BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The film True Romance, produced and written by Quentin Tarantino, was broadcast

on TV2 at 8.35pm on 5 March 1997. The film follows the fortunes of a couple who

inadvertently come into possession of a suitcase filled with drugs. They try to profit

from selling the drugs while the drug dealers try to recover their suitcase.

Ms McIlroy complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the

broadcast breached a number of broadcasting standards relating to the portrayal of

violence. She argued that the film preferably should not have screened at all, or at least

not before 9.30pm.

Explaining that the film screened was a version which had been substantially modified

for television, TVNZ pointed out that it had been classified as AO and was preceded

with a warning. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Ms McIlroy referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority upholds the complaint and orders TVNZ to pay

costs to the Crown in the sum of $3,000.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the programme complained about and

have read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the

Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

True Romance was the title of the film screened on TV2 at 8.35pm on Wednesday 5

March. TVNZ described the film, produced by Quentin Tarantino, as one which

followed the fortunes of a couple who inadvertently come into possession of a

suitcase filled with drugs, and who try to sell the drugs for a profit while drug barons

attempt to recover the suitcase.

Ms McIlroy complained to TVNZ that the broadcast breached standards V1, V2, V5,

V8, V10, V11 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Further, she wrote, it

breached V17 as, given the film's overall theme, it should not have been screened on

television, or at least not before 9.30pm. These standards state:

V1   Broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that any violence shown is

justifiable, ie is essential in the context of the programme.

V2   When obviously designed for gratuitous use to achieve heightened impact,

realistic violence – as distinct from farcical violence – must be avoided.

V5   Programmes having rape as a theme must be treated with the utmost care.

Explicit detail and prolonged focus on sexually violent contact must be

avoided. Any programme dealing with rape in any detail must be

preceded by a warning.

V8   When real or fictitious killings – including executions and assassinations –

are shown, the coverage must not be prolonged.

V10  The cumulative or overall effect of violent incidents and themes in a single

programme, a programme series or a line-up of programmes back to back,

must avoid giving an impression of excessive violence.

V11  Any realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour, including violent and

serious crime and the abuse of liquor and drugs, must not be shown in a

way that glamorises the activities.

V17  Scenes and themes dealing with disturbing social and domestic friction or

sequences in which people – especially children – or animals may be

humiliated or badly treated, should be handled with great care and

sensitivity. All gratuitous material of this nature must be avoided and any

scenes which are shown must pass the test of relevancy within the context

of the programme. If thought likely to disturb children, the programme

should be scheduled later in the evening.

TVNZ responded to the complaint by pointing out that the film had been preceded by

a specific warning which said:

This programme is rated Adults Only. It contains violence that may disturb

some people. We advise discretion.

Further, it was rated AO and the symbol was repeated after each commercial break.

Accordingly, TVNZ advised, it had assessed the complaint on the basis of considering

whether the violence portrayed was unacceptable to an audience aged 18 and over

which was warned of the violent content. TVNZ commented in addition:

Also relevant in considering the context is the nature of this film, and others

produced by Quentin Tarantino. Although we concede that the word "funny"

used in some publicity material is not appropriate, the films from this

producer contain a strong streak of black humour. Even the seemingly

innocent title of this film is clearly tongue-in-cheek and there are many

incidents through the film where through character exaggeration, or bizarre plot

development the black humour comes through.

It added:

For the record we advise that the film as screened by TVNZ was a special

modified-for-television programme, heavily cut from the film that was seen by

cinema goers.

Turning to the matters raised in the initial formal complaint, TVNZ said that given the

lack of detail, it had been necessary to surmise Ms McIlroy's specific concerns.

Advancing the following arguments, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint: the

violence was sporadic, implied and justifiable (V1); the violence was not gratuitously

used to achieve heightened impact (V2); as rape was not the theme of the film, V5 was

irrelevant; the killings were not prolonged (V8); the violence did not have a cumulative

effect as it occurred sporadically (V10); the anti-social behaviour was not portrayed

realistically (V11); and neither people nor animals were humiliated in the sense

covered by standard V17.

TVNZ reiterated that the film had been substantially modified for television and it

explained that it was aware of its responsibilities in dealing with violence. It

maintained that it took care to ensure that it did not overstep the limit and,

accordingly, only showed a level of violence appropriate to the story being told.

