Subject
Re: LO film & Australian politics (fwd)
Date
Body
I'm not a reader from Australia, but I'm forwarding a recent editorial in
the Canberra paper about the Australian Lolita controversy.
//Alphonse Vinh
[FOR PERSONAL READING ONLY]
WE Should Never Be Afraid To Confront Our Fears
03/13/99
Canberra Times
Page 1
Copyright The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Limited. All rights
reserved.
WE should never be afraid to confront our fears. Refusing to see what we
don't like is a very dangerous and cowardly choice. Pretending it doesn't
exist is worse still.
Lolita is a film with an unsavoury theme, there's no doubt about that. A
story about a man having a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old girl, his
stepdaughter, is challenging to say the least. But that does not mean that
the film - or the Vladimir Nabakov book upon which it is based, or the 1962
Stanley Kubrick adaptation of the book - is wrong. Censorship of literature
and art is a precarious matter, and indicates an inability to cope with
difficult and confronting issues.
A sexual relationship with a minor, particularly when it involves the
guardian of the minor, is disturbing. That minors have a sexual life at all
is just as confronting for many. We tend to make blanket statements about
exploitation, disregarding the possibility that there can be choices made by
iboth parties. We live in an age of paranoia about paedophilia; at least
the
outrage over this film has none of the homophobic suggestions that underline
much of the usual hysteria.
The film's recent history has been well-documented. Finished three years
ago, it was released in the United States and Europe to mixed reviews and
some controversy last year, and has only just been assessed in Australia by
the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The film received an R18+
rating (for viewers over the age of 18), and that ruling has been contested
by federal Liberal MP Trish Draper, who would like to see the film's
classification taken away altogether, rendering it not able to be viewed in
Australia .
Draper's main argument is that paedophilia is illegal in Australia therefore
it should not be depicted on screen. She also takes great exception to the
fact that star Jeremy Irons and director Adrian Lyne have both said publicly
that they tried to make the main character, Humbert Humbert, likeable, when
she says the character is "sick", "dirty" and "perverted".
Accepting that something exists does not mean we condone it. It is important
to recognise that the world is not a safe and secure place. Lines of
morality and exploitation are easily blurred. Pretending that everything is
hunky dory is far more dangerous than exposing the truth.
Lyne's previous films - 91/2 Weeks, Fatal Attraction, Indecent Proposal -
had as much titillation factor as his adaptation of Lolita but attracted
considerably less fuss. The message seems to be that sexual exploitation of
an adult woman, verging on misogyny, in 91/2 Weeks; that the cynical
attitudes towards love, money and sex in Indecent Proposal; and that the
aftermath of an adulterous affair, with very two-dimensional characters in
Fatal Attraction, are of no concern, but the relationship in Lolita is
anathema. Of all Lyne's films, Lolita is the only one with any real regard
for morality. Humbert is not a hero. The film itself does not condone the
relationship, but it does portray it in a frighteningly realistic way.
Draper's argument that paedophilia is illegal therefore must not be in a
film is spurious. We would never have had The Sting, Thelma and Louise,
Fargo or Casablanca if films were to undergo such rigorous restrictions.
It's not just film that is affected. When you wade into the murky waters of
censorship and dictating of morals, you include all the literary and
artistic world. Shakespeare would be unsuitable. Picasso's work would be
burned. Draper says her objections are as much in her capacity as a mother
and member of society as they are as a politician. She is concerned that the
more we accept violence and sexual flagrancy in mainstream entertainment the
closer we are to condoning depravity, and the more permissive in society.
"The film was only made to make money and to present to a wide mainstream
audience as entertainment." But the Romans, who watched real people being
killed and maimed for gladiatorial entertainment, are not considered, in a
historical context, to have had any more permissive, violent, corrupt or
depraved a community than any to which we are accustomed today.
