Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CINEMA COMPLIANCE SNAPSHOT
SYDNEY
NOVEMBER 2005
Locked Bag 3, HAYMARKET NSW 1240 ABN 16 001 170 433 Telephone 02 9289 7100 Facsimile 02 9289 7101 Internet www.oflc.gov.au
2
Contents: Media release Executive Summary Chapter 1 – Introduction Chapter 2 – Methodology Chapter 3 – Cinema compliance Chapter 4 – Best practice Chapter 5 – Newspaper compliance Chapter 6 – Website compliance Chapter 7 – Conclusions Attachments List of tables: Table 1: Feature films in this study by classification and distributor
Table 2: Comparison of titles viewed by coders and films available by classification
Table 3: Cinema compliance rates by item
Table 4: Summary of compliance results for the sector in comparison to July 2005 snapshot
Table 5: Compliance by item by cinema
Table 6: Non-compliant banners under 2.5m2
Table 7: Non-compliant handbills
Table 8: Handbills with classification markings displayed on the back
Table 9: Handbills with undersized classification markings
Table 10: Posters for films with advertising approval that did not display the exemption message
Table 11: Posters for classified films that did not display any classification information
Table 12: Posters displaying an out of date exemption message
Table 13: Posters omitting to display consumer advice
Table 14: Posters displaying incorrect consumer advice
Table 15: Posters with illegible consumer advice due to obscuring by poster boxes
Table 16: Cinemas with non-compliant film trailers for classified films
Table 17: Days elapsed since classification where out of date exemption message on a trailer
Table 18: Trailers displaying no classification or exemption message
Table 19: Incorrect classifications displayed with film trailers
Table 20: Newspaper compliance rates by item
Table 21: Website compliance rates by item
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report sets out the results of a study of compliance with the classification markings and other requirements for public exhibition films undertaken in Sydney in November 2005. The results are compared with a similar study undertaken in July 2005. This is the fourth in a series of snapshots used to identify areas for compliance education and reporting on the operation of this aspect of the national classification scheme to the Commonwealth, States and Territories. An embargoed exposure draft of this report was provided to the Motion Picture Distributors Association of Australia, Australian Independent Distributors Association, Independent Cinema Association of Australia, Australian Cinema Exhibitors Coalition, all Sydney cinemas and those distributors mentioned in the report. Compliance improvement activities Since the release of the July 2005 snapshot report, the cinema industry and the OFLC have cooperated in a range of activities to improve compliance. There has been sector wide, chief executive officer level, sponsorship of compliance initiatives and substantial efforts to improve practices and address the issues identified in the July 2005 report. These activities have resulted in compliance levels at cinemas increasing from 55% to 84% in the four months since July 2005, with particular areas requiring attention. Methodology Sample The study covered the Sydney metropolitan area from Thursday 3 November to Sunday 6 November 2005, about 6 months after the commencement of the new marking requirements and 4 months since the publication of the last cinema snapshot. Cinemas The study involved site visits to 47 cinema complexes, representing 94% of cinemas in the Greater Sydney region. These visits involved consideration of compliance with classification marking and other statutory requirements in respect of: • 179 trailers in cinema • 1136 print advertisements (936 posters, 35 banners under 2.5m2 and 207 handbills) at cinemas • 58 printed and electronic session times • 9 backlit title listings • the display of approved notices. Foyer loop tapes of trailers were also considered in the study. Also, best practice in the provision of classification information was assessed, including: • classification markings on banners exceeding 2.5m2 • classification markings on standees • display of additional approved notices • display of the “Use Classifications” promotional clip • display of the “Use Classifications” banner. Newspaper The study included examination of the the weekday and Saturday editions of the two capital city newspapers plus the two Sunday, including: • 175 advertisements for classified films. • 74 cinema session times
4
• 11 classification legends. Websites 17 Australian-hosted exhibitor websites and 7 Australian-hosted distributor websites were examined for compliance with the marking and eligible film requirements. This included 286 online trailers and 568 other advertisements for classified films. Assessment methodology Generally, advertising was assessed for displaying the correct classification and the correct type of marking within prescribed timeframes allowed for the replacement of the exemption message with classification markings where applicable. For some forms of advertising, this study did not strictly assess the size and positioning of markings. Also, banners over 2.5m2 are not required to display markings and where it was difficult to make an assessment about the size of a banner, it was assumed to exceed this size. Website compliance is separately reported because a larger sample and more comprehensive approach was taken, involving exhibition and distribution websites, in comparison to the July 2005 study. Where problems or issues have been identified but not counted as breaches for the purpose of this study, they are discussed in the report. Findings Overall, 2627 items, ranging from session times to approved notices to film trailer advertisements to online advertisements were assessed for compliance in this study. 174 additional items were identified as best practice. Cinema compliance The study found that 1228 (84%) items at cinemas met the requirements. However, 237 breaches at cinemas (16%) were also identified. Overall, this was a dramatic improvement on the July 2005 snapshot (55%). The following table summarises the findings of this study in comparison with the July 2005 snapshot:
July 2005 (n=36:50)
November 2005 (n=47:50)
Approved notices 22% 83%
Session times (Printed) A. Classification characters B. Consumer advice (synopses) C. Classification legend
A: 61% B: 4% C: 0%
A: 73% B: 20% C: 8%
Session times (Electronic) 4% 80%
External title listings - 22%
Handbills/flyers 64% 81%
Posters 45% 87%
Cinema trailers 69% 83%
Banners under 2.5m2 - 69%
A number of cinemas demonstrated excellent results although compliance varied significantly depending on the cinema and the issue. Compliance levels of 80% or higher were achieved for all mandatory requirements within cinemas except external title listings (22%), banners under 2.5m2 (69%) and printed session times. Of the 47 cinemas visited, Greater Union Campbelltown, fully complied with all the statutory requirements. Apart from printed session times, the following 9 cinemas were also fully compliant: • Palace Academy Twin • Greater Union Bondi Junction • Greater Union Castle Hill Piazza
5
• Greater Union Hornsby • Greater Union Hurstville • Greater Union Liverpool • Greater Union Macquarie • Greater Union Mosman • Hoyts Eastgardens. Best practice by cinemas Thirty-four of the cinemas in this study (72%) demonstrated some form of best practice by voluntarily marking advertising or providing other classification information beyond statutory requirements to do so. Several other examples of best practice were identified, including: • inclusion of classification markings on banners that were, or appeared to be, greater than 2.5m2 (59%
