Father Geek here with our regular weekly Downunder report... annnnd its regular weekly Censorship Report...

You catch a small fish and unhook him very carefully. You place him back in the water, so that someone else can have the pleasure of catching him.

AICN-DOWNUNDER

The censorship debate continues, and I wanted to leave no stone unturned (despite the number of stones I have, in all truth, left unturned). Early August, I sent a letter to the Hon. Philip Ruddock, the Federal Attorney-General, asking why he had stepped in on behalf of the Australian Family Association and asked the Office of Film and Literature Classification to reclassify films that had been released with at R18+ rating.

This is the letter I sent to Mr Ruddock:

"To the Attorney-General:

I write a weekly Australian/New Zealand column for the film website Ain't It Cool News. There's been a lot of discussion lately regarding films such as Ken Park, Irreversible and Anatomy of Hell, and I have some questions regarding the issue.

When was your office contacted by the Australian Family Association?

What were their complaints regarding the film?

Are you aware that no one from the AFA had viewed the films in question when they wrote their complaints?

Do you think that giving the AFA standing creates a dangerous precedent?

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you."

Last week, I received the following response:

I refer to your letter of 10 August 2004 addressed to the Attorney-General, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, regarding the films Ken Park, Irreversible and Anatomie De L'enfer (Anatomy of Hell). Given the circumstances of the pre-election period, I am responding to your letter on the Attorney-General's behalf.

I advise that the national classification scheme is a cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth, States and Territories. The Classification Board classifies films, computer games and certain publications.

The Classification Review Board is an independent review body established by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Act). The Review Board undertakes merits reviews of classification decisions of the Board, when a valid application for review has been received pursuant to the Act.

When making classification decisions in relation to films, the Boards apply criteria in the Act, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Film and Computer Games (Guidelines).

I gather that your questions relate to the applications for review of the films Irreversible and Anatomy of Hell by the Australian Family Association (AFA). Although you have mentioned the film Ken Park, the AFA had no involvement in either the Board or Review Board decision for this film.

Irreversible

I am advised that the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) first received correspondence from the AFA seeking a review of the Board's decision to classify the film Irreversible R18+ with the consumer advice 'Strong sexual violence, graphic violence, sexual activity' on 9 March 2004. The AFA did not submit the approved application form until 17 March 2004.

On 30 March 2004 the Review Board considered the AFA's application for review and determined it to be out of time in accordance with subsection 43(3)(a) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Review Board did not proceed to take into consideration the AFA's submissions in relation to the content of the film.

I am advised that Review Board was aware that the AFA's application was based on media reports than on viewing of the film.

On 30 June 2004 the Review Board met to consider the Attorney-General's application for review of Irreversible. The AFA, Accent Film Entertainment (the original applicant for classification of the film) and the Communications Law Centre were invited by the Convenor of the Review Board to participate in the review due to their previous involvement in the prior review of the film.

Anatomy of Hell

On 7 July 2004, the Review Board considered applications from the AFA and the Attorney-General to review the R18+ classification of Anatomy of Hell. I am advised that the AFA asserted they had viewed the film prior to the review.

As regards the AFA's application for review of Anatomy of Hell, the Review Board determined that the depiction of the scene including the naked child was a contentious aspect of the subject matter of Anatomy of Hell. Based on this scene and the objects of the AFA, the majority of the Review Board concluded that the AFA had standing as a "person aggrieved by the decision" in relation to this film. This decision does not set a precedent for other applications for review by the AFA or any other organisation or association, as each application must be assessed on its merits.

The above and additional information in relation to the Review Board's decisions for Irreversible and Anatomy of Hell are contained within the Review Board's reports of its decisions, which are available on the OFLC website at www.oflc.gov.au.

I hope the above information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Des Clark, Director, 8 September 2004

Though the letter answered a lot of questions, there was still one point that bothered me; the point that had made me write to the Attorney-General in the first place: why had Mr Ruddock had stepped in on behalf of the AFA? The AFA is, to put it mildly, a special interest group and my concern is that the Federal Attorney-General appears to be lending them his voice. Despite this, the OFLC appears to be sticking quite closely to its criteria regarding who qualifies as "person aggrieved". Whatever the precedent is, it should make for interesting stuff when the next controversial film receives its rating...

