Censors and sensibility

In spite of these examples, there have been too many “exceptions” to the aforesaid “general” rule to make it anything other than a platform to excrete repellent hypocrisies and film snobbery. György Pálfi’s sublime Hungarian feature Taxidermia, Nagisa Oshima’s transcendent In the Realm of the Senses, and Catherine Breillat’s shock-film zenith (or nadir, depending on which film school you subscribe to) Anatomy of Hell have all been classified R18+, despite containing hardcore sex varying from a few frames to a few minutes.

The differences between these films and the likes of Caligula are budget and “artistic merit” - In the Realm of the Senses comes trumps when placed against the former, although both are essentially sleaze-history opuses. It all depends on what the Board considers “legitimate”. Showing prostitutes servicing their clients in explicit detail in an exploitation film is far less permissible than the same thing in an arthouse one. And, according to the Classifications Act, In the Realm of the Senses contains enough real sex and unrelated graphic violence to warrant a ban in this country.

This illustrates not a need to tighten existing laws, but the need to bring Australia’s censorship regulations - suggested by some independent international bodies to be “amongst the most restrictive in the Western world” - up to a democratic standard.

It would be prudent to note that reforming these guidelines should obviously exclude any material where illegal activity takes place: “snuff” (a term used in the loosest possible way given these films are only purported to exist), child pornography and bestiality must be unconditionally prosecuted by all governments. It’s only motion pictures like Caligula, Salò and Ken Park that are in contention, given Australia is one of the only democratic Western nations to prohibit such material, on the grounds of what is essentially the perceived immaturity of their adults.

What has been crucial in this argument is the gross subjectivity of “artistic merit”, community standards and moral objection. The Board should rectify their guidelines so that their policy remains far more impersonal than this.

The government certainly hasn’t been averse to prosecuting those who they perceive to have tumbled down the imposed moral high ground. In 1991, Australian Customs took Rod Williams to court for mail-ordering “prohibited imports”. Customs had previously opened Williams’ parcels, but allowed them to be sent through. The straw the broke the camel’s back was a VHS copy of Zombie Holocaust (which may now be bought through any DVD retailer uncut). Of the seven films that Williams was prosecuted for, three have since been made available on DVD, and the remaining four do not have a listing on the Board of Classification’s website. Spurred by his prosecution, Williams now runs “The Chopping List”, one of the most comprehensive online sources for censorship in Australia.

“Any work of art that deliberately resulted from the non-consensual harm, abuse, or death of another person should be banned. The creators should also be prosecuted according to the usual laws,” Williams stresses. “Otherwise, anything goes. What could be more simple?”

Nigel Rennard, of Siren Visual, agrees. Siren Visual, one of Australia’s premier horror, cult and arthouse film distributors, have found themselves at the wrong end of the Board of Classification’s stick many times. “The question must be ‘What is the use or role of a body like the Board of Classification in the time of the internet?’” Rennard says. “Pope Kevin Rudd will, as a Christian conservative, keep the system going for appearances, continue to discriminate against the film and DVD distribution companies [and] waffle around while modern technology bypasses [the Board].”

Further incensing Rennard is the Board’s policy of banning films. “The Board acts on the receipt of a single complaint against a release, even thought that release may already have sold thousands of copies,” he explains. The reverse does not take place, with the Board of Classification reluctant to repeal “RC” decisions without overwhelming public support.

A measure of politicisation must be accounted for here: by and large, both the ALP and Liberals have been loath to allowing relaxation of censorship standards. One of the most significant nods towards anti-censorship came before Wayne Goss’ misguided and ill-informed anti-Salò diatribe, when he dissolved the Queensland Board of Classification and ousted the reactionary Gail Malone. Why Salò proved such anathema to Goss is a mystery, but the Australian political system has generally fostered such sentiment, paving the way for figures such as Brian Harradine to grasp power.

Harradine was one of the most damaging political figures the Australian cinema-going public has ever had to contend with. An independent senator for 30 years until 2005, Harradine’s socially conservative, parochial politics played a crucial role in Senate power plays. Margaret Pomeranz concurs, and bemoans the fact that Steve Fielding of Family First has essentially succeeded Harradine as the Senate’s moral crusader: “With all the years of Harradine holding the balance of power in the Senate, and holding the country to ransom in terms of his moral values,” Pomeranz says, “now we’ve got another one”.

Pomeranz is a prominent figure in the anti-censorship movement, and she is a committee member of the independent Australian organisation “Watch on Censorship”. She explains further, “I firmly believe adults in this country want to be treated as adults, and any suggestion that someone will make decisions for them is repugnant.