Investigation Report No. BI-274

Investigation report no. BI-274SummaryLicensee Channel Seven Melbourne Pty LtdStation 7FlixType of service Commercial—television Name of program HannibalDate of broadcast 2 December 2016Relevant Broadcasting Services Act 1992 legislation/code Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2015Date finalised 3 March 2017Decision No breach of paragraph 7(1)(ga) of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 [modify R18+ films]No breach of clause 2.6.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2015 [suitability for broadcast] Error: Reference source not foundBackground In January 2017, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation under section 170 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) into the film Hannibal (the film).The film was broadcast on 7Flix by Channel Seven Melbourne Pty Ltd (the licensee) on 2 December 2016 at approximately 11.05 pm. It had an MA15+ classification and the on- screen consumer advice of ‘Strong violence [and] some horror’.The ACMA received a complaint alleging the material was not correctly classified and was not suitable for broadcast.The ACMA has investigated the licensee’s compliance with paragraph 7(1)(ga) of Schedule 2 to the BSA and clause 2.6.1 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2015 (the Code). The film Hannibal is a 2001 American crime thriller film directed by Ridley Scott. It is described as follows: In this sequel to The Silence of the Lambs, Dr Hannibal Lecter, the former psychiatrist who engages in cannibalism, has escaped and is now living a cultured life in Florence. He is pursued for revenge by Verger, who had been horribly mutilated during an encounter with Hannibal some years earlier. Verger enlists the aid of law officers to trace Hannibal, and their paths cross with that of FBI agent Clarice Starling.1Background – classificationThe film was first classified MA15+ by the Classification Board on 7 February 2001, with consumer advice of ‘High level violence’.The film was subsequently classified R18+, with the consumer advice ‘High impact violence’, following review by the Classification Review Board on 22 February 2001.On 24 August 2001, a modified version of the film comprising the feature and a range of ‘extras’ (including deleted scenes and ‘making of’ footage) was classified R18+, ‘High impact violence, horror theme’. In its decision report, the Classification Board noted that:This approach [the inclusion of extra material] gives the horror element a stronger focus. The additional consumer advice, more adequately informs the viewer of the content of the film.On 22 July 2009, a Blu-ray version with extras was classified MA15+ by the Classification Board, with the consumer advice ‘Strong violence’.2The licensee has stated that it modified the film for broadcast.1 http://www.classification.gov.au/About/Pages/Review-Board-decisions-2001.aspx, accessed on 31 January 2017. 2http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/View.aspx?sid=KkaE1m6HxGfyKpnKgH5rCA%253d %253d&ncdctx=adqP5VLfBT5CIv9UH1EZq1x%252fD1RSzwTHpC8IzwdSHAtPpPyHqNY%2bZBWMRiUx5z24 accessed on 31 January 2017.2 Assessment and submissions When assessing content, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the material, including the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, images and any inferences that may be drawn. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener or viewer.Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener or viewer to be: A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.3Once the ACMA has ascertained the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.This investigation has taken into account the complaint (at Attachment A) and submissions from the licensee (at Attachment B). Other sources are identified where relevant.Issue: Modification for broadcast of a film classified R 18+Relevant provisions Broadcasting Services Act 1992Schedule 2 Standard conditionsPart 3 – Commercial television broadcasting licences[…]7 Conditions of commercial television broadcasting licences (1) Each commercial television broadcasting licence is subject to the following conditions:[...](ga) the licensee will not broadcast films that are classified as “R 18+” unless the films have been modified as mentioned in paragraph 123(3A)(b);Part 9 – Program standards123 Development of codes of practice[...](3A) In developing codes of practice referred to in paragraph (2)(a), (b) or (c), industry groups representing commercial television broadcasting licensees and community television broadcasting licensees must ensure that:[...](b) those codes provide for methods of modifying films having particular classifications under that system so that:(i) the films are suitable to be broadcast; […] Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 20153 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167. ACMA Investigation report— Hannibal broadcast on 7Flix on 2 December 2016 3 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundSection 2: Classification and proscribed material […]2.3 Exceptions2.3.1 Films must be classified by applying the classification system provided for by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.Note: Films may be modified by a Licensee to ensure they are suitable for broadcast, or for broadcast at particular times.