Furthermore, TVNZ noted that in 1996 it had rejected outright 68 programmes –

mostly because of gratuitous violence – and a further 208 programmes had been

censored to reduce the violent content.

When she referred her complaint to the Authority, Ms McIlroy accepted that

standards V5 and V8 were not relevant. She objected to TVNZ's suggestion that the

film's "black humour" almost excused the violence contained in the film. Maintaining

that the use of drugs was glamorised in the movie as "cool" behaviour, she expressed

particular concern about the violence when the male lead's father was tortured, the

violence in the motel involving the female lead, and the excessive length of the

shootout at the end of the film. She repeated her contention that if the film was to be

shown on television – to which she objected – it should not have been screened before

9.00 or 9.30pm.

In its response to the Authority, TVNZ insisted that the standards had not been

breached given the film's AO rating and the specific warning.

The Authority begins its determination with some comments about the film overall. It

is a graphically violent film, in which the violence can be said to be integral, and it

deals with some challenging attitudes in an unconventional way. Indeed, the film's

central concerns are with antisocial behaviour and concepts of morality which differ

from conventional norms. One of the characters shown to be a habitual drug user is

played by Brad Pitt – an actor who has a particular following among young people.

The Authority has some sympathy for Ms McIlroy's contention that the film should

not have been screened on television because of its theme, and has no difficulty in

agreeing with her that it was unsuitable for broadcast at 8.30pm.

Acknowledging TVNZ's argument that the film is an essay in black humour, the

Authority considers that it is possible that its segmentation, necessitated by

commercial breaks, may have been a factor in compounding its violent impact at the

expense of any possible satirical intent. It also considers that because successful black

humour is dependent on any inherent violence being stretched to absurd extremes, that

to delete such extremes removes the intended lampooning effect and results only in

gratuitous violence. The Authority suggests that the censorship process in itself

automatically renders the film unsuitable for television viewing.

The Authority does not intend to assess the complaint under each of the standards

nominated. Rather, it focusses on standards V10 and V11.

With regard to standard V10, the Authority does not accept the contention that the

violence was sporadic. Rather, it considers that the cumulative effect of the violent

incidents in the film, together with the theme of violence, gave an impression of

excessive violence. Thus standard V10 was breached.

Turning to standard V11, the Authority is unhesitatingly of the view that drug taking

was glamorised in the film by a number of characters and, consequently, standard V11

was contravened.

For the reasons given above, the Authority upholds the complaint that the

broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of the film True Romance at 8.30pm on

5 March 1997 breached standards V10 and V11 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) of the

Act or impose costs under s.16(4) (as amended in 1996). The Authority takes into

account the points made by TVNZ that the version shown had been modified for

television, that it was preceded by an explicit warning, and that the AO symbol was

screened after each commercial break. However, the Authority does not accept

TVNZ's assumption that viewers would be confined to those aged 18 years or more.

Given the film's overall theme of violence combined with hedonistic illegal behaviour

portrayed and the appeal of Tarantino's films to a younger audience, the Authority

concludes that TVNZ displayed a lapse of judgment in screening True Romance at

8.30pm. In view of what it regards as a serious breach of the standards, the Authority

orders TVNZ to pay costs of $3,000.

Order

Pursuant to s.16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 (as amended in 1996), the

Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to pay $3,000 to the Crown by way

of costs within one month of the date of this decision.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Lyndsay Loates
Member
25 June 1997

Appendix

Ms McIlroy's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 10 March 1997

Ms K H McIlroy of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the

broadcast of True Romance, on TV2 at 8.30pm on 5 March 1997, breached standards

V1, V2, V5, V8, V10 and V17 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Because of the gratuitous violence in the film and its violent theme, she argued that,

preferably, it should not have been screened or, if so, not before 9.30pm.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 19 March 1997

Assessing the complaint under the nominated standards, TVNZ said that film,

produced by Quentin Tarantino, followed the fortunes of a couple who, after

inadvertently coming into possession of a suitcase with drugs, tried to sell the drugs

for a profit.

TVNZ explained that the film had been preceded with a specific warning which stated:

This programme is rated Adults Only. It contains violence that may disturb

some people. We advise discretion.

Further, it had an AO certificate which was shown at the end of each commercial

break. On this basis, TVNZ's assessment was based on whether the violence was

unacceptable for viewers aged 18 and over who had been warned of the violence.

