| Reference Type |
Sunday Life: The Sunday Age Magazine
journal
|
| Title |
Censors working overtime |
| Author(s) | Barry Divola |
| Publication Date |
25-09-2005 |
| Page Number |
22-25 |
| Comments |
I am grateful for reading Barry Divola's article on people involved in the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). Not only did the article enlighten me on aspects of film censorship in Australia that I had not yet learnt about, Divola's investigation, more importantly, gave me an understanding of the level of difficulty and stress that being a censor entails. Divola is unbiased in his approach and illustrates arguments from both ends of the spectrum fairly and justly.
It was interesting to read about the personal lives if the censors, learning about where they have come from, what their professional and personal backgrounds are, if they have families, what ages they range from and so on. Reading this type of information reiterated the fact that these people are your everyday Australian citizens who are just doing their job.
It was vital to my understanding of the OFLC as a whole and the separate party called The Classification Review Board.
It is easy to forget that this body of people have a tremendously important, brave and highly stressful job; to watch the most horrendously confronting and disturbing videos/DVDs/films, including child pornography, that most of us will never have to witness.
It is easy to forget that this body of people are not 'out' to destroy arts culture or freedom of speech, but they really are there to help shield and protect society from potentially quite harmful and graphic images.
I believe the real question here, however is, 'where do we draw the line between protection, and nannying?â
|
| Synopsis |
Divola's article is structured about busting six of the most common myths surrounding working as a censor in the OFLC. Within busting those myths, Divola also discusses further crucial aspects surrounding censorship in Australia.
Divola explores the 'in's and out's' of working as a censor and thoroughly investigates the positives and negatives of being involved in the OFLC.
Divola makes an important note of differentiating the OFLC from the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board.
Most importantly, Divola's subjects express their frustration with the common misconception that 'They make decisions based on their own personal opinions, tastes and prejudices.' The censors argue that they made decisions based on the three following guidelines, the Commonwealth Classification Act, the National Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines.
Margaret Pomeranz, film critic and avid campaigner of freedom of expression in the film industry, and Bill Muehlenberg, from the Australian Family Association, are interviewed in the article as they stand on either side of the spectrum on the censorship debate, whilst the OFLC plays the mediator, or less glamorously, 'piggy in the middle'. Their opposing arguments are fascinating to read and further illustrates why and how censorship is such a contentious issue.
|
tags:
add tag Please Wait...
|
|
|
| |
