BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

The film Bad Boy Bubby included scenes in which the character, Bubby, was shown blocking the nostrils of a cat and, later, tightly wrapping the cat’s body in plastic wrap. The film was broadcast on TV2 on 10 April 1999 at 1.55 am.

Ms Thorpe complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that she was upset and disturbed by the scenes showing what she called cruelty to the cat. The scenes, she wrote, involved a real cat and their broadcast could have given some viewers the incentive to copy the actions which were portrayed.

TVNZ responded that the film was an intense and discomforting black comedy portraying a character whom the conventions of society had passed by. It was scheduled for broadcast well after midnight because of its disturbing nature, and was rated AO, it said. The film had been critically acclaimed, TVNZ wrote, and it believed that the disturbing scenes used a model rather than a live cat. The scenes provided examples of the character’s degradation and retardation, the broadcaster wrote in declining to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Ms Thorpe referred her 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 a tape of 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 Bad Boy Bubby was broadcast by TV2 on 10 April commencing at 1.55 am. The film contained scenes in which the film’s main character, Bubby, tormented a cat by blocking its nostrils to stop it from breathing, unblocked them and then again reblocked them. In a following scene, Bubby was shown tightly wrapping the cat in plastic wrap so that it could not move.

Ms Thorpe complained to TVNZ that she was shocked to see the cruelty inflicted upon the cat. She was upset and disturbed by the film, she wrote, particularly when the scenes involved a "real cat". Because she had previously seen the beginning of the film on video, she advised, she had written to the broadcaster before the broadcast asking that the film not be shown because it would give some people the incentive to copy the actions portrayed in the film.

Animals, Ms Thorpe pointed out, did not act and did not have a voice to complain, and people therefore needed to complain on their behalf.

She concluded by noting that it was nonsense to suggest that the late showing of the film meant that not many people would watch it because, she believed, the majority of people used videos to enable them to watch programmes at any time.

TVNZ responded that the film was about a man who had been imprisoned by his mother in a locked flat for 35 years before escaping into the industrial suburbs, where he encountered hatred, charity, loathing and love. It was an intense and discomforting black comedy, it wrote. His imprisonment meant that the conventions of society – such as compassion, kindness, cleanliness – had bypassed Bubby, the main character.

TVNZ said that it elected to schedule the film well after midnight because of its disturbing nature. The reason it was screened was because it was a critically acclaimed piece of Australian cinema which had won the Festival’s Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival.

The broadcaster considered the complaint in the context of standards G2 and V6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which had been nominated by Ms Thorpe. The first standard requires 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.

The second standard provides:

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.

While noting Ms Thorpe’s concern for the cat’s welfare, TVNZ said it believed the scene in which the cat was tormented, by having its nostrils blocked, made use of a model rather than a live cat. Respecting the complainant’s view that the scene could have been imitated by impressionable people, the broadcaster wrote that in nearly every film and drama, scenes were represented which "we would not want to be imitated in real life".

The film was anarchic and challenged many social conventions, TVNZ stressed. The character’s treatment of the cat was not portrayed as a "good thing", but as an example of his degradation and retardation brought about by life long confinement. The film was not easy or pleasurable viewing, it continued, and that was why it was scheduled for broadcast at 1.55 am.

Declining to uphold the complaint under standard G2, TVNZ noted the film’s context – a dark comedy which pushed the boundaries of bad taste in just about every direction. It was a film for cinema buffs, it contended, while repeating that it was screened "in the depths of the night".

The film was broadcast at a time when the audience could be expected to be mature and able to cope with disturbing images and concepts, TVNZ wrote. While videos made late night material accessible to viewers in daylight hours – and by implication to people who might be vulnerable – TVNZ said that adults had a responsibility in this area. If they recorded a programme such as this film, then they did so with the knowledge that it had an AO certificate and had been scheduled very late at night. TVNZ declined to uphold the standard V6 complaint.

In referring her complaint to the Authority, Ms Thorpe questioned TVNZ’s description of "fictional" scenes involving the cat. They were not fictional, she wrote. She could not agree that the scenes made use of a model of a cat. From what she saw, she wrote, "the cat was a real one". Ms Thorpe said she could personally cope with bad taste in films, but she objected strongly to the misuse of animals, because they did not have a choice and "they don’t act".

When invited to respond, TVNZ said that it had nothing further to add.

At the outset, the Authority is required by standard G2 in this instance to consider the context in which the depicted behaviour took place. The programme in which the behaviour occurred was a film, and also a work of fiction. TVNZ described it as an intense and discomforting black comedy about a man who had been imprisoned by his mother for 35 years and whom the conventions of society had passed by. The Authority notes TVNZ’s advice that the film had been critically acclaimed overseas, and was a film for cinema buffs. It also notes that TVNZ scheduled the film for screening well after midnight because of its disturbing nature. In the Authority’s view, those are the relevant contexual factors, together with the 1.55 am commencement time of the screening, the film’s AO rating, and its appeal, as a dramatic work of the art-house genre, to a limited audience.

The Authority does not consider that the film advocated the behaviour shown to the cat. It served, in the Authority’s view, to assist in the building up of "Bubby’s" character, and to strengthen the story-line. While the behaviour was inherently offensive, it was designed to shock the viewer rather than to advocate imitation, it considers. Taking all those factors into account, the Authority is not able to find a breach of standard G2 on this occasion. It concludes by noting that the material presented was challenging, and the hour at which it was broadcast was a significant factor, as the Authority accepts that viewing could be expected to be confined to a mature audience.

Standard V6 precludes the showing of "ingenious devices for and unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain, injury or death, particularly if capable of easy imitation". In this instance, the Authority considers that the standard is not apposite because the offending scenes, as noted above, simply depicted an activity in a dramatic work, in a way which did not involve any promotional implication or portrayal. Further, as noted above, because of the hour of broadcast only a mature audience could be expected to have viewed the film. For those reasons, the Authority finds that the standard was not breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
29 July 1999

Appendix

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

1. Stacey Thorpe’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Limited – received 21 April 1999

2. TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 5 May 1999

3. Ms Thorpe’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – received 17 May 1999

4. TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 20 May 1999