NZ censorship and selection on 'Compass' documentary

[Chris Wilkinson]

Compass - First Five Years of Television (1966) offers an insight into the censorship and selection of programmes shown in New Zealand.

www.nzonscreen.com/title/compass-first-five-years-of-television-1966

The third part of the documentary is the most relevant. The section between 4m 08s and 4m 58s relates to programme selection, and 5m 25s and 5m 56s for censorship.

The whole documentary is very interesting to watch.

Points to note:

• Of the 1,200 programmes reviewed each year, roughly 150 were from Britain.
• The 'Viewing Committee' recommended to the NZBC what programmes they should purchase.
• Selection criteria based on originality, educational/entertainment value, script quality, high technical standards, modern production methods, acting quality, and appropriateness to New Zealand.
• Roughly 70% of censor cuts were for violence.

The idea of an appropriateness for New Zealand substantiates the theory regarding Fury from the Deep being unsuitable for broadcast due to the storyline involving an offshore rig bearing resemblance to the then-new exploitation of the Maui gas field involving British Petroleum.

[Natalie Sinead]

NZ censorship in general - Australia's too - also gives an insight into the censor's racism/sexism/homophobia and Christian Supremacy.

[George D]

What do you mean by racist?

Were they cutting out certain nationalities?

[Mike Biggs]

Jul 14, 2018 11:18:53 GMT Chris Wilkinson said:

Compass - First Five Years of Television (1966) offers an insight into the censorship and selection of programmes shown in New Zealand.

www.nzonscreen.com/title/compass-first-five-years-of-television-1966

The third part of the documentary is the most relevant. The section between 4m 08s and 4m 58s relates to programme selection, and 5m 25s and 5m 56s for censorship.

The whole documentary is very interesting to watch.

Points to note:

• Of the 1,200 programmes reviewed each year, roughly 150 were from Britain.
• The 'Viewing Committee' recommended to the NZBC what programmes they should purchase.
• Selection criteria based on originality, educational/entertainment value, script quality, high technical standards, modern production methods, acting quality, and appropriateness to New Zealand.
• Roughly 70% of censor cuts were for violence.

The idea of an appropriateness for New Zealand substantiates the theory regarding Fury from the Deep being unsuitable for broadcast due to the storyline involving an offshore rig bearing resemblance to the then-new exploitation of the Maui gas field involving British Petroleum.

Rejecting Fury from the Deep because of the Maui gas field sounds a like a bit of a stretch. While the field was discovered in 1969, the rig was only built in 1976, a good five years after the rejection of the serial.

I could be wrong, but the dates don't really stack up for that to figure heavily in the censors decision.

[Jon Preddle]

Jul 15, 2018 3:09:27 GMT Mike Biggs said:

Rejecting Fury from the Deep because of the Maui gas field sounds a like a bit of a stretch. While the field was discovered in 1969, the rig was only built in 1976, a good five years after the rejection of the serial. I could be wrong, but the dates don't really stack up for that to figure heavily in the censors decision

The unusual thing about 'Fury' was that it was rejected by the Viewing Committee, not by the censor, so whatever it was that was 'wrong' with it didn't involve violence, sex, bad language or anti-social behaviour, all of which could normally be cut out.

Which really only leaves the storyline or the print itself. But if the film itself was unacceptable, why not just acquire a better copy? Was it the production values? That would mean 'Fury' was considered worse than The Underwater Menace which they had accepted! Or was it something within the narrative or plot that was at issue? It's hard to see what this could be, other than the setting or the 'dangers' of drilling for natural gas, which was very topical news at the time the story was being assessed.

[Jaspal Cheema]

Jul 15, 2018 9:31:28 GMT Jon Preddle said:

Jul 15, 2018 3:09:27 GMT Mike Biggs said:

Rejecting Fury from the Deep because of the Maui gas field sounds a like a bit of a stretch. While the field was discovered in 1969, the rig was only built in 1976, a good five years after the rejection of the serial. I could be wrong, but the dates don't really stack up for that to figure heavily in the censors decision

The unusual thing about 'Fury' was that it was rejected by the Viewing Committee, not by the censor, so whatever it was that was 'wrong' with it didn't involve violence, sex, bad language or anti-social behaviour, all of which could normally be cut out.

Which really only leaves the storyline or the print itself. But if the film itself was unacceptable, why not just acquire a better copy? Was it the production values? That would mean 'Fury' was considered worse than The Underwater Menace which they had accepted! Or was it something within the narrative or plot that was at issue? It's hard to see what this could be, other than the setting or the 'dangers' of drilling for natural gas, which was very topical news at the time the story was being assessed.

Fascinating stuff Jon...

[zaqwilson]

Interesting.

THankx for the share Chris!