[…]2.6 Material not suitable for broadcast 2.6.1 A Licensee must not broadcast any material that cannot be classified MA15+ or any lower television classification. Note: Material may be modified by a Licensee to ensure that it is suitable for broadcast, or for broadcast at particular times. Section 8: InterpretationFilm means any feature film, documentary or short film that has had first release in Australia through public exhibition (including cinematic release) or sale/hire and which has been classified by the Classification Board.Appendix 1: Television Classification Guidelines[…]The suitability of material for broadcast will depend on the context, frequency and intensity of key elements such as violence, sexual behaviour, nudity and coarse language, and on the time of day at which it is broadcast. It will also depend on such factors as the merit of the production, the purpose of a sequence, the tone, the camera work, the relevance of the material, and the treatment; be it dramatic, comedic or documentary. These factors must be all taken into account and carefully weighed. This means that some actions, depictions, themes, subject matter, treatments or language may meet current community standards of acceptability in one Program, but in another Program may require a higher classification, or be unsuitable for television. In other circumstances sequences that clearly depict comedy or slapstick behaviour may reduce the classification. […]The Mature Audience (MA) ClassificationMaterial classified MA is suitable for viewing only by persons aged 15 years or over because of the intensity and/or frequency of violence, sexual depictions, or coarse language, adult themes or drug use. The impact may be strong. All elements must be justified by context.Violence: Realistic depictions may contain some detail, but should not be prolonged and should not be unduly bloody or horrific. Violence occurring in a sexual context may be implied and must not be detailed.Themes: The treatment of strong adult themes should be justified.4 National Classification Scheme Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 199511 The matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a publication, a film or a computer game include:(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults;(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the publication, film or computer game;(c) the general character of the publication, film or computer game, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character;(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.National Classification Code1 Under the Code, classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; (b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; (c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive;(d) the need to take account of community concerns about:(i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and(ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.[…]Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012MA 15+ MATURE ACCOMPANIEDImpact testThe impact of material classified MA 15+ should be no higher than strong.Note: Material classified MA 15+ is considered unsuitable for persons under 15 years of age. It is a legally restricted category.Classifiable elementsTHEMESThe treatment of strong themes should be justified by context.VIOLENCEACMA Investigation report— Hannibal broadcast on 7Flix on 2 December 2016 5 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundViolence should be justified by context.Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context.[…]R 18+ RESTRICTEDImpact testThe impact of material classified R 18+ should not exceed high.Note: Material classified R 18+ is legally restricted to adults. Some material classified R 18+ may be offensive to sections of the adult community.Classifiable elementsTHEMESThere are virtually no restrictions on the treatment of themes.VIOLENCEViolence is permitted.Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context.[…]Changes to the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and to community attitudes The Guidelines for the Classification of Films (the Guidelines) have changed over time. The differences between different iterations of the Guidelines may be significant and may affect classification outcomes. The guidelines that applied to classification decisions made in 2001 – the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Videotapes 1999 – are not the same guidelines that apply to classification decisions made in 2016.Moreover, community attitudes to the impact of particular content change over time. Content judged to have a ‘high’ impact in 2001, may well be judged to have only a ‘strong’ impact in 2009 or 2016. Finding The licensee:  did not breach paragraph 7(1)(ga) of Schedule 2 to the BSA  did not breach clause 2.6.1 of the Code Reasons The BSA and the Code require that films that are modified for broadcast are classified under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Classification Act), according to the National Classification Scheme (the NCS). To assess compliance with the BSA, the ACMA considers the classification of the film (as it has been modified for broadcast) against the requirements of the NCS Guidelines in force at the time of broadcast. Previous classification decisions and the guidelines used to make 6 those decisions do not apply to the classification of the modified film. This is because the guidelines have changed since the original film was classified, are applied at the time of broadcast, and because the film itself has been modified.Clause 2.6.1 of the Code, prohibits material, including films, that is not suitable for broadcast. To assess compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers whether a modified film is suitable for broadcast by assessing whether the film can be accommodated within the guidelines for MA15+ in Appendix 1 of the Code.These considerations involve asking: Was the modified film classified appropriately, according to the NCS? Was the modified film suitable for broadcast under the Code?The complainant submitted to the ACMA: The film was classified R18+ (following a review) by the Australian Classification Review Board in 2001. I believe the Seven Network did not edit (or as I have since discovered in their reply) sufficiently edit the film, to accommodate it in a lower classification suitable for free-to-air television, due to the "high impact violence" (some of which was gratuitous or over-the-top and prolonged in a realistic manner) the film contained, therefore breaching the code. […] I believe the broadcast did breach the code: Due to the movie being classified R18+, which is not allowed on free-to-air television. But also further supported by the two "high impact" scenes which I mentioned. Impact which is "strong" is the highest level allowed on free-to-air television.The licensee responded to the complainant:As required by the Code, with regard to movies, the free-to-air television networks apply the same classification system as the Australian Government's Classification Board. This generally means that if a movie is classified MA (Mature Audience) for cinema or DVD release, it will be MA for television. The Code further provides however that free to air television networks may edit a movie, so as to reduce its impact, and ensure it is suitable for broadcast, or for broadcast at a particular time.