BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The film Basic Instinct was screened by TV3 at 9.30pm on Sunday, 18 February 1996.

Stephanie Johnson complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the explicit sex scenes

throughout the film, some of which included bondage and violence, breached the

standard requiring good taste and decency and some of the standards relating to the

portrayal of violence.

Murray Johnson's complaint focussed on the sex and murder in the opening scene

which, he said, contravened the good taste and violence standards.

Julia King complained that the opening scene and some of the sex scenes were in bad

taste and, furthermore, the combination of violence, bondage and sado-masochistic

behaviour breached some other nominated standards.

Pointing out that the original cinema version of the film had been substantially modified

for television, that it was classified as AO, that it had screened at 9.30pm, and that it

had been preceded with a strong and explicit warning, TV3 declined to uphold the

complaints.

Dissatisfied with TV3's decisions, each complainant referred their 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 complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the film complained about as shown by

TV3. They have also read the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is

its practice, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The film Basic Instinct was screened by TV3 at 9.30pm on 18 February 1996.

Expressing disgust that a film classified as R18 should be screened on television,

Stephanie Johnson complained to TV3 that the explicit sex scenes in the film – some of

which included bondage and violence – breached the requirement in the Broadcasting

Act 1989 for good taste and decency. Further, she said, the depiction of techniques of

crime which encouraged imitation breached the standards, as did the violence shown.

She complained as well about the combination of sexuality and violence in the film.

Commending TV3 for the cuts made to the cinema version of the film, Murray Johnson

focussed on the opening scene. He complained that it contravened the requirements in

the standards relating to good taste, and about the combination of violence and

sexuality.

Julia King's complaint raised many of the same concerns advanced by Ms Johnson.

She also considered that the scene recording the sexual encounter between the detective

and his therapist breached the prohibition on the combination of violence and sexuality

when it is designed to titillate.

TV3 assessed the complaints under the nominated standards. Section 4(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the

observance of good taste and decency. Standard G9 requires broadcasters:

G9  To take care in depicting items which explain the technique of crime in a

manner which invites imitation.

The other standards provide:

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

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

V4  The combination of violence and sexuality in a way designed to titillate must

not be shown.

V6  Ingenious devices for and unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain, injury or

death, particularly if capable of easy imitation, must not be shown, except

in exceptional circumstances which are in the public interest.

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.

TV3 reported that the original cinema version of the film had been modified

considerably for television. It explained that explicit violence had been completely

deleted from the opening scene as had a substantial portion of the sex. Further, other

scenes showing violence had been considerably reduced. As a result of those actions,

the sexual encounter between the detective and the therapist now portrayed consensual

intercourse rather than forced sex. TV3 declined to uphold the complaint relating to

portraying techniques of crime in view of the substantive cuts to the scenes containing

violence.

TV3 also pointed out that the screening had been preceded with an explicit warning

which stated:

"The following movie BASIC INSTINCT is intended for Adults Only and

contains mature subject matter. It has been modified for television but contains

some sexual themes and scenes of violence that some viewers may find

offensive".

Observing that some viewers had complained informally about what they considered the

undue strictness of the editing, TV3 concluded by suggesting that the formal complaints

were based on the version shown in cinemas and on subscriber television. That

version, it argued, was vastly different from the film shown by TV3 on free-to-air

television.

When she referred her complaint to the Authority, Ms Johnson insisted that the warning

at the beginning of the film did not excuse its contents, and commented:

If the BSA does not judge the opening scene of the film, screened at 9.30pm on

public television, to be in breach of good taste and decency, I wonder what would

be.

Mr Johnson questioned how the portrayal of a woman killing a man in the context of the

sexual act could correspond with any definition of decency, while Ms King objected to

the screening at any time of sexuality combined with violence.

The Authority begins by recording that it has upheld some complaints that the broadcast

of the cinema version on subscriber television (Sky), at 8.30pm and 10.15pm, breached

the standard in the Pay Code which requires broadcasters:

P2  To take into consideration currently accepted norms of decency and taste in

language and behaviour, bearing in mind the context in which such

language or behaviour occurs.

