| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

February 1976

Page history last edited by PBworks 18 years, 4 months ago

Censorship 1975

 

It is valid to consider what would happen to books in our country if the same censorship were applied to them as to films. We would only be allowed to read books in versions abridged by committees. Pages would be ripped out of scores of books, words and phrases would be deleted by black pencils. There would, of course, be a public outcry against such censorship. One wonders, therefore, how the same thing can go on - and on - as far as films are concerned.

 

The third year of the Labour Government was marked by an unprecedented amount of censor interference in legitimate, serious films of interest to Film Society members. The worst aspect of the year was the censor's unexpected and dismaying decision to cut six films which the Wellington Film Society brought to New Zealand solely for the annual Wellington Film Festival. All the cuts were solely for reasons of language, and all the cuts were to remove the word 'fuck' or variations of it. The films affected were two from France (Celine et Julie vont en Bateau and La Gueule Ouverte), two from Australia (The Cars That Ate Paris and Between Wars), one from Belgium (Le Conscript) and one from Germany (Einer von uns Beiden).

 

I believe that such cutting is not necessary, and I further believe that even the vague wording of the present Cinematograph Films Act should not force the censor to make such cuts, especially when the films are to be shown only to festival audiences. The censor, however, is given different advice. And as our films arrived only a matter of a few days before their screening date, we were deprived of any opportunity to appeal against his cuts, which were the most serious that have been carried out since we established the film festival four years ago. Another six feature films brought to New Zealand for the Auckland Film Festival were cut as well, for the same reasons.

 

It was, therefore, particularly annoying to discover after the film festival that the Appeal Board was prepared to sanction a different view. It allowed the word 'fuck' in Lenny, which had long runs in the main centres. Public attendance was boosted by the publicity recieved as a result of the Appeal Board hearing and by subsequent public remarks made by the censor. I found it a film of minor interest, but I have not heard of any filmgoer who was upset by hearing the four-letter word on the sound track.

 

Decisions of the Appeal Board in the past, we understand, have been used by the censor as a precedent for future censorship. It has therefore been disappointing that the Lenny decision on language has not been a precedent for other films. Though the continuing secrecy surrounding censorship makes it difficult to find out what may be happening at any given time, indications are that language is still being cut from adult films. One guesses that films such as Shampoo, Law and Disorder, Dog Day Afternoon, Love and Death and The Romantic Englishwoman have all suffered cuts because of the decision that words are indecent.

 

Political Moves

As the year ended, it became obvious that the film society movement was yet again having to repeat its arguments in favour of allowing adults to see films in their original state. Before the election, we were beginning to prepare submissions to a select committee of Parliament which was to consider the two bills amending the Cinematograph Films Act - one introduced by the Minister of Internal Affairs Mr May (who later attributed his election defeat, in part, to his plans to liberalise censorship), the other from Mr J Hunt. The introduction of these bills came after five years in which the Wellington Film Society had actively campaigned for a change in the law - we had talked with three successive Ministers of Internal Affairs: first Mr Seath. second Mr Highet who promised action in 1973 (but his Government was defeated in the '72 election), and third Mr May, whose bill was introduced at the end of his three years as minister. It now seems we will have to begin all over again.

 

The policy of the new Government on film censorship is encouraging to a qualified extent. It reads: "Immediately a National Government takes office it will revise the Cinematograph Act ensuring... representative views of the community are heard on the matter of censorship; special conditions are applied to film society and film festival exhibitions." As a film society we must welcome the plan to give us special conditions, and hope that the 'immediately' of the new government's promise means action early in the new year in time for positive help with our next film festival. We shall be seeking an early meeting with the new Minister. Certainly he has ample information on the files of his department to indicate the reasons why filmgoers are so dissatisfied with current cutting of films, and why we believe the present cutting is unnecessary and destructive in many serious films.

 

Two other aspects of Government policy on films are worth comment. "Encouragement to New Zealand film producers" is promised, and this will be welcome if it means the establishment of a fund to establish feature film making here. It is disheartening to know of local film-makers (such as Geoff Steven and Tony Williams) who cannot begin new features because financial support is lacking. Not at all welcome is the policy which states that licensing of exhibition and distribution will be maintained. The outgoing Labour Government had rightly and bravely resolved to do away with the cumbersome and unnecessary protection given to the monopolies who control commercial film activities in this country. It is disappointing to find that the new Government is hastening to restore their protection, as such protection does not work to the good of filmgoers, but preserves the dominant overseas influence in an area which should be controlled by New Zealanders.

 

Obvious Cutting

As usual, censorship is taking up much space in this annual report. This reflects the importance which we give to the matter, and the serious affect which we believe continuing cutting has on worthwhile films. I have already named five films from reputable directors (including Sidney Lumet and Joseph Losey) which should not have been cut when they were given adult certificates. One of the year's most disgraceful examples of censor cuts came in the Nicholas Roeg film Don't Look Now, when the removal of four minutes changed a scene of gentle love-making into something approaching rape.

 

Audiences are in general starting to become aware of cuts. Newspapers reported that audiences at French Connection II booed and became restive at the obvious extent of the cuts. This also happened at our festival screening of The Cars That Ate Paris, and it is therefore disappointing to note that another highly-praised Australian feature, Sunday Too Far Away, has also been cut here.

 

Many Bans

Many films were rejected during the year, including Last Tango In Paris for a second time, Marco Ferreri's La Grande Bouffe which we would have been proud to include in our film festival, and Andy Warhol's Heat which is now the subject of an appeal.

 

Soft Core Films

While serious films such as these are banned, worthless soft-core productions somehow filter through the net, though one imagines they must have been cut at some stage of the system. The works of Max Pecas (I Am a Nymphomaniac) and Pete Walker (Die Screaming Marianne) are now being distributed in New Zealand. The best-known soft-core production of the decade - Just Jaeckin's Emmanuelle - remains banned here, however; one notes that two million people have seen it in England, a country noted for the severity of its censorship. Sexual Freedom in Denmark was first banned, then passed during the year. However the version which finally went on show turned out to have a running time of less than half of the original. The film, of course, was advertised as if the original was being shown. One wishes that Government protection of consumers could be extended to include filmgoers - one wonders how the 'public interest' specified in the Cinematograph Films Act can allow films to be advertised without information about how they have been changed from the original.

 

Uncut Films

Filmgoers got a chance during the year to demonstrate their reaction to an uncut film. The Night Porter ran for a season at the Regent with four minutes more than the censor had intended. Reaction was nil. A film called Big Bad Mama, banned in February but passed with cuts later in the year, made a two-day appearance at the Majestic and was hastily withdrawn - one gathers for the same reason.

 

- Lindsay Shelton, reprinted from Sequence, February 1976.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.