TVNZ also argued that the version of the film which was broadcast had been "heavily

cut" for television and contained a strong streak of black humour.

Because the complaint had not referred to specific incidents, TVNZ said it had been

required to surmise Ms McIlroy's specific concerns.

Dealing first with standard V1, TVNZ said that the specific scenes of violence, to

which the warning applied, were "very short", sporadic, and justifiable when shown.

Much of the violence, it wrote, was implied.

As for standard V2, TVNZ did not accept that the violent sequences were gratuitous

and designed to achieve heightened impact. Rather, the emphasis was on black

humour.

Describing standard V5 as being of little relevance, TVNZ did not accept that the

weapons such as guns and knives, amounted to unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain.

The other methods, the corkscrew and the flame throwing aerosol, were not capable of

easy imitation as their use was not explained.

To the extent that standard V8 was relevant, it was covered by the warning. TVNZ

repeated that the violence shown was sporadic and implied, and maintained that

standard V10 was not contravened.

Turning to standard V11, TVNZ said that the anti-social behaviour was not portrayed

realistically, and it was not glamorised. Tarantino's films, TVNZ added, displayed

little faith in human nature.

Standard V17 was not applicable given that the violence code accepted that a certain

amount of tension and conflict were part of human life. The standard's concern with

the protection of children, it continued, was dealt with by the AO classification and

the warning. TVNZ repeated that the version it screened was "substantially

modified" from the one classified as R18 and screened in cinemas. TVNZ opined:

TVNZ is very aware of its responsibilities in dealing with violence. However, it

must always tread a careful line between a level of violence appropriate to the

story being told, and overstepping that line. As indicated above the introduction

to the violence codes acknowledges that conflict is widely employed in literature

(and you could extend that to great works of art of all sorts). Imagine running

"Macbeth" without violence? Or "Romeo and Juliet"? Would the novels built

around the French revolution ring true without the bloodshed and the guillotine?

You may not feel that Tarantino is a producer on a par with some of the great

literary figures of the past, but there are many who do regard him as a major

force in film making – which is, after all, a modern extension of literature.

Explaining that all programmes were viewed by its censors, TVNZ reported that, in

1996, 68 programmes were rejected outright mostly on the grounds of gratuitous and

the amount of extreme violence, and a further 208 programmes were censored to

reduce the amount of violence shown.

In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ acknowledged that Tarantino was not to

everyone's liking but complaints based on a complainant's preferences were not

capable of being resolved by the formal complaints procedure.

Ms McIlroy's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 9 April 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's reply, Ms McIlroy referred her complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. She

began:

I am particularly offended by [the] reference to "black humour" as almost an

"excuse" for the violence in the movie "True Romance" and [the] comparisons to

the likes of "Macbeth" and "Romeo and Juliet" and the "violence" contained

within these two historical masterpieces to justify the violence within "True

Romance".

Expressing particular concern at the high incidence of violence throughout the film,

Ms McIlroy referred specifically to the torture scene set in a caravan or trailer home,

to the scene where the female lead was hurled into a wall of bathroom mirrors, and to

the lengthy shootout at the film's conclusion.

These scenes, she wrote, breached standard V1 and the shower scene breached

standard V2. She accepted that standards V5 and V6 were not relevant to her

complaint. She described TVNZ's response to her complaints under standards V8 and

V10 as "totally unsatisfactory". The use of drugs was glamorised in the film in

contravention of standard V11 and, in regard to standard V17, she repeated her

concern that the film should not have been screened at all, or, at least not before

9.30pm.

Ms McIlroy concluded:

It is so upsetting and annoying to see a movie like "True Romance" screened in

mainstream media. As television programming becomes more violent so does

society. Would "True Romance" have been screened 10 years ago? I doubt it.

Please take all of the above factors into consideration when reviewing the

complaint.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 17 April 1997

TVNZ repeated its contention that the film did not transgress the standards in view of

its AO rating and the specific warning.

In response to Ms McIlroy's final point, TVNZ referred to the research which did not

show a causal link between television violence and a violent society. It also reported

that research revealed a decline in violent screen incidents in recent years, and said that

True Romance could well have been broadcast in 1987.

Ms McIlroy's Final Comment – 30 May 1997

By telephone Ms McIlroy advised that she had no further comment to make.