| 
  • 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
 

June 1979

Page history last edited by PBworks 17 years, 6 months ago

Decisions of the Films Censorship Board of Review

 

Members: A B Beatson SM (chairman), W Colgan, R Tanner, Dr R A Sharp, Mrs M T Cole, Mrs V Forbes. (Professor E M Dalziel was absent on 8 December and 23 March.)

 

Scandalo

(Reviewed on 8 December 1978) The Chief Censor of Films declined to approve the film and Amalgamated Theatres Ltd had appealed to the board, in line with its powers under the Cinematograph Films Act 1976, to consider de novo any film according to the criteria laid down in section 26. The board having viewed the film decided that it should be approved for exhibition with an R2O certificate.

 

In reaching its decision the board gave particular attention to the matters it was required to consider under section 26(2) (c) and (d). Three episodes in the film were especially considered in the light of subsection (2) (c): one in which an act of fellatio was depicted; one in which a maid-shopgirl was made to witness the sexual and moral humiliation of her mistress; and one in which the mistress, also the mother of a young girl, procured her daughter for the man-servant with whom she was herself obsessed. The board agreed that the fellatio scene was realised very modestly, would be unlikely to be recognised by the innocent as depicting fellatio in any case, and was far less specific in its depiction of the act than scenes in some films already passed for public exhibition. The 'humiliation' episode seemed to the board, at first sight, to perhaps contain elements of excessive cruelty, sex, and anti-social behaviour. Further consideration however, led the board to the conclusion that the episode was an integral part of the film, was played for its dramatic rather than pruient and sadistic qualities, and relied for its disturbing impact not on the particular way it depicted the acts in question (which was very restrained) but on the fact that any audience likely to view the film would react most disapprovingly to the morality, rather than physically, cruel actions of the man-servant.

 

As to the episode in which the mother provided her daughter to the man-servant the board felt the same: that the 'manner, extent, and degree' of the depiction of this episode were not the important considerations that might lead to a decision that the film was likely to be injurious to the public good. Rather it was simply that the episode had been presented at all. It was the morality of the act and not the way it was presented that might raise objection. The board decided that the depiction of morally wrong acts in a film could not, ipso facto, constitute grounds for banning it. It was clear in the context of the film that there was no question of presenting the action as praiseworthy, glamorous, or worth imitating. And for this reason the board could not envisage any deleterious effects on likely audiences stemming from this episode.

 

The 'humiliation' scene and the episode in which the mother procured her daughter were also considered in the light of section 26(2) (d) as to whether they denigrated women. It was felt, though, that there was small substance to this concern. Villainy, weakness, lust, and desire seemed spread over all characters regardless of gender. Finally, the board considered, under section 26(2) (a), the 'dominant effect of the film as a whole'. Some of the board thought the film depressing, tasteless, and vapid. Others considered it well produced and acted overall, showing some artistic merit. Depicting as it did relationships between the French bourgeoisie and the servant class on the eve of European war, it would seem to provide little for imitation. Its likely effect on any audience would not be one of eliciting anti-social behaviour. The Board accordingly granted an R2O certificate, with one member, Mrs M T Cole, dissenting.

 

Immoral Tales

(Reviewed on 2 December 1977) Everard Films Ltd sought a review of the Chief Censor's decision refusing to approve the film for exhibition. The applicant's case was presented in writing and was primarily based on the submission that because of the film's overwhelming artistic merit, regardless of theme, it should have been approved for exhibition and that it should be viewed as the director intended, i.e., that although each of the four episodes was inherently unpleasant, Borowczyk the director was doing so to see by just how much the unpleasantness could be overwhelmed by the beauty in which it was cloaked. The Chief Censor was asked to reply to the submissions of the applicant and did so in writing dealing with each episode in turn. He contended that the film was likely to be injurious to the public good, in particular because of the manner in which it treated anti-social behaviour, cruelty, sex, horror, presented offensive behaviour, and in particular the extent and degree to which the film denigrated the religious beliefs of a significant number of the community, i.e., those of the Roman Catholic faith.

 

The film was made up of four separate and virtually unrelated stories, the first of which included a lengthy fellatio scene, the second of which dwelt on female masturbation, the third of which included in addition to one horrific episode where the heroine bathed in the blood of the massacred maidens, a lengthy lesbian scene, and the fourth episode depicted in graphic detail some of the sexual excesses of Lucretia Borgia and in particular multiple sex scenes with blood relatives and desecration of the Cross.

 

In approaching its task of reviewing the film and if necessary substituting its opinion for that of the Chief Censor the board initially dealt with each of the episodes individually and then reviewed the film in toto. In so far as episodes one and two were concerned the majority of the board considered that these would be marginally suitable for general exhibition with a restricted certificate. As far as episode three was concerned the board was concerned when applying the criteria laid down under section 26(2) (c) with the extent and degree to which the film depicted anti-social behaviour, horror, sex, and cruelty and no unanimous view was reached as to whether or not, taken on its own, this episode could be considered fit for general exhibition. As far as the fourth episode was concerned it was the unanimous view of the board that the scenes involving desecration of the Cross, incest, multiple sex, and blasphemy were such that when applying the criteria laid down in section 26(2) (c) and (d) episode four in itself would be injurious to the public good.