Whilst KEN PARK remains banned from Australian shores, IRREVERSIBLE and ANATOMY OF HELL survived the reclassification. In New Zealand, however, IRREVERSIBLE is being reviewed on October 21, after the High Court upheld two of the five complaints made by the Society For the Protection of Community Standards. Though IRREVERSIBLE finished its NZ theatrical run, the DVD is waiting to be released.

NEWS

* Since its recent completion, the Melbourne Docklands film studios has failed to attract much interest. In part, because foreign productions haven't found their way to Australian shores the way they were a few years ago. Also, because most local films can't afford to shoot in the horrendously-overcharging $40million studios. But things may be picking up. Marvel adaptation GHOST RIDER will begin its five month shoot this coming January 2005, with Nicolas Cage still presumed to be starring.

* LIKE MINDS, written and directed by Gregory Read (1996 documentary SPIRITS OF THE CARNIVAL), will begin shooting with Toni Collette in the lead. Collette plays a forensic psychologist investigating a sixteen year old boy accused of murder.

* CANDY, directed by Neil Armfield (THE FISHERMAN'S WAKE), has been approved for funding by the Film Finance Corporation. The film will star Heath Ledger, Geoffrey Rush, and Abbie Cornish. Not a lot of plot details at the moment, but despite media reports the film is *not* based on the Terry Southern novel.

* Donald Crombie, president of the Australian Screen Directors' Association, has praised the Labor party's promised $175million boost for the film and television industry, if it wins office in the October Federal election. The money will be divided between film production, television production and the ABC.

* Michael Moore has a lot to answer for. Michael Moore has a lot to take credit for. Pick the sentence you like and go for it, because fifteen short films are coming to a theatre or house near you on September 29. A group of local filmmakers have made IT'S TIME TO GO JOHN, a group of films about Australia under the Liberal Government. For more information on the films designed to remove John Howard from office, go to www.timetogojohn.com

AWARDS AND FESTIVALS

ADELAIDE FILM FESTIVAL

AFF has announced the nine projects that will receive funding through its Investment Fund, which gives an annual total of $500 000 to films that will premiere at the festival. These include: LOOK BOTH WAYS by Sarah Watt; GOON BUT NOT FORGOTTEN - THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF SPIKE MILLIGAN, by Cathy Henkel; SOUNDING THE FUTURE - THE MUSIC OF TRISTRAM CARY; as well as three short films and a multi-platform project.

UNITED NATIONS MEDIA PEACE PRIZE

Australian short film THE BALL has been nominated for a peace prize. The comedy, written and directed by Anny Slater, stars comedians Gabby Millgate as a refugee and Max Gillies as Prime Minister John Howard, and sends up Jane Campion's THE PIANO. The winners will be announced next month.

AWGIE AWARDS

The Annual Australian Writers' Guild nominations have been announced, with surprising results. Nominees include Khoa Do for FINISHED PEOPLE, Sue Smith for PEACHES, and Cate Shortland for SOMERSAULT. Short film nominees included Louise Fox for A NATURAL TALENT, Simmone Howell for PITY 24, Michael Noonan for FRAGILE and Kristin Pithie for ORANGES.

BOX OFFICE

Despite the names Spielberg, Hanks, Zeta-Jones and Shabaka Henley, TERMINAL debuted at fifth spot, under, well, four others. VILLAGE held on to third, but will probably drop off severely this week, especially given the severe amount of new releases.

Annnd the winners are...

• 1. DODGEBALL
• 2. THE BOURNE SUPREMECY
• 3. THE VILLAGE
• 4. SUDDENLY 30
• 5. THE TERMINAL

RELEASED THESE PAST TWO WEEKS

Japanese martial arts go medieval on your arse, Halle Berry proves wrong critics who said she couldn't get much lower than Jinx, Merchant Ivory continue a fine tradition of costume dramas, Bill Murray makes me cry, Disney find another excuse to signal the end of hand-drawn animation, Lat forgets what this film is about and can't be bothered looking it up, members of Metallica have funny facial hair, God I feel like pizza, maybe not pizza but something bready, although I ate junk for lunch so I should probably go healthy, maybe I'll just see what I've got in the pantry, and some fucked-up Anime merchandising shit piece of- when did I buy linguini?

