Father Geek here... ahhhhhhhhhh, the "Censor Saga" continues... Why? Because he exists! Annnnd by reading these reports from Downunder maybe... just maybe you'll be able to recognise his despicable wormy face for who he really is whenever he pokes it out of the closet in your neck of the woods... (remember he's a crafty multi-faced little fox who operates behind a misleading vail of decency and innocence, but who, no matter what he says, really just wants the hen-house all to himself)... and then maybe... just maybe you'll know your options, and what you can do to stop him dead before he gets a firm foothold on your community's decision-makers. Remember, no matter where you live, information is power... and power belongs to the people...

Now, here's Latauro...

If I still had legs, I’d kick your ass!

AICN-DOWNUNDER

When I first encountered this can of worms and started beating it with an old stick lying nearby, I wasn’t really sure it was going. Sure, I talked big about emailing the Australian Family Association about their role in the censorship of films in Australia, persisting with the letters until they responded, but in truth I never actually thought they would.

Well, they have.

For those of you who have just tuned in, the Australian Family Association has been lobbying the Federal Attorney-General and the Office of Film and Literature Classification to repeal the ratings given to films such as ANATOMY OF HELL, IRREVERSIBLE and KEN PARK. Though successful with KEN PARK, the other two films were eventually released. Cinephiles balked at the Attorney-General’s insistence that the Classification Board give the time of day to this special interest group. That’s when I started nosing around.

Richard Egan is the representative of the AFA in Queensland. It would be very convenient for my case if he’d been a Bible-bashing right wing nut job who couldn’t string a sentence together... but he isn’t. His argument is intelligent, and I suggest you think about his points carefully, as I did.

Here are his (unedited) responses to my questions:

LATAURO: Why has the AFA objected to these films?

RICHARD EGAN: Because in our view they violate the classifciation guidelines.

LATAURO: What is the AFA's mission statement and how do these films relate to that?

RICHARD EGAN: See attached submission on our status as a "person aggrieved". (Latauro note: attached at end of editorial)

LATAURO: According to George Papadopoulos, the General Manager of Accent Film Entertainment, the AFA's submission to the Classification Board regarding ANATOMY OF HELL was made prior to any screening of the film. How did the AFA's representatives view the film?

RICHARD EGAN: Our application for review was necessarily made before the furst public screening of the film due to the 30 day limit for appeals. It was based initially on the OFLC's Classification Board's deatiled description of the film which we took to be prima facie reliable. As soon as the film was screened publicly our representative saw the film to verify this and to check for any additional material relevant to our application. It would be farcical if the industry claims that we are not entitled to appeal before seeing a film but then ensures that a film is never shown publicly less than 30 days before its classification precisely to avoid the possibility of an appeal. This appraoch was taken by Accent Films in regard to Irreversible.

LATAURO: What does the AFA consider to be the inherent danger in these films?

RICHARD EGAN: Our approach has been based more on the need to have a set of classification guidelines which are clear and are followed. In each of these appeals it was our firm view that the guidelines were violated. It is a myth that the argument is between those who wish to ban films and those who don't - everyone beleives in a line it is more where to draw it, e.g. snuff movies in wich people are kiled just for the movie? real child porn?. We don't believe there is a place for actual sex or for extreme violence in R18+ movies which are ultimaely widely available in the community through DVD release. The nationally agreed guidelines state this but have not been followed.

LATAURO: The following is a quote from the AFA's submission regarding IRREVERSIBLE: "In our view the anal rape scene is a gratuitous (Macquarie: being without reason, cause, or justification) depiction of sexual violence. The prolonged, realistic, detailed, depiction is not justified by the context or the story line. Anal rape - as rape of any kind - is an outrage. The viewer does not need to see it in "real time" and with a significant "amount of verbal and visual detail" for the film to convey this outrage." Given that IRREVERSIBLE is a film about how horrific rape and subsequent violent revenge are, why does the AFA consider that the scene is "gratuitous"?

RICHARD EGAN: As stated above "the prolonged, realistic, detailed" depiction was gratuitous, that is not required by the story line. A far less prolonged, realistic, detailed depcition would have sufficed to convey the horror of an anal rape of a young woman.

LATAURO: Does the AFA take into account whether the scenes are shown purely for titilation, or to make a point?

RICHARD EGAN: A basic principle of semiotics is that the author does not control the message. We think the classification boards are acting as amateur film critcis rather than objectively applying classification standards. The guidelines deal with whta is depicted and how not with why. This is as it should be.

LATAURO: The film FAHRENHEIT 9/11 contained footage of dead bodies and a man being executed. Did the AFA object to the classification given to this film? If not, why does the AFA consider that "unsimulated sex" is more dangerous than "unsimulated violence" ?

