The Impact of FIlm Censorship on New Zealand Society
For many years, films have been a means of entertainment to the public and society at large. It has brought about many pleasures and emotional happiness, from black and white soundless films to the full high definition that we enjoy today. Billions of dollars are raked in every year from the sales of films and advertisments. The huge demand for more films have arised in the creation of large Corporate Mega film making companies, such as Universal Studios, Warner Brothers,Walt Disney Pictures group, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures and 2oth Century Fox, Together these corporations control more than 95% of the U.S. Film Business. These Corporations are part of even larger conglomerates, General Electric, TimeWarner, The Walt Disney Company, Viacom, Sony and News Corp, respectively. ...which together own more than 90% of all media in the U.S.
These companies constantly invest in huge amounts of money and provide talented directors with the financial capacity to express their ideas into moving pictures each year.
However, not all films are generally accepted and seen as entertaining to everyone. What may be acceptable to one person may not be to another. The reason for such comes from various reasons such as the culture they grew up in, the religion they were brought up with and such. Some people find the contents of some films disturbing and highly offensive and in order to not offend and prevent certain groups of people from encountering such undesired materials, censorships are put into place. Censorship was for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state.
Film Censorship has existed for as long as films have been produced which can be dated back to 1907 before the World War I. It allows for the restrictions of certain films to be shown to various age groups or to prevent the spread of unwanted information to the public. Reasons for banning a film or demanding certain cuts are extremely diverse and vary from country to country. Censorship has helped to draw the line on what is acceptable to the public and what is not. However Censorship is not always equal and the amount of censorship done has varied and changed from years to years, as we progress into a mature society that is capable of handling and dealing with controversial issues. We need to recognise that censorship and the ideology supporting it date way back to ancient times, and that every society has had its own unique set of customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were controlled and regulated and this has been constantly changing through out history, so what may be acceptable today may not necessarily be accepted before.
Films are powerful tools that are capable of spreading ideology and causing great impacts to the viewers, whoever wields the power to censor such films possess great influence over a community at large and its decisions will definitely have an impact on the development and level of understanding,a community is able to undertake without overstepping the boundaries of what is moral. As such in this report I will be investigating on the impact of Film Censorship on the New Zealand Society and how censorship has differed with each passing decade.
In New Zealand the release of films had a similar impact to its counterparts in America, Britain and Europe. The first movie screening was at the Auckland Opera House on the 13th October 1896 when a short programme of 'moving pictures' was projected on an Edison Kinematograph imported from the USA.
In 1917, Auckland had 17 movie theatres set up and was considered the capital city, the Auckland City Council were in charge of handing out licenses, but any form of Censorship were yet to exist.
One of the first calls for censorship in New Zealand came in 1909 when the National Council of Churces asked the government to ban the showing of the World Heavyweight Boxing Championship fight between Tommy Burns and Jack Johnson. The then Prime Minister, Ward, a boxing fan himself, declined to do so. In 1910, when there was a further call to ban another Johnsonfight, the editor of New Zealand Observer thought it "an unnecessary agitation" arguing that while "it would probably be injurious to the small boy inhabitant of the community, who is generally panting for gore and plenty of it.. in the case of adult is a different matter" The editorial also reflected the view that censorship was required in the best interest of Children. Calls for government censorship emphasised the links between the cinema, the behaviour of Children and youth and public morality.
In 1911 the Rangiora Borough Council, supported by five other boroughs, requested that the government impose censorship on films, primarily because they were percieved to be having an undesirable influence on children and young people. In 1914 a similar request came from the Dunedin branch of the influential Society for the Protection of Women and Children.
The official response to concerns was threefold: regulation of the cinemas, regulation of their patrons and regulation of the films. The pattern was international, though with marked differences in approact to the censorship of the film themselves. The United States left the matter essentially to local boards of censors, with the Hays Office later informally regulating the industry (DeGrazia and Newman, 1982); the United Kingdom opted for a quasi-fficial approach, through the British Board of Film Censors (Robertson,1985:Chanon, 1980); Australia developed official regulatory bodies at the state level (Bertrand, 1978); and New Zealand introduced a national government body with a Chief Film Censor in 1916.
ammended through time, with changes in what is deemed decent.
