN HEAT were both Refused Classification in July 2005.

******

The latest issue of the Eros Journal is out now. Vol. 6. No.2 contains all the usual anti-censorship features.

Subscription information, and a selection of some of the articles can be found here.

******

Speech by Des Clark, Director, Office of Film & Literature

Introduction

• This is a welcome debate. Although I do not take a personal view, I found the previous presentations moving.

• I want to take you back to Australia in 1970 when there was a significant degree of public discourse around the issue of censorship. This was very healthy.

• On 11 June 1970, Don Chipp, the Minister for Customs and Excise, made a statement on censorship - the first time since 1938 that the issue of censorship had been discussed in the Australian Parliament.

• In the broader environment, books such as Lady Chatterley’s Lover were banned and films such as Ulysses were not available in this country.

• Film festivals were exerting pressure on Governments because legitimate works with recognised merit were not being allowed into the country.

• The ultimate policy response to the mobilisation of community pressure was the introduction of the R classification on 15 November 1971.

• For the first time, there was a category of films legally restricted to adults. The underlying concept for an R classification was that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they wish subject to certain qualifications concerning material that should be refused classification or “banned”.

• The R certificate was never about open slather. It was always the policy intention that community standards would form the basis for decisions about whether particular material should be available.

• The reforms of the 1970s were a significant departure – it was the first time that the policy position of the rights of adults to access high impact material was articulated and children under the age of 18 were prevented (by law) from seeing material which was suitable for adults only.

• Don Chipp’s statement on censorship also emphasised the need for classification decisions to be based on community standards.

• Historically censorship decisions were heavily influenced by case law and the codified law with respect to obscenity. Material was often banned by individual Judges acting alone.

• The model that has evolved has taken responsibility from individual Judges and Courts to a group of people acting on behalf of the community. The current Classification Board, of which I am Chair, maintains this model.

What is censorship?

• The term “censorship” means different things to different people.

• To some, it is about protecting people, particularly children, from material which may be offensive or inappropriate for their age, by limiting access to material or banning it entirely.

• To others more draconian than in this country, visions of scissors come to mind and people think of Government’s editing or modifying material. The British Board of Film does often.

• Australia has a national classification scheme which assists people to make informed choices. I have provided a handout outlining the key elements of the scheme for your information.

• Our scheme is primarily about classification. Unlike the British Board of Film Classification, we never edit material or recommend modifications to publishers or filmmakers – we only decide a rating.

• We serve a censorship function in controlling the availability of offensive material which is Refused Classification (RC).

• Recognising the legitimate interests of certain groups (for example the Arts community) in potentially controversial, high impact material that may not otherwise be seen in Australia, our system includes the Film Festivals Exemption scheme.

• In the last financial year, 4437 films were screened at 247 approved film festivals.

• Films shown by approved Film Festivals are exempt from classification (the exemption does not apply if a film would be rated X18+ or RC).

• Following the banning of the film Ken Park, the NSW Attorney General issued a direction enabling the Sydney Film Festival to screen films that have been classified or would be classified RC (they cannot screen X18+ films or child pornography).

• Speaking of “child pornography”, it is important to also note the Classification Board’s important role (and huge task) in classifying material submitted by law enforcement authorities, including items used in prosecutions for child pornography offences.

• The Board’s experience in dealing with genuine examples of child pornography gives them a very useful perspective that can be applied to the classification of dramatic films.

• Members of the Board are able to apply their knowledge of child pornography to distinguish between the “real thing” and other high impact material that may be depicted in some dramatic feature films.

Government Position & Expectations

• As I mentioned earlier, the policy which underpins the National Classification Scheme is that adults should be free to choose what they read, hear and see.

• This is complemented by other principles including that minors should be protected from material likely to harm them and everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive.

• The Government also believes that parents should generally be the arbiters of what their children watch.

