Last Tango - Again!

Last month proved to be an eventual one in the field of film censorship. So much has happened that we will try to cover all the events.

The Cinematograph Films Censorship Board of Appeal made its long awaited decision on Last Tango In Paris. The newly appointed board again upheld the censor's decision to ban the film on a majority vote. The previous Board had rejected the film in 1973.

The Chairman, Mr A J L Martin, in a legal ruling which included regard to both the Dunn and Drunmond cases that his predecessor had used, concluded that the film depicted matter contrary to public order or decency, the exhibition of which would not be in the public interest. In reaching this decision Mr Martin, in part, said: "Having seen the film it was apparent that certain scenes could not be omitted without destroying its whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to consider approving the film by excluding such scenes."

Dr R A Sharpe agreed on the legal issues but was in favour of restricting the film to persons aged 20 or over. In discussing the rights of the intelligent and articulate filmgoer, Dr Sharpe said, in part: "It is a public disservice for them not to see the film, and it could only increase their alienation from the rather low standards of New Zealand cinematographic culture. It is sad that of the best movies only a few notorious ones make the New Zealand circuit, because the less notorious simply do not pay. It could be argued that they should all join film societies, but their doing so, while in general a good thing, has the disadvantage of making them feel even further divorced from the general run of New Zealand culture than they already are. Moreover, Film Societies have the practical disadvantage of showing movies in each centre for only one or two days, and many people who wish to attend, simply cannot."

Mrs M R Nolan expressed interest in exploring the possibility of the film being approved for Film Societies "though Film Society members are not an elite of any sort within the community and the Board would have to take care that it did not give the impression that this was so." Mrs Nolan felt there were two different situations regarding a 'public place' about which she was required to make one decision. Her understanding of the legal definition of indecency brought her to the conclusion that a 'public place' had to be understood within the context of its environment. A cinema in a metropolitan area could not be construed as a 'public place' in the same way as a cinema in a smaller town or community. On balance she felt the decision had to be made within the environmental context of the smaller town in New Zealand. This, with other considerations, led her to the decision that this film should not be approved for exhibition.

The Appeal Board also decided unanimously not to approve the French film Emmanuelle and the American cartoon Heavy Traffic.

The Board issued a strong warning to "those who wrote letters to members of the Board endeavouring to influence the Board's decision upon an appeal then being determined by the Board." The Chairman pointed out that this practice was grossly improper and that, should any further such letters be received, he would refer them to the Solicitor-General for his consideration of whether proceedings for contempt be commenced.

Because of the number of censorship cuts, the future of both the Wellington and Auckland Film Festivals is in doubt. In a joint statement, the directors, Lindsay Shelton for Wellington and Wynne Colgan for Auckland, said that the censorship laws had a serious effect on the programming. Auckland was unable to show one film - The Family from the Netherlands - because the cuts demanded under the law would have made it unintelligible. Auckland had six features and two short films cut, and Wellington had four features cut - all to remove words which the Cinematograph Films Act rules as indecent. "Almost no other country - not even Russia or China - make cuts in films being shown in legitimate film festivals. And more and more film organisations and directors are now insisting that their films must not be tampered with in New Zealand. Because of this, it seems likely next year that any film for which cuts are demanded will have to be withdrawn. And judging by the number of cuts demanded this year, the successful staging of the two New Zealand film festivals will therefore be in jeopardy, because the films generally arrive only a few days before their scheduled screenings with no time available either to hold appeals or to seek replacements."

Censorship 'pipeline'

Under this heading, The Dominion editorial of July 15 made some interesting points:

"The Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr May, suggested a remarkable new constitutional principle when he explained on TV (Seven Days) that he could not discuss pending changes in policy on film censorship because there was legislation in the pipeline. If other Ministers adopted Mr May's principle a great deal of political discussion would dry up. The principle clearly is nonsense, and is another indication of the Minister's unwillingness to get to grips with the censorship issue.

"There is no guarantee that Mr May's bill will even be presented this year. The Minister was making the same type of assurances about legislation-in-the-pipeline this time last year. The legislation did not emerge before the end of the session. For all the public knows, the same fate awaits the measure Mr May says will be presented to Parliament this year.

"Every action of the Minister on film censorship has been taken with obvious reluctance, and delay beyond what is reasonable: a film censorship appeal board was appointed seven months after the term of the previous board expired; the private member's bill brought forward by Mr Hunt was promised a hearing before a select committee, but this was not done. Mr May justifies his handling of the issue on the grounds that the interests of people not in the minority groups, at either end of the censorship spectrum, have to be taken into account. Mr May is probably right when he says that Miss Bartlett's members, and the groups who want censorship of films abolished, are in the minority (though both party conferences have received resolutions calling for the abolition of film censorship for adults). He should take his analysis further. If the enthusiasts and Miss Bartlett are to be disregarded as he suggests, a new situation opens up for the Minister.

""The evidence, admittedly fragmentary and not all conclusive, suggests that middle New Zealand is not as easily shocked as Miss Bartlett and the Minister believes it to be. After all, 16,000 Wellington film-goers were exposed to some minutes of film the censor decided was not appropiate for public viewing. Only eight people complained. There were no allegations in letters of slipped standards on the part of the censor. The reaction of almost everyone who saw the film, 'the great majority' Mr May talks about, was noncommittal and unperturbed. This should suggest to the Minister that the average New Zealander wants the chance to see films with more in them than the Towering Inferno, which he personally enjoyed.

"The need to take into account the special interests of film societies has received additional emphasis from the statement by the directors of the Auckland and Wellington film festivals that censorship could destroy next year's programmes. They point out that nowhere in the world, 'not even Russia or China', are cuts made to films shown in legitimate film festivals. The Department of Internal Affairs and the various Ministers have discussed the matter for five years without coming to a resolution. On this, as on the other matters relating to film censorship, it is time for action."

- reprinted from Sequence, August 1975.