BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The film "The Last Temptation of Christ" was screened on TV2 at midnight on 13

January 1996. The film speculates about the self-doubt Jesus Christ might have felt as

he became aware that he was chosen by God to carry His message.

On behalf of the Christian Heritage Party, Rosemary Francis complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd that the film was blasphemous and made no reasonable efforts to

portray accurately the character and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Pointing out that the film had been preceded with a verbal and visual warning and was

acknowledged in the credits to be a work of fiction, TVNZ maintained that a discussion

of the life and times of Jesus Christ in that situation was not blasphemous. Questioning

whether the requirement for balance applied to a work of fiction, TVNZ declined to

uphold any aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Ms Francis on

the Party's behalf referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

For the reasons 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 (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

TVNZ screened the controversial film, "The Last Temptation of Christ", on TV2 at

midnight on 13 January 1996. The broadcast was preceded with a visual and verbal

warning about some of the material, and discretion was advised. The credits at the

beginning of the film included a statement explaining that it was a work of fiction.

On behalf of the Christian Heritage Party, Rosemary Francis complained to TVNZ that

the film was blasphemous and that it had made no effort to portray Jesus Christ and his

ministry accurately. When she later referred the complaint to the Authority, she

maintained that the references to well-known scriptural events gave the film a certain

credibility, but it then portrayed God as capricious and Jesus Christ as lacking in

honesty and holiness. She also pointed to criticism of and objections to the film which

had been made in Europe and the United States.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the standards G2 and G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice. They 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.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters,

current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

When she referred the Party's complaint to the Authority, Ms Francis maintained that

the broadcast also breached standards G1 and G13 of the Code. They require

broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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

TVNZ argued that the Authority's task was to review the original complaint (of five

paragraphs) rather than to examine the five page referral. The Authority agrees with

TVNZ's description of its function. However, it is of the opinion that breaches of

standards G1 and G13 were alleged in the original letter of complaint, and thus it

intends to take them into account in its determination of the referral.

In its response to Ms Francis, TVNZ emphasised the time of the broadcast, its AO

certificate, the verbal and visual warning and the statement in the credits. It wrote to

her:

We do not believe that you hold the view that because the subject is Jesus Christ,

discussion of his life and times must be confined to scripture.

We suggest that all this film asks, in essence, is that if God has made man in the

form of Jesus Christ, did he face the temptations and doubts that all humans face?

We cannot see that as being a blasphemy.

This fictional film shows Jesus, the man, attempting to resist the temptations of

the flesh and going through the process of self-doubt when faced with the

enormity of the task he faces.

Questioning whether the standard G6 requirement applied to a work of fiction, TVNZ

declined to uphold the complaint.

The lengthy referral noted the numerous complaints in other countries about what was

considered to be the film's blasphemy, and argued that the broadcast in fact amounted to

blasphemy as defined in the Crimes Act. Further, it said, the film was inaccurate,

unbalanced, and encouraged the denigration of Christians.

TVNZ advised the Authority that in England the Authority's equivalent body – the

British Standards Council – declined to uphold complaints about the broadcast and

wrote:

It (the Council) considered that the approach of the film to its subject matter had

not been sensational nor exploitive, exploring in contemporary terms the Christian

view of the divinity and humanity of Christ. Re-examinations of this kind,

responsibly presented with due indications of their nature, cannot be excluded

from the services offered by broadcasters to their audiences.

From the outset, the Authority acknowledges that some New Zealand viewers would

find the film offensive, and that this reaction was shared with some viewers around the

world. The Authority is also of the opinion that the film would not be likely to have

undermined the beliefs of those viewers who found it offensive. However, the point

that some viewers considered the film to be blasphemous, is not in itself a standards

matter. The Authority, when determining the complaint, is required to decide whether

the broadcast breached any of the nominated standards.

The opening credits of the film included a quotation from Nikos Kazantazakis, the

author of the book on which the film was based. The quote referred to "the merciless

battle between the spirit and the flesh", and a little later, the credits included the

statement that the film was a work of fiction. Because of this explicit statement, the

Authority does not consider the requirements in standard G1 for accuracy, or standard

G6 for balance, to be applicable. Further, because of the exemption in standard

G13(iii) for a dramatic work, the Authority is of the view that standard G13 was not

breached. Accordingly, it does not consider that these standards were contravened.

The Authority considers that what the complainant described as blasphemy, was the

central issue of the complaint. Blasphemy is a matter for assessment under standard

G2, as that standard requires that broadcasters take into consideration currently accepted

norms, having regard to the context of the broadcast.

The Authority believes that the contextual issues are of particular relevance to this

complaint. The film was classified as AO (Adults Only), screened at midnight, and did

not finish until after 3.00am. It was preceded with a verbal and visual warning advising

discretion. It included a statement in the credits that the film was a work of fiction. In

these contextual circumstances, the Authority concludes that the broadcast did not

breach standard G2. Moreover, the Authority records that it shares the view of the

Broadcasting Standards Council in the UK that the film explored in contemporary terms

the Christian view of the divinity and humanity of Christ, in a way which was not

sensational.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
18 April 1996

Appendix

Christian Heritage Party's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd -

January 1996

On behalf of the Christian Heritage Party, Rosemary Francis complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd about the broadcast of a film "The Last Temptation of Christ" at

midnight on 13 January 1996.