• Senator Harradine stated “Surely this is qualified right”. Yes. At the same time certain material should not be permitted to be sold or distributed here such as child pornography, depictions of extreme cruelty, bestiality or torture, and material that promotes crime or incites violence.

• Another element of the scheme is to protect children (including child actors) by ensuring that offensive material that contains descriptions and depictions of persons who are, or look like they are under 18, is refused classification.

• Under ILO 182 - the international treaty aimed at the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour including child pornography - a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18 years.

• This year Censorship Ministers amended the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines to fulfil its international treaty obligations.

• No change in outcomes is intended by these amendments and no change has happened. Nor do these changes adversely affect the material that is permissible in dramatic films.

• The Government, I mean nine Governments’ recognise that the right of adults to choose for themselves in these matters is important and it will not lightly interfere with those rights.

Art Censorship

• In the last few decades Australia has arguably become a more open and broad-minded place. Technology and the global economy provide for a faster and freer flow of ideas and images.

• Most of what we see at art galleries and in performance art does not fall within the bounds of material that the Board classifies.

• The Board does not usually classify live theatre unless it contains video or film elements such as the Spanish production XXX – La Fura Dels Baus.

• That production included video screens displaying film footage of a graphic and sexual nature which the Board classified R.

• Likewise, the Board does not usually classify books unless they are submitted for classification.

• In 2001 South Australian Police seized Pictures by the acclaimed photographer Robert Mapplethorpe and submitted it to the Board.

• Pictures contained photographs of fisting, fetishes such as S & M and other stronger images. The Board decided that the book was a bona fide artwork and classified it ‘Unrestricted’.

• Following a request for by the Commissioner of the South Australian Police, the Review Board classified the publication ‘Category 1 - restricted’.

• The Review Board also considered Pictures to be a bona fide artwork, but felt that some protection would be provided to children by giving it a restricted classification. Material in this category can only be sold to persons 18 years or over and must be sold in a sealed wrapper.

• The vast majority of films and computer games in Australia are classified under advisory categories which carry no legal restrictions.

• In reality very few items are prohibited altogether.

• The Classification Board made 68151 classification decisions in relation to films, computer games and publications in the last financial year. Of that number, the Board only banned 372 items.

• No public exhibition films were banned.

• However 12 DVDs were RC for sexually explicit content; 3 computer games for nudity and/or drug use; and 22 publications for the portrayal of minors, incest and offensive fantasy or fetish.

• There is arguably broad scope for artistic freedom under the very broad range of content that is permissible across the spectrum of ratings.

Artistic Merit

• Under Section 11 of the Act, artistic merit is one of the many considerations that must be taken into account when making classification decisions.

• Some people believe that artistic merit is given too much weight and is used to justify R decisions for films such as Casper Noe’s Irreversible and more recently Michael Winterbottom’s 9 Songs.

• Such assertions are incorrect - a film is always considered in its entirety.

• Artistic merit is a long standing and legitimate consideration which is important for ensuring fair and appropriate decisions.

• Of course there have been films, arguably of artistic merit and by critically acclaimed directors, which have been refused classification – such as Tras El Cristal, Baise Moi and, as you all know, Salo.

1 Does not include decisions made in relation to enforcement applications

2 Does not include decisions made in relation to enforcement applications

• As I understand it, these films were not considered to be of such artistic merit as to otherwise override the other requirements of the Code and Guidelines.

• Despite recent criticisms there is no intention to remove the concept of artistic merit as a consideration in classification.

History of the classification of Salo

• Released in Australia in March 1976, Salo was first screened at film festivals.

• When it was originally submitted for classification by United Artists, the English dubbed film was refused registration under the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and classified RC under State and Territory legislation.

• An English subtitled version of the film was submitted for classification in 1992 by Premium Films but the ban continued. Premium Films applied for a review of this decision.

• On 13 January 1993, after a 17 year ban in Australia, the Film and Literature Board of Review classified the film R with the consumer advice “Disturbing adult concepts and high level violence and sex”.

• In a unanimous decision the Board of Review argued that while the film was shocking, it was not erotic, titillating or gratuitous.

• It was during this period that Salo was brought to the attention of the Senate Committee on Community Standards.

• The Committee, which was officially conducting an inquiry into R-rated material on Pay TV, was critical of the Boards’ handling of Salo alleging that members lacked accountability and were out of step with community values.

• Senator Julian McGauran (NPA Victoria) used Salo as an example of the type of R-rated material that could potentially be made available through Pay TV.

• In 1995 new legislation was introduced which established the fully cooperative National Classification Scheme.

• Amongst other things, the legislation required that “In appointing members regard is to be had to the desirability of ensuring that the membership of the Board is broadly representative of the Australian community”.

• The objective was to influence, in particular, the composition of the Classification Review Board. On my Board, I am the only arty farty and there is only one on the Classification Review Board.

• In 1997, Queensland Attorney General, Denver Beanland, requested the Commonwealth Attorney General seek a reclassification of the film. Reclassification is a statutory process that requires calls for and analysis of public submissions.

• Following the receipt of a number of submissions, the Classification Board rated the film R with the consumer advice “Adult themes of high intensity, strong depictions of violence, strong sexual references”.

• In 1998, the Queensland Attorney General sought a review of the film’s R classification. The Review Board classified the film RC - the ban continues today.

Community Standards

• Although it has not been formally tested, in my view, community standards appear to be fairly rigid around sexual violence and sex more broadly due to increasing concerns over the sexual abuse of children.

• Recent controversy over TV programs such as Big Brother and the film 9 Songs suggest that sections of the community at least, are strongly opposed to nudity, actual sex and negative portrayals of women.

Conclusion

• The history of Salo in this country is a reflection of an evolving classification system, community standards which shift over time (not necessarily in a linear fashion) and the dynamic nature of the Boards which make decisions on behalf of the community.

• The breadth the Boards’ task is to balance the requirements that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want, that minors should be protected from exposure to harmful material and that everyone should be protected from material they find offensive.

• While sometimes difficult, every decision involves balancing these competing requirements along with the rights of artists to express themselves freely.

• There are only a small number of decisions each year which attract controversy.

• From my perspective, having viewed many images of child pornography and sexual violence, I am confident that the model of censorship we have in Australia does indeed make for a more decent society.

The OFLC have completed their preliminary investigation into the GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS mod. It looks like it will have to be re-classified with the the mod included. If they decide it pushes it outside the MA15+ rating, then it will be banned.

******

The date for the review of the R18+ rating awarded to MYSTERIOUS SKIN has been set for August 1st.

******

Another banned hardcore title, BEAT THE DEVIL was today rated RC.

******

Diversity in doubt as censorship board looks to fill vacancies . SMH 21.07.05

With applications now closed for positions on the Classification Board, Alexa Moses takes a look at the lack of ethnic faces amongst the current members. 

A spokeswoman from the department could not comment on the make-up of the existing censorship boards, but said age and ethnicity were considered when choosing members.

"We don't make appointments on the basis of ethnicity," the spokeswoman said. "All applicants need to compete on the basis of merit, but there are other considerations."

She said that while a strong focus was put on applicants' community involvement, their gender and the state and city they came from were also considered.

******

The rating for WEDDING CRASHERS has been dropped from MA15+ to M.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
14 July 2005
MEDIA RELEASE 

Wedding Crashers classified M upon review 

A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has unanimously determined that the film, Wedding Crashers, starring Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn, is classified M with the consumer advice, “Frequent sexual references, Frequent coarse language.” 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Wedding Crashers warrants an M, rather than an MA15+ classification because, although the film contains frequent sexual references and frequent coarse language, it is light and comedic in tone and any impact is moderate rather than strong. 