[…] We believe the film was appropriately classified MA and in full compliance with the Code.In the case of Hannibal, the film was modified for broadcast, so as to be suited to an MA (Mature Audience) classification, with consumer advice for strong violence and some horror. Was the modified film classified appropriately, according to the NCS? The classification of the film takes into account the context and impact of the six classifiable elements – violence, themes, sex, nudity, coarse language and drug use.ViolenceThe ACMA considers that the following scenes contain the strongest depictions of violence and themes, and are the focus of the complaint: ACMA Investigation report— Hannibal broadcast on 7Flix on 2 December 2016 7 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundScene 1 The scene at approx. 76 minutes where Pazzi’s abdomen is slit open by Lecter and he is pushed from a balcony and hanged, his entrails spilling to the ground. Scene 2 The climactic ‘dinner party’ scene (from 109 minutes) where Lecter removes and cooks a piece of Krendler’s brain and feeds it to him. In these scenes, violence and the film’s themes of serial murder and cannibalism are inextricably linked. The scenes are essential for character and plot development and are contextually justified within the narrative and genre of the film. In its response to the complainant, the licensee stated that the scenes were not modified for broadcast.You are correct in your correspondence in asserting that [those] two scenes were not edited although other scenes were cut. These two scenes were left unedited as signature scenes in a horror classic in which the horror element is evoked conceptually, while the depictions and style remain relatively restrained. The ACMA considers that the impact of these scenes does not exceed strong.  Scene 1Regarding the first scene, the licensee responded to the complainant:As you pointed out in your correspondence, this is both brief and dimly lit. The effect of the downward slice of the blade is barely visible due to the extremely brief duration, and darkness of the shot. The cut is virtually implied and there is no blood detail. The man, silhouetted against the light and attached to the rope, is pushed over the balcony and tumbles as he falls. A shot of the pavement then shows objects from his pockets falling into frame, followed by blood and fleshy material. The man is then seen from beneath, dangling from the rope and swinging, in profile. While thematically strong, the actual depictions of violence-are-brief and/or implied and lack detail.The first scene uses the darkness of the night-time setting and cutaways to different perspectives of the scene to mitigate its impact. The audience anticipates and is prepared for Pazzi’s death because it is suggested in the previous scene, where Lecter shows Pazzi an artwork depicting the same fate for his ancestor. The scene is frequently intercut with footage of Verger’s men waiting for him outside and images of people wandering in the piazza. A phone conversation between Lecter and Starling, when Lecter answers Pazzi’s phone, also interrupts the build-up of tension in the scene.Although the viewer sees Lecter slit open Pazzi’s abdomen, the cut is made through his clothing and is shown only very briefly with no wound detail or blood spray. After Lecter pushes Pazzi from the balcony, the contents of Pazzi’s pockets are seen landing on the ground below one by one before his entrails land beside them. This depiction is bathed in shadow, with very minimal blood splash and no close up of the viscera. The camera cuts away immediately thereafter, so the image lasts for a matter of seconds. A final image of Pazzi’s body swinging with the string of his intestine protruding is shown from a distance, is darkly silhouetted to conceal detail and is interspersed with a series of further cutaways.  Scene 2The second scene is the ‘dinner party’ where Lecter removes the top of Krendler’s skull and feeds him a cooked piece of his own brain. The scene is less one of violence than a culmination of the theme of cannibalism – the point where Lecter is both satisfying his cannibalistic desires and exacting revenge on a person who has mistreated Starling. It is therefore contextually justified and serves as a parallel to the primary revenge narrative of the film. 8 Regarding this scene, the licensee responded to the complainant:Taken in context, this scene, in its deliberately constructed style and pacing, is strong in thematic impact, while the depictions of actual violence are brief, even minimal. The impact of the scene is mitigated by elements that are only implied rather than explicitly depicted, including the sawing open of Krendler’s skull which is heard rather than seen. The surreal, dreamlike nature of the scene is enhanced by Starling’s and Krendler’s morphine- induced haze. Lecter is matter-of-fact and methodical throughout, and as he peels back the membrane covering the brain, it appears more akin to a medical procedure than an act of violence. Gentle classical music scores the scene, which is intercut with shots of a police convoy en route. The comic dialogue between Lecter and Krendler throughout provides levity and dampens the viewer’s sympathies for Krendler, who shows no fear or pain, including the remarks that the smell and taste of the cooked brain is ‘good’. Although the scene as a whole is approximately six minutes in duration, the focus is split between Lecter’s interaction with Krendler and with Lecter negotiating with Starling.Both scenes depict acts of predatory violence. However, each is relatively restrained in various ways, whether by tone, lighting, the brevity of particular images, and the use of cutaways to other scenes or points of focus. The impact comes more from the sense of anticipation than the level of violence.Two other scenes were edited by the licensee to reduce their impact. These scenes and the other instances of violence in the film do not individually or cumulatively exceed what can be accommodated at the MA15+ category under the NCS.ThemesThe themes of serial murder and cannibalism in the film are inextricably linked with the element of violence. The most impactful illustration of the theme is the dinner party scene described above, which is no higher than strong. The film also contains more moderate visual and verbal references throughout, such as when Starling and her colleagues discuss Lecter’s criminal history, and the closing scene where Lecter implicitly feeds brains to a child passenger on a commercial flight.The ACMA considers that the thematic impact is commensurate with that of the violence, and does not exceed the MA15+ classification. Other classifiable elementsThe classifiable elements of sex, nudity, coarse language and drugs are also present in the film.The ACMA considers that each of these elements is justified by the narrative context of the film and their impact does not exceed moderate.Accordingly, the ACMA considers the film was appropriately classified MA15+ under the NCS.Was the modified film suitable for broadcast under the Code?The ACMA assessed the film against the particular classification requirements of MA15+ in Appendix 1 of the Code. Programs at the MA15+ classification are suitable for viewing only by persons aged 15 years or over. The impact of elements such as violence and themes at this level may be strong, though must be justified by context.ACMA Investigation report— Hannibal broadcast on 7Flix on 2 December 2016 9 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundViolenceThe two scenes in question both contain some detail but are restrained in tone and their impact is mitigated by the camera work, lighting and editing. Much of the violence is of a psychological nature with the scenes conveying a strong sense of threat and menace through dialogue and pacing rather than through the depiction of acts of violence.  Scene 1In the scene depicting Pazzi’s hanging, the moments when he is slit open and pushed from the balcony with his entrails landing on the ground are brief and dimly lit. Although the moment shown represents a period of escalating tension and foreboding, the shots showing his body hanging are framed from a considerable distance, lack detail and are only on screen for a brief period. The scene is not prolonged or unduly horrific. Scene 2While lasting approximately six minutes, the dinner party scene does not contain prolonged depictions of violence. The majority of the scene focuses on the conversation between the three characters, with repeated close ups of Lecter’s and Starling’s faces. The scene is also interspersed with cutaways to the image of the police convoy. Lecter’s surgical cutting of Krendler’s skull occurs off screen. The depiction of Lecter using a scalpel to remove a membrane from Krendler’s brain is not excessive in either duration or detail. The slicing of the brain itself is only implied, as the shot cuts briefly to the small piece of fleshy matter in the frying pan. The depictions are not unduly horrific, given the narrative context.The ACMA considers that the depictions of violence in these scenes are realistic, contain some detail but are not prolonged or unduly horrific. ThemesAppendix 1 of the Code states that at the MA15+ level, the treatment of strong adult themes should be justified. Serial murder and cannibalism are strong adult themes. Their treatment in the film is contextually justified, as both are critical to character development and plot. Thematic material has been carefully balanced by the tone and stylisation of the scenes, and by Lecter’s matter- of-fact demeanour and expository dialogue. The ACMA considers that the film was appropriately classified MA15+ under the Code and was, therefore, suitable for broadcast. The ACMA notes that the consumer advice of ‘Strong violence [and] some horror’ was provided to allow viewers to make an informed decision about viewing the film themselves and choosing whether the material was suitable for those in their care to watch. The licensee did not breach paragraph 7(1)(ga) to Schedule 2 of the BSA or clause 2.6.1 of the Code. 10 Attachment AComplaint Complaint to the licensee:At ~11:05pm on Friday the 2nd of December, your network broadcast the 2001 movie "Hannibal" on 7Flix.I believe you have breached the code. Due to the movie on DVD being classified "R18+" with "high impact violence" (which was actually decided by the Classification Review Board following complaints in that year).I had a teenage boy in the house at the time, who actually alerted me that he had been watching the movie in another room (of which I was unaware). He came to me and said "look at this, a man is getting his head cut open". Which was deeply alarming and concerning. Hence, the instigation for my complaint/anger. It should be noted, I don't have a parental lock set on any of my televisions, as I know R18+ programs cannot be broadcast on free-to-air television.DETAILS OF MY COMPLAINT: Channel Seven classified the broadcast as "MA15+" with "Strong Violence" & "Some Horror" (present in the top left-hand corner for ~10sec).