SPCS argues for a lower rating

April 5th, 2008 at 10:57 am by David Farrar

The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards is most well known for arguing that ratings on films are not tough enough. But today they are reported as arguing for children aged under 16 able to see a film showing a group of Christian missionaries speared to death by an Ecuadorian tribe.

6 Responses to “SPCS argues for a lower rating”

  1. Ross Nixon (672 comments) says:

    There is no gratuitous violence. “You see a spear being thrown but you don’t see blood spurting from wounds.”
    But Hastings (and his ilk) probably don’t want the Christian values of forgiveness etc to influence children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. scrubone (3,791 comments) says:

    Sorry David, but you’re missrepresenting this.

    “There were no “significant differences” between the two versions of the film, and the classification office was “playing up” the violent scenes, he said.”

    This is not about the classification of the movie, it’s about the classification of one version of it.

    Perhaps you could mention that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. grumpyoldhori (2,307 comments) says:

    Christian hypocrites who believe violence is better to show than
    any sex scenes.
    Show a woman’s boob on screen and listen to them rant.
    They have the utter cheek to believe we should live by their
    so called morals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nicholas O'Kane (147 comments) says:

    How about this law proposal for violent movies/films or ones with sex scenes. If a movie is deemed to have more than a certain amount of violence or sexual content, it should be R16 (i.e. restricted to those 16 years of age and over) However, people under age (i.e. minors) can watch the movie with the express permission of both their parents, or legal guardians. Obviously there will need to be some safeguards in place to ensure minors do not fake parental consent.

    The benefits are that christians (or any other parents) could use their own judgement (which will almost always be in their childs best interest) to decide if a child is mature enough to watch a movie or play a video game. If christian parents want to allow their 12 year old child to see passion of christ or a similar movie, I don’t see why the Government should stop them.

    The abolition of R18 ratings (and having R16 as the highest rating) may be controverisal, but 16 year olds are (in my opinion) sensible enough to decide which movies they want to watch, and know the difference between a movie and real life. Its pretty illogical to ban a 16 or 17 year old from watching someone have sex in a movie, when they can do so legally themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. JC (1,102 comments) says:

    Now Grumpy. The Christians just want to see their own guts on the screen, not yours or the other natives.

    And where else can a God fearing Christian see boobs except when watching said Christians getting tortured and eaten by dusky maidens?


    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. SPCS (19 comments) says:

    The Dominion Post Report states “… but [Chief Censor Bill Hastings] agreed it was unusual for the Society [for the Promotion of Community Standards Inc.] to argue for a film’s rating to be lowered rather than raised.

    However, this is not the first time the Society has gone before the Film and Literature Board of Review to argue for a lower rating for a restriced film. For example, it was successful it getting the Board to lower the rating of Mel Gibson’s box office hit “The Passion of the Christ” – lowered from R16 to R15. In this review the New Zealand distributor was the applicant to the Board and the Society supported the distributor’s push for a lower rating, by making its own robust written and oral submision to the Board. The Society’s position on the depiction of historical violence was spelt out at the time of the review in a major opinion piece article in the NZ Herald and in numerous media releases.

    The Society has as one of its six objects: “To support responsible freedom of expresion which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes or people.” [Object 2(f) from Society’s Constitution]. See http://www.spcs.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote