I wrote this submission rather quickly just after the deadline on 21 June 2004. It appears here unaltered except for the use of italics on film titles.

summary

Overall I think the OFLC are doing a great job correctly classifying the enormous number of publications, films, and computer games being released into the consumer marketplace. It is a tough job that, like many that come under public scrutiny, is only acknowledged when customers (the public) are unhappy.

As you can probably guess, I am one of those customers. My concerns relate to the handling of a small number of 'borderline titles' that fall outside the existing classification guidelines.

some movie examples

(a) Ken Park

As far as I can tell, Ken Park was banned because it was too violent for the new touchy-feely X rating, yet too sexually explicit for the R rating. Although I was unhappy with this result, I also can see that in this case the guidelines as written were followed to the letter (all the while keeping in mind that votes are cast when classifying such controversial material).

The banning of Ken Park highlights a fundamental flaw in the Australian classification system, one that has existed for decades: there is no provision for extreme adult content.

The X rating has been purged of many (if not all) "offensive fetishes". These include bondage, S&M, fisting, golden showers, humiliation, simulated 'teen' porn and so on. Furthermore, acts of violence have also been expunged, as reported in Helen Vnuk's book Snatched: Sex and Censorship in Australia. If this was not the case, Ken Park may have received an X rating, although I still doubt it, even under the old guidelines for X 18+. But it would have had a better chance then than now.

Movies like Ken Park, which are released across the world, including our close Pacific neighbour New Zealand (albeit in restricted circulation), should not be banned. The rating system should be able to accommodate them. The "community standards" excuse falls flat in a world that is more inter-connected than it has ever been, not just in terms of media and communications (e.g. the Internet) but also retail markets, politics, global travel and general attitudes. Countries, at least in developed 'western' territories, and I include the EC in that group, are no longer hermetically sealed cultural islands.

Given this global cross-pollination, citing archaic, fuzzy, ambiguous justifications such as "community standards" as a reason to ban a movie insults the intelligence of the public, especially when it is revealed that Ken Park can be seen in places like New Zealand. Surely the NZ culture is not much different to ours?

Anyway, either a new rating is needed, or the existing X and/or R ratings must be changed to accommodate extreme material and new consumer advices. This almost happened with Baise Moi (see below).

(b) Irreversible

Good job with this one. I saw it at the Melbourne French Film Festival before it was classified, and was glad when it finally received an R rating. I know it is under review yet again, which is disheartening. I hope that common sense prevails. If there was hardcore sex footage in Irreversible, I doubt it would have been classified R or X, but rather RC...that euphemism for 'banned' that fools no-one – that is, those few who actually know about it, since it does not have a symbol, and I think it should. More on this later.

(c) Baise Moi

Initially, this was classified R, then banned after a *cough* review. Was this R decision an attempt by the OFLC to test the waters? To see if the R rating could accommodate extreme content? I would like to think that the OFLC members and chiefs are smart enough to try such an experiment. If this is true, I applaud you. Although I am not savvy to all of the facts, my belief is that politics and Fred Nile collided head-on, thus rendering Baise Moi D.O.A., despite the paucity of genuine complaints from the public during the film's theatrical engagement. Enough said.

(d) Miscellaneous Films: Cradle of Fear, The Passion of the Christ, Kill Bill: Volume 1, Dawn of the Dead (2004 remake), Faust: Love of the Damned, Resurrection

I agree with the ratings of these strong films. A comedy like Kill Bill: Volume 1 getting an R and The Passion getting an MA amused me a little; I was not really bothered. Anything is better than having a film banned or cut. Cradle of Fear and Dawn of the Dead (2004) had their moments. I agree that Cradle of Fear deserved its R rating. If I had my way, all such films might be classified MA 15+ and stronger movies such as Ken Park, Cannibal Holocaust, Last House on the Left and Salo would be classified R.