[…]Two particular scenes upon what I ended up watching & my son had told me about, as well as the use of the Classification Review Board report (LINK: http://www.classification.gov.au/About/Documents/102+-+34th+Meeting+- +15th+22nd+February+2001.pdf) of the movie, assisted me in determining my main concerns: A man has his torso explicitly (but very briefly and in dim light) sliced open by a blade. He is then pushed off a balcony, whilst attached to a rope. When the rope slack ends, he is suspended in the air with his bowels explicitly splattering onto the pavement below. This scene was high in viewing impact, particularly given the dark theme of the scene where an innocent man has been tied-up. It was also gratuitous and could be considered abhorrent by many. The classification review board also noted this scene as being high in impact and contributing to the R18+ classification. At the end of the movie, a man is seated at a lavish dining room table, with a women (the protagonist) seated adjacent and another man (the antagonist) standing up next to the man. Thereafter, the antagonist proceeds to explicitly (but not graphically) slice open the top of the man's skull, he then explicitly removes it. The man's brain is explicitly exposed for the remainder of this scene. The man is also clearly medically affected, with his facial expressions, slurred and confused speech evident. The antagonist then explicitly removes a thin layer off his brain and cuts a portion of his brain off and cooks it on a frying pan, the man is then fed a piece of his own brain and eats it. This scene was arguably the most graphic in the movie. It was high in viewing impact, gratuitous, likely to cause disgust and was more importantly unsuitable for a minor to view. It was also very uncomfortable to watch, taking into account the gross displeasure from the female protagonist beside him during the scene, but drugged, unable to move to help. The scene was lengthy, detailed and clear. The horror of the context and scene ACMA Investigation report— Hannibal broadcast on 7Flix on 2 December 2016 11 of 18 Error: Reference source not found also increased the impact. The classification review board also noted this scene as being high impact and contributing to the R18+ classification. In conclusion, I did not have any problem with any other element in the broadcast, which could all be accommodated in a lower classification (except the horror theme, but which was noted in the consumer advice). However the impact of the two specific scenes I mentioned was high in impact (at the R18+ level) and should not have been broadcast on free-to-air television. Adding to this, that no effort was made to edit/modify the movie from its uncut version and also seeing as the movie was classified R18+ (as shown in the report which is hyperlinked above).I am also concerned at Seven's classification department, that they were not able to determine the difference between content that is "strong in impact" (MA15+, allowed on television) and "high in impact" (R18+, not allowed on free-to-air television) in respect to this case.Therefore I believe the broadcast did breach the code: Due to the movie being classified R18+, which is not allowed on free-to-air television.  But also further supported by the two "high impact" scenes which I mentioned. Impact which is "strong" is the highest level allowed on free-to-air television.[…]Complaint to the ACMA dated 9 January 2017:In early December 2016, I emailed the Seven Network (via Free TV Australia) to raise concern about the 2001 film "Hannibal" that was broadcast on their multi-channel "7Flix" on the 2nd of December 2016 at 11:05pm.The film was classified R18+ (following a review) by the Australian Classification Review Board in 2001. I believe the Seven Network did not edit (or as I have since discovered in their reply) sufficiently edit the film, to accommodate it in a lower classification suitable for free-to-air television, due to the "high impact violence" (some of which was gratuitous or over-the-top and prolonged in a realistic manner) the film contained, therefore breaching the code.The two particular scenes I had serious concern about, was (1) the scene where an Italian Police officer's torso is slit open and his bowels splatter on the ground below explicitly, after being strung up by a rope from a balcony. The second (2) scene I had even more serious concern about occurred at the end of the film, where Hannibal cuts open and removes a section of a man's skull, revealing his brain with eerie detail, cuts a piece off, fries it and then feeds it to the man. I found these scenes to be high in viewing impact, somewhat over-the-top, hard to watch, prolonged (especially the latter scene) and rather realistic, as well as filming effects used to increase the impact and in the latter scene the distressed and uncomfortable mood/tone from the protagonist Clarice. I will admit that there were elements of stylisation and surreal that slightly decreased the impact, but minimally.[…]However I was not satisfied with their explanation and reasoning of the two scenes described above, with the Seven Network defending them as "two crucial scenes in a horror classic" and cementing that by saying "the film has become accepted over the years". They also stated they believed the two scenes mentioned were no higher than 12 strong in impact, which I, my family and the Australian Classification Review Board strongly disagree with.[…]I want resolution of clear issues:1) Streamlined and more care given for classification, in that one organisation can't find one scene to be 'high in impact' and the other not to be, especially when the code states that films for broadcast must follow the Australian Classification Board's classification and guidelines.2) To abolish the assertion that, just because a broadcast is late at night doesn't necessarily mean minors and children will not be subject to the program. Classification provides a safeguard to children and their innocence. There is a reason why R18+ programs shouldn't be broadcast on free-to-air television and it's for this reason that minors (those under 18 years of age) need to be protected from confronting, confusing and offensive material. Many minors, particularly on Fridays and Saturdays stay up very late, particularly older teenagers, which backs this up.