Poor Censorship ‘proved' (Press, 17 May 1980)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Poor Censorship ‘proved' (Press, 17 May 1980)
On 17 May 1980, Patricia Bartlett, secretary of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, argued that film censorship in New Zealand has significantly diminished, supporting her claims with official statistics. She pointed out that under the new film censorship criteria, implemented in 1977, the number of films banned dramatically dropped from 34 in 1976 to only 11 in the following year. This decrease represented a 300 per cent reduction in banned films over three years. Furthermore, several films that had been previously banned in the 1970s for being "contrary to public decency" were now being approved. Bartlett noted the sharp decline in the number of film cuts made for violence; from 430 cuts in 1976, the number fell to 112 in the following year—a reduction of nearly 400 per cent. Overall, the number of films that underwent cuts decreased from 147 to 65 during the same period. In total, the cuts across all categories dropped from 957 in 1976 to just 286 last year, signalling a remarkable 240 per cent reduction in film censorship overall. Bartlett expressed frustration towards statements made by Mr B. Tunnicliffe, the Film Censor, and Judge A. Beatson, chairman of the Film Review Board, who claimed that a good standard of censorship had been maintained. She argued that they were aware of the significant liberalisation in the film standards, which allowed scenes that had previously been banned in New Zealand films to be approved under the new guidelines. Citing Tunnicliffe's comments about the low number of appeals—only 11 from 3000 films reviewed—Bartlett concurred, asserting this reflected how well the new criteria were functioning. She took issue with Tunnicliffe’s assertion that the right to review was important because his team could be wrong in decisions. She remarked that this acknowledgment only applied to films banned and not to those that were cleared for release. Bartlett challenged Tunnicliffe, suggesting that if he could admit to the potential for errors in banning, he should also consider the possibility that films are being passed that should have been banned.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand