Screen cap from In Their Room: Berlin
You won’t see Community Action Centre or In Their Room: Berlin at the 2012 Mardi Gras Film Festival. The Australian Classification Board has refused to give festival organisers an exemption to show the films at the public attended event because each would likely be classified X in Australia. Why? Both contain real sexual activity.
Festival Director Lex Lindsay said in a letter to members and attendees that he felt the films were appropriate for public viewing and strongly deserving of festival screenings to an informed and sympathetic audience who have chosen to see them.
“ My personal view is that grown up people in a free modern world can make their own decisions about what they would like to see in a cinema. We must trust our chosen cultural curators and arts organisations to exercise their judgement over what work should and shouldn’t be promoted to the public, not an exemptions process that prohibits public screening of work that could otherwise (even if theoretically) be privately, legally owned,” Lindsay said.
Read Lindsay’s full letter here.
About the films:
Community Action is a sociosexual video which incorporates the erotics of a community where the personal is not only political, but sexual. This project was heavily inspired by 1970’s porn-romance-liberation films which served as distinct portraits of the urban inhabitants, landscapes and the body politic of a particular time and place.
In Their Room is about gay men, bedrooms, sex and intimacy. The film veers into the bedrooms of eight different men where you see them doing everything from the most banal to the most erotic. Complimenting the revealing nature of their everyday activities are confessional interviews about fantasies, turn ons and vulnerabilities. You never leave their bedrooms, but this is unmistakably San Francisco of the present.
4 comments
Bob Bain says:
Feb 26, 2012
There are three film in the catalogue “containing sexually explicit content” two of which are mentioned above.
A film that was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as being a film that wouldn’t be granted an exemption was “Man At Bath” which as far as I know screens at the Dendy Cinema Newtown (Sydney) on the 28th February 2012 at 9pm.
For information regarding this I suggest contacting Brian Kent of the Classification Board who has provided his email address in emailing me in relation to explicit sexual content in films currently on sale in Penrith.
Sale of unclassified material – Our ref: 32167, C10/7, C10/160 3rd. February 2011.
“Kent, Brian”
Background from the Sydney Morning Herald
Two of the films, Homme au bain (Man at Bath) and Sagat, feature penetrative sex between men, and In Their Room: Berlin depicts a casual sex encounter during which the actors perform oral sex. Community Action Centre contains frequent sex scenes between transgender individuals, which Mr Lindsay suggested in a submission to the classification board could lead to a possible X-rating.
A spokesman for the board, Brian Kent, said organisers of film festivals wishing to screen unclassified films in the festival must apply for an exemption. ”If it is likely that an unclassified film will be X18+ or Refused Classification, the exemption will not be granted,” he said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/about-town/mardi-gras-applies-to-screen-gay-sex-movies-20120204-1qyle.html#ixzz1nRIZWWtZ
Bob
Bob Bain says:
Feb 26, 2012
The email address of Brian Kent has seemingly been lost in posting my response:-
ref:
https://twitter.com/#!/bob_bain/status/173552307366146048
Bob
Bob Bain says:
Feb 26, 2012
Man at Bath – although sexually explicit is being screened.
http://mgff.queerscreen.com.au/man-at-bath/
ADVISORY NOTE: This film contains some explicit sexual content.
Tuesday Feb 28, Dendy Newtown, 9pm
dirtyredfox says:
Feb 27, 2012
As a classification board member for seven years, I understand the disappointment of Lindsay, however it is a little naive to still be bleating the same sentiments over and over again. The Board is unable to allow films with real sex into the R18+ classification. It has nothing to do with a ‘stringent interpretation’ of the Act….the guidelines are very clear on the issue and state that sexual activity should be simulated (as opposed to actual). While some films containing actual sex have been allowed into the R18+ category over the years, the decision has always come down to frequency, detail and generally, what is considered reasonable. The Board is constantly criticised for squeezing R18+ computer games into the MA15+ classification whilst also being ridiculed for failing to allow X18+ films into the R18+ category. Basically, “X is for sex” – you can argue until blue in the face, but get out the dictionary and see for yourself the meanings of the words ‘actual’, ‘explicit’ and ‘simulated’. There really is no wriggle room unless the real sex is infrequent and fleeting. Lengthy depictions of any sort of explicit sex is always going to fail the test at R18+ and while I sympathise with those who want to see these films, it really is unsurprising when these sorts of decisions emerge -and film makers are very much aware of what the Board can and cannot accept. Stretching the meanings of ‘actual sex’ in the ways in which directors would like, would only cause more problems for our classification system. Creators of X18+ rated product would then have very good grounds for arguing their material into the R18+ classification – and we all know where this would lead. The public must advocate for law reform the proper way – the Board cannot change the law, they merely apply it. And trust me, when it comes to real sex at R18+, there really is very little room to move. Unfortunate, but true.