[…]ACMA Investigation report— Hannibal broadcast on 7Flix on 2 December 2016 13 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundAttachment BLicensee’s response and submissionsLicensee response to the complainant dated 19 December 2016:[…]As required by the Code, with regard to movies, the free-to-air television networks apply the same classification system as the Australian Government's Classification Board. This generally means that if a movie is classified MA (Mature Audience) for cinema or DVD release, it will be MA for television. The Code further provides however that free to air television networks may edit a movie, so as to reduce its impact, and ensure it is suitable for broadcast, or for broadcast at a particular time.In the case of Hannibal, the film was modified for broadcast, so as to be suited to an MA (Mature Audience) classification, with consumer advice for strong violence and some horror. Material classified MA is suitable for viewing only by persons aged 15 years or over because of the intensity and/or frequency of violence, sexual depictions, or coarse language, adult themes or drug use. In making the relevant editorial decisions, our experienced Classifiers carefully reviewed the film in the light of both the Classification Board MA15+ Classification and Report, dated 6 February 2001, and the subsequent Review Board R18+ Classification and Report, dated 23 February 2001.Hannibal (2001) is the second in a series of American psychological thriller films adapted from the Thomas Harris novel of the same name. The film is directed by Ridley Scott and stars Anthony Hopkins in the title role, with Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling and Gary Oldman as Mason Verger.You are correct in your correspondence in asserting that two scenes were not edited although other scenes were cut. These two scenes were left unedited as signature scenes in a horror classic in which the horror element is evoked conceptually, while the depictions and style remain relatively restrained.In the first scene you have described, a man's torso is sliced open with a blade as he is poised on a mechanical chair on a balcony above a public square. As you pointed out in your correspondence, this is both brief and dimly lit. The effect of the downward slice of the blade is barely visible due to the extremely brief duration, and darkness of the shot. The cut is virtually implied and there is no blood detail. The man, silhouetted against the light and attached to the rope, is pushed over the balcony and tumbles as he falls. A shot of the pavement then shows objects from his pockets falling into frame, followed by blood and fleshy material. The man is then seen from beneath, dangling from the rope and swinging, in profile. While thematically strong, the actual depictions of violence are brief and/or implied and lack detail.The second scene you have described is the famous dinner scene at the lake house. Taken in context, this scene, in its deliberately constructed style and pacing, is strong in thematic impact, while the depictions of actual violence are brief, even minimal. The scene unfolds slowly, almost lyrically, from the arrival of the victim Paul, to the waking of Clarice Starling in an upstairs bedroom. As Clarice makes her way downstairs she sees Hannibal stirring a frying pan with a wooden spoon, chatting politely with Paul. The mood at the table is surreal but calm, as an artful cutaway shows police cars speeding along the freeway towards the house. We then return to Paul who says grace, before another evocative shot shows a helicopter moving ever closer to Hannibal's location.Hannibal then removes Paul's cap, revealing a thin line of blood around his skull. He carefully levers off the top of Paul's skull, revealing his brain. The scene continues with 14 Paul behaving in a slightly bewildered way, but apparently without pain or distress. Hannibal says "You see, the brain itself feels no pain, Clarice, if that concerns you." in close ups of Clarice and Hannibal, she tries to negotiate with him to "stop now." Hannibal removes a small piece of the brain which he fries in the pan. Paul comments, "that is good". Again, close-ups of Clarice and Hannibal are shown in conversation. Hannibal then slowly wheels Paul from the room, as a line of police cars are seen in a dramatically stylised overhead shot, speeding towards Hannibal's location.While this scene is thematically strong, the depictions of violence are brief and meticulously constrained. In determining that the cumulative impact of the scene was strong, but not high, and thereby suited to an MA classification, our Classifiers gave due consideration to the Code's Television Classification Guidelines which state, "the suitability of material for broadcast will depend on the context, frequency and intensity of key elements such as violence, sexual behaviour, nudity and coarse language, and on the day and time at which it is broadcast. It will also depend on such factors as the merit of the production, the purpose of a sequence, the tone, the camera work, the relevance of the material and the treatment; be it dramatic, comedic or documentary.Hannibal has become recognized as something of a classic. As with the 'dinner scene' in particular, it denotes a particular style in which the horror element is more conceptual than actual. Since this film was first classified in 2001, it has received wide recognition and acceptance.We believe the film was appropriately classified MA and in full compliance with the Code. It was broadcast very late at night and into the early morning, and had warnings as to its content. It is intended that people use this information to make decisions about what to watch themselves, as well as those under their care.