BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

An animated version of Shakespeare's Macbeth was broadcast on TV One at about

3.45pm on 12 October 1995.

Mr Fowlie complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the violence portrayed in

the opening battle scenes, in the killing of animals, in the murder of a woman and

children and, in the conclusion, with the decapitation and display of Macbeth's head.

He considered that the programme should have been broadcast at a time suitable for

secondary school pupils rather than alongside such a programme as Thomas the Tank

Engine.

Pointing out that Macbeth was a tragedy, TVNZ said that the broadcast used a cartoon

style reminiscent of medieval manuscripts. It argued that Macbeth would be of benefit

to viewers of all ages and that it would represent a picture book scene rather than reality

for the younger viewer. It declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's action, Mr Fowlie referred the complaint to the Broadcasting

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

For the reasons below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the

correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority has

determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

An animated version of Macbeth, which reduced the length of the play to 24 minutes,

was broadcast on TV One at about 3.45pm on 12 October. TVNZ advised that the

programme was conceived in Wales, used a Russian cartoon style and received financial

backing from international sources.

Referring to some specific scenes involving mayhem and the murder of animals and

people, Mr Fowlie complained to TVNZ that it breached the standards relating to the

portrayal of violence and the protection of children. Mr Fowlie did not dispute the

quality of the programme but argued that it was appropriate for secondary school pupils

rather than alongside such programmes as Thomas the Tank Engine and Noddy which

appealed to the younger viewer.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G12 and V18 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. The former requires broadcasters:

G12 To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during

their normally accepted viewing times.

Standard V18 is in a section headed Protection of Children and reads:

V18 Cartoons must avoid excessive violence, especially those featuring humans

and human-like creatures and depicting realistic story lines as opposed to

clearly fanciful or farcical themes.

Pointing out that Macbeth was a well-known tragedy involving murder, madness and

ambition, TVNZ said the cartoon style used, unlike that of Hollywood, created an

atmosphere – part mythical and part medieval – which was an important way of

introducing children to Shakespeare. In addition, TVNZ argued that the title Macbeth

amounted in itself to a warning and that it had been scheduled at a time when children of

all ages would have most likely been watching. Moreover, given the context, it did not

regard the violence as excessive.

When he referred the complaint to the Authority, Mr Fowlie described as "elitist" and a

"monocultural assumption" the point that the title in itself was a substitute for a

warning. He argued that the reduction of the play's length was a "gross distortion" as

the less dramatic scenes were the ones deleted.

As the main point of his complaint, Mr Fowlie disputed TVNZ's contention that the

animation style removed the action from the realm of a young viewer's reality. Rather,

he maintained, the style was "brutal and obvious" and he persisted with the complaint

that the violence displayed was excessive.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ supplied some background material about the

animated Shakespeare series and pointed to the comment contained therein that the target

audience was 10–15 year olds. Repeating the point that Macbeth was a story about

murder and madness, TVNZ considered that the brief incidents of violence portrayed

were not excessive in context.

In his response, Mr Fowlie disagreed with the final point and said that the series was

screened for a sufficient length of time for the action taking place to be identified. As

for the context argument, Mr Fowlie questioned TVNZ's judgment in showing to

children a programme with a theme of murder.

In its consideration of the complaint about the violence in Macbeth, the Authority

observed initially that murder and violence feature frequently in classic fairy tales for

both young and old. With reference to standard V18, the Authority acknowledged that

humans, in the item's not totally unrealistic story line, had been depicted at times

behaving in a very violent manner.

Both TVNZ and the complainant accepted that the programme was potentially a useful

way of introducing children to Shakespeare. It was a point of view with which the

Authority sympathised. The Authority also agreed with Mr Fowlie's criticism about

TVNZ's comment that the title Macbeth in itself gave a sufficient warning to viewers as

to its content.

Having accepted that Macbeth is a violent story and the exposure of children to the work

of Shakespeare is to be encouraged, the Authority was then required to decide whether

it was broadcast at an appropriate hour. Scheduling is not a matter of standards but, by

referring to standard G12, Mr Fowlie had required the Authority to determine whether

TVNZ, by broadcasting the item at 3.45pm, had acknowledged the full range of the age

of the possible audience.

