The guidelines in respect to an X rating, however, are very strict in respect to what other material the film may contain. The X rating is a special and legally restricted category which may contain sexually explicit material (usually for pornographic films). As the Board took the view that the sexual activity in Ken Park was ‘actual sex’, and not realistically simulated, it exceeded the R rating. The guidelines state that for a film to receive an R rating, sexual activity may be ‘realistically simulated’. Why could Ken Park not have received an R rating? The film’s artistic integrity was not, it seems, disputed. In making its decision the Board took into account the above scenes together with the stated guidelines, including the fact that the MRAApplication was for ‘sale and hire’ not film festival exhibition. Promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence.
KEN PARK MOVIE SCENE CODE
The Code states that a film may be refused classification if it,ĭescribes or depicts sex, drug misuse, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that it offends the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults ĭescribes or depicts a minor who is, or appears to be under 16 in a way likely to offend a reasonable adult or In addition to these, the Board is also required to apply certain guidelines, which are set out in the Classification Code(the Code). When considering an application such as MRA’s, the Commonwealth Act states that the Board is required to take into account, amongst other things, (1) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults and (2) the literary, artistic or educational merit of the film. In the Board’s opinion, these scenes are graphic, depict the characters as minors, involve sexualised violence as well as one scene of implicit sexual abuse and, in some instances, were ‘unnecessarily long in duration’. In its reasons for the decision, the Board cited a number of scenes which it says warranted the decision.
The Classification Board considered MRA’s application and on 21 May refused Ken Park classification. Unbeknown to the Sydney Film Festival, however, Ken Park’s Australian distributor at the time, MRA Entertainment, had already lodged an application to the Board for classification of Ken Park for video sale or hire.
On, the Sydney Film Festival, lodged an application for festival exemption for Ken Park along with around 200 other films which the organisers intended to screen at the 2003 Festival. In doing so, however, the Director must ‘give effect’ to certain guidelines. The Director of the Classification Board, under a NSW state act may exempt a film festival from the requirement that a film be classified. An avenue of appeal is provided by the Classification Review Board (the Review Board). The Classification Board (the Board) determines initial applications for classification. Classification is obtained through application to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (the OFLC). In Australia, under the Commonwealth classification act (the Commonwealth Act) films and videotapes, whether they are made locally or come from overseas, have to be classified before they can be sold, hired or shown publicly. The Office of Film and Literature Classification But what about artistic works which are not intended as pornographic, yet contains some similar ‘high impact’ elements? As the following explains, this is the difficult category into which Ken Park fell. The resulting risk of detriment is obvious when you consider, say, child pornography. Classification laws reflect the view that films depicting, say, sexualised violence or child abuse, when seen by an individual can ‘normalise’ these types of behaviours in that individual (particularly where the individual has a predisposition such behaviours). Like, for example, anti-racist legislation (which is also a restriction on freedom of expression) it aims to reduce the risk of detriment to a society. Although the psychology and broader social issues are complex, it is important to consider some of the reasons why we have it. This article attempts to clarify some of the facts (and some of the myths) surrounding the ‘banning’ of Ken Park in Australia.įreedom of Expression vs Protecting Societyįilm classification is undoubtedly a restriction on freedom of expression. In Australia, it seems, he just wasn’t permitted to say it. He is a seriously regarded filmmaker and few doubt that he has something to say.
Ken Park’s co-director, Larry Clark, is widely known for his earlier films Kids and Bully which created impact with their confronting treatment of violence and sex amongst American teenagers.
0 kommentar(er)
