The censorship debate: should Adrian Lyne's film adaptation of Lolita be released in Australia?

When you see a line of coloured and underlined hypertext, this means that you can click on that text to go to another information page.

The censorship debate: should Adrian Lyne's film adaptation of Lolita be released in Australia?

Echo Issue Outline 1999 / 12-13: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`The National Classification Code states that adults should be able to read, hear or see what they want and that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them'
The director of the Office of Film and Literature Classification board, Ms Kathryn Paterson

`The Office of Film and Literature Classification is able to prohibit films which contain "depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or looks like a child under 16"'
South Australian Liberal MP, Ms Trish Draper

On March 9, 1999, the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, announced that he supported an appeal against a decision by the Office of Film and Literature Classification which gave an R18 classification to Adrian Lyne's film adaptation of Vladimir Nabokov's novel, Lolita.
This classification would allow the film to be released for exhibition in Australia.
A number of Coalition MPs had been anxious to have the film banned in this country. Mr Howard assured them that the Government would explore the appeals processes available in an attempt to stop the film's release, scheduled for April 15.
The Government's apparent intention to prevent the release of the film met with immediate criticism from a range of media commentators, film critics and members of the Opposition. The debate has focused both on the merits of this particular film version of Lolita and on the broader questions usually raised in any censorship debate.

Background
Adrian Lyne's film Lolita is based on a 1955 novel of the same name. The novel was written by Vladimir Nabokov.
It is the story of a 45-year-old man who has a sexual relationship with his 12-year-old step-daughter.
The novel was banned in Australia for many years and was still prohibited when Stanley Kubrick's film version of Lolita was released in 1962. The Kubrick film received an M classification.
British director, Adrian Lyne's, version of Lolita was completed in 1997.
In the United States it was claimed that the film would encourage child abuse and it took 18 months to find a distributor who was prepared to handle it. In Britain similar accusations were made and the film was finally released only after authorities consulted police and child psychiatrists for assurances that it would not have damaging effects.
In Australia the film attracted controversy before the Office of Film and Literature Classification board released its decision.
South Australian Liberal member of Parliament, Ms Trish Draper lobbied to have the film banned in Australia for some months before the board announced its judgment. Ms Draper was only one of a number of Coalition MPs and Senators who were concerned about the film. It was also opposed by independent senator, Mr Brian Harradine.
Senator Harradine's opposition to the film has been said to be particularly significant as the Government needs Senator Harradine's support if it is to have a number of key pieces of its legislative program pass the Senate.
The Office of Film and Literature Classification released its decision on the film on March 8, 1999. The board ruled that while the 1997 film, Lolita, may offend some sections of the community, it did `not offend against standards generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should be refused classification.'
The director of the board, Ms Kathryn Paterson, stated, `The classification board considered that the film is a serious artistic work and noted that while the film deals with the theme pedophilia it does not glorify or condone the practice of pedophilia.'
The board did however decide to give the film an R18 classification which would prevent it being viewed by those under 18.
In making a public statement on behalf of the board, Ms Paterson noted, `The National Classification Code states that adults should be able to read, hear or see what they want and that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them.'

There are a number of useful Internet sites supplying information on this issue.

The Office of Film and Literature Classification's web site can be found at http://www.oflc.gov.au/introd.html
Though some sections of this site are being reviewed in light of the Classification Act 1995, the web page supplies useful information on the current ratings system.
Please note that though the site was apparently updated on March 18, 1999, at the time of this outline going to print it did not have a copy of the Office of Film and Literature Classification board's ruling on the 1997 version of Lolita.

The Classification Act 1995 which came into operation in 1996 can be found at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cfacga1995489/
The Classification Act has been reproduced by the Australian Legal Information Institute, AustLII.
AustLII is a joint facility of the Faculties of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney, and the University of New South Wales.
The Act outlines in detail the various classifications that can be made and the means by which complaints may be made against a decision of the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

An extremely interesting anti-censorship site is Burning Issues. This site has subsections dealing with Internet censorship and more general aspects of the censorship issue in Australia.
The most useful subsection is titled, The State of Censorship: The Australian Debate. Though it does not yet deal with Lolita, it does deal with a number of other recent films that have prompted calls for censorship, including Salo, which was banned in February, 1998.
It gives general information on the laws and procedures through which material can be banned in Australia. It explains what it terms the `Fallacies & Urban Myths' which lead to calls for censorship and it gives detailed information on a number of prominent supporters of some forms of censorship, including Senator Brian Harradine.
This site can be found at http://rene.efa.org.au/censor/

There are also a couple of useful reports or editorials from the Sydney Morning Herald reproduced on the Net. One is MPs to get special viewing of Lolita, written by Margot Kingston, and published on March 11, 1999. It gives further detail on the opposition of some Liberal MPs to the new film version of Lolita. It can be found at http://www.netmarket.com.au/news/9903/11/pageone/pageone12.html
Also of interest is the Sydney Morning Herald's editorial of March 11, 1999. It is titled The censors and Lolita. Though it ultimately argues against censorship, it gives a detailed consideration of the special features of a film dealing with paedophilia which might encourage some to call for its prohibition.
The editorial can be found at http://www.netmarket.com.au/news/9903/11/html/editorial.html

Of both historical and current interest is a 1958 review of the novel Lolita, originally published in Atlantic Monthly.
It outlines some of the difficulties which first prevented the novel being published in the United States and then goes on to describe and praise it as a masterpiece of social satire and comic invention.
The review, written by Charles Rolo, can be found at http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/classrev/lolita.htm

Finally there is a lengthy interview with Stephen Sciff, the screenwriter for Adrian Lyne's Lolita. The interview was conducted with Suellen Stringer-Hye in 1996 and published on Zembla.
The first half of the interview gives biographical information about Sciff. The second half is much more interesting and relevant. It details what Sciff intended his screenplay to do and outlines some of the difficulties he encountered.
The interview can be found at http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/nabokov/zembla.htm

Zembla is a scholarly website completely run by devotees of Vladimir Nabokov and his works. It can be found at http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/nabokov/

Arguments in favour of Lolita being released in Australia
There are two sets of arguments offered in favour of the film Lolita being released in Australia.
The first relates to censorship generally, and is put by those who believe that adults should be free to make up their own minds as to what they will read or view.
The second set of arguments relates to Adrian Lyne's film in particular. There are a number of supporters of this film version of Lolita who argue that it has been significantly misrepresented and should not be banned because it does not do what its critics maintain.
The central anti-censorship argument offered in favour of Lolita being shown in Australia is that only in the most extreme of circumstances should any community of adults have its viewing or reading options limited by someone else.
According to this line of argument, film and literature classification bodies exist to rate films and books so that members of the public are warned of possibly offensive material and can decide whether they wish to view or read this material.
This capacity to choose is seen as an essential freedom in a democratic society. From this perspective, the place for censorship is said to be very limited.
Those with this view tend to argue that children should be protected from potentially disturbing material as they may not yet be mature enough to deal with it. However, adults, it is maintained, should be able to make an informed judgment as to what they read or view.
Federal member of Parliament, Mr Chris Schacht, has apparently supported people's ability to make decisions about what they view. He has been reported as saying, `I think people aged 18 and over will be clearly able to make a judgment ...'
A similar point was made in a Herald Sun editorial of March 12 in which the editorial writer concluded, `Surely choice is better than censorship.'
Relatedly, those who do not favour censorship tend to argue that the average, rational adult will not be perverted by what he or she reads or views and will not exhibit undesirable behaviour changes as a result.
According to this line of argument, criminal or sexually exploitative behaviour is not prompted by literature or film. Those with this view tend to argue that such behaviours are performed by the psychologically disturbed and those with pre-existent criminal tendencies.
This point has been made by Nic Frame in a letter published in The Age on March 12, 1999.
Mr Frame wrote, `I don't deny there are Humbert Humberts out there. But they will see this movie and change not a whit, because one film does not a paedophile make.'
Finally, it is argued, censorship is open to political distortion and manipulation.
According to this line of argument, once you give one body of people (especially a government) the power to determine what another group of people may see or read then those with the power to censor may do so for inappropriate reasons.
It has been claimed that some of the criticisms leveled at the film Lolita by some members of the federal government are politically motivated.
According to this line of argument, the federal government needs the support of independent senator, Mr Brian Harradine, if it is to get a number of important pieces of legislation passed by the Senate.
Senator Harradine opposes the release of Lolita on moral grounds. It has been suggested that the Government's supposed intention to review the judgment of the Office of Film and Literature Classification about this film is an attempt to curry favour with Senator Harradine.
Those with these suspicions maintain that the government is effectively making a deal with Senator Harradine such that it will act in a number of matters that concern him so long as he supports key government policies in the Senate.
Thus, opponents of censorship note, the banning of some material is not always related to supposed qualities of that material, but to the political ends of those with the power to censor. Its apparent capacity to be abused is a further reason why some people maintain that governments, in particular, should not have the capacity to censor.
All the above arguments relate to censorship generally, there is a further set of arguments that have been offered in support of this particular film.
Firstly, it has been argued that the film Lolita does not offer a sympathetic view of paedophilia. Instead, it is claimed, the film suggests the sexual exploitation of children is damaging.
It is claimed that the character, Lolita, is shown to have been robbed of her childhood and her seducer, Humbert Humbert, is said by some commentators to be plagued by guilt. It is also noted that he comes to a shameful and undignified end.
It has, therefore, been argued that, far from endorsing or promoting the sexual abuse of minors, the film shows the tragic consequences of such actions.
This point of view has been put by Georgina Safe, a commentator for The Australian. Ms Safe has described the novel and its most recent film adaptation as a `morality tale for the 90s'.
Similarly, James Murray, The Australian's religious affairs editor, has described the film as `a very moral film ... about tragic love, troubled conscience, gentleness, a longing for forgiveness and the compulsive behaviour with which our courts often struggle.'
Secondly, it has been claimed that despite its disturbing subject matter, Adrian Lyne's Lolita is a well-made and worthwhile film which would reward viewing by those who choose to do so.
This point has been made by a number of critics and commentators, including The Australian's film writer, Lynden Barber. Mr Barber has claimed that the film `is a mature, intelligent and finely nuanced work.'
Thirdly, it is claimed that attempts to have this film banned are an inconsistent over-reaction.
Those who make this claim note that the novel by Vladimir Nabokov is still in print and available for purchase in Australia. It has also been noted that Stanley Kubrick's 1962 film of the novel was not banned in Australia and is also still available here on video. This point has been made by Natalie Miller, the co-director of Cinema Nova and director of the Longford Cinema and Sharmill Films.
It has also been noted that other recent films which deal with paedophilia and incest have not attracted the same calls for prohibition. It has further been noted that extremely violent films do not seem to attract the same hostile attention as films which explore sexual taboos. Numbers of commentators have suggested that popular standards of criticism are inconsistent.
This point has been made by Age commentator, Alan Attwood, who has noted, ` Lolita comes with a clamor. Shoot-`em-up films such as Mel Gibson's latest, Payback, or Bruce Willis's Die Hard series attract much less controversy. That is the real obscenity.'
Finally, it is argued, that calls for the banning of the film Lolita are generally coming from ill-informed critics and are an attempt to put aside the informed judgment of a properly constituted body, the Office of Film and Literature Classification.
According to this line of argument, it is inappropriate that people who are pushing pre-conceived opinions, not based on an actual viewing of the film, are attempting to undermine the ruling of a trained body of film assessors.
It has been noted that the Office of Film and Literature Classification viewed the film very carefully and consulted further experts as to whether the film might potentially encourage paedophilia.
Supporters of the film have complained that unlike the Office of Film and Literature Classification those calling for a ban have not seen the film and are making judgments based on prejudice.

Arguments against Lolita being released in Australia
The primary argument offered against Adrian Lyne's film version of Lolita being released in Australia centres on its subject matter.
According to this line of argument, a film such as Lolita which deals with paedophilia serves to normalise such behaviour.
Those who hold this point of view argue that there are some behaviours which should properly remain taboo. From this point of view films depicting the sexual exploitation of children cannot be regarded as entertainments and so released for exhibition because to do so in some way signals an acceptance of this behaviour.
This point has been made by South Australian Liberal MP, Ms Trish Draper.
Ms Draper has claimed, `What happens (by releasing the film) is that it's mainstreaming paedophilia and that sort of activity becomes acceptable.'
Ms Draper has further noted, `I do not have a problem with a documentary on pedophilia, but this is a film to be viewed for entertainment.
It is a huge difference.'
From this point of view it is irrelevant whether the perpetrator of the child sex abuse is treated sympathetically in the film.
Ms Draper has claimed, `I don't care if its a discreet portrayal, an awful portrayal or a loving portrayal - the fact is it's illegal to have sex with a child in Australia.'
It is also said by some to be irrelevant whether critics of the film have actually viewed it or not.
According to this line of argument, what is at issue is the subject matter of the film, not the artistic merit of the treatment. It is claimed that on this basis it is possible to make a judgment about the film without having seen it.
This point of view has been put by Dr Dennis Rochford, of the School of Theology, Australian Catholic University, Oakleigh.
Dr Rochford has argued in a letter published in The Age on March 13, 1999, `I do not need to view the remake of Lolita or study the sophisticated critical notes produced by the censor to pass judgment on the film.
What is at stake is the need to hold on to an appropriate regard for children, for fear that what is most beautiful and tender becomes the most despicable.
Even as an artistic portrayal of the theme of paedophilia, Lolita [undermines] ... the moral evaluation of what is good, the integrity of children and their right to remain uncontaminated by the suggestion of corruption ...'
The next argument against the release of the film is that it is, some claim, a sympathetic portrayal of a child abuser.
According to this line of argument, a film dealing with a taboo subject and illegal behaviour may encourage such behaviour among perpetrators if it represents them sympathetically.
This point has also been made by South Australian Liberal MP, Ms Trish Draper. Though Ms Draper has not seen the film, she has based her judgments on the stated intentions of those who made the film.
Ms Draper has maintained, `The makers of the film themselves have been quoted as saying that they worked to make the pedophile into "something audiences would like, sometimes laugh at, and sometimes feel for.'
Opponents of the film argue that such a treatment offers encouragement to paedophiles.
According to this line of argument, while such film depictions may not actually cause someone to become a paedophile, they may assist paedophiles in justifying their activities.
This point has been made by Ms Draper who has argued, `Many of these offenders (paedophiles) are wont to think of and describe themselves as the "lovers" of children.
A film such as Lolita, however well-conceived, will possibly reinforce such beliefs and romanticise their destructive urges ...'
A similar view has been put by National Party MP, Ms De-Anne Kelly, who has argued that any depiction of paedophiles which shows them in a sympathetic light tends to deny the destructiveness and immorality of their actions.
Ms Kelly has claimed, `There are many people in the community who would feel it is unacceptable for a paedophile to be made into someone you might feel for or like.
The fact is their act is despicable and unacceptable.'
It has also been argued that as a civil liberties issue it does not follow that a minority of people should always be able to read or view whatever they wish.
According to this line of argument if the defences of `tolerance' and `civil liberty' mean that virtually anything is acceptable then the rights of those people who wish to have some entertainments prohibited and who believe their society will be damaged otherwise are being ignored.
This point has been made by Dr Dennis Rochford, who has argued, `Postmodern people applaud the disappearance of restrictions and authoritarian demands.
But is this always positive?
Tolerance seems to refuse the moral claim of any religious or moral tradition save its own. This implies that tolerance itself becomes the sole criterion for evaluation.'
Dr Rochford has referred to this supposed trend as the `dictatorship of tolerance'.
Similarly it has been claimed that those who believe that virtually any material should be released for public viewing or reading tend to be in a minority and so, some claim, are attempting to impose a minority position on the majority of people.
This point has been made by Mr Luke Martin, in a letter published in The Age on March 12, 1999.
Mr Martin wrote, ` Lolita is another example of the moral disintegration and degradation a small but vociferous group within our community wish to enjoy at the expense of the safety of our children ...'
With regard to the Office of Film and Literature Classification, opponents of the film argue that the Office has not applied its guidelines appropriately.
Those who would like to see the film denied classification or directly banned in Australia, note that the Office of Film and Literature Classification is able to prohibit films which contain `depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or looks like a child under 16.'
It has further been argued that the R18 classification the film has received is no guarantee that the film will not be viewed by minors. This is of particular concern to opponents of the film as its subject matter is one which directly involves children.
Some of those opposed to the film's release in Australia note that it could still be seen by children when it is released on video. It has further been suggested that this is more likely to occur in families where adult supervision was poor or indifferent and by implication, where children were thus more likely to be in at-risk situations.
Mr Luke Martin, in his letter published in The Age on March 12, 1999, wrote, `I am outraged that a film sensationalising paedophilia - despite its R18 rating - can be tolerated, because children in malfunctioning situations may be exposed to it if it is released on video.'
It has further been argued that the release of this film may be particularly unacceptable at this time because as a society we are only now becoming aware of the full extent of the sexual exploitation of children.
It has been argued that at a time when we are moving from widespread denial of the problem to an attempt to address it, it may not be appropriate to release a film which could be construed as either normalising child sexual abuse or treating its perpetrators sympathetically.

Further implications
It seems unlikely that the Office of Film and Literature Classification's decision to release for exhibition Adrian Lyne's film version of Lolita will be directly overturned.
Complaints about a decision of the Office of Film and Literature Classification board are referred to the Classification Review Board by either state or federal attorneys-general. It is obvious that a number of such complaints have been made, including that of South Australian federal parliamentarian, Trish Draper.
There are a number of reasons why it seems unlikely that the Classification Review Board will overturn the Office of Film and Literature Classification board's ruling.
The Office of Film and Literature Classification board appears to have been particularly scrupulous in its deliberations on Lolita. It considered the matter for two weeks before making its recommendation and consulted with a number of experts in different fields in an attempt to ensure that the film was not likely to encourage paedophilia. It is also of note that the decision to grant the film an R18 classification was unanimous.
However, the Classification Review Board has overturned decisions of the Office of Film and Literature Classification board before. In 1998 the Classification Review Board decided to prohibit the further screening in Australia of the 1975 Pasolini film, Salo. (It may be of interest to note that this decision was one sought and then supported by Senator Harradine.)
If the film is banned by the Classification Review Board there is the strong possibility that the federal Opposition and others will claim that political pressure was brought to bear on the Review Board, particularly in light of the importance of Brian Harradine's vote in the Senate.
Should the film not be banned by the Classification Review Board it is possible that it will be banned in some individual states and territories by their respective attorneys-general.
The department of the attorney-general in any state or territory has the power to rule that any film, play or piece of literature is unsuitable for public release or distribution. In March 1999 the Western Australian Attorney-General, Ms Cheryl Edwardes, banned the film Sick for a scene in which a terminally ill artist nails his penis to a wooden plank in an art gallery performance.
If Lolita is released it will readily find a distributor here. Ms Natalie Miller, the co-director of Cinema Nova and director of the Longford Cinema and Sharmill Films has already spoken in its defence.
Once the film is screened it will be interesting to note if opposition to it dissipates. If not, it is possible either that it will not be a commercial success, as was apparently the case in the United States, or that there will be protests outside cinemas where it is being screened. Though the latter is unlikely, the Piss Christ protests of 1997 show that it is not impossible. There have been a number of suggestions that Australia is experiencing a conservative backlash.
Finally, the combination of a morally conservative independent, Mr Brian Harradine, holding the balance of power in the Senate together with a socially conservative Government has seen moves to censor the Internet and ban certain sex education publications apparently in response to Senator Harradine's expressions of concern.
It could be argued that the political scales are currently tipped in favour of censorship. However, it could also be argued that after decades of almost total tolerance recent developments represent no more than an attempt to achieve a new balance.

