Classification of the arts is
about finding the balance between censor and sensibility
The
arts fulfil a significant role in society: to amuse, move, shock,
provoke, reflect, interpret, explain, inform, expose, comment,
judge, critique and represent the world we inhabit.
Broadly speaking, they are by nature a vehicle for agitation,
pushing boundaries, questioning conventions and raising
controversial issues. They can also be inspiring, uplifting and
simply beautiful.
Some may view my new position, as director of the Classification
Board, as one that opposes the arts. Applying relevant legislation
and guidelines, the board decides which classifications to give
films, computer games and certain publications.
Yet our classification system allows for artistic freedom and that
is why I continue to consider myself an advocate for the arts. It is
not the role of the board to prevent the arts and entertainment from
exploring the spectrum of human behaviour and experience.
In fact, the board does not censor material at all: it must be
classified in the form in which it has been submitted. Applying
relevant legislation and guidelines, the board simply decides the
classifications to give films, computer games and certain
publications. It does not edit material or recommend modifications
to publishers or filmmakers.
 |
|
Banned! |
Very few products are refused classification these
days. Of 6097 commercial classification decisions made in the
2006-07 financial year, only 59 items were refused classification.
Australia's classification scheme is based on the principle that
adults should be free to choose what they read, hear and see with
some limited exceptions, such as child pornography, gratuitous or
exploitative depictions of sexual violence, cruelty or real violence
and detailed instructions in matters of crime or violence.
Classification today is complicated by the wide variation in
individual sensibilities in our tolerant society. It is further
complicated by technological globalisation and that standards vary
so significantly across international borders. The rapid and easy
exchange of information presents a challenge for government
regulation.
Standards can also change quickly in response to global events.
Restrictions on new kinds of material continue to follow on from
events such as the September 11 and Bali terrorist attacks. In the
past six days, amendments to the Classification Act regarding
terrorist material have been passed by federal parliament: if a
film, publication or computer game advocates a terrorist act, it
must be refused classification.
 |
|
Banned! |
There are also significant provisions that protect
the arts in these cases. Material is not to be refused
classification if it "depicts or describes a terrorist act, but the
depiction or description could reasonably be considered to be done
merely as part of public discussion or debate or as entertainment or
satire".
The nature of censorship is evolutionary. The
interesting challenge for the Government in formulating
classification policy and legislation and the board in determining
classifications is to reflect community sensibilities, which are
many and varied, and in a state of flux. Individuals' sensibilities
can differ, even conflict, which makes it difficult to determine
what standards are broadly representative.
For instance, do you ban material because the majority considers it
offensive, even if there is a significant minority that feels
differently? Do you act in response to an articulate and vocal
minority that may find certain material offensive even though it can
choose not to access it? The meeting point must allow individuals to
exercise choice, yet reflect community standards.
 |
|
Banned! |
In 1931, the Motion Picture Producers and
Distributors of America (the body responsible for rating films in
the US), included in its code for industry: "Scenes of passion
should not be introduced when not essential to the plot. In general,
passion should be so treated that these scenes do not stimulate the
lower and baser element." Only 76 years later, scenes of passion --
and then some -- are routinely and abundantly seen on our screens.
The same organisation, now known as the Motion Picture Association
of America, recently announced that smoking is to be considered in
the rating of films in the US. Films containing pervasive smoking or
glamourised depictions of it may attract higher ratings. Who would
have imagined such a stark reversal of attitudes? It is interesting
to note that smoking is still a legal activity, just as was passion
in 1931. The widespread debate prompted by the MPAA's new policy
shows how much censorship matters and the spectrum of views it
elicits.
In Australia, the commonwealth has played a
role in the censorship of material for most of the past century.
Under Customs legislation, before the film era, the scheme dealt
with imported books: publications could be seized for being
blasphemous, indecent or obscene. Restrictions on film provided for
censors to examine applications for registration of imported films,
which was refused if a film was blasphemous, indecent or obscene;
likely to be injurious to morality, or to encourage or incite crime;
likely to be offensive to the people of any friendly nation;
depicted any matter the exhibition of which was undesirable in the
public interest.
 |
|
Banned! |
Once imported, the circumstances in which the
material could be sold, exhibited or hired were determined by
separate state and territory legislation. The states were expected
to make sure unregistered films were not exhibited but were not able
to independently classify registered films.
Throughout the century, censorship continued to be a complex affair
conducted under disparate regulations with limited uniformity. At
one point, the chief censor noted that a film classification
decision involved the administration of up to 13 pieces of
legislation in various jurisdictions.
Eventually, recommendations from the Australian Law Reform
Commission led to the introduction of legislation in 1995 that
established the fully co-operative National Classification Scheme.
As a result of censorship reforms since the
1970s, community standards are an important component of the
classification scheme and guidelines are revised from time to time
with extensive community input.
 |
|
Banned! |
Today, the focus of classification is on films,
computer games and certain publications. The board does not usually
classify live theatre unless it contains video or film elements: the
Spanish production XXX, by La Fura Dels Baus, which toured Australia
in 2004, included film footage of such a graphic and sexual nature
the board classified it R18+.
But censorship of the performing arts, which traditionally came
under state obscenity laws, has almost entirely disappeared.
Hair, the controversial rock musical that opened at the Metro
Theatre in Sydney's Kings Cross on June 4, 1969, is considered a
turning point. It challenged many of the established social norms of
the era, with its nudity, bad language, drugs and depictions of
"free love". The chief secretary of NSW, Eric Willis, had the final
say over whether Sydney audiences would see the nude scene. His
reported view was that the nudity was completely unnecessary but
that its brevity made its inclusion harmless. Hair had extraordinary
reviews and was an enormous success.
In the visual arts, the question of obscenity (whether a work
offends contemporary community standards) has been a question for
the courts.
 |
|
Banned! |
The last blasphemy prosecution in an Australian
jurisdiction was initiated by George Pell, then Catholic Archbishop
of Melbourne, against Andres Serrano's photomontage Piss Christ, a
photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine. It failed in the
Victorian Supreme Court, apparently defeated by uncertainty
surrounding the Victorian blasphemy law and a view that the work was
unlikely to cause public unrest. (We don't have laws that cover bad
taste.) As it happened, the work was physically attacked in two
incidents during the exhibition's opening weekend and the director
of the National Gallery of Victoria closed the show to protect the
gallery and its staff.
Only last month, two controversial entries in the Blake Prize for
Religious Art in Sydney showed the Virgin Mary dressed in a burka
and a portrait of Jesus Christ that morphed into an image of Osama
bin Laden. Although some thought the portrayals offensive, no action
was taken. Indeed, Anglican Bishop of South Sydney Robert Forsyth
suggested that we "limit the language of outrage to things that are
really outrageous".
Australia is arguably an open and broad-minded place, and this is
reflected in a scheme that focuses on classification rather than
censorship. The nature of the classification scheme and the
principles it embodies recognise the importance of artistic and
creative expression and the legitimate interests of the artists: the
act provides for artistic merit to be taken into account. And it
enables potentially controversial, high impact but artistically
valuable material that may not otherwise be seen in Australia to be
shown under the Film Festivals Exemption scheme.
The small percentage of the board's decisions that attract
controversy shows it may be getting the balance between sense and
censorbility right.
