Regular readers have probably noticed that of late posting has been a little spotty.
Partly it’s because it’s August and there’s nothing I enjoy more than being on the water with my kids. A few more weeks and it’s back to school time, so I’m trying to get in as many beach hours with them as possible.
It’s also because MATT AND KHYM is taking up a lot of my creative energy. The problem (if one can even call it that) is that they’re too good. Their interview runs well over an hour, and it’s all good. Charming, sexy, sweet, humorous; it’s been really hard to figure how to cut in down to a managable length.
Lastly, I haven’t been writing in the blog much because I’ve been having to do A LOT of correspondence in support of DAMON AND HUNTER. It is abolutely our most successful release so far, both in terms of recognition and units shipped, and it turns out that trying to take advantage of that success take a lot of time.
We’ve been especially please with the reception DAMON AND HUNTER has received in Australia. It’s been covered in a number of magazines and newspapers, including DNA, The Melbourne Star, B-News, MCV, and QMagazine.
In July it played to an overflow audience at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival, and went on to be named Best Documentary at the fest. From there we were invited to show the film at QueerDOC, the world’s premiere gay and lesbian documentary film festival, in Sydney this September. All great news, with lots of thank you notes to write, journalist to talk to, and of course, boxes of DVDs to send to Australia.
Then late last week, the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification dropped the hammer on DAMON AND HUNTER.
On the 15th, QueerDOC received notification from the OFLC that screening D&H would be a violation of Section 8 of the 2004 Film Festival Guidelines. That’s right, in Australia the government can tell you what you can and can’t show at a film festival.
What will happen now, I don’t know. The festival has already distributed nearly 50,000 copies of the program, including two screenings of DAMON AND HUNTER (which the festival expected would sell out). We’ve already printed up hundreds of posters and flyers and made arrangements to have them distributed throughout Sydney. The festival is currently in negotiations with the OFLC to see if they can show DAMON AND HUNTER in some sort of edited form, and we’re trying to make an appeal of the ratings. (Winterbottom’s 9 SONGS, a film that featured explicit footage of straight sex received a reduced rating from the OFLC. But without the major distributor backing of a film like 9 SONGS, and the very short notice, I’m doubtful our appeal will be successful.) If I were a betting man, I’d bet that Sydney is not going to get the chance to see the film that Melbourne enjoyed so very much.
And then there is still the question of what might happen to the organizers of the Melbourne Underground Film Festival and the owners of the venue that had the audacity to show DAMON AND HUNTER on not one, but two screens. Each violation of Section 8 is punishable by a year in jail and a $20,000 fine. Perhaps I felt a bit histrionic when I said that MUFF and Glitch were doing something courageous by showing DAMON AND HUNTER, but I don’t feel histrionic now.
Of all the films the OFLC might target for censorship, DAMON AND HUNTER seems like a particularly inappropriate choice. Aside from the recognition the film has so far received as an outstanding work of cinema, it’s also been recognized for it’s value as a life-affirming and educational document. DAMON AND HUNTER is held in the Kinsey Library at the world renowned Kinsey Institute at the University of Indiana. It’s already being used by the Gay Men’s Health Crisis in New York, and by the San Francisco Sex Information Hotline. Just this week it’s been being passed around by deligates at the 16th Annual World AIDS Conference in Toronto Cananda. Why? Because DAMON AND HUNTER is singular in it’s compassionate, humane, frank, and erotic depiction of gay love and gay sex.
And apparently that’s something that the government of Australia needs to keep the people of Sydney, especially the gay men of Sydney, from seeing.
7 Comments
I’ve been wondering where you’d got to.
Sorry to hear the OFLC got hold of Damon and Hunter. These are the same people who censored an article on genital surgery in Australian Women’s Forum because the pictures contained “genital detail”.
Australia has no bill of rights which means we have no written document that guarantees our right to free speech. This is why the government banned adult sites from being hosted on Australian servers, it’s why it’s illegal to sell hardcore sex DVDs in most states and it’s why they’ve put the kybosh and D&H.
