Father Geek safely here in Austin, Texas where I was treated to a fun-tastic free triple feature screening of Ung Bak Thai Warrior... Battle Baseball... and Rouge Dog this evening. All of them in their original form, un-cut, or altered in any way. Its nice to live somewhere where that's possible... make that the norm. I've always taken that for granite here in the hill country of central Texas, buuuuut as we learn in Latauro's report that's regretfully not the case everywhere that claims to be a democratic society...
The war is not meant to be won; it is meant to be continuous.
AICN-DOWNUNDER
Well, last week's censorship editorial got a lot of people fired up, and
rightly so. Most people who contacted me seemed pissed off that the
Australian Family Association didn't see fit to giving any reasons for their
complaints. AICN-D reader "Moppet" did some further research and sent in the
following:
Who gets to choose the movies I see? I thought it would have been my self
but it seems I was wrong. So, you ask yourselves, if not you then who? It
seems that the Australian Family Association (AFA) and more importantly the
Christian Democratic Party (CDA) are making my choices for me. The most
recent review of Irreversible by the Office of Film and Classification is a
good case to highlight this.
On the 26th of November 2003 the OFLC gave Irreversible an R18+
classification and was screened at several film festivals last year. At the
time it went under the radar to some degree due to the controversy
surrounding Ken Park and its subsequent banning. Irreversible may have
received no more attention except that there was an audience for the film
and cinemas wanted to give the film a wider release. This is where the AFA
stepped in.
On March 22nd 2004 the AFA put in an application for review of the film as
an "aggrieved person" which is legal under the law if the application is
submitted within 30 days of the classification of the film. In the press
release from the OFLC they state that they were reviewing whether or not the
AFA had the standing to ask for the review. On the 30th of March 2004 it
was announced that they didn't and there it stood until the 26th of May 2004
when the Federal Attorney General asked for a review.
According to the OFLC the Attorney General asked for the review due to a
request from the state attorney general from South Australia. This is
permissible under the guidelines which state that, "Under the Commonwealth
Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the
Attorney-General is required to apply for a review of a classification
decision, if so requested in writing by a Minister of a State or Territory
who is responsible for censorship matters." I know that in order for this
to happen that the state attorney general would have to have had a number of
complaints from the public past the date of an aggrieved persons review to
be called. In this case though I believe we have been hoodwinked and that
the people responsible are the Rev Fred Nile and the CDP.
In a press release dated 19th of Feb 2004 Fred Nile states that he has
written to the Attorney General of Australia requesting the review of the
film. This contravenes the guidelines as I see them as Fred Nile isn't a
state attorney general and therefore cannot request the review. While it
seems on the surface that everything is above board it doesn't take much
digging to realize who is in fact behind the late classification review.
Fred Nile is one of the better known faces in our country and is also the
leader of the CDA. He is a homophobic, tea-totaling, god fearing pastor and
politician and has crusaded against many forms of entertainment when they
don't conform to his high and mighty moralistic ideal of the world. He has
tried to ban the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, blocked gay and lesbian
Marriage, tried to repeal laws banning discrimination against gay people,
and had a major hand in any controversial film classification in the past
20-30 years. The problem here is that he has quite a bit of power as a
leader of a relatively small political group and in Australia it only takes
one person to get a film banned. Ken Park was banned due to one lady and
even though the OFLC received thousands of letters they banned it anyway.
While we are lucky enough that the OFLC did not ban this film we are left to
wonder about a few issues. First is how a small minority can attain enough
power to influence the lives of so many Australians. Second is how the
Federal Attorney General can call for a review of a film when the proof is
there that he broke the law in doing so. Third is how we can censor movies
that explore issues that are in fact relevant to today's society. In
Australia it seems that the people who should make the decision as to what
films we can watch are being taken out of the equation, US.
Latauro here again. I was also contacted by George Papadopoulos, General
Manager of Accent Film Entertainment, the distributor for Gasper Noe's
IRREVERSIBLE. He confirmed that there was no way the AFA or their
representatives could have seen ANATOMY OF HELL because "their submission
was prior to any screening".
George Papadopoulos:
The frightening thing is that in the recent appeal of Anatomy of Hell, the
CRB gave the AFA "standing" which is very dangerous and gives them more
power to continue to try to ban films. The other thing is that the CRB
recently appointed Trev Griffin to Deputy Convenor who is the former SA
Attorney General (ultra conservative) and a former member of the Liberal
Party. All appointments must be be bi-partisan and not politically biased.
