Office of Film and Literature Classification Comparing Classifications 2010 & 2011
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Comparing Classifications: feature films and video games 2010 & 2011 Office of Film and Literature Classification Comparing Classifications 2010 & 2011 2 Office of Film and Literature Classification Comparing Classifications 2010 & 2011 Comparing Classifications: feature films and video games 2010 & 2011 Office of Film and Literature Classification Te Tari Whakarōpū Tukuata, Tuhituhinga 4th Floor, BP House 20 Customhouse Quay PO Box 1999 Wellington 6140 Phone 04 471 6770 Fax 04 471 6781 Email [email protected] Web www.censorship.govt.nz ISBN: PDF 978-0-477-10397-8 May 2013 Acknowledgements The Classification Office is grateful to Nokuthaba Sibanda and Lara Wieser from the School of Mathematics, Statistics and Operations Research at Victoria University of Wellington who worked with us in 2009 to develop the scoring methodology and the analytical approaches used in this report. We are also grateful to Mike Camden of Statistics NZ who helped us in 2010 to present the data graphically. We also thank the Film and Video Labelling Body in New Zealand, and our film and game classification colleagues in the countries selected for comparison. This report was prepared by Kate Ward and Henry Talbot of the Information Unit at the Office of Film and Literature Classification, Wellington, New Zealand. ©2013 3 Executive Summary ___________________________________________________________________ 5 Introduction _________________________________________________________________________ 7 The Classification System in New Zealand _________________________________________________ 8 Jurisdictions for Comparison ___________________________________________________________ 10 Methodology _______________________________________________________________________ 11 Terminology ________________________________________________________________________________ 11 Data _______________________________________________________________________________________ 11 Master Lists _________________________________________________________________________________ 11 Classification strength scores ___________________________________________________________________ 12 Data analysis ________________________________________________________________________________ 15 Explanation of Bubble Charts ________________________________________________________________ 15 Film Results ________________________________________________________________________ 16 New Zealand and Australia __________________________________________________________________ 17 New Zealand and the United Kingdom _________________________________________________________ 19 New Zealand and the United States ___________________________________________________________ 21 New Zealand and Ontario ___________________________________________________________________ 23 New Zealand and Singapore _________________________________________________________________ 25 Summary – comparing films ____________________________________________________________________ 27 Game Results _______________________________________________________________________ 28 New Zealand and Australia – games ___________________________________________________________ 29 New Zealand and United States – games _______________________________________________________ 31 New Zealand and Ontario - games ____________________________________________________________ 33 New Zealand and pan-Europe - games _________________________________________________________ 35 New Zealand and Singapore - games __________________________________________________________ 37 Summary – comparing games __________________________________________________________________ 39 Comparisons of strength averages between 2008/09 data sets and 2010/11 data sets ____________ 40 Appendix A: Guide to Classification and Ratings Systems for Films and Games ___________________ 41 Entertainment Software Ratings Board [games rating system used in the US and Ontario] _________________ 41 Pan-European Game Information (PEGI) [games] ___________________________________________________ 42 British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) [films] ___________________________________________________ 44 Motion Picture Association of America (rating system known as CARA) [films] ___________________________ 45 Ontario Film Review Board [films] _______________________________________________________________ 46 Singapore Media Development Authority [films] ___________________________________________________ 47 Australian Classification Board [films and games] __________________________________________________ 48 Office of Film and Literature Classification and the Film and Video Labelling Body [films and games] _________ 49 Appendix B: Films and games used in this study ___________________________________________ 50 Films ______________________________________________________________________________________ 50 Games _____________________________________________________________________________________ 54 Appendix C: 2008/09 Strength Scores ____________________________________________________ 57 Office of Film and Literature Classification Comparing Classifications 2010 & 2011 Executive Summary Purpose of the research The classifications assigned to films and games by different countries are substantially variable as are the symbols, names and meanings used on classification labels. Nevertheless, it is interesting to compare New Zealand classifications with those of other jurisdictions, to find out what is similar and what is different between us. Methodology To enable comparisons to be made, we developed and applied a scoring system. Classifications were listed and ranked in increasing order of age restriction. A numerical score was attached to each classification, with less restrictive ones receiving lower scores. In general, classifications allowing parental/caregiver accompaniment below a given age were considered weaker than those that have a legally enforceable age restriction. 228 films and 128 games are included in the analysis. The film titles were mainly for cinematic release, but in some jurisdictions were only released on DVD. Respectively, 99 films and 115 games were classified in all of the jurisdictions compared. The comparisons for film show that: In general, the greater range of age restrictions available in New Zealand (eg: R13, R15, R16, etc) means that decisions can be tailored more than in jurisdictions with catch-all classifications for content targeted at an adult audience: for example, MA15+ in Australia, or R in the United States. Australian classifications are inconsistent with New Zealand’s largely because of the differing principles the systems are based on which allow for parental choice in Australia at the MA15+ level, where in New Zealand these films are more likely to receive an age restriction of R16. In the comparison with Australia, a large group of films, 97 out of 224, is restricted to people 16 and over in New Zealand but has the parental accompaniment MA15+ in Australia. New Zealand’s closest classification equivalent to MA15+ is RP16. The only film classified RP16 during the period of the study was by the Film and Literature Board of Review who overturned the Classification Office R16 decision for the film 127 Hours. While overall the United Kingdom and New Zealand systems are equally strong, the British Board of Film Classification is more likely to negotiate cuts than ban outright compared to the New Zealand Classification Office. New Zealand is a small market of 4 million and distributors and producers may not be as motivated to make cuts for a lower classification as they are for the United Kingdom market of 63 million people. The strength of the New Zealand system tips closer to that of the United States because 18 films in the sample are classified M (unrestricted) in New Zealand, but rated R in America. The reason is most likely because sexual content is assessed differently between the two systems. In the United States, R was applied to 91% of the titles and is the only option for films intended for an adult audience, apart from NC17+. NC17+ does not appear at all 5 Office of Film and Literature Classification Comparing Classifications 2010 & 2011 for the 134 titles in the data set, and was therefore not applied to 18 films classified R18 in New Zealand — all rated R in the United States. These films included Drive, Saw 3D, The Human Centipede, and Harry Brown. While 180 film titles formed the data set for comparison between New Zealand and Ontario, just three (less than 2%) are fully age-restricted in Ontario. Ontario and Australia are on a par as the most liberal systems in the comparison group. In Ontario, this is mostly due to the high use of their 14A classification which, similar to Australia’s MA15+, is a parental accompaniment restriction. The relative strength of the Singaporean system compared to New Zealand’s is due to a number of films receiving an M (unrestricted) classification here, but classified restrictively in Singapore as either NC16, M18 or R21. Many of these films contain sexual references and material of a sexual nature that may be less acceptable within the Singaporean cultural context. The comparisons for games show that: Overall, the New Zealand game classification system is more restrictive than Australia’s during the period under comparison. While New Zealand made frequent use of its R18 option for games — other than banning games — no high-level restriction was available in Australia during the period. Australia has