Censorship 2001

So much for liberal society. So much for the notion of a mature citizenry that can decide for itself what is appropriate and what is not. The decree has come down from above that we are all children who should not speak out of turn and who should want only what we are told is the decent thing. Our moral betters have told us we must not watch, must avert our gaze from that which offends certain sections of our community by its very existence. Like the protesters waving their placards outside cinemas where The Last Temptation of Christ was showing a few years ago, they are offended not for themselves (because they would never dream of watching such a thing) but for the lack of offense on our part.

Salς may be a tale of perversion and degeneration, of a caste of nobility which believes itself above the common man and above the law or of a situation in which absolute power corrupts absolutely. Or it may be an allegorical tale of political absolutism in fascist Italy. Why do we not level the same criticism at Schindler's List? Of course the answer to this is obvious – Salς has no redeemer, no heroic Samaritans – it is not a feel good film. It simply points to the evil repressed in all cultures and psychologies, possibly even an innate facet of 'the human condition' and it pulls no punches, it stares it in the eye an asks you to come to your own conclusions. It is not a feel good flick.

Cannibal Holocaust may be a story of abject horror, of a world that is far from our comfortable bourgeois existence in the Antipodes, a world we want to believe never existed, and if it did, could not exist today. It may be a snuff movie – the only one to have made it even close to a mainstream audience. And yet, apart from its visual design – isn't it actually a much less disturbing picture of humanity than Lord of the Flies – another comment on the thin veneer of civilisation that has more in common with Salς than Cannibal Holocaust?

There is something in all of this – an ostrich attitude – that if we pretend none of it exists it really doesn't. Depiction and comment and exploration of the all too real darker side of humanity as the cause of humanity's ills. Film as scapegoat. Comically, as both cause and effect of its deficiencies and its decadence.

In all of the OFLC's guidelines (and in general public debate) there are certain scenes which are offensive. As we see from all classification systems, sex and violence are the main offenders. We always hear talk of gratuitous sex and violence – 'it's OK if it's in context'. When someone makes a film about sex or violence it is banned (unless it is classified X in which case it can be sold in a couple of territories, keeping them and manufacturers of brown paper bags in business). Anyone who has taken the time to look through the OFLC's guidelines or has followed debates about film censorship over the past while will know that everything is couched in terms of offense – there is hardly a word on any perceived harm that watching such films might cause – picture the OFLC's original cuts to Dead Man or the trivial controversy over the screening of The Exorcist on Good Friday in Victoria.

There are eight film of this nature that were to be shown in MUFF this year. This rant is filling in for the brief blurb on each film that might have been here had we not been censored ourselves. I have chosen to defend only two of these (and admittedly they are the most defensible). Do I really care if I never get the chance to see Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 on the big screen? Not really – because of the nature of the film itself and because in the days of internet shopping I know that anyone who wants to see it really doesn't have to try too hard. I care that we are not allowed to screen it to those who come of their own volition.

The others we were intending to show were Evil Dead Trap, Wes Craven's first film Last House on the Left, Story of Ricky, Nekromantik and Lucio Fulci's slasher, New York Ripper. They are a mixed bunch. Not one of them is a feel good film. They all explore the boundaries of human experience, the margins of reason. None of them is Citizen Kane – but even old Orson knew a thing or two about censorship himself after that one.

We live in a dream world in a dream country where nothing goes wrong except on the news. Curiously, this reminds me of the furore over Pauline Hanson, where in typical fashion, little Johnny came out and defended her right to free speech. In his small-minded haste, he forgot that incipient in this right there was also the right to admit she has moronic ideas – in a word, was wrong. Someone once said that incipient in true freedom was the right to be offended. Only blind dogmatism – intolerance of intolerance – could not insist on the need to be offended. If we are not free to be offended by depictions of Nazi atrocities, what is the point in declaring ourselves other than them?

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." – J S Mill

Only a defence against harm caused. Surely there is no need for a defence against examining any justification of proper human existence in thinking its other.

Matt Boyle

Censorship 2001 forum
on Wednesday 11 July 7pm, Kaleide.

Free entry.