Complaint to P.M. about 'Last Tango’

Press, 23 August 1977, Page 3

Complaint to P.M. about 'Last Tango’

PA WellingtonThe national secretary of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards (Miss Patricia Bartlett) has complained to the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) about a censors’ decision to allow the controversial film “Last Tango in Paris” to be screened in New Zealand. But Mr Muldoon said yesterday therh was nothing that could be done about it until the film was shown and someone complained. Then, the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Highet). if he decided the continued showing of the film was likely to be injurious tQ the public good, could ban fur- ; ther showings and get the [Chief Film Censor to have another look at it. The decision to allow “Last Tango” to be shown to persons aged 20 or more was made by the acting ; Chief Film Censor (Mr B. C. ) Tunnicliffe) and two other censors. The Chief Censordesignate, Mr P. McHale, I has yet to take up his appointment. The decision was made under the new Cinematograph Films Act, which took effect on April 1 and changed the emphasis from preventing the screening of [any scene that could be con- ! trary to public order to con- ! sidering the dominant effect I of a film as a whole “Last Tango” was made in i 1973 by an Italian director, Bernardo Bertolucci. It was twice rejected by the late Chief Film Censor. Mr D. C. Mclntosh, and the board of appeal at that time. Miss Bartlett said that she has been invited to see the film by the distributors about two years ago but had declined. She had no intention Of seeing • it this time. Mr Muldoon and Mr Highet have both seen “Last Tango” overseas. “It didn’t grab me,” said Mr Muldoon. “If I had a night to spare I wouldn’t want to see it again. I’d have sooner seen a good Western.” Mr Tunnicliffe said that the decision to allow the film to be screened could be I setting a precedent for the interpretation of the new act. The application for the film had been made some time ago and he felt that he had to make a decision now. His interpretation was that under the act, his deci-

v sion could only be reviewed, [by the Films Censorship I ’ Board of Review if, when [the film was actually [screened, there was' i; sufficient public outcry to : I convince the Minister of, I! Internal Affairs that the film' ([could be injurious to the i' public good. • Miss Bartlett said that in ) her society’s experience, Mr I I Highet was “a very per- ! > missive man.” He had not referred “A I iiClockwork Orange” to the! [board of appeal, although he (had held screenings of it for I members of Parliament and lithe news media. > “If we can have ‘Last j Tango,’ we can have any- - thing and everything — we i are on a par with Sweden ■ and Denmark,” said Miss ! rtlett. r “Even in Britain there was i a 12-second cut in a sodomv • scene. But we have got it j > completely uncut. “Sodomy is against the I rjlaw. What sort of double) ■ standards have we got when' ,we have a censor who, ■ doesn’t even have to uphold [ the law. This is just; ; hypocrisy. “How are they going to stop children under 20 get-; 1 ting in? College children told lime how they got into) f[ ‘Clockwork Orange’, which! ■ was also R2O. Also, now we -jean have it on television) tj without having to have it referred to the censor I , again.” The censor’s decision was 5 ’ welcomed by the chairman j „, of the Federation of Film " Societies (Mr D. Gascoigne), t j although he deplored the publicity about it, which; s would attract people to see ■ the film as a “spectacle” j ' rather than as good cinema, j , “I haven’t seen it myself.' Now’ I will be able to make ' up my own mind on the evi-; ’ dence of my own two eyes) . — which is something’ 11 would like to do,” he said. [ He said it was probable | that “Last Tango” had been! J cut only in the British pro-; t vincial cinemas, not in Lon-1 t don, and that if film-; could! J [not show' illegal acts like soi domy then they could not ishow murders cither. t) He did not think the deci- > j sion meant that any film el could now be shown. s I “I do expect some films to zbe banned under the act. » There is an awful lot of rub-j e bish which deserves no bet- » ter fate. The act requires , films to be judged as a ; whole, not by one isolated • I incident,” he said.