marked) • inclusion of classification markings on standees (32% marked) • prominent display of several approved notices (68% had more than 1 notice). OFLC encourages best practice and would like to see more extensive use of the “Use Classifications” banner or promotional film in cinemas. Website compliance The Sony Pictures Releasing (www.sonypictures.com.au) website was fully compliant with the online markings requirements. Also, the major exhibitors (Greater Union, Village Cinemas, Hoyts) had good website compliance overall, but poor markings for online trailers. As the following table sets out, compliance with the requirements for advertising films online has improved since the July 2005 snapshot but continues to require attention by most of the sector, with the key issues being: • the need to include consumer advice • the need to include a link to a classification legend • the use of incorrect classification marking, including old classification characters.
July 2005
November 2005
Website still advertisements 54%
Website trailer Advertisements
29%
5%
Website legends 23% 29%
Newspaper compliance Newspaper advertising compliance, particularly in respect of session times, is close to perfect (96%) and very significantly improved since July 2005. Newspapers included a classification legend although there was not a legend on all pages (or a page reference to the legend) which have session times or multiple title advertisements as required.
July 2005
November 2005
Newspaper session times 22% 96%
Newspaper advertisements 77% 87%
Newspaper legends 16% 37%
6
Analysis Overall, compliance with the classification marking requirements for cinema is high, however some areas continue to require attention. The key themes which emerge from this study are: • compliance is improved overall, with dramatic improvements by a number of cinemas and these
cinemas are to be congratulated on their commitment • the key systemic problems identified in the July 2005 snapshot have improved overall and
dramatically at particular sites (ie display of approved notices; use of the correct classification character in advertising and session times; timely marking of classified films that previously had advertising approval; websites)
• a very positive attitude towards compliance has been achieved and this has produced good figures
overall • most cinemas have voluntarily implemented best practice classification information initiatives • distributors and cinemas, particularly major cinemas, have implemented initiatives to ensure delays in
the distribution of classification markings and trailer tags do not adversely effect compliance
• anecdotally, independent exhibitors report that they are struggling to comply due to delays in the dissemination of classification markings, an inability to print coloured classification markings in-house and insufficient quantities of trailer tags
• various issues have been identified that require attention, particularly related to the design of artwork
for posters, banners and handbills • site specific problems amongst a few cinemas of the major exhibitors and poor compliance by some
independents is adversely impacting on the good outcome for sector • there is scope for further improvements in compliance with respect to trailer advertising, both in
cinemas and, in particular, foyers • ongoing work across most of the sector is necessary to achieve website compliance and the
appropriateness of specific online marking requirements rather than cross application of the print and moving image advertising requirements requires consideration at a policy level
• targeted compliance education is required for certain cinemas with poor compliance. Industry bench marks This study has identified a number of industry bench marks for the provision of classification information: • compliance with all requirements – 100% (Greater Union Campbelltown) • display of approved notices – A4 notice at each pay point and A1 notice behind cashier (Hoyts Fox
Studios) • display of posters – 100% compliance (38:38 – Hoyts Fox Studios) • inclusion of classification markings on posters for films that previously had advertising approval – 3
days (Greater Union Tuggerah) • display of banners < 2.5m2 – 100% compliance (5:5 – Greater Union Miranda) • display of handbills – 100% compliance (10:10 titles – Palace Verona)
7
• cinema trailer advertising – 100% compliance (10:10 – George Street) • inclusion of classification markings on trailers for films that previously had advertising approval – 2
days (Hoyts Broadway) • printed session time flyers – correct classifications, consumer advice and legend – 100% compliance
(Greater Union Campbelltown) • websites – 100% compliance (Sony Pictures Releasing). Conclusion This study has demonstrated that a sector wide collaborative approach can substantially improve statutory compliance where there is chief executive officer level commitment and effective follow through at an operational level. Some cinemas, such as Greater Union and Hoyts, are very close to achieving full compliance and are to be commended for their efforts. Other cinemas still have some work to do to achieve this goal. There is scope for film distributors and exhibitors to further collaborate so that classification information can be provided in a timely way for films that previously had advertising approval. Film distributors and the major cinemas have reportedly absorbed substantial costs to achieve this objective, and while in-house printing of classification markings and stock piling of classification tags is to be commended they may not be possible for some independent exhibitors and the assistance of distributors in this area would be helpful. Collaboration across the sector is important in respect of the design of artwork for posters and devices used for their display. It is recommended that the flexibility provided in the markings determination with respect to the placement of the markings within the lower left third of print advertising is utilized in the design of the artwork for posters to ensure that the markings are not obscured by back lit poster boxes. It would also be beneficial for cinemas to bear this issue in mind when applying classification stickers to posters and selecting back lit poster boxes as there appears to be some boxes that obscure more of the poster than others. One distributor, Sony Pictures Releasing, is outstanding in respect of website compliance. However, further work is required by most of the sector in terms of website compliance and there is a need to assess the compliance of advertising for websites that are not distributor or exhibitor specific. The substantial improvements in compliance made since the July 2005 snapshot will be of interest to all jurisdictions participating in the National Classification Scheme. The report will also be of the interest to the Australian Attorney General’s Department which will soon commence a review of the advertising provisions. Ongoing monitoring of compliance is warranted. There is a need for compliance education to reinforce the classification compliance obligations, with particular attention given to: • Marking of banners under 2.5m2 • Foyer loop tape advertising • Front of cinema title listings • Website advertising marking requirements. Certain cinemas would also benefit from one to one guidance from the Community Liaison Section of the OFLC.