In current New Zealand the board that is in charge of censorship is known as "The Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) is the government agency that is responsible for classification of all films, videos, publications, and some video games in New Zealand. It was created by the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and is an independent Crown Entity. The head of the OFLC is called the Chief Censor, maintaining a title that has described the government officer in charge of censorship in New Zealand since 1916." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_New_Zealand
This board just like other international boards, are responsible for examining and classifying films using the criteria set out in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (New Zealand's censorship legislation). This means that whenever you see a restricted classification on a film (such as RP13, R16, R18), that film has come through this office.
These companies constantly invest in huge amounts of money and provide talented directors with the financial capacity to express their ideas into moving pictures each year.
However, not all films are generally accepted and seen as entertaining to everyone. What may be acceptable to one person may not be to another. The reason for such comes from various reasons such as the culture they grew up in, the religion they were brought up with and such. Some people find the contents of some films disturbing and highly offensive and in order to not offend and prevent certain groups of people from encountering such undesired materials, censorships are put into place. Censorship was for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state.
Film Censorship has existed for as long as films have been produced which can be dated back to 1907 before the World War I. It allows for the restrictions of certain films to be shown to various age groups or to prevent the spread of unwanted information to the public. Reasons for banning a film or demanding certain cuts are extremely diverse and vary from country to country. Censorship has helped to draw the line on what is acceptable to the public and what is not. However Censorship is not always equal and the amount of censorship done has varied and changed from years to years, as we progress into a mature society that is capable of handling and dealing with controversial issues. We need to recognise that censorship and the ideology supporting it date way back to ancient times, and that every society has had its own unique set of customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were controlled and regulated and this has been constantly changing through out history, so what may be acceptable today may not necessarily be accepted before.
Films are powerful tools that are capable of spreading ideology and causing great impacts to the viewers, whoever wields the power to censor such films possess great influence over a community at large and its decisions will definitely have an impact on the development and level of understanding,a community is able to undertake without overstepping the boundaries of what is moral. As such in this report I will be investigating on the impact of Film Censorship on the New Zealand Society and how censorship has differed with each passing decade.
In New Zealand the release of films had a similar impact to its counterparts in America, Britain and Europe. The first movie screening was at the Auckland Opera House on the 13th October 1896 when a short programme of 'moving pictures' was projected on an Edison Kinematograph imported from the USA.
In 1917, Auckland had 17 movie theatres set up and was considered the capital city, the Auckland City Council were in charge of handing out licenses, but any form of Censorship were yet to exist.
One of the first calls for censorship in New Zealand came in 1909 when the National Council of Churces asked the government to ban the showing of the World Heavyweight Boxing Championship fight between Tommy Burns and Jack Johnson. The then Prime Minister, Ward, a boxing fan himself, declined to do so. In 1910, when there was a further call to ban another Johnsonfight, the editor of New Zealand Observer thought it "an unnecessary agitation" arguing that while "it would probably be injurious to the small boy inhabitant of the community, who is generally panting for gore and plenty of it.. in the case of adult is a different matter" The editorial also reflected the view that censorship was required in the best interest of Children. Calls for government censorship emphasised the links between the cinema, the behaviour of Children and youth and public morality.
In 1911 the Rangiora Borough Council, supported by five other boroughs, requested that the government impose censorship on films, primarily because they were percieved to be having an undesirable influence on children and young people. In 1914 a similar request came from the Dunedin branch of the influential Society for the Protection of Women and Children.
The official response to concerns was threefold: regulation of the cinemas, regulation of their patrons and regulation of the films. The pattern was international, though with marked differences in approact to the censorship of the film themselves. The United States left the matter essentially to local boards of censors, with the Hays Office later informally regulating the industry (DeGrazia and Newman, 1982); the United Kingdom opted for a quasi-fficial approach, through the British Board of Film Censors (Robertson,1985:Chanon, 1980); Australia developed official regulatory bodies at the state level (Bertrand, 1978); and New Zealand introduced a national government body with a Chief Film Censor in 1916.
ammended through time, with changes in what is deemed decent.
In current New Zealand the board that is in charge of censorship is known as "The Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) is the government agency that is responsible for classification of all films, videos, publications, and some video games in New Zealand. It was created by the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 and is an independent Crown Entity. The head of the OFLC is called the Chief Censor, maintaining a title that has described the government officer in charge of censorship in New Zealand since 1916." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_New_Zealand
This board just like other international boards, are responsible for examining and classifying films using the criteria set out in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (New Zealand's censorship legislation). This means that whenever you see a restricted classification on a film (such as RP13, R16, R18), that film has come through this office.
