TEN breaches Code screening ‘MA’ film as ‘M.’
TEN is slapped for incorrectly classifying Tropic Thunder as M instead of MA15+ -and admits to having screened it four times before without being in breach.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
TEN has been found to have breached the Code of Practice by screening a movie with the incorrect Classification advice.
Last August TEN screened the 2008 action comedy Tropic Thunder starring Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. with an M classification.
But the film had been released in cinemas as MA 15+ by the Classification Board for its ‘strong violence, coarse language, drug and sexual references’.
Media watchdog ACMA received a complaint that “Although Network TEN modified the film from the cinematic release, these modifications were insufficient to permit the film to be accommodated within the M classification.”
TEN defends that it made 17 edits to reduce the overall impact of the film, including for violence, language and sexual references. The film had been broadcast four times across the network previously without complaint.
ACMA identified scenes remaining in the film that were beyond “moderate” use of violence:
• A soldier talking on a portable telephone falls forward and a realistic spray of blood shoots out from a bullet entry wound at the back of his head through his helmet. A second soldier places his hands over the wound and the blood spurts into his face.
• A soldier kneeling on the ground has his stomach sliced open with a bayonet spike. The camera briefly focuses on a large open wound on the soldier’s abdomen where blood-covered entrails are visible.
• The above noted soldier lies in a helicopter with his face and hands covered in blood. His left hand holds his abdomen where blood-covered viscera can be seen spilling from his wound.
• A soldier running through grass towards a helicopter is showered in bullets, broadcast in slow motion.
• A soldier is depicted with tendrils of burnt, bloodied flesh at his wrists where his hands have been blown off by a bomb.
Having been found in breach of the Code, TEN has advised ACMA of changes to its classification:
“Network TEN has introduced an internal classification policy whereby all new feature films will be initially ingested into the broadcast management system under the theatrical classification, unless the classification is R18+. If required and appropriate, the broadcast management system will then be provided with an additional version of the film, edited to a lower classification. Thus for MA/AV classified films, the original version will be available for broadcast, as well as an edited M version where required and appropriate. This will allow the higher classification version to be broadcast after 9.00 pm, such as in the circumstances of this investigation where the film was broadcast after [10.00] pm.”
As a result ACMA will take no further action.
But is our system really adequate enough when a film can be screened four times to an audience before somebody realises there is something amiss?
And why isn’t there a standard system of classifying movies with checks and balances in force at all networks already? Why does it take breaches before these are put into place?
14 Responses
Do they really think people not considered old enough to watch such films will switch off at the beginning if they flash up it’s MA15+. If anything giving it a lower classification probably encourages less kids to watch it.
Channel Ten really piss me off. They can do nothing right at that network!
its 2012, why are they still editing movies? GO don’t bother, if a movie has strong content, they’ll just put it on at 9:30. so why can’t Ten just leave them unedited with an MA/AV rating?
The thing that baffles me the most was this…
“Media watchdog ACMA received a complaint that “Although Network TEN modified the film from the cinematic release, these modifications were insufficient to permit the film to be accommodated within the M classification.””
Considering it was on at 10.00pm when they received the complaint, who the hell was going to that much trouble to question the fact that it was actually rated M and not MA in that timeslot anyway?!?
If the movie was screened at 10.00pm why wasn’t it just classified as MA15+ instead of M ?
Why bother showing a movie when its gonna be cut to pieces? one of the funniest parts was cut from the TV edit, which overall affects this otherwise great movie.
What bothers me about the whole thing is that TEN made 17 edits. Anyone with a brain at TEN would have ensured the movie kept its original MA15+ rating and that it was scheduled in a timeslot that no editing was required at all…not once, but five times!
The problem with the complaint system is one complaint is often all that’s needed.
I have come to the opinion the people most likely to complain are those most likely to ignore ratings. If you ever see people who are sensitive and complain about ratings discuss it. It’s never that they misjudged what the rating was. It’s that the rating failed them.
Things like this remind me of something the South Park guys said in that recent behind the scenes documentary. These days when people complain about the show. The reaction is now, “it’s south park, what’d you expect?.”
Also on Tropic Thunder, it’s all over the top and silly. Out of context it may seem extreme. In the film it’s not.
While not taking issue with what David wrote, I agree with csh and Jason S – if it’s taken five showings of the same material before a complaint was made it can’t have been that egregious, and context *is* important. Plus, you can just about always find some wowser to complain about pretty much anything. The standards should reflect some general community perspective and not be informed by either extreme.
@Trix – Love it!
Of concern to me is that Ten are able to make 17 (not one or two, but 17) cuts to a film and not screen a warning that it has been modified from the original. If it was America, they need to disclose this by law.
Movie companies should be insisting that if the film is edited from its original, that a disclaimer be screened.
The problem with these censorship issues is that everyone has a different idea to the context in which a scene is being portrayed. Tropic Thunder is a parody of war films, and in my eyes all these scenes were rediculously exaggerated for comedic effect and not realistic – in the context of the film I’ll reiterate.
Interestingly the fact the film was aired four times since then tells me that in fact most people who viewed the film considered the film fine in the context despite the rating it was given.
I understand the need for standards in broadcasting and selling material to the public as guidelines for people to know what they are getting themselves into. And I know my perhaps desensitized view of film and media doesn’t really matter when we are taking into consideration the standards for classifying broadcasted content for general public consumption.
I suppose when all is said and done, my thought is if no one complains is there really a problem? That it took four times or more before someone did makes this look kind of farcical. On the other side of it all, what is the point in showing a film that needs to be cut to that degree anyway.
This is all just more reason why I don’t watch free to air.
“But is our system really adequate enough when a film can be screened four times to an audience before somebody realises there is something amiss?”
Well another view would be that because no one complained, there wasn’t anything amiss. Community standards after all should reflect the community’s views and complaints are one of the better ways of measuring them.
“And why isn’t there a standard system of classifying movies with checks and balances in force at all networks already? ”
There is. Broadcasters are required to classify movies with reference to the National Classification Guidelines.
Your article even covers this earlier in the piece – “TEN defends that it made 17 edits to reduce the overall impact of the film, including for violence, language and sexual references. ”
From this sentence it is apparent that the film was classified and edited prior to broadcast to take classification rules into account.
The broadcaster and ACMA had different views about the appropriate classification.
CSH: Actually my point was that why isn’t there a standard across all the networks? They each have their own methodology for meeting the universal classifications. The way that our system works we end up with breaches before everybody realises “oh we better fix it.” Should we wait for another breach by another broadcaster before they then realise they need a better internal system too, or would it be better to agree on methodology and put it in place before a new breach? I do take your point that community didn’t take issue with it before though.
I’m sure the person responsible was the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude.