Content Classification: Industry guidance recommended
Our content classification system is about to be reviewed to ensure it remains relevant in the digital age, allowing Australians to make informed content choices. Miguel Gonzalez reports.
Just before Christmas, Attorney-General Robert McClelland and Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor announced they would ask the Australian Law Reform Commission to review the nation’s classification categories and, indeed, the entire classification system. O’Connor said it needs to be modernised to accommodate current and future technologies, and to allow people to make informed choices about their content consumption The last enquiry into classification laws took place in 1991.
Videogames that have received most of the attention, with some members of the community the introduction of an R18+ classification for violent games, as well as a review of the current MA15+ and RC. More traditional screen content, however, is not free of controversy, with the occasional groups openly complaining about the ‘soft’ rating of certain films, such as last year’s US releases Kick-Ass (Universal Pictures, classified MA15+) and The Karate Kid (Sony Pictures, originally rated M and reclassified PG after an appeal by the distributor).
Sony managing director Stephen Basil-Jones believes the suitability of The Karate Kid for a young audience was ultimately demonstrated by the film’s $13m box office: “The ones that make the headlines are a minority who decide to make a storm in a teacup. If you look at the small number of people [who said the film was too violent for PG] versus the silent majority who went to see it and enjoyed it, there’s no doubt that the film was suitable. This is not publicity that we would want. We strongly believed that it was a PG film, because it’s an interpretation of martial arts violence; we were confused when it was given an M and appealed the ruling successfully.”
Ratings can have a significant impact on a film’s marketing strategy and box office results.
“A restrictive category limits the films we can trailer with, the TV advertising activity, as well as the ability of people to attend,” explained Basil-Jones.
But at $8,000 per application, review requests are rare and not to be taken lightly. There’s so much at stake that distributors often use the services of law firms to support their applications.
In 2010, two reviews were requested: The Karate Kid, and Pier Paolo Pasolini’s controversial 1975 film Salo – which was rated R18+ for DVD distribution after being banned for 12 years, with Brendan O’Connor unsuccessfully trying to get the Board to reconsider the decision. The previous year saw more activity, with two failed reviews (Paramount’s Friday the 13th and Stone Bros, requested by O’Connor), and two that did achieve their goal. The first was Sony’s Julie and Julia; the second, the youth-oriented Australian horror film The Loved Ones from independent distributor Madman Entertainment, which used the services of media law firm Holding Redlich to successfully get the rating changed from “R18+: High impact violence” to “MA15+: Strong horror violence; strong themes”.
“We weighed up the cost of the review against the value that we placed on the release of the film and the impact that R18+ certificate would have for its theatrical potential. It was absolutely worthwhile and it paid off in terms of getting the classification changed,” said Madman theatrical manager James Hewison.
Hewison believes even if content classifiers attempt to establish rules to make their processes more “scientific”, it will always be “tricky” at best: “It’s very hard to be prescriptive about consumer advice, particularly when you’re dealing with content, which is quite difficult to define.”
The film remained unchanged for the review process; what changed was the perception of its content. The review board found that the film reflected the expectations of those familiar with the horror genre and therefore, the acts of violence depicted in it were ‘strong’ in impact rather than ‘high’.