To cast Draper as the villain is as simplistic as some of her arguments. She
has every right as a citizen, and as a politician representing concerned
constituents, to object to a ruling by the film office. But how far that
objection goes is the main concern. There has been talk that the Prime
Minister will try to have the film banned. His office has issued little
comment, saying that it is Draper's issue, not a "personal campaign" for
John Howard, therefore it would be inappropriate for him to comment. "There
has been interpretation that the Prime Minister is going to rush off and ban
the film," a spokeswoman said. "He respects her right to put in an appeal."
The matter is in the hands of the Attorney-General.
A cop-out or a belief that the issue has been blown out of proportion?
It is easy to be cynical given Howard's known feelings about morality and
his political need to keep the moralistic Senator Harradine onside.
Howard's office has said if he has the time he will watch the film, and
there is talk also of a special screening in Parliament House, if it can be
arranged by the distributors.
Why should parliamentarians have that luxury? What is the point of the film
office if, when a politician doesn't like a decision, the matter becomes a
political one? When did parliaments get the right to dictate morality and
what is acceptable?
When William Dobell's portrait of artist Joshua Smith for the Archibald
Prize in 1943 was challenged, the court wisely decided that it had no
jurisdiction to rule on artworks. How little we seem to have learnt since
then.
The film office arrived at its decision on Lolita after broad, exhaustive
consideration. Part of its ruling reads: "The classification board took into
account the views of the panel of experts when deciding that the film does
not promote paedophilia or child sexual abuse. The board noted that the
complex paedophilic relationship between the adult and the child is
discretely portrayed. Sexual aspects of the relationship are suggested but
not shown in detail. The girl is shown as a victim rather than as an object
of desire in a relationship that is damaging and destructive.
"When making classification decisions, the classification board is required
to take into account the standards generally accepted by reasonable adults,
as well as the general character of the film, the likely audience for the
film and the literary, artistic and educational merit (if any) of the film.
"In the board's opinion while the film may offend some sections of the
community, it does not offend against standards generally accepted by
reasonable adults to the extent that it should be refused classification."
Incidentally, Lolita 's release has been passed around as a political hot
potato for so long that star Dominique Swain is now old enough to see the
film in Australia .
the Canberra paper about the Australian Lolita controversy.
//Alphonse Vinh
[FOR PERSONAL READING ONLY]
WE Should Never Be Afraid To Confront Our Fears
03/13/99
Canberra Times
Page 1
Copyright The Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Limited. All rights
reserved.
WE should never be afraid to confront our fears. Refusing to see what we
don't like is a very dangerous and cowardly choice. Pretending it doesn't
exist is worse still.
Lolita is a film with an unsavoury theme, there's no doubt about that. A
story about a man having a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old girl, his
stepdaughter, is challenging to say the least. But that does not mean that
the film - or the Vladimir Nabakov book upon which it is based, or the 1962
Stanley Kubrick adaptation of the book - is wrong. Censorship of literature
and art is a precarious matter, and indicates an inability to cope with
difficult and confronting issues.
A sexual relationship with a minor, particularly when it involves the
guardian of the minor, is disturbing. That minors have a sexual life at all
is just as confronting for many. We tend to make blanket statements about
exploitation, disregarding the possibility that there can be choices made by
iboth parties. We live in an age of paranoia about paedophilia; at least
the
outrage over this film has none of the homophobic suggestions that underline
much of the usual hysteria.
The film's recent history has been well-documented. Finished three years
ago, it was released in the United States and Europe to mixed reviews and
some controversy last year, and has only just been assessed in Australia by
the Office of Film and Literature Classification. The film received an R18+
rating (for viewers over the age of 18), and that ruling has been contested
by federal Liberal MP Trish Draper, who would like to see the film's
classification taken away altogether, rendering it not able to be viewed in
Australia .
Draper's main argument is that paedophilia is illegal in Australia therefore
it should not be depicted on screen. She also takes great exception to the
fact that star Jeremy Irons and director Adrian Lyne have both said publicly
that they tried to make the main character, Humbert Humbert, likeable, when
she says the character is "sick", "dirty" and "perverted".