8
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION Background Statutory context The statutory context for regulation of the exhibition and advertising of films was explained in the July 2005 snapshot report which is available online at: www.oflc.gov.au In summary, the Classification (Markings for Films and Computer Games) Determination 2005 (“the markings determination”) sets out the requirements for classification markings to appear on films and computer games and in advertising related to such products. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Enforcement Act 1995 of New South Wales (“the NSW Act”) prescribes requirements in relation to public exhibition films and the advertising films, including for public exhibition. Division 2 of Part 3 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 and the Classification (Eligible Films) Determination 2003 (“the eligible films determination”) provides for the granting of exemptions, for advertising purposes, to a limited number of unclassified films. The eligible films determination sets out the conditions related to the advertising of films granted an exemption. 1 Cinema industry in Sydney There are 50 cinema complexes in the Greater Sydney metropolitan area publicly exhibiting films. These include: • 13 cinemas in the Hoyts chain • 12 cinemas in the Greater Union chain • 2 cinemas in the Dendy chain • 3 cinemas in the Palace chain • 3 cinemas in the Readings chain • George Street, Sydney • 16 other cinemas.
1 The Classification (Advertising for Unclassified Films) Instrument 2005 came into force on 1 January 2006. That instrument applies to eligible films granted advertising approval after that date.
9
Related studies This is the fourth in a series of snapshots conducted by the OFLC to identify targets for compliance education. In July 2005 the OFLC undertook its first snapshot of compliance by the cinema industry with the new classification markings and other statutory requirements. That study examined compliance by 36 Sydney cinemas, 13 Australian-hosted exhibitor websites and 4 major Sydney newspapers. The study found that while 710 items (55%) met the requirements, 577 breaches (45%) were identified. Snapshots of compliance in respect of the sale of DVDs and computer games (Melbourne) and hire of DVDs and computer games (Brisbane) will be separately published. Compliance improvement activities Following the publication of the July 2005 study, the OFLC and the film distribution and exhibition sectors undertook activities to improve compliance levels. These included: • chief executive officer level sponsorship of compliance improvement • appointment of compliance champions within exhibition companies • distribution of the July 2005 snapshot report • briefings for exhibitors and distributors on compliance obligations • random spot checks with feedback provided to exhibitors • ongoing monitoring and feedback of major metropolitan newspapers • commencement of a trial of a daily classification bulletin from the OFLC • development and refinement of compliance checklists and internal procedures • development of industry guidelines for certain types of advertising • compliance auditing by exhibitors • significant website redesign by exhibitors and some distributors • upgrades in technology by exhibitors to enable display of the correct classification
types. A media release, committing to improvements in compliance, was jointly issued by the OFLC and representatives of the cinema industry on 1 September 2005 (Attachment 1). The OFLC subsequently provided a very high volume of ad hoc compliance advices to the sector. At a policy level, the issues identified by the sector have informed the development of the Classification (Advertising for Unclassified Films) Instrument 2005 – which, when it comes into force on 1 January 2006, will provide greater flexibility in the marking of posters and handbills for films with advertising approval. The sector wide, chief executive officer level, sponsorship of compliance has led to substantial efforts, particularly by cinemas, to improve practices and address the issues identified in the July 2005 report.
10
CHAPTER 2 – METHODOLOGY Objective of the study The objective of this study was to obtain a snapshot of compliance with the markings and other requirements by the cinema industry in Sydney. Also, as a follow-up to the study undertaken in July 2005, this study also provides some commentary on the effectiveness of industry and OFLC compliance initiatives. Methodology This study involved an assessment of compliance in respect of: • moving image advertisements for public exhibition films (commonly known as
“trailers”). • printed advertisements for public exhibition films – newspapers, banners, posters,
flyers • printed and electronic film session times • internet advertisements for public exhibition films • classification legends for public exhibition film advertisements in newspapers and
websites • films with advertising exemption approval • display of approved notices. Timing of the study The study covered cinemas in the Sydney metropolitan area from Thursday 3 November to Sunday 6 November 2005, about 6 months after the commencement of the new marking requirements. These days were chosen due to new films commencing on Thursdays and the availability of more session times. Also, undertaking the study on a weekend meant that it could be conducted without disruption to the day to day work of the OFLC and the Classification Board.