Ms Francis complained that the blasphemous account of the life and death of Jesus

Christ breached the standard requiring good taste and decency. Further, she maintained

that the film made no reasonable effort to portray his ministry accurately. She requested

that a more realistic film be screened and that a studio debate be held about the

"mockery" of the film which devalued "the greatest man who ever lived". She

concluded:

This is blatantly anti-Christian discrimination, and highly offensive to many New

Zealanders. I await your explanation and apology.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 7 February 1996

Assessing the complaint under standards G2 and G6 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ advised Ms Francis:

You will recall that the film (directed by Martin Scorsese) speculates about the

self-doubt Jesus Christ may have felt as it dawned on him that he was chosen by

God to carry His message. You thought the film to be blasphemous and lacking

in balance because "views which more accurately portray the character and

ministry of Jesus Christ" were not included.

It also reported that the film, screened at midnight, was rated AO and was preceded by

the following verbal and visual warning:

"The Last Temptation of Christ is rated adults only. It contains material that may

upset sensitive people and scenes that may offend. We advise discretion."

Pointing out that the film explicitly noted that it was a work of fiction, TVNZ observed

that it dealt with spiritual conflicts which were the basis of much literature.

TVNZ denied that it was blasphemous to question the precepts on which New

Zealand's dominant religion was based and said that the film asked how God, in the

form of Jesus Christ, would handle the temptations that all humans face. Maintaining

that the good taste and decency requirement was not contravened, TVNZ wrote:

This fictional film shows Jesus, the man, attempting to resist the temptations of

the flesh and going through the process of self-doubt when faced with the

enormity of the task he faces.

Pointing out that the balance requirement rarely applied to works of fiction and,

moreover, that the story of Jesus Christ was well-known, TVNZ said standard G6 had

not been transgressed.

Christian Heritage Party's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority - received 26 February 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, on behalf of the Christian Heritage Party Ms

Francis referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a)

of the Broadcasting Act 1989. In addition to standards G2 and G6, she argued that the

broadcast might also have breached standards G1 and G13.

She drew the following matters to the Authority's attention:

1. TVNZ was well aware of the controversial nature of the film as its broadcast on

television in the United Kingdom in 1995 had evoked numerous complaints.

2. In the UK, the channel which had broadcast it apologised to advertisers as many

were suffering a boycott from angry viewers.

3. The cinema screening in the USA in 1988 caused public disorder and violence.

4. She wrote:

Twenty Members of the European Parliament signed a resolution to deny

the right of screening this film as a breach of the convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

5. A statement signed by some bishops in France objected to a novelist using the

death of Jesus as it disfigured him and was undignified.

Ms Francis objected both to the film which distorted the Scriptures and to its broadcast

by TVNZ. She referred to a number of specific scenes which she said were both

offensive and heretical. In response to the statement in the opening credits that the film

was not based on the Gospels, she wrote:

I dispute this statement as a misrepresentation of intent, for we know from the

Gospel accounts that Jesus Christ was tempted. But 40 painful minutes of this

film show Christ giving way to temptation. Only subsequently do viewers learn

that the temptation is, in fact, resisted, and Christ is back on the cross. This late

revelation does not justify the previous forty minutes of blasphemy.

Ms Francis complained that the film was "irremediably corrupt from beginning to end",

that the main character was "deeply perverse, unforgiving and contrary", and an

"uncomprehending puppet of a capricious God". Despite the statement in the credits,

the incidents were well known and Ms Francis elaborated on ten scriptural references

contained in the film in which, she insisted, disclosed that the film was blasphemous

and offensive and in breach of standard G2.

Moreover, she said, it encouraged the denigration of followers of Jesus Christ in

contravention of standard G13, and lacked balance. Stating that the disclaimer was

insufficient, Ms Francis wrote:

This film offends standards of decency and respect. It offends all who seek to

live by the high ideals of unselfishness, self discipline, justice, honesty and

holiness that Jesus Christ demonstrated. ... This film is clearly based upon the

gospels. It is a fictional overlay and a rewrite of well-known gospel events.

I would argue that such distortion of history is gravely offensive, and falls within

the bounds of blasphemous libel.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 29 February 1996

Pointing out that the referral ran to five pages whereas the complaint consisted of five

paragraphs, TVNZ stated that the Authority's legislative role was to focus on the

original letter of complaint. Nevertheless, with regard to some matters raised in the

referral, TVNZ observed that the Authority's equivalent body in the United Kingdom

did not uphold the complaints following the screening there of the film. The

Broadcasting Standards Council (in the UK) had written:

It (the Council) considered that the approach of the film to its subject matter had

not been sensational nor exploitative, exploring in contemporary terms the

Christian view of the divinity and humanity of Christ. Re-examinations of this

kind, responsibly presented with due indications of their nature, cannot be

excluded from the services offered by broadcasters to their audiences.

Secondly, TVNZ denied that the film was anti-Christian, expressing concern at the view

that the gospels were above examination.

It maintained that it would screen a similar film which examined another religion

"thoughtfully and compassionately".

Christian Heritage Party's Final Comment - 11 March 1996

On the Party's behalf, Ms Francis argued that it was normal courtroom procedure for an

appeal to elaborate on arguments advanced earlier. She denied that the Party considered

that the Gospels were above debate. Rather, the debate had to be within the established

rules of interpretation and understanding which, she added, had not occurred in the

film. The film, she wrote, was not truthful, accurate, balanced or impartial,

commenting:

This radical distortion of the Gospel account of the life and death of Christ

utterly misrepresents Christ and his teaching. By portraying him as self-

doubting and weak, the film devalues Christ, and knocks the basis of belief of

his followers. This is offensive, and we believe it falls within the grounds of

blasphemous libel.