7. Though primarily concerned with production, Pacific Films occasionally undertakes distribution for producer-friends abroad, usually independents outside the major groups in the industry. On their behalf, we have from time to time acted as distributors and arranged exhibition of their films in New Zealand. Censorship has not posed a problem until early in 1975, when we appealed against the Censor's ban on the Australian feature film Stone. Because an Appeal Board was not convened at that time, the Appeal was not heard for many months. Towards the end of last year, the Appeal Board reversed the Censor's decision, passing the film for exhibition to restricted audiences (20 years and over), but requiring many deletions to the film.
8. The Australian producer-director-writer-actor of Stone, Mr. Sandy Harbutt, an idealistic and talented young man, refused to allow the release of his film if all the cuts were made. We persuaded him to allow a scene of violence that was, in our view, particularly nauseating, to be deleted.
9. After the Appeal Board had decided on Stone, it was later decided by the Board to allow exhibition of the American film Lenny which featured many of the improper four letter words that had been ordered to be deleted from Stone. Having excised a violent scene from Stone, and in view of the Lenny decision, we resubmitted Stone. The Censor now approved the film for exhibition (R20 and over) in line with the Appeal Board's earlier decision, that is, he requested the deletion of "bad language" and scenes of "dangerous road practices".
10. Like Warren Beattie, the American producer-actor of Shampoo, Mr. Harbutt again refused to accept the cuts. So we again took the Censor's decision to the Appeal Board. Though the Censor's decision was now the reverse of his own earlier decision, indicating that he had deferred to the weight of the Appeal Board's verdict, he had not taken into account the Board's precedent in approving the four letter words in Lenny - a verdict he had publicly questioned.
11. A matter never canvassed during the Appeal Board hearing - dangerous road practices - had, moreover, suddenly and unexpectedly appeared in their decision. We wished, on behalf of the producer, to query this matter and the inconsistency in the approval on one hand of four letter words in Lenny and the Censor's adherence to an earlier Appeal Board decision for Stone.
12. At the second Appeal Board hearing on Stone, the Crown Solicitor appeared as amicus curae and evidence was introduced by him from the Police and Ministry of Transport. The Police referred to the difficulty they had in countering "bikie gangs", recounted examples of their viciousness and illegal behaviour, and were of the opinion that the release of a film like Stone, which deals - in part sympathetically - with a bikie gang's relations with the Police in Australia, would be a threat to public order in New Zealand. As no "bikie films" have been shown in cinemas in New Zealand. it could hardly be said that films had contributed to the criminal propensities of bikies of which the Police had spoken. Conversely, it had been claimed in Australia - and significantly the N.S.W. Police and the Commonwealth Government had collaborated in making the film Stone - that the exhibition of the film had been marked by a decrease in bikie violence and bikies themselves had appeared to respond to the film's message which had sought their integration in, rather than outlawing them from, society.
13. It seemed to me strange that, though the Police claimed the bikies in the film had not looked as dirty and filthy as bikie gangs usually were, the direction of film censorship had been in the opposite direction - namely, to further "clean up" their image in the film by ordering the deletion of what are commonly called "dirty words".
14. The Ministry of Transport had an understandable objection to the "wheelies" (riding on one wheel) shown in the film. The Ministry's officer present at the hearing said that he would like to see all examples of dangerous road practices deleted as it would make for more safety on the roads. Such dangerous road practices were, he agreed, common in many films and television programmes and their appearance, like stock car racing, encouraged the public to simulate such practices in real life.
15. The Appeal Board did not reach an immediate decision and at the date of submission has not yet informed us of their decision.
16. The affair of Stone indicates some matters for which the Select Committee might suggest legislative remedy.
a) The time taken to determine the issues involved could be shortened:
it is over a year since an independent Australian producer first sent
the print to New Zealand. Far from affluent, he has had $1,000 worth
of print tied up in the toils of New Zealand's censorship for over a
year.
b) Events in the "real world" should not so obviously be allowed to
impinge on artistic consideration of these types of events in the
"fantasy" world of cinema. A rash of bikie violence in New Zealand
has not made it easy for the Appeal Board to determine the questions
of "public order" involved in the case.
c) The Censor and the Appeal Board should be required to declare openly
who has seen a film and guided them in reaching a decision. It is
disconcerting at an Appeal Board hearing to learn that the Censor has
shown a film to a number of social workers. Later, it was surprising
to find out purely by chance that at the second Appeal Board hearing,
the Crown Solicitor was to appear as an amicus curae, yet to have
him emerge in the role of adversary to the appellant introducing evidence
from officials of law enforcement agencies who present highly arguable
sociological viewpoints based on their knowledge of the difficulties
of law enforcement in the "real" world.
d) As the Appeal Board is a quasi-judicial body, it borders on contempt
of their quasi-Court, for the Censor to allow films to be seen by special
audiences. In this instance, the alleged viewing of the film by members
of Cabinet who, one would expect, expressed their opinions to someone in
the State apparatus, calls into serious question the quasi-judicial
function of the Appeal Board. In the case of Stone, I agreed to the
Censor showing the film to members of the Police, as I know it has been
the practice of the Censor's office to seek outside opinions.
e) It may not be in the best interests of the country to allow censorship
to be linked with officials other than those appointed under the law,
and especially dangerous for films to be previewed by politicians on the
invitation of the Censor. Whatever the subsequent decision, it appears to
link the censorship with political considerations. Specific provisions in
the existing laws and suggested in the new Bills provide for policical
intervention and I believe it is better for all parties to observe these
procedures only.
f) I am inclined to think it is a questionable practice for the Censor to
seek specialist or outside opinion by inviting them to view a film, with
or without the consent of the distributor or producer. It is, after all,
for his capacity to determine generally prevailing public attitudes and
interpret them, and for the breadth of his vision and understanding that
the Censor and his assistants are appointed. The Appeal Board is designed,
moreover, to represent a further legal body whose task it is to decide on
contested decisions. The difficulty of "outsiders" seeing films at the
Censor's invitation is that they constitute an unofficial "jury" of opinion.
Decisions may be reached, therefore, without the producer or distributor of
the film having the right to challenge the members of the unofficial "jury".
g) While it is desirable to maintain only a quasi-formal approach to Appeal
Board hearings, it should be made known to appellants if the Board intends
to seek the guidance of the Crown Solicitor at hearings.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.