Last Tango In Paris Ban Upheld
The Cinematograph Films Censorship Board of Appeal, in a 23 page decision, by a majority has upheld the Censor's banning of Last Tango In Paris.
In upholding the censor, the chairman, Mr. W.H.Carson, went through some complex legal precedents concerning indecency (similar to the Paarungen decision) and discussed the evidence the board had heard, before ruling that because both the scene's depicted and the language used were contrary and offensive to public decency, the exhibition of the film would be undesirable in the public interest. One of the other members of the board, Miss M.J.Clark, after stating that she saw the film and studied the two major decisions, in her own decision simply goes along with that of the chairman.
The third member, Mr. W.N.Sheat, on the other hand, in a very readable decision, considered that the film should be allowed subject to an R20 certificate, one scene reduced or cut entirely, and a warning on all advertising material. In the process of reaching his decision, Mr.Sheat produced an interesting history of censorship in New Zealand:
The challenge to the Censor's decision was that the Censor had misjudged what contemporary standards have now become. The yardstick by which we must measure these standards has not changed since it first appeared on the statute books as Section 4(3) of the Cinematograph-film Censorship Act, 1916 when it was worded as follows:-
Such approval shall not be given in the case of any film which in the opinion of
the Censor depicts any matter that is against public order and decency or the
exhibition of which for any other reason is in the opinion of the Censor
undesirable in the public interest.
There were only 18 Public Acts in 1916 and the Statute Book is one of the country's slimmest ever. Most of the statutes concerned themselves with matters arising from the then state of war. One can only speculate what threat to the nation's standards caused the passing of a film censorship statute at such a time although it is noted that the wording then was "public order and decency" rather than "public order or decency" in the present Act. Therefore to satisfy the test, the absence of decency would have to be coupled with some element likely to lead to public disorder.
The criteria of the Cinematograph-film Censorship Act, 1916 found their way into the Cinematograph Films Act, 1928 in 35(4) in the following form:
The approval of the Censor shall not be given with respect to any film or to any part
of a film which in his opinion depicts any matter that is contrary to public order or
decency or the exhibition of which would for any other reason be undesirable in the
public interest. In the case of a film the exhibition of which is intended to be
accompanied by a mechanical reproduction of sound (whether or not the device or
arrangement for such reproduction is an integral part of the film) the Censor may take
such reproduction of sound into consideration in determining whether or not the film
should be approved or in determining what excisions, if any, should be made therefrom.
The differences are -
(a) The substitution of the words "contrary to" for the word "against".
(b) The introduction of sound made it necessary to be able to take that new element
into consideration but apparently no power was given to deal with the sound track
separately from the image. The Censor does not therefore have the potentially
useful weapon of being able to "bleep" out an offensive word.
(c) The substitution of "or" for "and" between "public order" and "decency".
The Cinematograph Films Act, 1961 S 14 reproduces the wording of the 1928 Act. So it is necessary to approach the serious consideration of Last Tango in Paris armed with a formula which was originally designed to enable the community of 1916 to protect itself from the excesses of silent films. In 1916 Charles Chaplin made a film of Carmen and D.W. Griffith produced Intolerance.
Evidence as to changes in standards and attitudes over such a long period is likely to be difficult to obtain not to mention likely to be unreliable. Fortunately there are a number of recorded statements by some of the five Censors the country has had over the 56 years of film censorship which gives some indications of change. After the first year of censorship in 1917, W. Joliffe told the Evening Post that matter cut from films usually comprised:-
1. The commission of crime in a manner likely to be imitated; especially by
the young or to give information as to methods to persons of a criminal tendency;
2. Indecency in the matter of dress;
3. The treatment of religious subjects in an irreligious or irreverant manner;
4. Matter likely to promote disloyalty to the king and country, or to adversely affect
friendly feeling towards our Allies;
5. Matter likely to affect class hatred.
In 1932 the next Censor W.H. Tanner made a list of the cuts made from 74 British films examined in the first nine months of that year. Only 13 had been cut, and two had been rejected. These films had had the expression "My God" or "By God" excised. Three others had been cut because of their vulgarity in incidents and one had been rejected for that reason. The other rejection had been for bad language, which had required cuts from two of the six films already mentioned and in five others. Only two films of the 74 had required excisions for violence.
Tanner's successor W.A. Von Keisenberg, reporting to a Parliamentary committee in 1948, noted that violence carried to excess now played a more prominent part in movies. He said that the word "Moll" was always deleted and the words "bum" and "stinker" usually, under a general category of suggestive dialogue and objectionable words. Coarse allusions to sex matters were usually excised, including references in songs, which usually occurred in British films. Anything which would offend any religious body in the country would be deleted. Von Keisenberg made some cuts from "juvenile crime films" but he was not convinced that movies were a predisposing factor in juvenile deliquency.
- reprinted from Sequence, November 1973.
Not included in the Sequence report because of space contraints, Mr. Sheat went on:
In anticipation of this hearing, I did some personal research into movie going habits during the preceding week. I went to a 5 o'clock matinee of Carry On Matron. The film carried an "A" Certificate and over fifty per cent of the audience I estimated to be under 15 and accompanied by their parents who presumably regarded this film as family entertainment. As expected the film was full of vulgarity and references to dirty jokes.
I attended an 8 p.m. performance of a film called Dagmar's Hot Pants Inc (R18). The film, set in Copenhagen was about a day in the life of a prostitute. There was a great deal more nudity displayed in this film than in Last Tango in Paris. The most interesting observation was that there were no more than 20 people in the theatre who seemed as bored with the film as I was if the derisive laughter it occasionally provoked is any indication.
My conclusion then is that today's audience while they may be shocked or disgusted are capable of accepting that initial reaction and looking more objectively at what lies behind the words and actions. Audiences no longer need to be protected from the shock of words like "bum" and stinker".
In another part of his decision, Bill Sheat also criticised the delay in hearing the appeal and the activities of a pressure group in trying to influence the deliberations of the Appeal Board.
The delay in this case has allowed opportunity for a great deal of attention to be given to this film in the media and has created the situation in which to deal with the matter in the objective way necessary has become a formidable task indeed. There have been many editorials and even a serialisation of the "book of the film" although the latter was itself by no means daring because the text was drastically cut.
The worst aspect of the matter has been a campaign to bring pressure on this Board mounted by an organisation which calls itself the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards. That Society in circulars to its members urged them to write bringing pressure on the Board to counteract pressure which the Society claimed was being brought on the Board by the media and the N.Z. Federation of Film Societies. It is necessary to record that no communications whatever from the latter bodies have been received by me nor as far as I understand, by any of the other members of the Board. Both the Federation and the Distributors have conducted themselves with complete propriety.
The attempt by the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards to influence the Board cannot go unmentioned. No doubt the well meaning persons who responded to the curcular and wrote to the Board believed that they were justified in doing what they were doing to counteract the actions of others. It is regrettable that they may have been misled into taking the course of action that they did. I do not propose to add up the number of letters that I received but the total received by the Board runs into many hundreds.
Quite apart from what amounts to an invasion of personal privacy, the concerted campaign on behalf of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards could amount to a contempt of Court. If in connection with any future appeal any similar campaign is commenced, it is my intention to refer all letters to the Solicitor-General with a request that he consider whether or not contempt has been committed and that if so, he take appropriate Court action. It may be necessary to control the problem by an appropriate amendment to the Cinematograph Film Regulations (1968/58) to provide that a decision by the Censor to ban a film completely be notified only to the Distributor until the time for appeal has expired. Once the Notice of Appeal has been filed the matter should be dealt with as with any other matter sub judice.
.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.