It was a difficult matter for the Authority to decide. On the one hand, it expressed some

surprise – and concern – at the time at which the programme had been screened, more so

given its proximity to those clearly designed for the younger viewer. On the other

hand, having considered the high quality of the drama and the particular style of

cartoon, for example, extreme sound effects were not used, the Authority concluded

that the broadcast breached neither of the nominated standards.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
18 January 1996

Appendix

Mr Fowlie's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 12 October

1995

John Fowlie of Paeroa complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about the animated

version of Shakespeare's Macbeth broadcast on TV One at 3.45pm that day. He

believed that it breached the standards relating to the portrayal of violence and the

protection children.

Explaining that his 3 year-old child had been watching such programmes as Noddy and

Thomas the Tank Engine, Mr Fowlie said that the opening battles scenes of Macbeth

were exceptionally realistic. Further scenes involved killing animals and birds for a

feast, a mother and children being murdered and Macbeth being decapitated in the final

scene after a sword fight. His head, Mr Fowlie noted, was "hoisted on a sword point

both distinctly blood splattered".

Acknowledging that Shakespeare was worthy of broadcast, Mr Fowlie said secondary

school children were the appropriate audience for the programme. He concluded:

Thus it is the combination of the style and intensity of the violence portrayed and

the totally inappropriate time slot in which the programme was broadcast without

any warning to parents and caregivers or the children themselves that such a

radical change in content was to take place.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 25 October 1995

Assessing the complaint under standards G12 and V18 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ reported:

... "Macbeth" was one of a series of six animated versions of Shakespearian plays

designed to introduce children to the ideas and plots which Shakespeare

employed. All of the very famous lines from each play are included in each 24-

minute programme and set in a context which children can readily comprehend.

TVNZ pointed out that Macbeth was a tragedy and a tale of murder, madness and

ambition - an ambition which finally destroyed Macbeth and his wife. It acknowledged

that the battle scenes were dramatic and, rather than use a Hollywood style, observed

that the cartoon style was reminiscent of Bayeaux Tapestries and medieval manuscripts.

Noting that the style was Russian, it added:

It seemed to TVNZ that the "atmosphere" created by the animation - part mythical,

part medieval - is an important aspect of introducing children to Shakespearian

plays of this nature.

TVNZ then addressed the aspect of the complaint which said that it was screened too

early in the afternoon. Expressing disagreement with Mr Fowlie's contention that the

version broadcast should be confined to secondary school pupils as the famous

quotations were familiar to primary school children, TVNZ opined:

It is our view that perhaps of all film titles, the word "Macbeth" suggests violence

and conflict and we believe that any parent who felt their children were too young

to watch a Shakespearian tragedy had thus the opportunity to switch off the

television after "Thomas the Tank Engine". It would be unthinkable surely that

"Macbeth" could be presented without intense psychological and physical

conflict? Lacking those elements it would no longer be "Macbeth" and would be a

travesty as an educational tool.

As for the standard G12 requirement to be mindful of the effect of a programme on

children, TVNZ said that Macbeth would be of benefit to school children of all ages.

Accordingly, it had been scheduled when children of all ages were most likely to be

watching. It added:

Despite the conflict which is an essential part of the "Macbeth" story, TVNZ also

believes that the clever stylistic animation employed in the programme removed

the action from the realm of reality so that to the younger viewer it would

represent rather a picture book scene rather than one from real life.

In regard to standard V18, TVNZ argued that the action was not excessively violent

taking a common sense to the standards and given the context of Macbeth. TVNZ

concluded:

While TVNZ is very sorry that you were offended by this programme, and

understands your concern for its placement, it does not believe that its broadcast

in a late afternoon slot was in breach of programme standards.

Mr Fowlie's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 21

November 1995

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Mr Fowlie referred the complaint to the

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

He began by repeating his complaint that the violence in named specific scenes breached

the standards, particularly given the content of the preceding programmes.

As for TVNZ's argument that the intense conflict in Macbeth had to be included to

maintain the programme's authenticity, Mr Fowlie pointed out that the animated version

had been condensed to 25 minutes and, he argued, the deletion of the less dramatic

scenes resulted in a broadcast in which the play was "aggressively distorted".

