To cut or not to cut
What were the biggest changes you noticed in New Zealand attitudes to censorship and what was considered appropriate during your time as Chief Censor? Can you think of an example of something you cut or restricted then that would have a different rating now? Censors are human; they are fallible. That is why there is an appeal process. Our appeal rate was relatively low. Of the roughly 25,000 classifications issued in the 111⁄ years I was Chief Censor there would not have been more than 150 appeals. Our classifications were found to be too liberal in 3 per cent of those appeals and were upheld in 82 per cent of those appeals. On that basis, I think we reflected public opinion and applied the law fairly accurately.
Having said that, I think people have become more aware of how certain material can affect certain groups. I was nervous about banning the Cradle of Filth T-shirt that is now on display in Christchurch. At the time, there was not the same sensitivity to depictions that demeaned people by reason of their religion as there is now. On the other hand, any ban, indeed any classification, must be accompanied by reasons. Reasons not only enforce accountability, they keep the debate about the limits to the freedom of expression in the public arena. That debate is vital to the maintenance of a democratic society. How did you and your office stay in touch with changing attitudes and trends? We regularly brought members of the public into our theatre to help us classify films. We also asked members of the public for more specific advice, including whether the manner in which certain sexual activities were portrayed injured the public good. In our ‘‘Censor for a Day’’ programme, we showed a yet-to-be-released feature film to high school students in various places around the country and got them to apply the classification criteria to rate the film. I also gave a great many talks to groups such as Rotary clubs, U3A, high schools, even the Waipukurau Country Women’s Institute. This permitted us to keep our thumb on the pulse of New Zealand attitudes and opinions about censorship. You mention in the documentary that New Zealand always seems to be two steps behind technology in terms of censorship law. Do you believe that is still the case? There is no doubt that technology has always created challenges to censorship. The first Cinematographic Films Act was passed 25 years after the first film was shown in New Zealand. The Indecent Publications Act, covering print and sound recordings, was passed 400 years after the printing press was invented and 80 years after the gramophone was invented. The Video Recordings Act was a bit quicker, but was once again a legal response some years after VCRs appeared in most New Zealand homes. And of course now the pervasiveness and accessibility of the internet, facilitated by broadband technology, has created a whole new set of conceptual and enforcement issues.
I’ve always said that the ultimate goal is not to need a Chief Censor or a Classification Office. Understanding how repeated exposure to some material can affect how we think and the attitudes we have would mean that each of us would become our own classification office and we would know not to expose ourselves to such material. Without demand, there would be no supply. So greater funding for education on issues of censorship and the freedom of expression is I think vital to maintaining a healthy society of individuals who have fully realised their potential. How do New Zealand’s censorship laws compare with other countries? Has aligning some of our film ratings with Australia been a major advantage/success? Our censorship laws are spot-on. They describe a bedrock of material that is automatically banned, that no society that prides itself on decency and humanity would ever tolerate. Above that, the law gives the censors a discretion that permits them to gauge public attitudes and opinion, and to take into account expert advice on how exposure to certain material can damage thoughts and attitudes.
Anecdotally, I thought the Australians and the Americans were more liberal on violence and more conservative on sexual depictions, whereas we were harder on violence and more tolerant of sexual depictions.
For that reason, I do not think that the law that cross-rates
As Prime prepares to air a threepart history on censorship in New Zealand, James Croot chats to former chief censor turned district court judge Bill Hastings.
Australian P, PG and Mratings to New Zealand G, PG and Mratings has been successful. They use different criteria which can result in quite violent films receiving an Mrating through the cross-rating law being exhibited alongside less violent films that New Zealand censors have given a higher rating to using our own classification criteria. The Ronettes’ Be My Baby is an extraordinarily well-known song. One bar in and you know where you’re going, until Bette Midler’s voice takes over the track. What happens when a music legend decides to make covers of other people’s songs? Well, it’s generally either really good, or really, really bad. The good news is, this is not just Bette Midler doing karaoke covers of old songs. This is Bette Midler doing what she does best, reimagining songs, re-creating and owning songs. The arrangements and styling have changed just enough to be Bette. With every note you can picture the superstar with a cheeky grin and a hiprolling sashay. Her golden era reworks of the likes of the Boswell and Andrews sisters and The Chordettes are pure magic, bringing out the rich tones and theatrics that Midler is famed for. Perhaps the absolute standout though is Midler’s take on TLC’s hit Waterfalls, slowed down and set to a piano track. It’s moody and dramatic and fits the 90s pop hit right into the swing era of the others. Country and western songs get a gospel soul flavouring, slower songs get a hit of energy and Midler’s voice rings out over them all. It’s a fun collection of girlgroup hits which will take you back without feeling terribly dated.