“The majority of the sexual references in Wedding Crashers are light-hearted and verbal and the coarse language is not aggressive”, said Classification Board Convenor, Maureen Shelley. “Although it is an irreverent romantic comedy, the storyline of this film is clearly not intended for children under 15.” 

M is an advisory classification. Films classified M are not recommended for persons under 15 years of age.

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Roadshow Film Distributors Pty Ltd, to review the MA15+ classification of Wedding Crashers made by the Classification Board on 8 July 2005. 

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. 

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. 

Those of you in Sydney can catch a special Popcorn Taxi screening of the film this evening.

This is an interesting article by Jock Cheetham that looks at the issues surrounding the failure of Peter Breen's bill to legalise X18+ in NSW.

He takes a tour of Sydney Adult stores with ex-Deputy Chief Censor David Haines and find titles such as MR DOG, MAXIMUM DE SADE and NIGHT PROWLER 5, all of which would be Refused Classification by the OFLC.

Peter Breen comments on Bob Carr and Labor's motives for not supporting the bill.

Breen believes few people, including the Premier, Bob Carr, want X-rated videos to be illegal, which is why the ban on them is not enforced. Hardly any sex shops are prosecuted over their sale of X-rated videos or videos that are unclassified or have been refused classification, Breen says. The crime statistics for the years 1995-2003 support this view.

He believes Carr does not want to take on the religious right, including Nile and Moyes. "Bob Carr's attitude is let sleeping dogs lie," Breen says. "And while some of the videos contain dogs, they're certainly not sleeping."

For a balanced view of all the issues I suggest that you take another look at the 2003 Briefing Paper by Gareth Griffith.

******

Gallery Entertainment has finally been awarded an X18+ for the hardcore title LICK MY GUSHING PUSSY. It was initially banned in March. A cut version was resubmitted in May, but was again banned. An even more censored version was eventually passed in June.

******

FANTASTIC FOUR has had its rating dropped from M (Moderate Violence) to PG (Mild Stylised Violence) by the Classification Review Board.

Australian Government
Classification Review Board
5 July 2005
MEDIA RELEASE 

Review announced for the film Fantastic Four

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification for the film, Fantastic Four.

Fantastic Four was classified M with the consumer advice, “Moderate violence”, by the Classification Board on 4 July 2005.

The Classification Review Board will meet on Wednesday 6 July 2005 to consider the application.

The Classification Review Board’s decision and reasons for its decision will appear on the OFLC 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
6 July 2005
MEDIA RELEASE 

Fantastic Four classified PG upon review 

A 3-member panel of the Classification Review Board has determined, in a unanimous decision, that the film, Fantastic Four is classified PG with the consumer advice, “Mild stylised violence”. 

In the Classification Review Board’s opinion, Fantastic Four warrants a PG classification because the overall impact of the film is mild. 

“In considering Fantastic Four, the Classification Review Board was primarily concerned with the classifiable element of violence”, Classification Review Board panel chairperson, Rob Shilkin said. “The impact of the violence in the film is reduced because of its stylised comic book nature in the relevant scenes.” 

PG means “Parental guidance recommended”. It is not recommended for viewing by persons under the age of 15 without guidance from parents or guardians. The classification means that the film may contain material which some children find confusing or upsetting and may require guidance. 

The Classification Review Board convened today in response to an application from the distributor, Twentieth Century Fox Film Distributors, to review the M classification of Fantastic Four made by the Classification Board on 4 July 2005. 

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. 

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 OFLC website when finalised.

******

In a sign of things to come, the OFLC are now rating content for download. Telstra Big Pond Movies has just had episodes of the sex education documentaries THE GOOD SEX GUIDE and AMERICAN SEX classified. All are passed with the information that they are 'Encrypted for Download'.

******

The controversial animation series POPETOWN began screening on Foxtel's Comedy Channel on July 5th. Despite being produced for the BBC in 2003, it was never screened following Catholic Protests.

