Porn. in Australia

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33814, 10 April 1975, Page 2

Porn. in Australia

CN Z. Press Association)

ROTORUA, April 9. Many films shown in Australia would not pass the censors in New Zealand, but some of the film posters on view in New Zealand would not be allowed in Australia, the Chief Film Censor in Australia (Mr R. Prowse) told the annual conference of motion picture exhibitors in Rotorua.

“Whether the passing of such films makes Australians more sophisticated or more degenerate than New Zealanders, I do not know,” said Mr Prowse. “The .classical four-letter word is accepted under certain circumstances in films shown in Australia. But bad language is objected to when it is descriptive of certain acts, especially sexual acts. “In Australia censorship is relaxing, and we are trying to get away from censorship and to turn into a classification body solely. “We cannot absolutely judge public opinion, and in

fact public opinion at any given time can alter. But the matter of accepting or rejecting films is left more in the hands of the Australian public today, than in the hands of the censor. “As censors we classify films, giving them similar grading to here, but occasionally we return a film to distributors without a classification. “Such films would be those in the ‘Deep Throat’ category.

“If an exhibitor then shows an unclassified film he could quite easily face charges brought by "members of the public. “The case would be prosecuted in the courts, and if a ruling were given against the exhibitor he would be in real trouble.

“In this way the public become the censors.

“In Sydney, at King’s Cross, for instance, there are three theatres which frankly show only pornographic films. “The theatres would probably be closed if they were moved elsewhere in Australia. “What is acceptable in King’s Cross would certainly not be acceptable in Queensland by the farmer taking his

family to the movies for a night out. “But in King’s Cross plurality of opinion rules in favour of the pornographic film.”

Mr Prowse was asked by a member at the conference if, as censor, he could define pornography. No satisfactory definition had been given to the word in New Zealand, the questioner said. “We do have a working definition of pornography,” replied Mr Prowse. “It is sexual activity depicted in gross detail in a picture without serving any social purpose — grossly explicit sexual activity, in fact.

“If pornography is depicted in a film, however, and it has a socially accepted purpose, such as an instructional feature on V.D., we will pass it, even if it is pornographic, provided it fits into the film correctly.”

Mr Prowse told the conference that he did not think pornography in films was having a detrimental effect on the Australian public.

“There is no real way to measure such effect. But rapes and so forth occurred long before pornographic films were shown,” said Mr Prowse.