Who knows where this would lead?
We are the Australian distributors of Gaspar Noe's Irreversible and we twice
attended and defended the film from a possible ban at the Classification
Review Board after two appeals from the AFA and the SA Attorney General
(it's always the same guys!). It was very time consuming and distracting for
our business but we are willing to fight it out with these guys to protect
artistic freedom and the chance for Australian cinema audiences to see
critically acclaimed films they would never normally see outside the
protective surrounds of a film festival. Luckily, common sense prevailed and
the CRB did not succumb to the pressure of a minority association.
The second hearing was only a month away from our DVD release so you can
imagine what financial hardshop we would have endured if the film was banned
after replicating 12,000 DVDs. The reason the AFA has not responded to your
emails is that you will be surprised to know that they have not seen the
film and have admitted so themselves. We have also just discovered that the
AFA has decided to withdraw its submission to have the film's DVD rating
reviewed by the CRB. This is progress albeit a small step!
We are a small, start-up independent theatrical and DVD company formed only
late last year and our aim is to release edgy, arthouse films that challenge
and intellectually stimulate viewers. Films that push the boundaries but
which also have high artistic merit
and critically acclaimed overseas. We are not here to distribute pure
exploitation films with no artistic merit just for mere sensationalism. Why
deny Australian audiences the chance to see films that international
audiences, including the US and UK, have the freedom to see?
By the way, Irreversible opened in NZ (Auckland & Wellington ) yesterday and
just now I received a fax from the Film & Literature Board of Review in NZ
that the Society of Promotion of Community Standards has applied to get the
classification of the film reviewed (here go again!). They have also asked
for the Board to consider preventing any further screenings of the film
until it has been reviewed. The Board will consider this injunction order
request as well.
In the end, it all comes down to giving Australian audiences the freedom to
choose whether they want to see the film or not and not allow any minority
association denying them this basic human right.
Thanks for your support.
Latauro again. It's great news that the AFA has decided to back off the DVD
release of IRREVERSIBLE. It would be interesting to know their reasons. If
they ever respond to my weekly emails, I will absolutely let you know.
In the meantime, it's disturbing to hear about the New Zealand Society of
Promotion and Community Standards (warning bells going off with that name)
trying to knock back IRREVERSIBLE's NZ release. Looks like I have a new
group to add to my contact list.
More news as it comes to hand.
NEWS
The big news in Australia lately is the Free Trade Agreement with the US. In
the lead-up to the election, the Liberal and Labor Parties are slogging it
out on drugs (you heard me). The second-biggest point of contention is local
content. Many local creatives are concerned that the FTA will mean even less
local product that we have now. And while those forced to watch TV
commercials for "McLeod's Daughters" may see an upside to this, without
certain restrictions there will be nothing to stop networks from importing
everything from the US and UK. Whether the deal goes through is yet to be
determined, with each political party setting things up so that if it all
goes belly-up, they can blame the other side come election time. Ain't
politics grand?
AWARDS AND FESTIVALS
VENICE FILM FESTIVAL
Aussie Vicki Sugars's short film MOUSTACHE has been selected to play in
Venice this September. Only twenty-six short films were selected from over
900 entries. MOUSTACHE joins Clara Law's documentary LETTERS TO ALI, which
we told you about last week.
MONTRÉAL FILM FESTIVAL
A MAN'S GOTTA DO, a feature film written and directed by Australian Chris
Kennedy (DOING TIME FOR PATSY CLINE), will play in competition at MFF, which
starts at the end of this month. The film stars John Howard (the actor, not
the Prime Minister).
BOX OFFICE
SPIDER-MAN 2 held onto sixth spot again this week, as the top five were
almost completely covered in Hollywood crap. I swear, I like an enjoyable
piece of trash as much as the next person, but KING ARTHUR? THE STEPFORD
WIVES? I, ROBOT? Maybe I am getting bitter in my young, smoldering age...
Annnd the top five are...