RATINGS ARE ASSIGNED TO UNRESTRICTED FILMS
Ratings are usually applied by the Film and Video Labelling Body. There are different levels of ratings, including:
G - Unrestricted
Anyone can be shown or sold this.
PG - Unrestricted
Anyone can be shown or sold this, but parental guidance is recommended for younger viewers.
M - Unrestricted
More suitable for viewers over 16 years.
THE CLASSIFICATION OFFICE CLASSIFIES ALL FILMS CONTAINING RESTRICTED MATERIAL
The Classification Office can classify according to age or purpose, or restrict a film's availability to a particular audience. The following classifications are common:
R13 - Restricted
It is illegal for anyone to show or sell this to someone under 13 years of age.
R15 - Restricted
It is illegal for anyone to show or sell this to someone under 15 years of age.
R16 - Restricted
It is illegal for anyone to show or sell this to someone under 16 years of age.
R18 - Restricted
It is illegal for anyone to show or sell this to someone under 18 years of age.
RP13 - Restricted
It is illegal to show or sell this to someone under under 13 years of age unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.
RP16 - Restricted
It is illegal to show or sell this to someone under under 16 years of age unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Popular movies such as Paranormal Activity(2009), Slumdog Millionaire(2009) and Out of the Blue (2006) prior to screening on the big screens are subjected to censorship screenings to filter out any undesired materials. All films in New Zealand must be rated or classified, and labelled, before they are released to the public, As such the OFLC have the final say on what is acceptable for the entire nation.
The Process in which Films are labelled and rated can be seen in this Chart
The Process in which Films are labelled and rated can be seen in this Chart
The British Board for Film Classification (BBFC) and the Australian government posses much influence over the decisions made by the OFLC. In the flow chart above, prior to labelling a film. The labelling body checks for classifcations and raitings overseas, in particular Australia and Britain. If 'the film has been given an unrestricted rating by the Australian Classification Board or UK BBFC. On viewing the film, the Labelling Body assesses the content as unrestricted.' However if the film has been classified as restricted or been refused approval for exhibition in Australia or the UK, it will be reviewed in great depth and mostly likely be given the same restrictions as overseas. The question to ask here is Is New Zealand just following the crowd? Do we really need a Censorship Board, with the UK and Australia having a great influence on our decision process we might as well leave it up to them to make the decision for us.We do after all share a lot of similiarities in our culture and heritage. Hey we even share an air force with the Australians! Let's all just hop on the bandwagon and follow what everyone else is doing and be the needy welfare country that we all are.
An example of a film that has been the subject of controversy and public outrage within the nation would be
Out of the Blue (2006), rated R15, directed by Robert Sarkies. The film depicts the unfortunate true to life events that happened in the small Otago township of Aramoana on 13 and 14 November 1990. The tragic events that unfolded when a crazed Gun enthusiast David Gray went on a killing spree leading to the massacre of 13 people Residents of the small coastal settlement are shown going about their daily lives while paranoid gun enthusiast David Gray, who has become estranged from the rest of the community, grows increasingly agitated. Gray begins his rampage by shooting an old friend and three young girls. For the next 22 hours Gray terrorises his fellow residents while local police struggle to control the situation, and their own emotions. Music and scenic footage is used to contrast the normally tranquil atmosphere of Aramoana with the shocking events that unfold.
This film was given special attention by the board as it re-enacts the catastrophic events that happened, which was likely to create a big impact on the New Zealand society. Relatives of the victims and anyone involved in the tragedy were likely to be affected deeply the most, in the release. Hence during the intricate decision process, many aspects and different points of view were taken into account. After much debate the decision to give the film an R15 was passed on under the basis that it 'contains violence and content that may disturb'.
Out of the Blue, is an isolated case in the sense that it was given extra special attention it isn’t a very violent film but a even about a violent event. In fact a comparison to other violent movies such as the September 11 movie ‘United 93’ , rated M questions the fairness of the raiting. There’s more screen violence in United 93 showing stabbings and the like than there is in Out of the Blue. Director Roberts Sarkies “feels we’re not being judged on the same playing field”. The fact that the movie was about New Zealand and involved it’s people was the reason for the OFLC’s cautionary approach or some would say ‘double standards’.
Apart from the local town of Aromoana, the film had an impact on Gun enthusiasts and also those who are campaigning for an Anti-Gun policy. The use of guns and the uncontrolled nature of Gray, provided a solid stable case-study for Anti-Gun activists. The film was used to their advantage to showcase the reason for a gun ban and had considerable influence on the society, much to the disappointment to those who were pro guns.