Soooo what's new in theaters Downunder?

• AZUMI
• CATWOMAN
• DODGEBALL: A TRUE UNDERDOG STORY
• GARFIELD
• HOME ON THE RANGE
• LOVE ME IF YOU DARE
• METALLICA: SOME KIND OF MONSTER
• THE PRINCESS DIARIES 2: ROYAL ENGAGEMENT
• THE TERMINAL
• THUNDERBIRDS
• WATERMARK
• YU GI OH

REVIEWS

THE TERMINAL

'It's Spielberg,' I'd say with a shrug, 'he may be schmaltzy, but he does schmaltz well.' So said I when quizzed about my pre-viewing opinions on THE TERMINAL. I really liked the trailer, felt it hit just the right notes.

At first I was enjoying it, enjoying being reminded of what Spielberg's style is, specifically. I mean, you always know when you're in a Soderbergh film, be it FULL FRONTAL or OCEAN'S 11. You know when you're in a Fincher film, you know when you're watching Tarantino. Rather than being annoyingly repetitive, it helps to ground you in the world. It gives character. Spielberg's style is not visual or aural; it lies in his ability to tell a story. Nobody else is as efficient or masterful storyteller as The Beard. It's why his name is an adjective.

Tom Hanks is on fire this year. Two performances (this and LADYKILLERS) that could so easily have slipped into self-parody - and, for many, did - were good enough to carry the films they were in. LADYKILLERS survived. TERMINAL didn't.

He's dead-on for most of the film, managing to be loveable without getting too syrupy. It's a talent he has in all of his films, and constantly pulls those films back from the brink of diabetes (FORREST GUMP notwithstanding). Unfortunately, the script turns Victor into the noble savage, the Balki, the curious but simple foreigner whose dream is to make it to America. Fair enough, he doesn't want to come to America to live, but in painting America as the Land of Opportunity that Dreams Are Made Of, the film manages to do what the rest of the world is sick of: seeing ourselves as second-class citizens. Yes, there's trouble in the real Eastern Europe, and the events themselves are not completely unbelievable (especially given it's very loosely based on a true story), but the world is again divided into America and Non-America. And that's really only a problem for us "foreigners". But with Victor as the All Purpose Non-American, we're treated to this bloke who is too good to be true. Such unimpeachable moral values. No depth.

And that's a pity, because Hanks is the only one in the film who knows what the film is. Most of his stuff is hilarious, and when he's in pain, you really feel it. Hanks is far and away the best thing about this film.

Catherine Zeta-Douglas has J-Lo Syndrome. Her best work was in a Soderbergh film, and now she's treading water. She's trying to be a movie star, and that's exactly what her performance feels like. Casting Kumar Pallana, whose performance is funny but not particularly good, seems like an attempt to win over Generation Cynical who loved THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS. Stanley Tucci is good when he's acting, bad when he's forced to be a cartoon character.

But the biggest problem with this flick is the Spielberg Sentimentality. It gets so annoyingly sugary by the third act, it's really hard to take. It's a real shame, because this film had a shot at greatness. It had a high-concept setup, an entertaining and endearing (though stereotypical) lead character, and just enough real-world precedent to make it believable. Unfortunately, it suffers from so much saccharine overdose, by the end you'll feel like sticking a walkie-talkie in your mouth.

NEXT WEEK

- Ang Lee begins pre-production on anticipated prequel CHEW SIP BOY GIRL

- SAG fines Matt Damon for not cameoing in latest Ben Affleck film

- Due to conflicts with another adaptation of the popular H.G. Wells novel, Spielberg makes some minor changes to his project; Tom Cruise will now portray the popular Australian cricketer in WAUGH OF THE WORLDS

Peace out,

Latauro

AICNDownunder@hotmail.com