Californication episode "too hot" for TV
Now hear this. Californication, episode ten, was too hot for television, ACMA has decided.
It found the editing of “The Devil’s Threesome,” by TEN was not sufficent for it to screen in the MA classification, the category that allows the strongest material to be screened.
ACMA found that sexual activity depicted in a scene in the program was not discreetly implied or discreetly simulated (as required under the code), due to the length of the scene, the amount of detail it contained and its conceptual strength.
In the episode Hank and Charlie have a threesome with a girl from a gym, including a scene of oral sex and female ejaculation which TEN trimmed down.
There were two complaints about sexual activity and nudity depicted in the episode.
‘Network and licensee management have a collective responsibility in ensuring compliance with the code,’ said ACMA Chairman Chris Chapman.
It is the first time a commercial network has breached the MA classification in a drama program since 2003. ACMA noted this is the first classification-related breach by TEN since 2005.
Network TEN will be required to distribute the investigation report to its classifiers for future classifications.
‘If, in spite of these actions, a Network TEN licensee subsequently breaches the MA classification guidelines in respect of a drama program, it could warrant use of ACMA’s formal powers,’ said Mr Chapman.
Source: ACMA
- Previous post: BB cuts Mike Goldman? I don’t think so.
- Next post: Good one, Rusty
Having seen both he original episode and Ten’s edit of that scene, seriously, if they had to edit it any more they would have had to cut the scene entirely, compromising the integrity of the whole show.
What annoys me about the ACMA complaints process is that the complainant is never identified. All the official report says is that they received “two written complaints”, one from Sydney and one from Perth.
Now, it might be a bit presumptuous of me to suggest that those complaints came from the rabble-rouser fundamentalist Christians who so vocally opposed the show (but then watched it every week anyway). But it seems very likely. Nobody else except the religious nutters seemed to be offended by the show at the time. And few other groups get so offended by sexual activity and normal human bodily functions.
Season 2 of this show looks like being a compulsory download one for fans, in any case. If Ten has to err on the side of caution with this show (if they bother showing season 2 at all) then I’ll have the guaranteed uncut version, thanks.
I don’t watch that show but why should they have to cut anything after all it is on at the adults own time of 9:30 for Christ sake if the christen groups get there way we wouldn’t be able to watch anything
But where do you draw the line? Television still needs boundaries.
I never saw the ch10 edit, wish I had now. But this is why it’s on cable in the US.
Yes it was graphic but it’s not like it was the first ep, people knew what to expect by ep 10 and if they didn’t want to see it don’t watch it, the consumer has the final control by changing the channel!
ITA this is one show where DL is the only way to go!
Maybe ch 10 will move it to 11:30 after the late news and sport tonight if they bring it back?
Here Here! neonkitten !
I am afraid I only watched the uncut version on a DVD I sourced from China but this is still mostly tame and innuendo.
Granted, more risque than what could have been televised a few years ago but still not porn.
This was brilliant new cutting edge entertainment for adults - (not for children) televised at a late enough time slot.
It only takes one or two wowsers to complain and the regulators turn backflips.
There should be some sort of threshold like 0.0001% of the population need to complain which even then would not be true representation but would stop ridiculous farces like this.
I know it’s probably unworkable, but I’d love to see a “genuine viewer” requirement for these complaints whereby the complainant needs to establish that they actually were watching the offending show for the purpose of entertainment rather than as an excuse to complain about it.
…Yet the complete uncut scene is given an MA15+ classification by the OFLC for the DVD release. You have to love the consistency there.
Seriously, the ACMA’s guidelines for MA15+ says “sexual activity may be discreetly implied”. Discreetly? At our HIGHEST level allowed on FTA TV? When one of the suggested consumer advice lines is “STRONG sex scenes”?
The uncensored episode on DVD is classified MA15+ (just as I expected), yet it’s “too hot” for the TV’s MA15+ guidelines? What a load of crap.
And the fact that it received only 2 complaints shows that the intended target audience didn’t in fact have a problem with the programme. Regardless of what their so-called “report” says, the scene was handled quite discreetly, and much of the scene placed emphasis on Hank’s unease of being in such an awkward position. Evidently, the scene was devoid of subtlety, but it was discreetly handled in such a fashion that it’s suitable for persons aged 15 and over IMO.