The impact that this film possesed over the entire nation is evident in local media coverage of the release, as residents of the small town were forced under the spotlight of the media and made to relive the incident that happened 16 years ago. It showed the realistic use of violence and the gruesome outcome that comes along which is unlike the glorified violence that is often seen on mainstream media, hence putting it in a new light. So to some extent it gave viewers the ability to experience the impact of violence through the film, in an educational and benefical way.
Violent films,especially ones of serial killers, have perplexed, fascinated, entertained and drawn the curiosity of viewers to the complex minds of the insane and mentally unstable. From the franchise of Saw Movies to Reservoir Dogs to Resident Evil to Passion of The Christ to snuff movies such as Faces of Death, there is a high demand for such violent films. There’s just something about blood, brutality and killings that puts us in between wanting more and walking out on a film. Zombie Apocalypses and towns infested with the deadly T-Virus excites viewers of all ages, regardless of wether they should be seeing it. We just can’t help it and our demand for more increases the supply produced. Thus the birth of film raitings specially, catered to these genre of movies.
The highly profitable franchise of Saw Movies have gave birth to the age of torture films and psychopatic serial killers. These movies don’t just showcase the actions and methods of inflicting pain on kidnapped victims but to ensure that they live as long as possible before dying of shock or self mutilating parts of their body. Some say these movies have given birth to more serial killers. Some even blame murders on these movies. I say, movies like these actually make the nature of these twisted serial killers more creative and their methods of brutality more effective. Serial Killers and potential serial killers could actually learn from these films yet whyare they still being shown in theatres?
Raitings such as R18 and R16 (in New Zealand) are examples of raitings that are typical for such films. They restrict brutal violence and abuse. Scenes of torture and sexual scenes that involve any part of a human’s genitals are restricted.
Critics argue that these films have an artistic merit and by cutting scenes and preventing it from reaching the masses would result in a compromise and constrained with such stringent classification. However it would be ideal to find a middle ground and build a mutually beneficial relationship with the producers and directors in order to fulfill the vision of an advanced artistic society in New Zealand.
The extent of sadism films having artistic merit is controversial and different points of views can be argued. While some believe they should be totally banned from cinemas, others look at it as a point of reference for human society. A way to understand the violence and potential of brutality that we are capable of. Hence the need to restrict and classify them for viewership only to those who are capable of understanding the underlying meaning of such a film.
Which leads us to the discussion of maturity and responsibility. At the age of 16, teenagers are allowed to vote, join the military, drive a car, indulge in sexual activities, pay taxes but are still restricted to some movies. The legality to drive at the age of 16 bears a lot of responsibility not just for one’s self but for other users on the road, pedestrians and passengers included. The government acknowledges that they are mature enough to handle the responsibilities and ensure that they they are educated on the rules and regulations, but not to view restricted films? It is okay to join the military and face the likelihood of exposing themselves to violence in real life situations but not in theatres. It is okay to have sex, but not watch a film of strong sexual nature in theatres. Oh the irony, of our government’s system.
Apart from local impacts through the release of local films, many international films have impacted the global community on different scales. An example of this would be the release of
Apart from local impacts through the release of local films, many international films have impacted the global community on different scales. An example of this would be the release of
Passion of the Christ (2004) directed by Mel Gibson. A film detailing the final hours and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The release of the film caused a large uproar on a global scale by Religious Leaders and many symbolic individuals.
The raitings of the film varied from country to country, from the Holy Vatican to Liberal America to Conservative Singapore. Sparks were caused and outrage was rampant. The film has been banned in several countries such as Morocco, Burma, China and Malaysia and recieved high raitings.
