Poor censorship ‘proved'

Press, 17 May 1980, Page 12

Poor censorship ‘proved '

PA Wellington Official statistics prove correct the view of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards that “film censorship is nearly, a thing of the past,” according to the society’s secretary, Patricia Bartlett. Replying to contrary views by the Film Censor, Mr B. Tunnicliffe, and the chairman of the Film Review Board, Judge A. Beatson, she said 34 films had been banned in 1976, the year before the new film criteria had come into force. Last year only 11 had been banned. This was a 300 per cent reduction in three years.

Eight films banned in the 70s, under the former criteria of “contrary to public decency” had now been passed. The R2O certificate previously had rarely been used but under the new criteria 13 such certificates had been given to films which would formerly have been banned. In 1976, 430 cuts had been made for violence compared with 112 last year. This was nearly a 400 per cent reduction in cuts for violence. In 1976, 147 films had been cut compared with only 65 last year. The total number of all cuts in 1976 had been 957 while last year, the total had been 286. “This means film cen-

sorship over-all has been reduced by about 240 per cent in three years,” said Miss Bartlett. “It makes caring people very angry to hear the chairman of the review board say, ‘Between the censor and the review board a good standard had been set.’ Both these persons know full well that under the ‘liberalised’ criteria they have passed scenes never before permitted on New Zealand Screens.” Miss Bartlett said that Mr Tunnicliffe had said he did not consider 11 reviews very much out of the 3000 he and his two assistants had looked at under the new criteria. “Our society couldn’t agree more. Distributors do not need to appeal

since he has dropped cuts for violence by nearly 400 .per cent and bans by 300 per cent. This low number of appeals is a clear sign of how the new criteria work.” Miss Bartlett said it was a revelation to hear Mr Tunnicliffe say it was important- to have the right of- review because he and his assistants could be wrong in their decisions. Under the new act his remark applied only to what the censor banned, not to what he passed. “Since the censor is big enough to admit that he and his colleagues are human and can make mistakes we hope he is big enough to admit he could also pass films he should ban,” said Miss Bartlett.