 

The film was then reviewed as a whole and it was unanimously the opinion of the board that although Immoral Tales had undoubted artistic merit the film was likely to be injurious to the general public good when applying the criteria laid down in section 26(2) (c) and (d). In particular it was felt that the anti-clerical sentiments expressed in the fourth episode and the gratuitous debauching of Lucretia Borgia on the replica of the Cross went far beyond the degree which would be acceptable to the general public in its denigration of religious beliefs and in particular those of the Roman Catholic faith. Accordingly in accordance with its authority under the Cinematograph Films Act 1976, section 84(5), and the regulations promulgated thereunder, the Films Censorship Board of Review declined to approve the film for exhibition and upheld the censor's ruling.

 

However the board was of the view that because of the film's artistic merit and the importance of its director consideration should be given to a limited approval of the film for exhibition at certain film festivals only. Accordingly the hearing was adjourned to enable the applicant to make further submissions and apply if it saw fit for approval of the film for exhibition at the Wellington and Auckland film festivals. When the matter came on for hearing again on 23 March 1978 the applicant indicated by letter that it would seek the board's indulgence to have the film approved with a restricted certificate to play the full festival circuit of six cities. It was agreed by the board that its original decision should be reviewed and accordingly the board approved the film Immoral Tales for exhibition at the Wellington, Auckland, Christchuch, dunedin, Hamilton, and Palmerston North film festivals for showing with a RFF R20 certificate. Mrs M T Cole dissented in so far as film festival showings were concerned.

 

Born Losers

(Reviewed on 23 March 1978) Having conducted a review of the film, Born Losers, and in accordance with its authority under the Cinematograph Films Act 1976, section 84(5), and the Cinematograph Films Regulations 1977, reg 11(2) (e), the Films Censorship Board of Review decided to approve the film for exhibition, to classify it as approved for exhibition to those aged 18 years and over and to direct the Chief Censor to enter the board's decision in the Register of Films. In view of the fact that the distributor (2Oth Century Fox Film Corporation (NZ) Ltd) proposes to exhibit a print (or prints) different from the one that the board viewed, the board, in accordance with its powers under the Act (section 84(600, directs the Chief Censor of Films to excise such material from the new print (or prints) as to bring it (or them) into consonance with the print that the board viewed.

 

In reaching its decision as to whether or not the film Born Losers was likely to be injurious to the public good the board took into account the matters specified in section 26(2) and (6). The board took the view that the likely effect of the film on audiences aged 18 years and over would not be injurious to the public good. It was agreed. in considering section 26(2) (b), that the film had little or no artistic merit, and that its value was no greater - though no less - than that of a run-of-the-mill escapist action movie. Moreover, the board did consider that there was prima facie cause for concern on matters arising under section 26(2) (c), in particular the anti-social behaviour of the bikie gang on the one hand, especially where they attempted to pervert the course of justice by intimidating witnesses to their crimes, and on the other hand, the vigilante tactics of the hero, Billy Jack, where he took the law into his own hands.

 

The board considered, however, that the word 'likely' occuring in the criteria of judgment of section 26(1), had to be interpreted strictly, and that a suggested interpretation, viz, 'possible' had to be rejected. It was agreed that the film did depict anti-social behaviour, but then so did many films depicting crimes, sins, and immoralties, and the question properly to be decided was to be whether an audience viewing these actions was likely to be influenced in such a way that would be injurious to the public good. It was felt it would not be, in view of the fact that the New Zealand public have shown themselves capable of satisfactorily containing the problem of intimidation of witnesses - though no doubt they wish there were no problem and that they were better equipped with money and manpower to eraditcate it. The board also felt that, given the problem - and it seems an established fact of life - few people would learn anything new from the film, that it would be extremely unlikely that any hitherto ignorant movie-goer viewing the film would be persuaded of the desirability of such a course of action, not the least because of the bad end the villains came to. The board felt that vigilantism was not, nor was it likely to become a problem in New Zealand; and that if it were to, it would be unlikely to do so in the context of bikie gangs (except insofar as they exercise it on one another) or as a consequence of audiences viewing Born Losers. As to the cruelty, violence, crime, and sex present in the film, and necessary to be considered under section 26(2) (c), these seemed to the board to be no more remarkable than in many films currently approved for exhibition, nor were such matters dealt with in any particulary lurid detail.

 

Board member Mrs V Forbes dissented from the decision agreed to by the other members.

 

Tommy

(Reviewed on 2 December 1977) This was an appeal by Everard Films Ltd against a decision of the Chief Censor of Films refusing a reclassification in respect of Tommy to permit it to be shown to a wider age group. When the film was originally submitted to the then Censor of Films in 1975 it was given an R16 classification and when resubmitted this year the present Chief Censor refused to vary this classification.

 

Having seen the film and read the brief submissions adduced in support of the appeal the board was unanimously of the opinion that the Censor's decision relating to the classification of the film should be upheld for the following reason. Although it was considered that the film had considerable artistic merit the board was of the opinion that because of the manner in which it depicted anti-social behaviour, cruelty, horror, violence, and crime it could be injurious to the public good within the meaning of the Act if children under the age of 16 were exposed to it.

 

Decisions shouldn't take so long to be publicised in future. Last month the Board announced that in future its hearings would be open to the public and that its decisions would be published in the New Zealand Gazette. The board chairman, Mr A B Beatson, SM, said that censoring should be under public scrutiny.

 

- reprinted from Sequence, June 1979.

Comments (0)

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