The Authority also notes that both the Johnsons were among the ten complainants who

complained about the broadcast of Basic Instinct on Sky. On that occasion, the

Authority reached the following conclusion (Decision Nos: 116/95–125-95, dated

9.11.95) on the complaints which alleged a breach of a number of the standards:

For the reasons given above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints that

the alleged rape sequence and the violence in the opening scene in the film Basic

Instinct, broadcast by Sky Network Television Ltd, breached the nominated

standards in the Sky Code of Broadcasting Practice except to the extent outlined in

the following paragraph.

The Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Sky Network

Television Ltd of the film Basic Instinct at 10.15pm on 20 March and at 8.30pm

on 31 March 1995, because of the time of the screening, breached standard P2 of

the Sky Code of Broadcasting Practice.

As the members of the Authority have seen the cinema version of Basic Instinct (as have

at least two of the complainants), it is inevitable that when viewing the version shown

by TV3, comparisons will be drawn. Indeed, TV3 in its reports to both the

complainants and the Authority, highlighted the differences in the two versions.

Nevertheless, the Authority wishes to emphasise that despite the following references to

the contents of the cinema version, its decision is based on the material contained in the

film shown on free-to-air television broadcast at 9.30pm on Sunday 18 February.

In its decision on the cinema version, the Authority made the following comment:

The film dealt with ambiguities in sexuality and lifestyle, in a challenging, adult

and legitimate manner. Some broadcasts contain storylines at different levels for

young and old. Basic Instinct did not fit into that category: it was a film designed

for the adult viewer. The central characters interacted in a realistically adult

manner. The communication between them was on a range of psychological

levels which could challenge adult viewers and would be likely to prove

confusing and distressing for younger people. Further, the viewer's relationship

with the main protagonists varied as the story developed.

While not resiling from these observations, the Authority does not consider the version

shown by TV3 to be quite so compelling. It remains very much the opinion of that it

was a film for adult viewers because of some of the ambiguities explored.

However, despite the cuts to the amount of sexual behaviour included in the film shown

by TV3, and acknowledging the irony in the following comments, the Authority

believes that the film's focus both on sexual attitudes and sexual behaviour was of

increased importance in the TV3 version. It was of greater importance because the

reduction of the violence reduced the range of the interactions between the characters.

The Authority kept this point in mind when assessing the complaints that the broadcast

breached the requirements for good taste and decency.

Because of the minimal amount of violence contained in the film screened by TV3, the

Authority concludes that standards G9, V2, V4, V6 and V11 were not breached. It

neither accepts that violence and sexuality were combined in a way designed to titillate,

nor that gratuitous violence was included to achieve heightened impact.

Some members of the Authority are inclined to the view that the result of the cuts is that

two sexual scenes are unnecessarily lengthy. They have in mind the opening scene, and

the scene when the detective and the murder suspect, played by Sharon Stone, first had

intercourse. Both scenes clearly involved consensual intercourse and some members

question whether they were unnecessarily graphic and too long. Because of these

aspects, they observe that the viewer could justifiably feel a bit like a voyeur.

Nevertheless, before ruling on the good taste aspect of the complaint, the Authority, as

it is required to do by the standards, refers to the context in which the film was shown.

It was screened at 9.30pm – an hour after the start of AO classification – and was

preceded by a warning to ensure that viewers who were unfamiliar with the film would

be well advised on the contents.

Taking these contextual matters into account, and although some members would have

preferred to see further deletions to the sexual scenes, the Authority concludes that,

overall, the broadcast did not breach the requirement for good taste and decency in

context.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
18 July 199

Appendix 1

Stephanie Johnson's Complaint to TV3 Network Service Ltd - 15 March 1995

Ms Johnson of Christchurch complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the

broadcast of the film Basic Instinct screened at 9.30pm on Sunday 18 February 1996.