BBC Press Release
Popetown
23.09.2004

After much consideration, Stuart Murphy, Controller of BBC THREE, has taken the difficult decision not to transmit the animation series Popetown on editorial grounds. 

The decision has been supported by Jana Bennett, Director of Television, and follows consultation with the Controller of Editorial Policy, Stephen Whittle and Head of Religion and Ethics, Alan Bookbinder.

Representations had also been made from various groups who feared from the basic premise of the comedy series, which is set in a fictional Vatican, that it would cause offence to practising Catholics. 

Stuart Murphy said: "Popetown was a challenging project for BBC THREE to undertake.

"After a lot of consideration and consultation, balancing the creative risk with the potential offence to some parts of the audience, we have decided not to transmit the programme. 

"Despite all of the creative energy that has gone into this project and the best efforts of everyone involved, the comic impact of the delivered series does not outweigh the potential offence it will cause. 

"It has been an extremely difficult and complex decision to make. There is a fine judgement line in comedy between the scurrilously funny and the offensive. 

"I knew when we developed the series that there was risk involved but unfortunately, once we saw the finished series, it became clear that the programme fell on the wrong side of that line." 

Jana Bennett says: "I'm sorry that this programme will not be coming to the screen, but I think the decision is the right one. 

"Risk taking, however, is a key part of the role of BBC THREE, and Stuart and the channel will continue to break new ground in the notoriously difficult area of comedy. 

"BBC THREE is an evolving channel and in its short life has already had real success in breaking strong and distinctive new comedy, such as Monkey Dust, Nighty Night and Little Britain." 

Alan Marke, Managing Director, Channel X, said: "I am incredibly disappointed about this decision as I am very proud of this project and all the talent involved.

"But I understand the world has changed since the series was originally commissioned and sympathise with the difficult decision the BBC has had to make."

Popetown is a ten-part animated comedy series which was commissioned from independent television company Channel X in association with producer Phil Ox from French production company Moi J'Aime La Television. 

The BBC is looking at ways of recouping at least some of the costs of the series through broadcast and video sales with Channel X and BBC Worldwide. 

Channel X, who co-produced the Bafta award-winning series Shooting Stars, has previously made Stupid Punts and co-produced Catterick for BBC THREE. 

BBC Entertainment is actively working with Channel X on a number of other projects.

The show finally had its premiere last month on New Zealand Television. Lyndsay Freer, director of Catholic Communications initially said that she  "couldn't take it seriously enough to consider it harmful or offensive" and called it "too stupid to be offensive". She subsequently changed her mind and issued this press release.

Media Releases 
Archive 06 Jul 2005 
From:Catholic Communications communications@catholic.org.nz 

Official Catholic condemnation of “Popetown” 

In an official letter sent to CanWest’s management, Catholic Church authorities regard the screening of Popetown on CanWest’s C4TV as “intolerable”, said Catholic Communications director, Lyndsay Freer. 

Mrs Freer said that while they found the first episode offensive, they nonetheless took the view that its overall poverty of humour and the patent silliness of its wacky genre made it a non-event. 

They have now conveyed to CanWest their view that subsequent episodes have degenerated into gratuitous offence and insult to the Papacy, the Church and to New Zealand’s Catholics, as well as to many other people of faith. 

Mrs Freer says that recent episodes, from initially being borderline, have now crossed the line. The Church has urged CanWest to consider the wisdom of allowing a deterioration in relationships between themselves and the Catholic community to deepen.

The Australian Foxtel screening took place with little comment. Queensland Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce did however issue this media release.

Media Release
Queensland Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce
Friday, 1 July 2005

Religious 'Comedy' Crosses the Line.

New National Senator Barnaby Joyce is outraged a television series banned in Britain and New Zealand will be aired next week on Foxtel's Comedy Channel. (IT IS NOT BANNED IN NEW ZEALAND. IT HAS BEEN SCREENING SINCE JUNE 9TH)

Senator Joyce says 'Popetown', and animated 'comedy' show set in the Vatican, is highly offensive and has no place on Australian screens.