What pleases me is that despite some wonderfully graphic moments in these films (I can think of several in Cradle of Fear alone) the OLFC saw that they were very much products of their genres, and classified them accordingly. I am keenly awaiting the release of Ichi the Killer to see if it was the uncut version that was classified R lately. In summary, the OFLC's handling of these and other similar genre titles has been logical and consistent. Please let this continue.

computer game ratings

Allow games to be classified R and X. Simple.

publications

Same thoughts: expand the existing Category 2 rating to handle more extreme content. For example, extreme horror comics should not be banned.

refused classification / RC

I was annoyed that the RC determination was not included in one of your public surveys about the current classifications G, PG, M, MA, R and X. It also does not have a symbol, and therefore does not show up on your cinema promos, probably to avoid confusing the public. I understand that. But the fact that movies are effectively B*A*N*N*E*D by the OFLC is not publicised with as much rigour as your standard classifications.

Additionally, RC is only part of the the real problem. The illegality of importing RC films under the Customs Act is the other side of it. I understand the need for this totally, that is for films and content that absolutely should not be allowed in or encouraged: KP, snuff and the rest of it. To lump fantasy films, comics and computer games in with such fare is nonsense. Classify such stuff R or X or a new hybrid rating for extreme content. Leave the criminal content out there in limbo where it can be identified as illegal, and its peddlers as criminals.

X rated material

The tightening of the X rating, which effectively took the form of the NVE format proposed during the debate with Senator Harradine, the government, and the adult film industry a few years back, is ridiculous – it is a joke. Again, while I do not know all the facts, it seems that the current state of the X rating was a compromise to please all parties, or at least to stop them arguing. Banning "offensive fetishes" that members of the public are free to enjoy legally in their homes is intolerable and insulting.

The film Secretary, which depicts a nascent BDSM relationship complete with mild S&M and kinky sex, was classified MA 15+. Obviously in certain contexts and treatments, such material, ideas and lifestyles are acceptable. If only this philosophy applied to the X rating, which has deteriorated into a political hot-potato or piñata instead of a sensible and informative classification guide. It's like Australia never passed puberty with the rest of the world.

final thoughts

While I applaud the good work the OFLC has done so far, there are still improvements to be made. I do understand that the OFLC group must operate by law under the guidelines as they are written, with some latitude to make judgement calls by interpreting the rules on a case by case basis. So I guess my comments are largely directed at the policy makers, not you, the OFLC itself. My hope is that you can sympathise with my point of view enough to ensure the policy makers understand that to be a truly effective classification system, changes are needed to accommodate content at the extreme end of the artistic spectrum. (And that's art as in entertainment, not art with a capital 'A'. Trash and masterpieces alike deserve fair adjudication.)

The BBFC have seen the error of their ways and become more lenient towards horror films and violence in general, after asking the public for opinions. This is a progressive step. I still support banning criminal instruction content, KP content, snuff content, etc. The ban on bestiality has always puzzled me, but there you go. Horses for courses? I think the jury is still out there as to consent – until farm animals develop sentience, we may never know for sure.

What I am getting at is that there will be more Ken Parks and Baise Mois. There are already too many Cannibal Holocausts and other related celluloid trash and/or artistic gems that should have been classified long ago, but were instead banned by our inadequate and outdated rating system. This has nothing to do with being the laughing stock of the (western) world, but rather, simple common sense and logic.

The recent domestic violence statistics indicate that there is a huge problem out there. This is in spite of the strict policing of "sexual violence" and "offensive fetishes" in the mass media. Children are abused by priests, school teachers and parents (i.e. care takers) in spite of the MA 15+ ceiling on computer games. We declare war on Iraq and help the US kill innocent people even though the gory horrors unleashed in such warfare cannot be depicted in an R movie. People indulge kinky passions every day of the week, and yet the X rating giggles nervously at such sexual audacity. The irony of it all weighs my heart down, but it is never too late to smarten up.

Respectfully,

Rod Williams
[suburb], Melbourne

[e-mail address]

A member of Watch on Censorship