She stated that the explicit sex scenes included in the film - some of which included

bondage and violence - breached the requirement for good taste contained in s.4(1)(a) of

the Broadcasting Act 1989. Ms Johnson expressed her disgust that an R18 film

containing pornographic and violent material had been screened on television at any

hour.

Further, Ms Johnson complained that the opening scene was in breach of standards V6

and G9 of the Television Code as it depicted techniques of crime which encouraged

imitation. She pointed out that a serial murderer and rapist in the US, Ted Bundy, had

explained before his execution how his deviancy had developed from viewing soft

pornography.

As some scenes in the film contained sexuality and violence in a way designed to

titillate, Ms Johnson also alleged a breach of standards V4 and V2. She mentioned in

particular the opening scene, the scene where the detective pushes his therapist against

the wall, and the scene where the actor played by Sharon Stone scratches the detective

during sexual activity.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 11 April 1996

Advising Ms Johnson that her complaint had been assessed under the nominated

standards, TV3 explained that the cinema version of Basic Instinct had been greatly

modified for television, that it was rated ÔAO" and had been preceded by the following

explicit warning:

"The following movie Basic Instinct is intended for Adults Only and

contains mature subject matter. It has been modified for television but

contains some sexual themes and scenes of violence that some viewers may find

offensive."

Dealing first with the good taste complaint, TV3 reported that the violence in the

opening sequence had been completely removed in the version modified for television.

Further, a significant portion of the sex in the scene was removed, TV3 continued, "so

that the movie was consistent with its 9.30pm timeslot". Some viewers, it added, had

suggested that too much had been removed.

Disputing the accuracy of the complainant's frequent use of the term "bondage" to

describe the murderer's use of the silk scarf, TV3 declined to uphold the good taste

complaint in view of the modifications made to the film.

As for the aspect of the complaint about depicting techniques of crime which were

capable of imitation, TV3 argued that the standards did not apply as there was no

violence shown in the opening scenes of the film

With regard to the aspects of the complaint which referred to the use of violence and the

combination of violence and sexuality throughout the film, TV3 reiterated that the

violence had been removed completely from the opening scene and substantially from

the other scenes nominated. TV3 concluded:

TV3's Complaints Committee felt that the basis for your fundamental

objection to Basic Instinct has been based on a prior understanding of the

version shown theatrically, on video and Pay-television, which has little

relevance to TV3's modified free-to-air version.

Ms Johnson's Referral to the Authority - 6 May 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's decision, Ms Johnson referred her complaint to the

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

Her complaint, she began, dealt with the modified version shown on TV3. A warning,

she continued, did not excuse the opening scene being shown on television at 9.30pm.

She considered that both the broadcaster and the Authority had a responsibility to the

community to ensure that material which would influence viewers in a negative way and

harm the community was not screened.

While acknowledging that the opening scene was cut, she wrote:

... it is ridiculous to say that there is no violence in this scene, nor in the other

scenes complained about. The sexual activity, music and violence all come

together in a manner designed to titillate, and heighten impact. The film

portrays sado-masochistic and violent behaviour as acceptable - bondage, the

gouging of Detective Curran's back, and the scene in which Beth Garner is

violently pushed against a wall. In the latter scene it is a vile euphemism to call

this violence Ôpassion'.

Ms Johnson explained that she, along with many others, was appalled that Basic

Instinct was screened on public television and, in view of the time-consuming nature of

the complaint process, she wondered whether the system was designed to discourage

people from initiating complaints.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 27 May 1996

In response, TV3 referred to the criticism to which it had been subjected for what was

regarded as excessive deletions. The only complaints (phoned or otherwise) that too

much material was retained was received from the three complainants who, in addition,

had seen an un-cut version elsewhere. It wrote:

Basic Instinct is not a domestic violence movie; it is a murder mystery. Most of

the violence in the movie comes from a central female character and all instances

of "tying up" involve a man being tied up by a woman - the potential murderer.