11
Cinema sample The study involved site visits to 47 cinema complexes, representing approximately 94% of cinemas in the Greater Sydney region, and consideration of: • 179 cinema trailers for compliance with marking and eligible film requirements and
complementary classification enforcement laws • 35 banners under 2.5m2, 936 posters and 207 handbills at cinemas for compliance
with the marking and eligible film requirements • 58 cinema session times for compliance with the marking requirements (printed and
electronic) • the display of approved notices for compliance with requirements of complementary
classification enforcement laws • voluntary best practice initiatives by cinemas in respect of classification information. The cinemas that were visited are identified in Attachment 2. Film sample A total of 33 feature film titles were viewed in the context of this study. This represented 55% of all the films publicly exhibited over the period of the study (n=60). Specifically, the films were:
Film Classification Distributor
Bom Bon: El Perro M Hopscotch
Charlie & The Chocolate Factory PG Roadshow
Cinderella Man M BVI
Dark Water M BVI
Deuce Bigalow European Gigolo MA15+ Sony Pictures Releasing
Doom MA15+ UIP
Elizabethtown M UIP
Enron M Dendy Films
Fighter Pilot G World Biggest Screens
Howl's Moving Castle G Madman Entertainment
In Her Shoes M 20th Century Fox
Into The Blue M 20th Century Fox
Jew Boy M Porchlight
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang MA15+ Roadshow
Little Fish MA15+ Icon Films
Look Both Ways M Dendy Films
Marilyn Hotchkiss Ballroom Dancing & Charm School M Imagine
Me and You And Everyone We Know R18+ Icon Films
Must Love Dogs M Roadshow
Night Watch MA15+ 20th Century Fox
Paradise Now M Sharmill
12
Film Classification Distributor
Pride & Prejudice G UIP
Serenity M UIP
Sharkboy & Lava Girl G Sony Pictures Releasing
Sivakasi M Ayngaran Video
The 40 Year Old Virgin MA15+ UIP
The Exorcism Of Emily Rose M Sony Pictures Releasing
The Queen of Sheba's Pearls M Rialto Entertainment
The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill G Gil Scrine Films
Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were Rabbit PG UIP
Wolf Creek R18+ Roadshow
Yes M Potential Films
Yesterday M Madman Entertainment
Table 1: Feature films in this study by classification and distributor
The content of the feature films viewed in the context of this study was not, of itself, of interest. The objective in attending the exhibition of the films was to assess the advertising trailers screened before the feature. The number of film titles by classification viewed by coders in comparison to the number of films of each classification available for viewing over the period of the study is set out in the following table:
Classification Number of titles
screening Number of titles
viewed
G (General)
7 5
PG (Parental Guidance) 11 2
M (Mature) 30 18
MA15+ (Mature Accompanied) 10 6
R18+ (Restricted) 3 2
Table 2: Comparison of titles viewed by coders and films available by classification In constructing the film sample, greater weight was given to films of a lower classification to test compliance with the statutory limitations on advertising of classified films (see section 40 of the NSW Act). All films viewed in this study except “Cinderella Man” were classified on or after 26 May 2005 and were, therefore, required to carry the new classification markings. This contrasts with the July 2005 study, in which 40% of the films viewed were classified classified on or after 26 May 2005. Newspaper sample The study included examination of the weekday and Saturday editions of the two capital city newspapers plus the two Sunday newspapers, as follows: • Sydney Morning Herald – 3 November 2005; 4 November 2005; 5 November 2005
13
• Daily Telegraph – 3 November 2005; 4 November 2005; 5 November 2005 • Sun Herald – 6 November 2005 • Sunday Telegraph – 6 November 2005. The study, in respect of newspapers included: • 175 advertisements for classified films (90 cinema advertisements; 85 distributor
advertisements) • 74 cinema session times • 30 pages of advertising. Website sample Twenty-four Australian-hosted exhibitor and distributor websites were assessed for compliance with the marking and eligible film requirements including, 286 online trailers and 628 other advertisements. The addresses of the sites visited are in Attachment 4. Advertisement sample This study involved assessment of advertisements across specified media for 113 film titles. 85 (75%) of the titles were classified after 26 May 2005. 9 of the titles (8%) were classified prior to this date. 15 titles (13%) had advertising approval.2 Also, 5 films with advertising approval, whose advertisements were considered in this study, were classified within the week prior to this study3. This study also identified advertising for 3 film titles that had not been granted advertising approval and were yet to be classified.4 Data and analysis Cinema Coders for the cinema visits were recruited from staff of the OFLC and members of the Classification Board. The OFLC met the costs of cinema entry for coders. All coders participated in a briefing by the OFLC’s Community Liaison Section. The briefing included a summary of the requirements under the markings determination, eligible films determination and the NSW Act. The briefing also included instructions on the completion of the compliance report. Data was collated and analysed by OFLC staff. Newspapers and websites Newspaper and website data was collated and analysed by OFLC staff.