In response to the claim that the word Macbeth was sufficient to suggest parental

intervention, Mr Fowlie wrote:

TVNZ's belief that their audience should recognise the word "Macbeth" as a

substitute for a warning on content, is I believe indicative of an elitist and a

monocultural assumption of their audience. This I believe the Authority should

comment on strongly.

Mr Fowlie then dealt with TVNZ's contention that the animation style removed the

action from the realm of the young viewer's reality. He stated that the style was not

clever and, referring in particular to the decapitated head, described it as "brutal and

obvious". He questioned TVNZ's reasoning that, on the one hand, the images would

by-pass young children while, on the other, the images promoted the broadcast's

educational value.

Turning to TVNZ's statement that the action was not "excessively violent" in context,

Mr Fowlie maintained that some standard outside context was necessary otherwise

almost anything would be acceptable. He explained:

In particular it is the final scene where I would have expected TVNZ to have

recognised that they had breached the code in this regard. Here several characters

(obviously human) are engaged in a sword fight where Macbeth kills a number of

his opponents and is then confronted by MacDuff, they engage in fight to the

death (a more realistic rather than fanciful or farcical theme), which culminates in

the severing of Macbeth's head from his body the result of which is shown in a

grisly close up.

Rather than using TVNZ's euphemism of "action" this scene is full of violence. I

believe it is excessively violent for two reasons firstly and foremost the

programmes position within young children's viewing time is surely an

aggravating factor when making this consideration. Secondly had the same scene

been represented with human actors portraying the parts, such a programme

would sure of been restricted to late night viewing.

In conclusion, Mr Fowlie said that TVNZ had not dealt with his complaint which had

asked whether it was acceptable to show the violence contained in the four specified

scenes.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 30 November 1995

In its report to the Authority on the referral, TVNZ said that Mr Fowlie acknowledged

that the scenes complained about comprised less than 10 seconds of the 25 minute

programme. It outlined the broadcast:

The programme which is the subject of this complaint is one of a series entitled

"Shakespeare, The Animated Tales". They are aimed at a young audience, but the

producers hoped they would also be suitable for adults and be equally enriching

for them. The series, as will be apparent from the credits at the end of the

programme, has international backing and has been screened around the world. It

was conceived, pre and post produced in Wales, animated in Russia and financed

by Britain, Russia, Japan and the USA. A paper giving the background to the

series is attached. As mentioned in that paper, the targeted audience for the series

are 10-15 year olds.

Repeating that Macbeth involved murder and madness, TVNZ did not accept that it was

required to broadcast programmes which were in the same vein as the preceding one

and, it concluded:

The complainant contends that the animation of the particular scenes referred to

above were neither clever nor stylistic, but brutal and obvious. We consider that

this was not so when account is taken of the few seconds the images are on

screen, particularly of the decapitated head. We submit that we did not breach the

Violence code by not making the cuts in this programme suggested by the

complainant. The particular scenes were not excessively violent given the context

of this particular problem.

Mr Fowlie's Final Comment - 15 December 1995

In his response to TVNZ, Mr Fowlie stated that TVNZ had now introduced brevity as a

justification for the broadcast of the scenes about which he had complained. Pointing

out that they were on the screen for a sufficient length of time to be identified, Mr

Fowlie maintained that scenes of excessive violence had the power to shock the instant

they were understood.

As for TVNZ's argument that the scenes were not excessively violent given the context

of the programme, Mr Fowlie questioned TVNZ's judgment that it was suitable to show

children a programme with a theme of murder. He stated:

A programme which has at least ten violent deaths in under half an hour would be

what I would call an intense and concentrated assault on the sensibilities of

children. Furthermore, a programme that shows a mother and children being

murdered and their father obviously distraught at the news, should be considered

a frightening and disturbing theme that should not be broadcast to young children.

Added to all of this are the graphic images of slaughter and decapitation already

mentioned. One can only ask where their taste and better judgment was when

they placed this programme where they did.

Maintaining that the broadcast breached the standards, Mr Fowlie wrote:

Initially I considered that TVNZ might have broadcast the images by mistake, but

after receiving their replies I could only describe my attitude as astonishment that

they would persist in attempting to defend the indefensible. I believe their attitude

is motivated by denial of corporate/commercial liability rather than a sense of

moral responsibility for our nation's children.