Accepting that something exists does not mean we condone it. It is important
to recognise that the world is not a safe and secure place. Lines of
morality and exploitation are easily blurred. Pretending that everything is
hunky dory is far more dangerous than exposing the truth.
Lyne's previous films - 91/2 Weeks, Fatal Attraction, Indecent Proposal -
had as much titillation factor as his adaptation of Lolita but attracted
considerably less fuss. The message seems to be that sexual exploitation of
an adult woman, verging on misogyny, in 91/2 Weeks; that the cynical
attitudes towards love, money and sex in Indecent Proposal; and that the
aftermath of an adulterous affair, with very two-dimensional characters in
Fatal Attraction, are of no concern, but the relationship in Lolita is
anathema. Of all Lyne's films, Lolita is the only one with any real regard
for morality. Humbert is not a hero. The film itself does not condone the
relationship, but it does portray it in a frighteningly realistic way.
Draper's argument that paedophilia is illegal therefore must not be in a
film is spurious. We would never have had The Sting, Thelma and Louise,
Fargo or Casablanca if films were to undergo such rigorous restrictions.
It's not just film that is affected. When you wade into the murky waters of
censorship and dictating of morals, you include all the literary and
artistic world. Shakespeare would be unsuitable. Picasso's work would be
burned. Draper says her objections are as much in her capacity as a mother
and member of society as they are as a politician. She is concerned that the
more we accept violence and sexual flagrancy in mainstream entertainment the
closer we are to condoning depravity, and the more permissive in society.
"The film was only made to make money and to present to a wide mainstream
audience as entertainment." But the Romans, who watched real people being
killed and maimed for gladiatorial entertainment, are not considered, in a
historical context, to have had any more permissive, violent, corrupt or
depraved a community than any to which we are accustomed today.
To cast Draper as the villain is as simplistic as some of her arguments. She
has every right as a citizen, and as a politician representing concerned
constituents, to object to a ruling by the film office. But how far that
objection goes is the main concern. There has been talk that the Prime
Minister will try to have the film banned. His office has issued little
comment, saying that it is Draper's issue, not a "personal campaign" for
John Howard, therefore it would be inappropriate for him to comment. "There
has been interpretation that the Prime Minister is going to rush off and ban
the film," a spokeswoman said. "He respects her right to put in an appeal."
The matter is in the hands of the Attorney-General.
A cop-out or a belief that the issue has been blown out of proportion?
It is easy to be cynical given Howard's known feelings about morality and
his political need to keep the moralistic Senator Harradine onside.
Howard's office has said if he has the time he will watch the film, and
there is talk also of a special screening in Parliament House, if it can be
arranged by the distributors.
Why should parliamentarians have that luxury? What is the point of the film
office if, when a politician doesn't like a decision, the matter becomes a
political one? When did parliaments get the right to dictate morality and
what is acceptable?
When William Dobell's portrait of artist Joshua Smith for the Archibald
Prize in 1943 was challenged, the court wisely decided that it had no
jurisdiction to rule on artworks. How little we seem to have learnt since
then.
The film office arrived at its decision on Lolita after broad, exhaustive
consideration. Part of its ruling reads: "The classification board took into
account the views of the panel of experts when deciding that the film does
not promote paedophilia or child sexual abuse. The board noted that the
complex paedophilic relationship between the adult and the child is
discretely portrayed. Sexual aspects of the relationship are suggested but
not shown in detail. The girl is shown as a victim rather than as an object
of desire in a relationship that is damaging and destructive.
"When making classification decisions, the classification board is required
to take into account the standards generally accepted by reasonable adults,
as well as the general character of the film, the likely audience for the
film and the literary, artistic and educational merit (if any) of the film.
"In the board's opinion while the film may offend some sections of the
community, it does not offend against standards generally accepted by
reasonable adults to the extent that it should be refused classification."
Incidentally, Lolita 's release has been passed around as a political hot
potato for so long that star Dominique Swain is now old enough to see the
film in Australia .