"The program is a huge insult to the Catholic Community and to all Christians, who have a respect for the Papacy," Senator Joyce said.

"There is a line between what's considered satirical humour and what's just offensive. 'Popetown' crosses that line.

"It shows a serious lack of respect for a key world figure and sets a terrible example for young Australians (AND PEDOPHILE PRIESTS DO SET A GOOD EXAMPLE?) 

"If this is the standard of programming we can expect then I suggest we should be looking at our television licensing agreements and where we're directing our funding (UNLESS HOWARD HAS WORKED OUT SOME SECRET DEAL WITH PACKER AND MURDOCH, EXACTLY HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT FUND FOXTEL? YOU HAVE TO PAY AT LEAST $50 A WEEK TO RECEIVE IT)

"We need to raise the bar when it comes to media censorship and what we as Australians find acceptable entertainment," he said.

Despite having a majority in the Senate, John Howard is going to have to appease Joyce in order to be certain of his support. He has already made it clear that he will vote against the Government if he believes it necessary. Joyce is a practising Catholic who describes himself as right-wing on social issues and left on economics. Indeed, within hours of taking his place in the new Senate last Friday, he had issued the POPETOWN press releases, as well as the following.

Media Release
Queensland Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce
Friday, 1 July 2005

Senator Disgusted at Late Night Viewing

"Inappropriate and insulting" is how the National Senator Barnaby Joyce has labelled the documentary 'In Search of the Perfect Penis', screening tonight on SBS Television.

The Senator is horrified advertising for the documentary in a major newspaper included pictorial references to the Pope.

"It is especially insulting to the Catholic Community and shows a great lack of respect for all Christians," Senator Joyce said.

This really is the lowest form of entertainment and viewers have nothing to gain from tuning in.

"If this is the standard of programming we can expect then I suggest we should be looking at our television licensing agreements and where we're directing our funding

***

Program Information
Documentary: In Search of the Perfect Penis
SBS
Friday 1st July at 10.00 pm

The obsession with the penis may have more to do with what it has come to represent rather than what it actually does. As a main signifier of maleness, the penis has come to represent sexual and social power. For many men, the penis is the centre of their being, if not their universe. And for just as many men, at some time in their lives it may function in a less-than-perfect manner, and this can lead to great anxiety. And that can lead to trouble. Things would be a lot easier if every man had a perfect penis. But is there such a thing? Once and for all it’s time to search for the perfect penis. In the humorous documentary The Search for the Perfect Penis, screening on SBS Television on Friday, 1 July, the search begins.

In a perfect world, every man would have a perfect penis. So, the question must be asked – is there such a thing as penis perfection? Would we know it if we saw it? What are the qualities of a perfect penis? What is the perfect length for functional performance? What is the perfect thickness? Should it be circumcised or not? And what about the experience or prowess of the owner – can that help define penis perfection? Has the size, shape and style of penis evolved since the ascent of man? And can it be improved? Are there methods to achieve perfection if nature has not blessed a penis owner with all he would hope for?

From the moment Adam and Eve suddenly realized they were naked, humans have been obsessed with the penis. And why not? It is an undeniably unique and interesting piece of biological engineering – a multipurpose organ with three primary functions: urination, procreation and sexual pleasure. And these are just the official functions. Creative users have found countless other forms of penis employment. But why has this wonderful appendage also been such a source of tension, confusion and anxiety for both men and women? Can a search for penis perfection provide the answer?

The penis has been honoured and edified around the world in art and architecture, from the CN Tower to the Chevy Camaro and the aptly named Ferrari Testarossa. Since the dawn of time, when man first learned to fashion a pointy stick, there have been penis fetish objects to emulate and evoke penis power. But how can something so funny looking create so many problems – from the world stage to the privacy of the bedroom?