RICHARD EGAN: Appeals must be based on violation of the guidelines. There is no specific guideline dealing with "unsimulated violence" so the appeal would need to argue that the impact was "too high" rather than "very high". One of the problems with the 2003 Guidelines is this overreliance on a subjective slding scale of impact.

LATAURO: Given that the original classifications for films such as IRREVERSIBLE, ANATOMY OF HELL and BAISE MOI are R18+ (restricting the films from being viewed by minors), why does the AFA consider adults unfit to view narrative films containing moments of simulated or unsimulated sex?

RICHARD EGAN: The national classifciation code and guidelines up until March 2003 clearly allocated films containing actual sex scenes to the X rated classification. X rated films are not available for sale in any State and it is a crime to show them to children. R18+ filsm are sold or available for hire in every corner video store and it is not a crimeto show them to children in a private place. We were told (falsely it seems) by Des Clark and former Attorney General Daryl Williams that the March 2003 Guidelines although worded differently did not chane the standards. We hope the current Operational Review will honestly report this change and that the staus quo ante will be restored.

There you have it. Those questions were answered over the course of two emails; in the second one Mr Egan said that he was “busy with other matters” and would be unable to answer further questions. I mention it because I was hoping to delve into this matter further with him (there were more than a few answers above I wasn’t entirely satisfied with), but this seems to be the last response we’ll get from the AFA.

Two weeks ago I contacted the office of Phillip Ruddock, the Australian Attorney-General, and passed a few questions on to him regarding the matter. I was told he would be responding soon, but I’m yet to hear from him. Hopefully by next week I’ll have some answers for you from the A-G’s side of things.

The following is the AFA’s claim as an “aggrieved person”, specifically in relation to their submission regarding the classification of ANATOMY OF HELL:

ANATOMIE DE L’ENFER (ANATOMY OF HELL) T04/1113

The Australian Family Association is a body meeting the requirements of Section 42 (3) (b) of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 for “persons aggrieved by the decision” [being the decision of the Classification Board to classify the film Anatomie de l’enfer (Anatomy of Hell) as R 18+].

The requirements of Section 42 (3) (b) are that to be “persons aggrieved by the decision”:

“an organisation or association, whether incorporated or not, whose objects or purposes include, and whose activities relate to, the contentious aspects of that theme or subject matter.”

The Minister in his second reading speech for the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No.2) 1999 in which this section was introduced to the Act, stated “…the Bill provides that ‘a person aggrieved’ includes, with certain safeguards, [i.e. Section 42A dealing with frivolous, vexatious or non-good faith applications] organisations or persons with a particular interest and involvement in the contentious aspects of the subject matter or theme of the particular publication, film or computer games. The government believes that this amendment will, in relation to decisions where there is some community concern, introduce a greater degree of flexibility into the review process.”

The Explanatory Memorandum states (at paragraphs 72-74) in part: “… it is clear that ‘a person aggrieved’ must at least be a person with an interest in the decision concerned which is greater than an ordinary member of the public”. [The Association because of its objectives as cited below has such a greater interest than an ordinary member of the public.]

“The purpose of the proposed amendment is to expand the range of persons and organisations covered by the term ‘a person aggrieved’ ”. [This argues for an expansive rather than constrictive reading of Section 42]

“The proposed provision will allow organisations or persons with a particular prior interest and involvement in the contentious aspects of the subject matter or theme of the material concerned to seek a review. In relation to an organisation, prior involvement would need to be reflected in its objects and activities.” [The relevant objects and activities are detailed below. The Association’s submission to the Classification Review Board on the film Baise Moi and on the film Irreversible explicitly demonstrates a prior interest in the contentious aspects of sexual violence and actual sex in films classified R18 +].

“The contentious aspects of the theme or subject matter of the film concerned”

In our submission the “contentious aspects” are:

- exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or who looks like a child under 16 years

- gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent

- the depiction of actual sex

- nudity involving obvious genital contact

- the depiction of sexual violence

- the acceptance by the majority of the Board of these elements as acceptable in the R 18+ classification.

Objects and activities of the Australian Family Association related to these contentious aspects

The Australian Family Association is an unincorporated body that has been active in Australia since its formation in 1980. It has branches in each State and Territory.

Among the objectives of the Association are the following:

(a) to cultivate within society an appreciation that the integrity and well-being of the family is essential to the stability, morale, security and prosperity of the Australian nation;

(b) to analyse laws and policies for their effect on the family and to formulate and promote corrective measures as necessary to uphold an protect the rights and responsibilities of families.

