Rights

I don’t know how many of you know (or care) about a recent rating turnabout on the Australian release of Hannibal.

The film was initially released with an MA 15+ rating, which allows children under 15 into cinemas if accompanied by an adult. That was until a review board, independent of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, decided that it should now be rated R 18+ and carry consumer advice that it contains high impact violence.

I’m not arguing whether the rating was right or wrong. I’m also not going into the argument that this change of rating will not stop teenagers seeing the film due to cinemas not performing age checks, in fact, if anything it will just encourage them to see what they’re missing out on. I am, however, disturbed by the way in which the review was brought about.

Daryl Williams, the Federal Attorney-General, ordered the review after a request from the Queensland Censorship Minister, Judy Spence.

Big deal, you say. A justified comment. That is until you realise that Miss Spence’s request was prompted by reviews she read about the film and not by her seeing the film for herself.
This is abhorrent. By the same token, The Wizard of Oz should be banned because scene of the witch being melted gave my friend nightmares when she was a kid. More worrying is that it also opens up the doors for every crank moral moronity advocate to demand film ratings to be reviewed on a whim.

The whole idiotic campaign has done nothing more than provide more publicity for Hannibal and give some pissant little politician a higher profile with the more conservative voters. It is a cheap and tacky way of getting your name in the papers.
It is also similar to the controversy surrounding the release of Silence of the Lambs. I had the misfortunate to be trapped in a vehicle and forced to listen to the dross that is Sydney talkback radio when the film premiered.

Alan Jones (proof that life is possible even if you don’t have a brain) was lambasting the film with his usual vitriol, manicly citing the many gory scenes that would warp the minds of our youth and lead to a spate of copycat killings. I was wondering about this particular tack, as Silence of the Lambs is a psychological film where most of the violence is left to the viewers imagination. This went on for quite some time, with the usual mindless call-ins all happily agreeing with Saint Alan like the worshipful minions they are, when somebody had the nerve to ask if Alan Jones had actually seen the film — his answer, of course, was no. Not only had he not seen it, but he would never see it, ever, ever, ever. And if you say that he did, well he’ll just hold his breathe until he turns blue. Well, it was a tantrum, even if it was slightly less childish.

This is the sort of small-minded attitude I can live without. How do you know if a film is good or bad based on a handful of reviews? If Alan Jones and Judy Spence selected films based on my opinions, they’d be watching Hudson Hawk and staying away from Gone With The Wind. You can get an indication of what reviewers thought of a film, but you won’t know if you agree or disagree with that opinion unless you get off your arse and see it.

If nothing else, I can hope that actions like this encourage people to break out of a conservative mindset that happily accepts spoon-fed party rhetoric and into a world where they can make up their own mind about issues — just like the responsible adults they are meant to be.

Incidentally the article about the rating furore was carried by the Sydney Morning Herald under the delightfully emotive banner of; ‘Children lose right to see Hannibal’. Get a clue guys.