The Search for the Perfect Penis is a fearless and uninhibited one hour quest for honest and surprising answers in a search for the perfect, modern, penis.

***

So, just as we see the get to see the back of Senator Brian Harradine, we now have Barnaby Joyce to contend with. He believes:

"We need to raise the bar when it comes to media censorship and what we as Australians find acceptable entertainment,"

Now if he does not support the government, then Howard would probably have to turn to Steven Fielding of the Family First Party. A man whose views on censorship are certainly not that far from those of Joyce. If you thought Harradine used his balance of power in the Senate to increase censorship, then you haven't seen anything yet!

Finally, is POPETOWN any good? Having watched the first episode I have to agree with Frances Grant from the New Zealand Herald that it really was a missed opportunity. For a far more funny look at the Catholic Church, stick with FATHER TED.

Watch the C4 show and weep in frustration and despair. How could a Brit team which features the likes of Mackenzie Crook and Morwenna Banks get it so wrong?

Anyone who caught a skerrick of the extensive and devoted media coverage of the death of Pope John Paul II, with its cardinals, conclaves, might and majesty, would know the Vatican and its goings-on should be rich satirical pickings.

Surely a church battling an epidemic of sex abuse scandals and swimming desperately against the modern moral tide of equality for women, safe sex and sensible birth control should offer a black comedy feast.

But no, all Popetown has to offer is an infantile Pope throwing his toys out of the cot; a cleric salivating over exotic animals, a few cardinals floating around on their poolchairs and - here they really let down us former convent girls - the sorriest spoof of an Irish nun ever invented.

******

The 6th Melbourne Underground Film Festival is on now, running from July 7th to 17th. Details of the full program can be found at their website. As always there is lots of great stuff to see, and this year has Jim VanBebber as a special guest. 

2004 saw THE TOOLBOX MURDERS (Original), WIFE TO BE SACRAFICED, Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment, and Guinea Pig: Flowers of Flesh and Blood pulled from the line-up at the last minute after the OFLC refused to give them exempt status. This year the program has had no such problems.

Press Release Number 7

MUFF loves the OFLC!

You heard right! We just got word from the OFLC that the entire MUFF 2005 program has been given classification exempt status i.e. we can play the lot! Normally over the past few years we have had a few films we have had to cancel because they were not granted exemption from classification status. So to show we are not always critics we give a heart felt Thank You to the OFLC and Des Clark for clearing this years program. MUFF is rated R for all screenings so if you look young bring your id and if you are young go look at internet porn like any normal teenager and stay way from MUFF. So here comes MUFF 6 uncut and uncensored – Hooray!

******

The funding of BIG BROTHER is being questioned in Estimates in the Queensland Parliament.

Queensland 51st Parliament
THURSDAY, 7 JULY 2005

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE C—EDUCATION AND THE ARTS
In Attendance
Hon. AM Bligh, Minister for Education and the Arts
Department of Education and the Arts
Mr M Watt, Senior Policy Advisor
Ms L Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor (Arts)
Mr K Smith, Director-General
Mr L Tabrett, Deputy Director-General, Arts Queensland
Ms R Logan, Director, Strategic Resource Management
Mr S Kessell, Director, Office of the Director-General
Mr R James, Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Film and Television Commission
Mr A Wagner, Chief Facilities Officer, Strategic Facilities Branch
Ms L Englert, Assistant Director-General, Office of Curriculum

Mr MESSENGER: And also I welcome members of the Education and Arts department. Minister, I refer you to page 1-73 of the MPS and funding allocated to the Pacific Film and Television Commission for domestic film and television production. It is in that first paragraph under ‘Assistance to the Arts’. I refer to $2.5 million which was loaned to Southern Star Endemol in 2001 for the production of the Big Brother series. What is the interest payable on that loan and what is the time frame for that repayment?