The stupid thing is that Aussies are very laid back when it comes to sex and porn, more so than Americans, I think. Most people here are OK with the idea that adults should have the right to watch anything they want to watch. There’s a stupid disparity between what people do and what the politicians enforce, but everyone is too lazy or frightened to stand up and make it a political issue. The loud zealots get their way. Unfortunately apathy is what drives censorship in this country.
There’s always a controversy over an erect penis in our media, particularly when it concerns explicit sex in film. Perhaps the film will be permitted to be purchased in the ACT and NT (where XXX rated films are sold, which is ironic really because the ACT is where our federal government is situated and yet this territory also has permission to sell XXX rated film).
It’s some consolation that they’re willing to accept an edited version. The last film that was banned here in Australia was French film Baise Moi.
There’s still a high level of homophobia within government, in Australia. They still have ways to go in terms of legalising same sex relationships in the way England have done, or better yet, legalising same sex marriage like other countries have done. Where it concerns homosexual relationships, we’re in the same boat that America is in, and lately the Australian federal government has been jumping through hoops that the Bush Administration holds up, and this can apply to our government deeming it unnacceptable to accept (legally, in matters of probate, and life insurance) or make homosexual relationships official (in any way or form).
I find it really odd, considering 9 Songs did feature an erect penis numerous times, including a fellatio scene that culminated in the male character’s ejaculation on film. This wasn’t deemed controversial by the OFLC, so I don’t see how a film depicting two males sexually engaging, being any different.
I was also wondering where you were.
Glad you are having some fun in the water. Australia sounds stressful.
But as a worst case scenario, think of this…all those people DON’T get to see the film, but they are DYING to know what all the controversy is about…so they come to your site and they BUY it.
I hope it gets shown, but if not…
Ugh and double ugh.
So sorry to hear about these roadblocks. Here I was thinking Australia must be a very forward thinking country to be accepting your beautiful film. The re-edit is so sad. Maybe it needs subtitles. Let people know what the beautiful, passionate, erotic, and loving banned moments were about.
I agree with alwaysrousedgirl - I hope everyone comes to the site to buy it.
Hoping it gets shown,
Linda
We are pretty forward thinking here in Australia, but it’s a bit over the top to say that we’re not based on the Film and Literature Office. Comparing Brokeback Mountain (which is hardly sexually groundbreaking with its ’sprinkle’ of sexual content) to a film that features graphic sex between two males, isn’t a comparison.
If a graphic homosexual film was pushed for released in the United States, you’d have an entire stampede of religious fanatics, and a Senate enquiry compared to what you’d have here. I don’t want to be blunt, but the reality is that Janet Jackson’s nipple caused a furor, whereas here something like that wouldn’t offend anyone.
We might be forward thinking Anastasia but we don’t speak out enough. Everytime the OFLC reviews policy and guidelines they call for public submissions - the only ones who appear to make comment are the conservative groups who want tighter restrictions not less. I also believe that not that many Australians actually understand how classification and censorship work in this country - there’s plenty of mystery around the facts — it is legal to own and view X rated material but it can’t be legally sold in all the states, in the NT and the ACT it is legal.
Any film with depiction of actual sex will be classified X which restricts sale and screening. Film festivals can apply for exemptions, that allows for films that have yet to be classified in Australia, but they won’t grant an expemption to a film already (rightly or wrongly) classified X, nor will they grant an exemption if the Director of the OFLC believes the film would have been given an X rating if the film was to be classified. Sex is out, which is even more vexing when you consider that a film festival can age restrict - so patrons watching Damon and Hunter would already have been classified as adults - 18 or over.
Complaining in writing to Des Clark, the Director of OFLC about situations like the one confronting Damon and Hunter is always a good idea, they are compelled to list complaints in their annual report. I’d like them to know that not everyone believes we need to be protected from depictions of sex.
Helen Vnuk’s article in the SMH from 2003 makes good reading - her book Snatched -Sex and Censorship in Australia makes compelling reading too.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/06/1057430073678.html