In the view of the Association the media and entertainment industry is a significant influence on Australian society and therefore on the family. The Association has monitored and analysed developments in the media and entertainment industry, including developments in the classification of films. The Association has had input into reviews of the classification guidelines and the legislation supporting the guidelines.

Indicative examples of the Association’s activities in this area are:

1) Regular articles in the Association’s journal, The Australian Family, on pornography, violence, censorship and the media;

e.g. Vol 23, no.3 (Nov 2002) included the following articles “Toxic television” Suzanne Chamberlin; “Violent video games” David Grossman; “Targetting our children” Bill Muehlenberg.

2) Regular features in the Association’s Newsletter, Family Update, on pornography, violence, censorship and the media;

e.g. Vol. 19, No. 6 (Nov-Dec 2003): “Porn in sixty seconds” Paul Gray

Vol. 19, No. 5 (Sept-Oct 2003): “Who says it’s immature to ban a graphic film?” Rowan Forster [on the banning of Ken Park]

Vol. 19, no.3 (May-June 2003): “The real culprits in the Internet pornography scandal” Michael Cook

Vol. 19, no.2 (March-April 2003) “New classification Guidelines more permissive” Richard Egan

3) Research papers prepared and regularly updated by our Research Officer, Bill Muehlenberg, e.g. “Pornography: Is it a Victimless Crime?”

4) Regular media releases, letters to the press, letters to politicians, etc. on censorship matters, including the classification of films;

5) Submissions to inquiries and reviews on classification and related matters, e.g.

- The Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee inquiry into the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No.2) 1999

- The Committee of Ministers on the Portrayal of Violence in the Media

- Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes: Draft revisions (1995)

Note: Professor Peter Sheehan in his analysis of submissions on the Guidelines for the OFLC described the Association’s submission as follows: “This is the best informed submission in the list and makes many different and important points that should be considered in some detail. Multiple, cogent points and suggestions are made for improvement and have been highlighted.”

- Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes: Comments on the “Revised Draft Guidelines” for Federal, State and Territory censorship ministers.

- Submission to the Classification Review Board to assist in the review of the decision to classify the film Baise Moi as R 18+.

- Application and supporting submission to the Classification Review Board for a review of the decision to classify the film Irreversible as R18+.

- Submission, in response to an invitation from the Classification Review Board, to the review applied for by the Attorney General of the decision to classify the film Irreversible as R18+.

Finding by the Classification Review Board

On page 7 of the Classification Review Board’s Decision and Reasons for Decision on our application for a review of the decision of the Classification Board to classify the film Irreversible R18+, the Board makes a conclusion based on its finding of fact that the Australian Family Association is a body “interested in film classification”.

NEWS?

Little quiet this week. You guys heard the James Bond news, right? Good.

AWARDS AND FESTIVALS

TORONTO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL

Australian film THE OYSTER FARMER will premiere at the festival, where it has been selected to screen.

BOX OFFICE

JERSEY GIRL failed to make much of a dent, coming in sixth in its first week of release.

Annnnd the winners are...

• 1. MAN ON FIRE
• 2. WALKING TALL
• 3. WHITE CHICKS
• 4. I, ROBOT
• 5. FAHRENHEIT 9/11

RELEASED THIS WEEK

The two transitional phases of the sun means there won’t be a third outing for Jesse and Celine, Professor Quirrell and Dr Thomas Wayne escape Lebanon, Jarmusch gives me another reason to quite my jobs so I can spend all my time catching up on films, director Scott Patterson adds to the “Australians can’t make funny films!” argument, Ron Pearlman strips of the Beast makeup to show us his true self, one of the Wayans brothers finally performs in a funny film, a bunch of Russians go for a walk, and Colin Friels goes crazy.

Sooooo here's what's new!

• BEFORE SUNSET
• BLIND FIGHT
• COFFEE AND CIGARETTES
• THE CROP
• HELLBOY
• THE LADYKILLERS
• THE STROLL
• TOM WHITE

REVIEWS

THE UNFINISHED SPELLING ERRORS OF BOLKIEN

About eight months ago, right on the cusp of 2004, I drove up north to the Woodford Music Festival in Queensland. It was more of an excuse for a holiday and a chance to catch up with friends; I was interested in the festival but not dying to see it. It turned out to be one of the best experiences I’d ever had, with the most wide-ranging examples of music I’d ever seen. It’s difficult to explain if you haven’t been, but I can’t recommend it more. I noticed there were a couple of Tolkien-related items: “The Lost Shopping Lists of Tolkien” and “The Unfinished Spelling Errors of Bolkien”. The description said it was a humourous look at the books and films of “Lord of the Rings”. I remember thinking I wouldn’t be too cut up if I missed it.