2 As at 3 November 2005, 15 unclassified films had advertising approval. The titles of these films are identified in Attachment 3. 3 “Rumour Has It” (01/11/05), “Kyon Ki” (31/10/05), “The Family Stone” (31/10/05), “Sivakasi” (31/10/05), “Waiting” (27/10/05). 4 “Volcanoes of the Deep 3D”, “Titanic 3D”, “ Remembrance”.
14
Reliability and validity This study is a “snapshot” of compliance in Sydney over a four day period and is reliable and valid for that city at that point in time. Specifically: • the study involved 94% of cinemas in the greater Sydney metropolitan area, including
all major cinema chains and all independent cinemas. • a total of 33 different film titles were viewed in the context of this study - this
represented 55% of all the films publicly exhibited on the weekend of the study. • coverage of print advertising was comprehensive and included posters for 89 titles,
handbills for 47 titles as well as all daily newspaper advertising. The study did not assess compliance levels in respect of advertising in the form of magazines, television, off-site posters (such as in bus shelters and on taxis) and billboards.
• in terms of internet advertising, the websites of 17 Australian-hosted film exhibitors
and 7 distributors were accessed. It is notable that cinemas and film distributors were advised that a snapshot would be undertaken in the first week of November 2005. While it was initially suggested that the snapshot would be undertaken in Sydney, the location of this snapshot was not confirmed to them in advance of the study. Assessment methodology Generally, advertising was assessed for displaying the correct classification and the correct type of marking and within prescribed timeframes allowed for the replacement of the exemption message with classification markings where applicable. For some forms of advertising, this study did not strictly assess the size and positioning of markings. For example, the assessment of whether a banner exceeded 2.5m2 was sometimes difficult to make by sight and, where there was any doubt, the banner was assumed to exceed this size. Advertising on foyer loop tapes was not included in the data analysis as not all of this advertising was assessed on-site by coders.5 Website compliance is separately reported because a larger sample and more comprehensive approach was taken, involving exhibition and distribution website, in comparison to the July 2005 study. Where problems or issues have been identified but not counted as breaches for the purpose of this study, they are included in the report.
5 For some cinemas, a master loop tape was provided to the OFLC.
15
Comparative analysis with 2005 study This study is wider in scope than the July 2005 snapshot in that the sample is broader and the number and type of items assessed are greater. To facilitate comparison between the studies the data collected in the July 2005 study, including unreported data, was revisited.
16
CHAPTER 3 – CINEMA COMPLIANCE Introduction This chapter describes the findings regarding the performance of cinemas in respect of compliance with statutory requirements regarding classification markings and other matters. Initiatives by cinemas to voluntarily implement best practice in the provision of classification information is described in Chapter 4. Compliance in respect of online and newspaper advertising is described in Chapters 5 and 6. Overall findings A total of 1496 items at cinemas were considered in this study, ranging from session times to approved notices to film trailer advertisements. The following table identifies the number of items assessed at cinemas for compliance by type:
Number of items
Number correct
Number of breaches
Approved notices 47 39 8
Session times (Printed) 25 1 24
Session times (Electronic) 33 26 7
External title listings 9 2 7
Handbills/flyers 207 169 34
Posters 937 819 117
Cinema trailers 179 148 31
Banners under 2.5m2 35 24 9
TOTAL 1496 1231 259
Table 3: Cinema compliance rates by item The results of this study indicate a significant improvement in compliance at cinemas has been achieved since the July 2005 snapshot reflecting the considerable attention that has been given to the issue by most of the sector.
17
While 1231 (84%) of items met the requirements, 259 breaches (18%) were also identified. The following tables compare the results of this study with that of the July 2005 study:
July 2005 (n=36:50)
November 2005 (n=47:50)
Approved notices 22% 83%
Session times (Printed) D. Classification
characters E. Consumer advice F. Classification legend
A: 61% B: 4% C: 0%
A: 73% B: 20% C: 8%
Session times (Electronic) 16% 80%
External title listings - 22%
Handbills/flyers 64% 81%
Posters 45% 87%
Cinema trailers 69% 83%
Banners under 2.5m2 - 69%
Table 4: Summary of compliance results for the sector in comparison to July 2005 snapshot
It should be noted that compliance varied significantly depending upon the issue and across cinemas, with some demonstrating excellent results. This is a significant finding because it challenges the contention that compliance is practically difficult to achieve. Table 5 compares compliance results across cinemas. Of the 47 cinemas visited, Greater Union Campbelltown fully complied with the statutory requirements. Apart from printed session times, the following 9 cinemas were also fully compliant: • Palace Academy Twin • Greater Union Bondi Junction • Greater Union Castle Hill Piazza • Greater Union Hornsby • Greater Union Hurstville • Greater Union Liverpool • Greater Union Macquarie • Greater Union Mosman • Hoyts Eastgardens.