In the opening scene a murder takes place, one which is central to the whole of

the movie, and in this scene the violence has been completely removed. The

violence in this scene is implied and as such is acceptable in an AO rated movie.

Ms Johnson's Final Comment

Ms Johnson did not respond to the Authority's invitation to comment on TV3's report

to the Authority

Appendix II

Murray Johnson's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 14 March

1995

Mr Johnson of Christchurch complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the film

Basic Instinct screened at 9.30pm on 18 February 1996.

Commending TV3 for the modifications made to the cinema version of the film before

screening, Mr Johnson maintained nevertheless that significant portions of the broadcast

contravened the standards. Specifically, he considered that the opening scenes breached

s.4(1)(a) of the Act and standard V4 of the Code as it was distasteful to link sexual

activity with an act of violence.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 11 April 1996

Assessing the complaint under the nominated breaches, TV3's response contained the

relevant parts of its letter to Ms Johnson which is summarised in Appendix I.

Mr Johnson's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 5

May 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's response, Mr Johnson referred his complaint to the

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

He persisted with his complaint that the modified opening scene still breached the good

taste standard. He could not understand how the depiction of a woman killing a man in

the context of a sexual act could be considered decent however that term was defined.

Moreover, by showing the scene at 9.30pm, he said that there was a risk that it would

be seen by younger viewers.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 27 May 1996

TV3's response was similar to that of Ms Johnson summarised in Appendix I. It

emphasised the point that there was no "brutal murder scene" in the version shown in

view of the editing which removed all the explicit violence. Further, most of the sex

had been removed from the opening scene, as had occurred throughout the film, to

ensure that it was suitable for free-to-air television.

Mr Johnson's Final Comment

Mr Johnson did not respond to the Authority's invitation to comment on TV3's report to

the Authority.

Appendix 111

Julia King's Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd - 15 March 1996

Ms King of Christchurch complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd about the broadcast

of the film Basic Instinct screened at 9.30pm on 18 February 1996. She alleged that the

broadcast breached s.4(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and standards V2, V4, V6

and G9 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The opening scene and the sexual encounter between the detective and his therapist, she

wrote, breached s.4(1)(a). Standard V2 was transgressed by the sexual encounter

between the detective and the character Catherine Trammell. Further, that scene

contravened standard V4 as did the encounter between the detective and the therapist.

The opening scene she believed, also breached standards V6 and G9. Ms King

expressed the following opinion:

I object to sexuality combined with violence, bondage and other sado-

masochistic behaviour being screened on television as early as 9:30, or indeed

at any time. I think it is harmful to the community at large.

TV3's Response to the Formal Complaint - 11 April 1996

TV3's reply to Ms King was identical to its reply to Ms Johnson discussed in Appendix

I.

Ms King's Referral to the Authority - 9 May 1996

Dissatisfied with TV3's reply, Ms King referred her complaint to the Broadcasting

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

Ms King said that the warning would have little effect given the impact of the R18 film,

which encouraged sexual violence and introduced sado-masochism, on teenage males.

It was not a film, she noted, that she would forget speedily.

The combination of sexuality and bondage, she noted, was designed to titillate and this

film glamorised sexual violence by showing a character who responded positively to

violence. Ms King wrote:

ÔBasic Instinct' is clearly in breach of many TV standards, and it is high time

that the BSA upheld some of them. Many people are sick of the sex and

violence that is always on TV, and I am amongst many of those who are tired

of the way women are being portrayed on TV - enjoying sexual violence and

so forth. Numerous victims have had to pay for what has been permitted on

television.

TV3's Response to the Authority - 27 May 1996

TV3's response was similar to that in regard to Ms Johnson's complaint which is

summarised in Appendix I. It maintained that Ms King's complaint about the "rape"

scene referred to the theatrical version as TV3's version of the scene did not justify the

description of a "rape scene".

Ms King's Final Comment - 5 June 1966

Ms King advised the Authority that she did not want to comment further.