I’m so glad I went. Martin Pearson’s take on FELLOWSHIP turned out to be the highlight of the festival, and I wasn’t the only one who thought so. I turned up an hour early for the TWO TOWERS one a few days later and it was packed. Nearly impossible to get a seat. Standing room was filled.

When I found out that he’d written one for RETURN OF THE KING and put them together in one big CD set, I had to have it.

So what is it?

It’s hard to describe. It’s basically this fellow Martin Pearson retelling the story of LORD OF THE RINGS in his own manner. With songs.

When I describe it like that it sounds incredibly lame, but it’s really one of the funniest things I’ve heard all year. Pearson manages to casually mention differences between the books, the films, and even the extended editions, but does so without laboring points or getting tedious. In fact, the points at which the film’s liberties are highlighted are generally the funniest parts.

The best parts, though, are the songs. There are roughly three per film, and they’re all very funny. Whilst “The Loo Break Song” (the final ROTK wrap-up) and the Nazgul-themed “Ghost Riders In The Sky” are excellent, the clear highlight is “The Balrog Song” at the top of the Two Towers disc. Not just very funny, but very catchy; I’ve been humming it consistently for the past few weeks.

So why am I reviewing it here? Because as someone who grew up reading Tolkien and has since become quite obsessed with the film trilogy, this is pure gold. Though this is an independent release, don’t worry about it being a backyard operation. While I would have been satisfied with a couple of burned CDs with a hand-written label, I was quite impressed with the packaging (a high-gloss 2-CD set). If you want to get your hands on it, email Martin Pearson directly at martinpearson@iinet.net.au.

HELLBOY

It’s sometimes enough to watch other people get excited. Listening to a HELLBOY producer state, back in development hell, that Ron Pearlman would be perfect for the role only no one’s ever going to give them money to make the film with him as the lead... then watch as they got their man and the budget... well, it felt like everything was being done right. I’ve never read the comics, but when a filmmaker with a passion for the material gets what he wants, it’s heartening. Similarly, I’m hyped for SIN CITY and WATCHMEN, despite never having read the books.

Listening to everyone on the web talk up HELLBOY was equally heartening, even if the trailers did nothing for me. There was nothing wrong with them per se, it just looked like it was more of the same old same old. Clearly, the marketers didn’t have any idea how to sell the film.

I enjoyed this way more than I was expecting to. The action’s really good, but the film’s also really funny. And it’s character humour, it’s earned. It’s not like the film comes to a grinding halt so we can have The Funny Scene; it’s all natural. Pearlman IS the perfect choice for the title character, not only filling out the makeup nicely (more on that in a mo’), but striking the perfect balance between Hellboy as Big Tough Hero and Truant Surly Teen.

Okay, I’m going to have to go on about the makeup here. I’m not usually one blown away by such things, similar to my reaction to most special effects extravaganzas (DAY AFTER TOMORROW had me snoring in so many ways, spectacle schmectacle), but from pre-production photos the makeup had me impressed. I was eagre to see it in action, see some movement from Hellboy so I could admire the work. Well, I saw none of it. Even when consciously looking for it, I never felt like I was looking at a makeup job. It was so seamless, I truly believed Hellboy was real. For someone who has worked on films, who – from an early age – knew the secrets of stage makeup thanks to his father and uncle’s theatre work, given that I was completely aware of the artifice, to be sucked in and made to believe completely that this guy existed... well, “impressive” is an understatement. “The best makeup/costume I’ve ever seen in a film” is a little closer.

My only complaint is how rushed it feels. You get the sense that a lot of continuity was crammed into the film in case a sequel never gets made. Again, I don’t know comic continuity, but killing off John Hurt’s mentor character so soon before we’d really got a chance to know him jarred a little. Especially given how fascinating his relationship with Hellboy was. That’s what I wanted to see more of. We get a lot of father-son relationships, particularly in super hero and comic book adaptations, but this one is different. This isn’t the noble mantle-passing aspect of it we usually see, but a more honest version. Hellboy’s grounded because he left the compound and now they’re not talking? How can you not love that? It’s depicted quite sweetly, and I hope that the sequel ends up being a prequel just so we can get more of it.

Bottom line: if you’re on the fence about it, go see it. I went with a “Hellboy” nut and he seemed mighty pleased at the end (although he did want more Abe Sapien). Mexican directors are kicking serious arse this year.

NEXT WEEK

- Jeffrey Tambor to play Dr Phil in the feature film adaptation of his daytime chat show

- Sam Raimi and Jim Jarmusch discuss a potential franchise in the making with upcoming sequel COFFEE AND CIGARETTES VS ASH

- After a reclassification war, Australia finally gets a release of Del Toro’s HECKBOY

Peace out,

Latauro

AICNDownunder@hotmail.com