BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The film Primal Fear was broadcast on TV2 at 8.30pm on 11 July 1999. It concerned the trial of a young man accused of the murder of a Roman Catholic archbishop.

Aaron Authier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film was an attack on Christianity. He said he objected to the blasphemous language used and the manner in which Catholic clergy had been represented in the film. In his view, it should have been preceded with a warning about its content.

TVNZ responded by noting that the film was classified as AO and was screened during AO time. Furthermore, it was preceded by a warning which emphasised that it was intended for adult audiences. To the complaint that the film discriminated against Catholics and misrepresented the clergy, TVNZ responded by reminding the complainant that the film was a work of fiction. While it acknowledged that holy names had been used as expletives, TVNZ did not consider this exceeded norms of good taste. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Authier referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The film Primal Fear was broadcast on 11 July 1999 on TV2 beginning at 8.30pm. A young man was accused of the murder of a Roman Catholic archbishop and the story revolved around the effort by his lawyer to prove his innocence.

Mr Authier complained to TVNZ that, as a practising Roman Catholic, he was offended by the blasphemous language used in the film and by the manner in which the Catholic clergy was represented. In his view, the film should have been preceded by a warning relating to its content. When he was asked by TVNZ to further clarify the grounds for his complaint, he added that he believed that the film would have encouraged discrimination against Catholics.

TVNZ advised that it had assessed the complaint under standards G2 and G13 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:

G2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which any language or behaviour occurs.

G13  To avoid portraying people in a way which represents as inherently inferior, or is likely to encourage discrimination against, any section of the community on account of sex, race, age, disability, occupational status, sexual orientation or the holding of any religious, cultural or political belief. This requirement is not intended to prevent the broadcast of material which is:

i)  factual, or

ii)  the expression of genuinely-held opinion in a news or current affairs programme, or

iii)  in the legitimate context of a humorous, satirical or dramatic work.

Before addressing the complaint directly, TVNZ advised that it had considered first the film’s overall context. It was, it said, an award-winning film, with one of its actors having won a Golden Globe award for best supporting actor. The presence of Richard Gere in the cast ensured that there was a high level of interest for viewers.

The film carried an AO certificate, and the AO symbol was, it noted, superimposed at the beginning of the film and after each commercial break. In addition, there was a specific warning which mentioned both violence and language, and advised that the film was recommended for mature audiences over 18 years of age.

TVNZ dealt first with the complaint that the film discriminated against Catholics and Christianity in general. First, TVNZ noted, Primal Fear was a work of fiction. It argued that there was therefore no reason why it could not be set against the fictional background of a cathedral. It reported that it found nothing in the film which represented the Catholic church as inherently inferior or which encouraged discrimination against it. The fact was that this particular crime story was developed in a church setting, it wrote.

It was TVNZ’s view that clause (iii) of standard G13 was applicable here as the story unfolded in the "legitimate context of a…dramatic work." It declined to uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Next TVNZ turned to the complaint that the clergy was misrepresented in the film. Again it emphasised that Primal Fear was a work of fiction. It acknowledged that it was fair to say that the events portrayed were not too far from some real-life events in which churchmen had been found to have some moral failing. However, it emphasised, as it was a work of fiction, it could not be said that the film misrepresented Catholic clergy or Catholic youth.

With respect to the complaint about the use of blasphemous language, TVNZ acknowledged that such language was used on occasions, but said it did not believe that it exceeded norms of decency and good taste.

TVNZ recognised that for some, the use of holy names as expletives could cause great offence, but it also noted that such language was in widespread use. In this case, it argued, the words were used as casual expletives and were not intended to mock Christianity or its adherents. TVNZ said it was sorry that Mr Authier had been offended by the words, but maintained that their inclusion did not amount to a breach of standard G2.

In his referral to the Authority, Mr Authier said that he acknowledged that the film was a work of fiction. However, he argued, viewers could still believe that it was factual or at least based on fact. In fact, he continued, the reality was that very few members of the clergy broke their vows, as had one character in this film. He repeated his contention that it misrepresented the Catholic clergy and encouraged discrimination against them.

Mr Authier said he did not completely accept TVNZ’s apology for the use of blasphemous language, nor did he accept its defence of the use of holy names as casual expletives. He emphasised that those words should be treated with respect by both Christians and non-Christians. Mr Authier said he supported the right to freedom of speech, but did not support the abuse of that freedom. He asked TVNZ to refrain from broadcasting films which used holy names in a disrespectful manner.

When TVNZ responded to the Authority, it emphasised that the blasphemous language did not dominate the dialogue, and maintained that it was not inappropriate in a film carrying an AO certificate, particularly as the warning specifically mentioned language.

As for the complaint that Roman Catholicism was demeaned in the film, TVNZ repeated its point that Primal Fear was a work of fiction. It noted that standard G13 contained an exemption relating to fictional work.

In his final comment, Mr Authier said he acknowledged that the film was a work of fiction. However, he said, he objected to its portrayal of the Catholic church and the depiction of the clergy as sexual perverts. He also objected to the use of holy names as curse words or exclamations, and argued that the use of such exclamations by the altar boy character was inexcusable.

Mr Authier concluded by strongly recommending that TVNZ refrain from screening films which contained blasphemy, and suggested it should screen programmes which promoted the Catholic faith as a caring and loving institution. He sought a formal apology from TVNZ.

The Authority’s Findings

There are three aspects to this complaint. The first is that the use of blasphemous language exceeded norms of good taste and decency. When it assesses a complaint alleging a breach of this standard, the Authority is required to consider the context in which the language or behaviour occurs. Here, the Authority finds, the language was justified in the context of a dramatic work and was appropriate to the characters portrayed. It recognises that blasphemous language is offensive to some people, but as it was not used in the film in a gratuitously offensive manner, it finds no breach of the standard in this context.

The second matter was that the film misrepresented the clergy by portraying them as corrupt and corruptible. Although the film’s focus was on the arrest and subsequent trial of the man seen running from the crime scene, the Catholic church was the backdrop against which the drama was played out. The Authority concurs with TVNZ’s view that as this was a work of fiction, and the characters themselves were fictional, there was no misrepresentation of the clergy.

Finally, the complainant alleged that the film’s theme discriminated against Catholics because of the portrayal of its clergy and altar boys. The Authority again concurs with TVNZ’s view that there was nothing in the film which represented Catholics as inherently inferior or discriminated against them. The story, it reiterates, was a fictional one and the characters were a product of the author’s imagination. It finds no breach of the standards.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
21 October 1999

Appendix

The Authority has received and considered the following correspondence when it determined this complaint:

1.    Aaron Authier’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 12 July 1999

2.    TVNZ’s Initial Response to the Complaint – 19 July 1999

3.    Mr Authier’s Further Complaint to TVNZ – 21 July 1999

4.    TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 6 August 1999

5.    Mr Authier’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 7 August 1999

6.    TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 17 August 1999

7.    Mr Authier’s Final Comment – 21 August 1999