[…]Licensee submission to the ACMA dated 13 February 2017: […]We provided the complainant with a detailed response in relation to [the complainant’s] concerns in our letter of 19 December 2016 and the comments made below are in addition to those we have already articulated.The ProgramHannibal is a 2001 American crime thriller directed by Ridley Scott and adapted from the Thomas Harris novel of the same name. It is the sequel to the 1991 Academy Award winning film The Silence of the Lambs and sees Anthony Hopkins reprise his role as serial killer Hannibal Lecter, with Julianne Moore as FBI agent Clarice Starling.The film takes place ten years after The Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal Lecter is living in Italy in exile. Back in America, Mason Verger, one of Lecter's previous victims, uses his wealth and power to have Agent Starling re-assigned to Lecter's case. Verger is intent on revenge and plans to lure Lecter out of hiding, using Clarice Starling to draw him out. Lecter return to the US and finds himself being tracked down not only Agent Starling and the American authorities but by Verger and his henchmen.ClassificationThe Classification Review Board gave the unedited version of Hannibal a classification of R18+ for cinematic release in 2001, following pressure from various Christian and community groups.ACMA Investigation report— Hannibal broadcast on 7Flix on 2 December 2016 15 of 18 Error: Reference source not foundThe Code provides that Films must be classified by applying the classification system provided for by the Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. However notes that Films may be modified by a Licensee to ensure they are suitable for broadcast, or for broadcast at particular times.The film Hannibal was broadcast on 7flix with a classification of MA 15+ and Consumer Advice for strong violence and some horror. It was broadcast very late at night and into the early morning. The feedback from the complainant was the only complaint Seven received in respect of the broadcast, and the film has been previously broadcast with an MA15+ classification without complaint.While we acknowledge that the content of Hannibal is very much at the higher level of what is acceptable for television broadcast, we consider the film was appropriately classified MA15+ applying the classification system provided for by the Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995.The Guidelines for the Classification of Films 2012 (Film Classification Guidelines) provide as follows in respect of material classified MA15+• The impact of material classified MA 15+ should be no higher than strong. • The treatment of strong themes should be justified by context. • Violence should be justified by context.The Film Classification Guidelines also provide that assessing the impact of material requires considering not only the treatment of individual classifiable elements but also their cumulative effect. It also requires considering the purpose and tone of a sequence.The guidelines also emphasise the role of context, stating "context is crucial in determining whether a classifiable element is justified by the story-line or themes."Community attitudes to strong violence in film and television have changed over the 16 year period since Hannibal was given an R18+ rating by the Classification Review Board in 2001. Indeed, The Silence of the Lambs, classified by the Board as R18+ in 1991, has subsequently been classified MA15+ for DVD release in various editions since 2005.TV series classified MA15+ in Australia arguably include violence of a similar impact to Hannibal, including The Killing, The Bridge, CSI, Luther, Bones and Dexter. These programs are characterized by detailed verbal and/or visual depictions of crimes in which the victim has frequently been tortured prior to dying.In particular we would argue that Dexter is highly comparable to Hannibal in the complexity of its themes and the detail/impact of violence depicted. Dexter, winner of two Golden Globe awards, is a US television crime series about a police forensic technician named Dexter Morgan who leads a secret life as a vigilante serial killer.The New York Times of September 29, 2006, describes the lead character as a "smart, wittily self-aware homicidal maniac in the tradition of Richard Ill and Hannibal Lecter''. The Classification Board gave each series a classification of MA15+ with consumer advice of "Strong violence and coarse language", sometimes including drug use and themes as well.Within the Board's Guidelines, content classified MA15+ is "strong in impact". By way of example, material the Board found to be strong in impact in relation to Dexter includes:• "numerous depictions of crime scenes with large amounts of blood and severed body parts visible" • "Dexter drops plastic bags on the ground, implicitly full of body parts of a man he killed, in preparation to dump them. A bag breaks open and a dismembered hand 16 with an open wound full of maggots falls out" • As a boy Dexter and his brother witnessed the murder of their mother when she was implicitly killed by a man with a chainsaw, "a large amount of blood shown spraying onto her face ... two young boys are shown sitting in a very large pool of blood" • After Dexter "slashes a man's throat with a knife, a close-up of Brian's neck shows the wound begin to open up as a large amount of blood pulsates out. Blood is then shown spraying from Brian's neck and pooling into a bucket" • Dexter takes a man still alive to a warehouse where he "surrounds a room in plastic, tapes Chino's body to a table with cling film and masking tape and cuts his cheek with a knife, resulting in blood flowing onto the floor. Dexter then picks up a knife with a long thin blade and plunges it into Chino's chest through the tape, resulting in a large amount of blood pouring down Chino's stomach onto the floor".Dexter's crimes are frequent and cruel, with his victims being subjected to ritualized processes prior to death and always being awake to see their own demise coming.If Dexter is "strong in impact" (rather than "high") then, we would argue, so is Hannibal.The following cuts were made to the film, Hannibal for television broadcast:• At around 01:18 a shot of a man whose throat has been slit by Hannibal is seen lying on the floor, with blood pooling under his head. This depiction occurs in the aftermath of the evisceration of the policeman Pazzi and is a part of the conclusion of that scene. It was removed as surplus to the narrative and for showing the wound in detail.