I agree that television needs boundaries but the episode aired in a suitable timeslot with a suitable classification and warning.
While I would prefer to watch the second season in glorious HD, I might have to resort to downloads if they persist on censoring the show.
I don’t understand how this finding is possible when the dvd release of the series is rated MA .
Sheer lunacy.
Wow only 2 written complaints! Lets get going guys! Feel like there is a show you don’t like, that could be taken as offensive? Get you and a mate together, write a letter each, and BAM! you have got another show in the timeslot!!
I have seen both. It was a while ago now, but I think I saw the uncut version on Youtube.
I have read the detail of the MA classification on the acma website, which says that it must be suitable for an unaccompanied 15 year old. I know I had seen more explicit when I was 15 and so have probably 90% of 15 year olds now.
It is a real concern that sexuality gets so much more censored than violence. I can remember when I was a kid in the 80's it seemed that there were T&A movies on TV all the time. Anyone remember Porkies, Melvin son of Alvin, anything with Tim Robbins from the 80's.
But then again I can also remember watching Arnie's "Commando" at school on rainy sports day…..
I think the rabble rousers have control.
DVD and film classifications are different to TV with good reason. Television is free to air and we must accept that people, including children, can stumble onto scenes or walk into a room with a television broadcasting without the same intent as knowingly buying a rated DVD or movie ticket.
I’m not necessarily defending the outcome but to those who say they shouldn’t cut anything, television must have some boundaries about how far and can and can’t go. It is mass media and therefore very different to a product purchased with the same consent at a cinema or DVD store.
david, how late would the timeslot have to be for them to give it an AV classification? this classification is higher than MA and is only available for tv isn’t it, there is no R allowed on tv at all but edited R can get an AV classification can’t it. maybe this could be a solution but it may have to be way to late into the night.
Those Wacky Zany “Christian” groups!
Some people just watch TV to be outraged, their not happy unless they have a bit of outrage in their lives.
Some even go as far to purposefully looking through the net, on TV, Music, Movies, just looking for things purely to be outraged. They invent these cause’s in their lives because there is nothing else to fill that void, they define their existence through self-invented drama!
Californication is a great show but some of the scenes are edgy, ya can’t just play any old thing on Telly and if someone complains they’re wrong for doing so.
You don’t define how progressive a country is by what it shows on TV, TV isn’t the real world.
Like that Finch guys said in Network movie, “Reality isn’t whats on TV, Reality is the person on the couch sitting next to you”
bindi_1986: All the AV classification means is that its rated MA for violence.
Basically, MA15+ can’t be screened until 9pm and means it exceeds the M guidelines for sex, language, etc.
AV15+ can’t be screened until 9:30pm and means it exceeds the M guidelines for violence.
Since this wasn’t a violence issue, the AV classification wouldn’t have helped here.
What’s really stupid is, at least from my skimming through the ACMA guidelines, if Californication was a film rather than a TV show, and classified by the OFLC before Channel 10 aired it, they WOULDN’T be in breach.
I agree that there needs to be a limit, but in this case it seems to me that it’s that the rules for complaints need to be overhauled. Because seriously, TWO complaints? Out of however many who watched it? The ratings were what, a million plus viewers? (just guessing, else it would have been pulled for bad ratings) so based on one million viewers that means that 0.0002% of the viewing population had a problem with it and it was removed. o_o If there had been a hundred complaints, then I could understand it. But based on two complaints? I don’t understand.
It isn’t about number of complaints. It is about how broadcasters meet standards as set under current guidelines.
Guidelines are supposed to reflect community standards. You could argue that they don’t but that’s a separate argument to the number of complainants.
David, we have boundaries, and they’re called the R rating. If material is MA on DVD, as long as it’s classified as such on TV and aired in the appropriate time, there should be no difference at all.
ACMA determined that TEN’s edits did not meet MA requirements.
As to my point about ‘television requiring boundaries’ this was in relation to a comment that TV ’shouldn’t have to cut anything at all.’
R for film does not have the same criteria as MA for television.
I’m not saying I agree with the outcome so much as clarifying processes. People seem to be confused that 2 people offended means TEN was in breach. No. It was in breach because the content aired did not meet current criteria.
Perhaps it is time community / viewers expressed to ACMA that their classifications do not represent community standards?