18
Approved
Notice(s) Prominent
Printed Session Times*
Elect. Session Times
External Title Listings
Handbills Posters Banners <2.5m2
Cinema Trailers
Beverly Hills 4
100%
33% N/A
0% 0:1 0%
17:23 74% N/A
1:1 100%
Cremorne Orpheum 0
0%
33% N/A
0% 11:19
58% 21:22
95% 0:1 0%
5:5 100%
Cronulla 1
100%
N/A 100%
N/A 1:1
100% 14:21
67% N/A 0:2 0%
Dendy Newtown 1
0%
33% 3:5
60%
0% 19:21
90% 8:10 80%
0:1 0%
3:4 75%
Dendy Opera Quays 2
100%
33% N/A
100% 4:5
80% 9:9
100% N/A 2:2
100%
Dumaresq St Twin Cinema 0
0% 0%
5:6
83%
0% 0:1 0%
13:15 87%
0:3 0%
1:1 100%
George St
3 100%
N/A 100% 0%
9:9 100%
51:59 86%
1:1 100%
10:10 100%
GU Bondi Junction 3
100% N/A 100% N/A
N/A 20:20 100% N/A
7:7 100%
GU Burwood
1 100%
N/A 100% N/A N/A
13:15 87%
1:1 100%
5:5 100%
GU Campbelltown 4
100%
100% 100% N/A 3:3
100% 10:10 100% N/A
5:5 100%
GU Castle Hill Piazza 2
100% 33%
100% N/A
N/A 21:21 100%
N/A 3:3 100%
GU Castle Hill Towers 4
100% 33% 100% N/A
N/A 11:11 100%
N/A 4:5 80%
GU Hornsby
2 100%
N/A 100% N/A 5:5 100%
17:17 100%
N/A 4:4 100%
GU Hurstville
3 100%
66% 100% N/A N/A
28:28 100%
N/A 8:8 100%
GU Liverpool
1 100%
N/A 100% N/A 3:3 100%
12:12 100%
N/A 4:4 100%
GU Macquarie
2 100%
N/A
100% N/A N/A
19:19 100%
N/A 3:3 100%
GU Miranda
1 100%
66% 100% N/A N/A
27:27 100%
5:5 100%
3:4 75%
GU Mosman
3 100%
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
9:9 100%
N/A 4:4 100%
GU Tuggerah
3 100%
N/A 100% N/A N/A
33:34 97%
N/A 3:3 100%
Hoyts Bankstown 4
100% N/A 100% N/A 4:5
80% 20:21
95% N/A 2:4
50%
Hoyts Broadway 2
100% N/A 100% N/A 7:8
88% 32:41
78% 2:2
100% 8:12
66.7%
Hoyts Chats Mandarin 2
100% 33% 100% N/A 6:6
100% 26:27
96% 0:3 0%
4:4 100%
Hoyts Chats Westfield 3
100% 33% 100% N/A 2:2
100% 18:19
95% N/A 3:3
100%
Hoyts Cinema Paris 5
100% 0% 100% N/A 7:9
78% 18:22
81% N/A 3:5
60%
Hoyts Eastgardens 2
100% N/A 100% N/A 1:1
100% 21:21 100%
1:1 100%
4:4 100%
Hoyts Erina
2 100%
N/A 100% N/A N/A
28:29 97% N/A
4:4 100%
Hoyts Fox Studios 4
100% 33% 100% N/A 9:9
100% 38:38 100%
3:3 100%
7:8 87.5%
Hoyts Merrylands 2
100% N/A 7:8
88% N/A 4:4
100% 14:17
82% N/A 3:4
75%
Hoyts Mt Druitt 3
100% N/A 100% N/A 4:6
67% 22:22 100%
N/A 4:4 100%
Hoyts Penrith
4 100%
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
21:23 91%
1:1 100%
1:4 25%
Hoyts Warringah Mall 3
100% 66% 100% N/A 4:4
100% 20:24
83% 2:2
100% 1:1
100%
Hoyts Wetherill Park 1
100% N/A 100% N/A 3:3
100% 24:25
96% N/A 3:4
75%
IMAX
1 100%
0% 100% N/A N/A
2:5 40%
N/A 0:1 0%
Manly Twin
1 100%
33%
N/A
N/A 3:5
60% 16:20
80%
N/A 0:1 0%
19
Approved Notice(s) Prominent
Printed Session Times*
Elect. Session Times
External Title Listings
Handbills Posters Banners <2.5m2
Cinema Trailers
Odeon Hornsby 1
100% 0%
N/A N/A 0:1
0% 6:6
100% N/A 1:2
50%
Palace Academy Twin
2 100%
33% N/A
N/A 7:7 100%
11:11 100%
N/A 3:3 100%
Palace Norton St
1 100%
33% N/A
N/A 4:5 80%
17:18 94%
1:2 50%
1:1 100%
Palace Verona
2 100%
33% N/A
N/A 25:25 100%
4:5 80%
4:6 67%
10:12 83.3%
Ritz Randwick 0
0% N/A 7:11
64% N/A 3:3
100% 33:38
87% N/A 3:3
100%
Reading Auburn 1
100% N/A 11:14
79%
0% 3:4
75% 20:33
60% N/A 2:3
66.7%
Reading Market City 0
0% N/A 5:6
83% N/A
N/A 9:14 64%
1:1 100%
3:3 100%
Reading Rhodes 1
100% N/A 5:9
56% N/A
N/A 17:20
85% N/A 2:2
100%
Roseville 0
0% 33%
N/A 100% 4:9
44% 14:20
70% N/A 0:1
0%
United Avalon 0
0% 0%
N/A
0% 2:4
50% 2:3
67% N/A 0:2
0%
United Collaroy 0
0% 33%
N/A N/A 6:10
60% 8:12 67%
N/A 0:1 0%
United Warriewood 3
100% 0%
100% N/A 4:6
67% 9:18 50%
2:2 100%
1:3 33%
World Cinemas Fairfield 0
0% 0%
N/A N/A 0:3
0% 0:7 0% N/A N/A
Table 5 – Compliance by item by cinema
____________________________________________________ Notes for Table 5: Shading of cells means 100% compliance N/A means not assessed – either because not applicable or data was not collected * For assessment of printed session times: 100% = correct classification characters, consumer advice and legend. 66% = 2 correct. 33% = 1 correct. 0% = None correct
# Non-moving advertisements only (ie not trailers) For assessment of external title listings – 100% means all titles were complaint; 0% means there was 1 or more error.
