Film Classifications - How Restricted is Your Choice?
November 17th 2008 19:03
How often do you replace DVD rentals on the shelf due to their rating? Is it because that rating is too high, or too low? Have you bypassed a film, heedless of all else, because the spine of the cover indicates it contains an explicit scene? What if you picked up a PG rated adaptation of Lady Chatterley’s Lover? Would you put it back, assuming the content had been compromised? Likewise a film that has been re-edited and re-released in order to downgrade from R 18 to the more accessible MA 15 ?
I understand people with young’uns having to be a mite careful about lounge room screenings, but how good a guide are film classifications really? It has long been argued that the violence of action movies is often looked upon more leniently than material of a sexual nature. Does this mean hate rates better than love? If you were watching a film with your child, would you be more uncomfortable watching a couple lying in bed, without any visible nudity, talking, laughing and passionately kissing, or Bruce Willis beating his nemesis to a pulp?
If you would not let your child watch either, then think about this – Patricia Rozema’s period adaptation of the Jane Austen classic Mansfield Park is rated M, the same rating as Richard Donner’s Die Hard-esque film, 16 Blocks. Similar inconsistencies can be found in all film rating bands, as well as those of video games – of which children are the targeted demographic.
But beyond the idea of what is suitable viewing for children, how often do ratings influence the choices we make for ourselves? And how often is the choice made for us? In Australia, we are fairly lucky in that the banning of films is not so widespread – or so personal, at least in recent years – as some other countries. For instance, banned films in Vatican City: The Magdalene Sisters and The Da Vinci Code; in Zimbabwe: The Interpreter; in the US: The Profit (based on the life of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard); in Malaysia and Iran: The 40 Year Old Virgin, Zoolander and Brokeback Mountain. Reasons for bans in many countries include unflattering depictions of the nation, including fictional anti-heroes portrayed as hailing from said nation, incitement of gay rights, propaganda of superstition in the form of Christianity, communist ideas, sacrilegious content, or personal dictate by the country’s leader.
In Australia, films banned since the 90s have been mostly because of sexual content, though some have had a temporary ban for other reasons – Wolf Creek was banned for several months due to the Bradley John Murdoch trial, and The Frighteners was banned for a time following the Port Arthur Massacre. These two I understand, but how much power should the OFLC have in deciding what is made available to Australians? If they can make it illegal for minors to see a particular film, then isn’t it enough to inform adults and let them make a decision? Until the 1950s, such films as Dracula, King Kong, The Story of the Kelly Gang, and All Quiet on the Western Front had all spent time under ban – judgements were made with the assumption that they were in the best interests of society. In more recent years, the list has included a whole swag of Queer films, and some featuring un-simulated sex scenes, such as Baise-moi.
What do you think of the OFLC rulings? How much do ratings influence what you watch? It seems to me that these restrictions have some real limitations of their own.
Michaelie Clark
If you would not let your child watch either, then think about this – Patricia Rozema’s period adaptation of the Jane Austen classic Mansfield Park is rated M, the same rating as Richard Donner’s Die Hard-esque film, 16 Blocks. Similar inconsistencies can be found in all film rating bands, as well as those of video games – of which children are the targeted demographic.
But beyond the idea of what is suitable viewing for children, how often do ratings influence the choices we make for ourselves? And how often is the choice made for us? In Australia, we are fairly lucky in that the banning of films is not so widespread – or so personal, at least in recent years – as some other countries. For instance, banned films in Vatican City: The Magdalene Sisters and The Da Vinci Code; in Zimbabwe: The Interpreter; in the US: The Profit (based on the life of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard); in Malaysia and Iran: The 40 Year Old Virgin, Zoolander and Brokeback Mountain. Reasons for bans in many countries include unflattering depictions of the nation, including fictional anti-heroes portrayed as hailing from said nation, incitement of gay rights, propaganda of superstition in the form of Christianity, communist ideas, sacrilegious content, or personal dictate by the country’s leader.
In Australia, films banned since the 90s have been mostly because of sexual content, though some have had a temporary ban for other reasons – Wolf Creek was banned for several months due to the Bradley John Murdoch trial, and The Frighteners was banned for a time following the Port Arthur Massacre. These two I understand, but how much power should the OFLC have in deciding what is made available to Australians? If they can make it illegal for minors to see a particular film, then isn’t it enough to inform adults and let them make a decision? Until the 1950s, such films as Dracula, King Kong, The Story of the Kelly Gang, and All Quiet on the Western Front had all spent time under ban – judgements were made with the assumption that they were in the best interests of society. In more recent years, the list has included a whole swag of Queer films, and some featuring un-simulated sex scenes, such as Baise-moi.
What do you think of the OFLC rulings? How much do ratings influence what you watch? It seems to me that these restrictions have some real limitations of their own.
Michaelie Clark
| 143 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Comments (17)
Add Comments
Read More