Ms BLIGH: It is a loan through the Queensland Treasury Corporation and the interest on the loan is determined by the QTC. I am just getting some further advice about what that is at the moment in number terms. I should say that QTC loans are generally lower than commercial rates. We will get the current rate. Can I just clarify that it is a variable rate so that is why I do not know what it is from day-today, but we will come back to you with what it is in the last quarter.

Mr MESSENGER: And the time frame for the payments? 

Ms BLIGH: It will be the length of the loan. Again, I would have to get you some details on that. 

Mr MESSENGER: I refer once again to the same page, 1-73 of the MPS, and funding allocated to the Pacific Film and Television Commission for domestic film and television production. I refer to the general guidelines for all Pacific Film and Television schemes which is published on the PFTC web site. I note that it states that applications relating to reality TV are not eligible for funding. How is it possible that the Big Brother series received funding or have the funding guidelines been breached? 

Ms BLIGH: The detail in relation to the eligibility requirements for each of the programs for the PFTC are obviously extensive and complex. I might call Mr Robin James, who is the director of the PFTC, to outline the circumstances of this case in more detail. Mr James: In answer to your question, reality television is not eligible for investment from the production fund, which means we do not invest in reality television programs. That does not mean we do 38 Estimates Committee C—Education and the Arts 07 Jul 2005 not have the capacity to provide incentives, which we do, and to provide loans, which we also do, to cashflow that production. 

Mr MESSENGER: Pursuant to that answer, there is a difference between investment and incentive payments? 

Mr James: Yes, there is. 

Mr MESSENGER: Could you detail the investment payments made to Big Brother to date and also any incentive payments?

Mr James: Just to clarify that, we do not invest in Big Brother; we do not invest in that production. We do offer incentive packages to Big Brother to attract it here. The components of that incentive package are twofold: one is a $2.5 million loan which is used to cashflow that production. That loan was first made in 2001-02, from memory. It was for 12 months and it has been rolled over each year as each new series of Big Brother has been produced. Application is made to have that loan renewed and we do that and we have done that in the past. The second component is an incentive package. Now, what happens with reality television, as happens with all production that is attracted to Queensland, is that we offer an incentive package to encourage the employment of Queensland cast and crew. Every major production expending more than $1 million in the state is eligible for that incentive package and that can range from big movies such as Aquamarine, which has just finished shooting for 20th Century Fox on the Gold Coast. That received an incentive package. It did not receive any investment, as all production that is not developed from this state does not receive any investment. 

Mr MESSENGER: The general guidelines state that they apply to all PFTC schemes.

Mr James: It only applies to the investment scheme. 

Mr MESSENGER: The investment rather than the incentive scheme? 

Mr James: The PFTC has a whole range of schemes and the investment scheme only applies to productions that we have developed and then choose to invest in.

 Mr MESSENGER: Minister, I refer you to page 1-73 of the MPS, once again funding allocated to the Pacific Film and Television Commission for domestic film and television production. Under the current guidelines, there appears to be no limits placed on the content of projects receiving funding. Now, is it correct to assume that a porn film, for example, could be successful in obtaining funding under these guidelines, whether investment or incentive? 

Ms BLIGH: Firstly, I am very aware that there is a degree of community concern about some of the content of Big Brother Uncut, and I can appreciate some of that concern. As a television program, Big Brother Uncut or, indeed, any other television program is required to meet Commonwealth government guidelines for television timing and content. The responsibility for what can be put to air for television is not a state responsibility. It is governed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority—which was formerly the ABA, the Australian Broadcasting Authority—which is the authority that deals with unsuitable content issues. I understand that at least one complaint has been made to that federal authority and it is investigating that complaint. Obviously I look forward to hearing the outcome of that investigation. 

Mr MESSENGER: I understand that there is a petition being started by the member for Maryborough against the state government investing or providing incentive payments for programs of dubious content quality. Minister, I refer you to page 1-73 of the MPS and funding allocation to the Pacific Film and Television Commission for domestic film and television production.