CLASSIFICATIONS GIVEN BY COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD
Australia | MA15+ Graphic violence |
Belgium | 16 |
Finland | 18 for excessive, sadistic, extreme and extensive violence |
France | 12 for oppressive scenes of flogging and crucifixion |
Germany | 16. Faithful to the Gospels. No glorification of violence. But too intense and emotionally demanding for 12 year olds who may also lack the knowledge to make sense of the events on screen. The charges of anti-Semitism were not founded |
Ireland | 15PG for brutal and unrelenting violence. But given the particular interest and awareness in Ireland of the subject matter, a higher classification was not necessary. However, a warning of the explicit violence in the work was carried on all publicity material |
Netherlands | 16 for violence and horror (fear) |
New Zealand | R15 prolonged sequences of brutal violence, torture and cruelty |
Portugal | 16 for strong physical violence |
Sweden | 15 for extensive and detailed scenes of gross assault and battery and crucifixion |
UK | 18 for strong bloody violence. 'Anti-Semitism was not an issue for us in a film that was faithful to the Gospels. We discussed 15 given the well-known nature of the story and clear CA. But ultimately, our guidelines on violence required the adult category.' |
USA | R: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or guardian. Rated R for sequences of graphic violence. |
Gory scenes and the use of blood were key factors in the reason for censorship to be enforced in this film. In particular torture scenes depicting the use of violent brutal medevil weapons, which lasted for roughly 10 minutes including a scene in which the Religious Symbol was crucified, stabbed with a pike and dripping with blood which showed unbearable pain and suffering.
During the initial screening of the film, in certain countries, individuals found the gory scenes too horrific and unbearable. Many individuals found it hard to watch and had to leave the cinema in order " to escape the pain" that "they were feeling within". One viewer, Dana Davin, 46, a business owner and motivational speaker from North Little Rock mentioned " The movie was gripping and realistic and torturous to watch, but my true agony actually began after I left the theater: numb, in shock and truly sick at what I had witnessed. I felt as though I had actually been at the scene that day hundreds of years ago." such was the power of the violent scenes.
In New Zealand, the OFLC had to consult various religious experts from the various religions to assist with the classification. Prior to the arrival of the film in New Zealand, already the OFLC were receiving letters from concerned individuals on the prospects and the impact the film would be on society and the children, were brought up. Various Church groups and religious leaders offered their aid and opinions in the classification process.After much deliberation and assessment from religious leaders the OFLC gave the film a R15 - Restricted to people of age 15 and above.
The impact the film made on New Zealand society was immense and many called for the banning of the film on reasons that were not related to the classification criteria. This included reasons of inaccuracy in the making of the film, the use of the Bible to create profits and that certain scenes were shown from a Roman Catholic point of view. The depiction of Jews being responsible for the death of Christ, raised concerns amongst the Jewish population predicting that an increase or new found hate in Jews would arise from the screening of the film, safety concerns were taken into account. The public did indeed reacted strongly to the release of this film here in New Zealand.
As part of this project, I was curious to find out the response of local individuals to the censorship of films in the cinema today. Questions were asked and responses were received from people of all ages.
Patrick G. Burdy, Age: 20 - Waiter
Q1. Films that you have watched recently:
X-Men 3, King's Speech, Rush Hour 2
Q2. How often do you watch movies?
Not Often, maybe once or twice a week if i have the time.
Q3. Where do you watch movies?
Internet, Borrow dvds from friends.
Q4. What film has caused an impact on you and why?
Titanic would probably be one of the films that caused a great impact on me, my great grandfather was a passenger on board that Titanic and when I watched that film, I was struck by the fear and emotions the passengers reenacted on board the sinking ship.
Q5. Do you restrict yourself to certain films? Do you follow the classification label on the cover of the DVD.
No I don’t. I never did follow the label, but when I was younger I did try my best not to watch things that weren’t good for me, like pornography and stuff.
Marilyn F. Kornay Age: 17 - Student
Q1. Films that you have watched recently:
Black Swan, Pulp Fiction, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Q2. How often do you watch movies?
I spend most of my free time watching movies and having friends over.
Q3. Where do you watch movies?
In theatres, tv and on the internet.
Q4. What film has caused an impact on you and why?
Scarface, It's an old film but I can clearly remember scenes where those gangsters and drug dealers would engage in a gun battle and often there would be blood shed and people dying. It gave me a in sight into the world of drug cartels and the lives of drug dealers and gangsters.
Q5. Do you restrict yourself to certain films? Do you follow the classification label on the cover of the DVD.
Marilyn F. Kornay Age: 17 - Student
Q1. Films that you have watched recently:
Black Swan, Pulp Fiction, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Q2. How often do you watch movies?
I spend most of my free time watching movies and having friends over.
Q3. Where do you watch movies?
In theatres, tv and on the internet.
Q4. What film has caused an impact on you and why?
Scarface, It's an old film but I can clearly remember scenes where those gangsters and drug dealers would engage in a gun battle and often there would be blood shed and people dying. It gave me a in sight into the world of drug cartels and the lives of drug dealers and gangsters.