20
Approved notices 39 cinemas (83%) met the requirements in respect of display of approved notices. This is a significant improvement on the July 2005 study (22%). Several cinemas demonstrated best practice in respect of display of approved notices going beyond the minimum statutory requirements for this matter (see Chapter 4). Notices, in the approved form explaining the film classifications, were prominently displayed at all cinemas in the study except the following: • Cremorne Orpheum • Dumaresq Street • Randwick Ritz • Reading Market City • Roseville Cinema • United Avalon • United Collaroy • World Cinemas Fairfield. While Roseville, Randwick Ritz and United Collaroy displayed information about the film classifications, this information was not in the approved form. While Dendy Newtown displayed the approved notice, it was not readily visible to patrons at the point of purchase and was not considered sufficiently prominent.
Fig 1: Classification notices, in the form approved by the Director of the Classification Board, must be prominently displayed at all cinemas. 83% of cinemas in this study met this requirement.
21
Session times Electronic session times 33 of the cinemas in this study had electronic displays of session times similar to that in Figure 2. 26 of these (80%) used the correct classification characters (ie G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+). Given the July 2005 study indicated only 16% compliance, this is an outstanding achievement by the cinemas concerned. The cinemas that breached the requirements to use the correct classification types on their electronic session times were: • Dendy Newtown (which used (MA1) for MA15+ and (R18) for R18+ • Dumaresq Street (which used MA instead of MA15+) • Reading Auburn (which used MA instead of MA15+) • Reading Market City (which used MA instead of MA15+) • Reading Rhodes (which used MA instead of MA15+) • Randwick Ritz (which omitted the + sign from age references) • Hoyts Merrylands (which used “YTC”) As advised in the July snapshot report, it is essential that the correct classification types, particularly MA15+ be used. Parentheses are not part of the classification type and are not required by law. It is preferable to dispense with the parentheses on electronic session times if this is necessary to fit in the correct classification types.
Fig 2 – Greater Union cinemas consistently used the correct classification characters in electronic session time displays. Achieving compliance in this area involved a national upgrade of a textlite system, involving 5 different system upgrades and technical staff traveling to a number of locations across Australia. Greater Union completed the national upgrade within 6 days.
Printed session times Printed session times were collected from 25 of the cinemas in this study. These were assessed for compliance with the use of the correct classification characters (ie G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+), inclusion of consumer advice with synopses and inclusion of a legend explaining the classifications used.
22
While 17 printed session times used the correct classification characters6, 5 included errors in the classifications or classification characters, these were: • Hoyts Cinema Paris (incorrectly advertised a film classified PG as being classified M) • Dumaresq Street (used MA, rather than MA15+) • United Warriewood (used MA, rather than MA15+ and also illegible combination
boxes) • United Avalon (used MA, rather than MA15+ and also illegible combination boxes) • Odeon Hornsby (incorrectly used (MA)15yrs+, rather than MA15+). Consistent with statutory requirements, 5 cinemas included legible consumer advice with the film synopses on the session time flyer. These were: • Greater Union Campbelltown • Greater Union Castle Hill Piazza • Greater Union Castle Hill Towers • Greater Union Hurstville • Greater Union Miranda. Also, in order to assist consumers to understand the classifications, a legend should be included on session time flyers. A legend is available for download from the OFLC’s website. Greater Union Campbelltown and Hoyts Warringah Mall were the only cinemas to include a classification legend.
6Beverley Hills, Cremorne Orpheum, Dendy Newtown, Dendy Opera Quays, GU Campbelltown, GU Hurstville, GU Miranda, Hoyts Fox Studios, Hoyts Warringah Mall, Manly Twin, Palace Academy, Palace Verona, Palace Norton
Fig 3 – Greater Union Campbelltown was the only cinema to use correct classifications, consumer advice and a classification legend in printed session times. The legend is important because it explains the meaning of the classifications to consumers. Artwork for the legend is displayed in Fig 23.