• At around 01:46 2 edits were made to remove depictions of Verger's head being eaten by pigs.As noted above, the Film Classification Guidelines provide that assessing the impact of material requires considering not only the treatment of individual classifiable elements but also their cumulative effect. These edits do reduce the overall impact of the film, in particular taking into account that violence within the film was already relatively low in frequency and duration, scattered with long low impact narrative sequences.While the film is thematically challenging, we consider it fits within the "justified by context" boundaries of the MA15+ category - especially when considered in light of recent examples such as Dexter.The film has an intricately constructed narrative, with stylized camera work and elaborate editing. It has high production values and celebrated performances. The quality of the film and the cinematic techniques it employs were a factor in the decision to make minimal edits, as was its status as a well known "classic" of its genre. The infamous nature of the 'dinner scene' in particular, has reduced its thematic impact overtime.Our experienced Classifiers carefully reviewed the film and exercised their professional expertise to bring the film within the boundaries of MA15+. In doing so, careful consideration was given to the scenes that were referenced as high impact in the original decision of the Classification Review Board. However, in the judgement of our classifiers, further cuts were not considered necessary, based on the current Film Classification Guidelines and their interpretation. A brief overview of their reasoning in respect of these elements is set out below:(1) The scene in which Agent Starling shoots a woman carrying a baby. This scene was not cut as the detail of the encounter is crucial to the narrative and in establishing Clarice's character. The scene portrays Clarice as having both a deadly focus and compassion - as well as very good aim. Before the woman has ACMA Investigation report— Hannibal broadcast on 7Flix on 2 December 2016 17 of 18 Error: Reference source not found hit the ground the baby is heard crying (a normal baby cry) indicating the baby is alive and not in pain. In the view of our classifiers there was nothing in this scene that would be considered high impact violence in accordance with the current Film Classification Guidelines and their interpretation. It would sit comfortably within other M/MA classified police action drama films such as Criminal Minds, The Shield, The Wire and Law and Order.(2) This scene in which Verger recounts his encounter with Hannibal, which resulted in his terrible disfigurement : Verger's disfigurement and wish for revenge is essential to the narrative. The scene establishes a prior event and also demonstrates Clarice Starling's acute understanding of the nature of the relationship between Verger and Hannibal. The scene is stylized to the extent that the hanging and the cutting are blurred and/or obscured. Given the brevity, the stylized treatment and the context as a recollection of past events, our classifiers consider the impact of this scene was no higher than strong.(3) The scene in which Italian police officer Pazzi is killed: This scene is very dark and much of the action is partially obscured. It was decided to keep the evisceration sequence intact as it is the culmination of events which commence from the moment Pazzi decides to seek the reward for Hannibal's capture. The detail of what was implicitly Pazzi's bowel/intestines falling onto the ground was gory, but no higher than strong in impact. Particularly when compared with a series such as Vikings, which commonly features strong/bloody violence and has been broadcast and approved for sale/hire with an MA15+ classification. As noted above, the depiction of another man lying with his throat slit has been edited.(4) The dinner scene in which Hannibal removes the top of a man's skull. This has been discussed in some detail in response to the complainant. While this scene is thematically strong, the depictions of violence are brief and meticulously constrained. The surreal nature of the events and the lack of pain or suffering by the victim (who has clearly been medicated) was considered to significantly reduce the impact the scene - particularly when compared to violence within other films and series in the serial killer genre where the protagonist is depicted as being gratified by causing fear, pain to their victims. Hannibal is a very contradictory character - he's brilliant psychiatrist and highly cultured but also a cannibalistic serial killer. Although the dinner scene was strong in impact, it was very much a dramatic expression of the essential contradiction in his nature. In this sense, it wasn't gratuitous. It was meticulously handled in a way that was quite understated and matter of fact. Lighting, music and other special effects are carefully selected to contrast the refined and almost romantic atmosphere with the actions that are occurring, which gives the scene a surreal quality.In determining that the impact and cumulative effect of these scenes was strong, but not high, and thereby suited to an MA classification, our Classifiers were very mindful of the merits of the production, the contextual justification, and the relative infrequency of strong violence within the film.For the reasons provided above, Seven submits that the film was appropriately modified for broadcast and classified MA15+ by our expert classifiers applying the classification system provided for by the Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. […]18

Investigation Report No. BI-274

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support