Q5. Do you restrict yourself to certain films? Do you follow the classification label on the cover of the DVD.
No I don’t. If the movie is good I’ll watch it. In fact if I’m not allowed to watch it, it actually makes me want to watch it more.
Darren McKinley Age: 27 - Marketing Manager
Q1. Films that you have watched recently:
The Pianist, The Boy in The Striped Pyjamas, Meek's Cutoff
Q2. How often do you watch movies?
Mostly on Weekends.
Q3. Where do you watch movies?
On the internet, or i get them from the dvd store.
Q4. What film has caused an impact on you and why?
Definitely Trainspotting, it had lots of action and cops in it. It showed the life of a young teenager in Britain who was into drugs. It showed me how these kids operated and the things they do in order to purchase more drugs. It's a cruel life out there and this movie showed us the horrible
effects of substance abuse.
Q5. Do you restrict yourself to certain films? Do you follow the classification label on the cover of the DVD.
No not really actually, I’m 27 years old I can watch anything I want and I keep an open mind.
From the Interviews I concluded that films do indeed have an impact on youth and young adults and Films such as Trainspotting and Scareface definitely made an impressionable mark to its audiences and were filled with Violence and scenes of drug abuse.
From the Interviews I concluded that films do indeed have an impact on youth and young adults and Films such as Trainspotting and Scareface definitely made an impressionable mark to its audiences and were filled with Violence and scenes of drug abuse.
Viewer Opinion about Video Censorship.
Number of Videos usually watched per Month.
Respondents were asked "About how many hired videos do you usually watch in a month?", and a box was provided to enter an estimated number in response.
Table 4: Indicates Response to this question.
Table 4: Number of Videos Usually Watched per Month
- 0 8 1.1
- 1-2 184 25.8
- 3-4 168 23.5
- 5-6 107 15.0
- 7-8 74 10.3
- 9-10 75 10.5
- 11-18 65 9.0
- 19 or over ---- ---
- 715 100.0
Half of those giving a response usually watched for or fewer hired videos a month, while another 36% watched between 5 and 10. 14% of those responding watched more than 10 videos a month, and only 5% more than 18. Around five percent of those responding did not answer this question.
Females were slightly more likely than makes to watch 1 - 4 or 7 - 8 videos a month, and slightly less likely than males to watch 9 or more. Those aged 36 - 60 were less likely than those in younger age groups to watch over 10 videos a month. THose with a professional / university background were more likely than others to watch under five videos a month, and less likely than others to watch over 10. Those with no formal qualifications and those with a trades / technical background were more likely than others to usually watch over 10 videos a month.
Another thing to note is the viewing of Films on the internet, most people in this day and age stream their movies from sites that have almost no censorship regulations or rules put in place to deter youths from viewing materials that are unhealthy to them. Illegal sites operate with no concern over who watches their uploaded films and the age of their viewers. Uncontrolled and unrestricted access of these films over the web, questions the impact of the Censorship board on its effectivness against preventing the spread of undesired information to its citizens. Late night television air raunchy films and videos of women half naked dancing erotically and indulging in obscene activities with members of the opposite sex. The effectivness of film censorship can only go so far as it's limits. In my opinion parents should filter what their children watch as films as not all that go through censorship are necessarily suitable for their kids.
Major advances in technology have resulted in a range of obstacles and challenges for those involved in the process of classification and censorship in New Zealand. The rapid growth in use of Internet, the invention of DVDs and the availability of cheap digital recording technology have raised operational problems and policies that did not exist when New Zealand’s current censorship laws were enacted. Although the Internet has had undoubted benefits, it has also made objectionable material more readily available in New Zealand than ever before.
New Zealand’s classification system, being flexible and uniform approach towards censorship has dealt relatively well with the advances in technology. It has been able to address unforeseen changes that have arise due to the boom in Internet usage, the changing levels in maturity of society and cope with influential censorship systems overseas. New technology has created more challenges for the classification board and its duty in enforcing censorship. The widespread use of the Internet has greatly increased the amount and availability of unclassified objectionable material and the anonymity of those who spread such materials. While the Internet has assisted in the detection and apprehension of some offenders, it has increased the scale and ease of offending. The advent of DVDs, YouTube and widespread availability of films has placed a new burden on the Classification Office.
Film censorship indefinitely needs to exist and have control over what we can or cannot see. The establishment of a widespread and arbitrarily usable censorship infrastructure is vital in order to control society.
No comments:
Post a Comment