Sources
The Age
26/2/99 page 15 comment by Alan Attwood, `In praise of Lolita, a funny love story'
10/3/99 page 1 news item by Tony Wright, `Storm of protest greets Lolita's rating'
11/3/99 page 7 news item by Carolyn Webb, `Film industry slams call to ban Lolita'
11/3/99 page 18 editorial, `Heed the censor on Lolita'
12/3/99 page 15 analysis by Simon Caterson, ` Lolita. What's all the fuss ?'
12/3/99 page 16 letter from Nic Frame, `Why we must be allowed to see Lolita'
12/3/99 page 16 letter from Luke Martin, `Or should the film be banned?'
13/3/99 page 13 analysis by Paul Heinrichs, `The cutting edge of censorship'
13/3/99 page 8 (News Extra section) analysis by Tony Parkinson, `Big issues get deflected by tirades and tempers'
13/3/99 page 10 (News Extra section) letter from Lauren Reed, `The right to see a work of art ...'
13/3/99 page 10 (News Extra section) letter from Sarah Champness, `or a dangerous reflection of society?'
14/3/99 page 6 comment by Lawrie Zion, `Politicians fall prey to the Lolita complex'
16/3/99 page 12 letter from Dr Dennis Rochford, `A "dictatorship of tolerance"'

The Australian
10/3/99 page 5 news item by Christopher Dore, `PM backs push to ban Lolita'
11/3/99 page 1 news item by Chip Le Grand, `Minister bans S&M movie'
11/3/99 page 4 news item by Christopher Dore, `PM out to seduce Harradine on Lolita'
11/3/99 page 4 comment by Lynden Barber, `Distinguishing a fine Lyne'
11/3/99 page 4 comment by Georgina Safe, `Morality tale for the 90s'
11/3/99 page 4 comment by James Murray, `A film about redemption, full of moral teaching'
15/3/99 page 3 news item bt Christopher Dore, `Alston to take a "decent" look at Lolita'
17/3/99 page 12 letter from Margaret Burrell, `Better to be open'
23/3/99 page 16 four letters under the heading `Big losers in Telstra trade-off'

The Herald Sun
17/2/99 page 19 analysis by Simon Pristel, `A warning for teen girls'
9/3/99 page 5 news item by Simon Pristel, `No ban on child-sex film'
10/3/99 page 7 news item by Sarah Dent, `MP anger over child sex movie'
11/3/99 page 23 news item by Sarah Dent, `Movie ban MPs `stupid'
11/3/99 page 23 news item by Kinney Littlefield, `Actor defends film's view'
22/3/99 page 15 news item by Andrew Cummins, `Teen sex guide used to placate Harradine'