- 1. I, ROBOT
- 2. KING ARTHUR
- 3. FAHRENHEIT 9/11
- 4. THE STEPFORD WIVES
- 5. SHREK 2
RELEASED THIS WEEK
Meg Ryan ditches bubbly romantic comedies to make a bubbly boxing drama, Nia
and Toni star in A Comedy That Proves If You Follow Your Dreams There's No
Telling What You'll Become (I swear to Christ, that was the tagline),
Denzel's pyrotechnic display goes horribly wrong, a butchered version of the
now-legendary Hong Kong flick comes out in extremely-limited release, and
the Wayan Brothers disprove those who said no film could be unfunnier than
SCARY MOVIE 2.
Here's what's new...
- AGAINST THE ROPES
- CONNIE AND CARLA
- MAN ON FIRE
- SHAOLIN SOCCER
- WHITE CHICKS
REVIEWS
You won't be seeing a FAHRENHEIT 9/11 review here this week, nor ever. Why?
Because I can't think of anything to say about the film that isn't
completely redundant. Though I have strong opinions on it as both a film and
a political statement, I can't separate them after more than a few
sentences. My political leanings are going to taint my view of the film, and
I'm not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with me. Besides,
what can I say that hasn't already been said a million times before?
Instead, here's my review of a film you probably haven't read much about...
WHY WE HAD TO KILL BITCH
Reviewing low-budget- no, scratch that. Reviewing no-budget films is an
entirely different thing to reviewing the product of distribution companies.
While I have no problem laying into people who really should know better
(Alex Proyas is going to find work no matter what I say about I, ROBOT),
what's the point laying into someone no one's ever heard of? It's only my
opinion, but if it's the only review available on the film, it'll go further
than, say, the millionth FAHRENHEIT review thrown into the ocean. Bottom
line: I have a policy of not screwing over indie filmmakers before they have
a chance to get their product out there. And I get sent a lot of films. A
lot of Australian filmmakers have sent me their stuff. Has it all sucked?
No. There are good ideas there and there is promise shown, but if I can't
honestly give a positive review, I don't.
First up, BITCH makes the mistakes that most no-budget films make:
name-checking Kevin Smith and CLERKS in an attempt to show that they're
aware how much their dialogue-centric character piece owes to the film that
simultaneously gave rise to and destroyed the indie film; having a running
gag that runs way too many times; over-written banter; and the
over-emphasised assertion that Nice Guys Finish Last.
That last one isn't a massive problem, but No Budget Filmmakers always seem
so intent on showing that they are nice guys, and having the pretty girl end
up with them in the end is their way of restoring balance to the world. We
see it all the time. That's the first thing that I liked about BITCH: they
set up the rule right at the beginning that this isn't a Hollywood romantic
comedy, and the girl will absolutely not end up with our protagonist. I
laughed, thinking the film was going to paint itself into a corner. I was
wrong.
BITCH is a very enjoyable film with genuinely funny moments. I mean actual
laugh-out-loud moments. The characters are endearing, the actors (and their
direction) are very good. We see the film through the eyes of a student
filmmaker who is forced to rush together a documentary on his friends in
order to pass a class. He focuses on a friend who works in a local cinema,
and follows him and their friends over the course of the night as they head
out in pursuit of a girl. All the while, every character is trying to
convince him that his ex-girlfriend (nicknamed Bitch) is, well, a complete
bitch. They even present him with videotaped evidence.
Though there are instances of predictability, it's always entertaining and
does contain a number of genuine surprises. Director JP Nickel takes the
indie plot standard of a Bunch Of Friends Hanging Out Over The Course of a
Night and infuses it with a lot of originality.
My biggest complaint about the film is, surprisingly, the complete opposite
complaint that one usually has regarding no budget films: it looks too good.
The shots are too composed, the camera is too still, the lighting is too
good, the sound is too clear... At no point did the film convince me that it
was a documentary (also, much of the dialogue feels more like dialogue than
natural talking). Still, once you get past that initial conceit you'll
really enjoy the film. It's a piece that's definitely worth catching if it's
playing at a local festival. JP Nickel may not be the next Kevin Smith, but
with any luck he'll be the first JP Nickel.
NEXT WEEK
- Tony Scott announces airline-friendly re-edit MAN IN SMOKE
- Michael Moore announces new documentary I ALSO HATE HAMSTERS
- Oliver Stone announces plans to take a year off to spend with Baz
Lurhmann's family, leaving Lurhmann thoroughly confused
Peace out,
Latauro
AICNDownunder@hotmail.com
| 