23
External film title advertising Nine cinemas in this study were identified as advertising film titles on the exterior of the cinema.7 Two cinemas (22%), Roseville and Dendy Opera Quays, included the correct classification information with the titles displayed. In 4 cases8, incorrect classification characters were used (ie M15+, MA, MA15) and in 3 cases no classification information was given.9 Banners This study, included an assessment of “banners” – either printed and supplied by distributors or painted on site – for compliance with the classification marking requirements. Of the 186 banners, coders identified 35 as less than 2.5m2 in area and therefore required to carry the markings. Where coders were uncertain if a banner exceeded 2.5m2, the banner was assumed to be larger and therefore not required to display markings (n=123). Several cinemas voluntarily implemented best practice in respect of marking of banners greater than 2.5 m2 and this is discussed in Chapter 4. Banners under 2.5m2
Of the 35 banners that were assessed as less than 2.5m2, and therefore required to carry the classification markings, 24 (69%) were compliant. Ten cinemas included classification markings on all banners under 2.5m2. These are identified, along with the number of banners displayed, below: • Greater Union Miranda (n=5) • Hoyts Fox Studios (n=3) • Hoyts Broadway (n=2) • Hoyts Warringah Mall (n=2) • United Warriewood (n=2) • George Street (n=1) • Greater Union Burwood (n=1) • Hoyts Eastgardens (n=1). • Hoyts Penrith (n=1) • Reading Market City (n=1) Of the 11 banners under 2.5m2 that were non-compliant, 7 were unmarked and 4 displayed the wrong marking. As set out in the following table, the errors included
7 External title listings were not assessed at all sites. 8 Cremorne Orpheum, Dumaresq Street, George Street, Dendy Newton. 9 Reading Auburn, United Avalon, Beverly Hills.
24
display of the classification description (eg “Recommended for mature audiences”), rather than the consumer advice and failure to display any consumer advice. Title Distributor Cinema Nature of breach
Cinderella Man BVI Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin Unmarked
Cinderella Man BVI Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin Classification description, rather than consumer advice
Elizabethtown UIP Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin Unmarked
Flight Plan BVI Dumaresq Street Unmarked
In Her Shoes 20th Century Fox Dumaresq Street Unmarked
In Her Shoes 20th Century Fox Palace Norton Street No consumer advice
In Her Shoes 20th Century Fox Palace Verona No consumer advice
P.S. Dendy Palace Verona No consumer advice
Pride and Prejudice UIP Cremorne Orpheum Unmarked
Pride and Prejudice UIP Dumaresq Street Unmarked
Enron Dendy Films Dendy Newtown Unmarked
Table 6 – Non-compliant banners under 2.5m2
Also, cinemas tended to use one-sheet poster sized markings, rather than the larger prescribed markings on banners. These under-sized markings are technically non-compliant with the markings determination but were not counted as breaches for the purpose of this study. Attention is drawn to the need for all printed advertising under 2.5m2 to display correctly sized combination boxes. It is recommended that cinemas contact distributors to obtain the correctly sized markings for banners.
Fig 4 – 69% of banners under 2.5m2 were correctly marked. In most cases, it was cinemas that decided to include this information. As illustrated here, Hoyts Fox Studios was a leading cinema in terms of displaying classification information on banners.
Handbills 33 of the cinemas in this study were identified as having handbills available for patrons. A total of 207 handbills were collected from these cinemas. The 207 handbills pertained to 47 film titles and 1 advertised classified films in a “film festival”. Overall, 81% (n=169) of the handbills in this study were correctly marked. This is a significant improvement on the July 2005 study (64%). Table 5 includes data regarding the total number of handbills collected from cinemas.
25
Fifteen cinemas had fully compliant handbills. These are identified, along with the number of titles available at each cinema, below: • Palace Verona (10 titles) • George Street (9 titles) • Palace Academy Twin (7 titles) • Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin (6 titles) • Hoyts Fox Studios (5 titles) • Greater Union Hornsby (5 titles) • Hoyts Merrylands (4 titles) • Hoyts Warringah Mall (4 titles) • Hoyts Wetherill Park (3 titles) • Greater Union Campbelltown (3 titles) • Greater Union Liverpool (3 titles) • Randwick Ritz (3 titles) • Hoyts Chatswood Westfield (2 titles). • Hoyts Eastgardens (1 title) • Cronulla Cinema (1 title) Exemption message None of the handbills collected were for films with a current advertising approval. By way of comparison, 4 (out of a total of 105) handbills in the July 2005 study related to films with advertising approval and all were correct. Classification markings 203 of the handbills collected in this study were for classified films10. Of these, 169 (81%) carried the correct classification marking and consumer advice. This is a substantial improvement on the July 2005 study (64%). The quality of classification information on handbills varied considerably with issues relating to the size of the markings, font and capitalization of consumer advice, distortion of the proportion of the markings, modified markings and placement of the marking.
10 Two of the handbills were not written in English and it could not be assessed if such films had been classified. Cinema printed handbills were also included.
26
Fig 5 – The handbill for “36 Quai des Orfevres”, distributed by Sharmill Films, is fully compliant with the classification markings requirements. The marking is the correct size, colour and proportion and is correctly positioned. The consumer advice is in the correct font and capitalization. Handbills for 19 titles in this study did not meet all of these requirements.
Of the 33 handbills (pertaining to 19 titles) that did not carry the correct classification information: • 9 (pertaining to 6 titles) had no classification information • 22 (pertaining to 7 titles) displayed an out of date exemption message • 1 had the wrong consumer advice • 3 (pertaining to 2 titles) used a black and white combination boxes on coloured
advertising • 1 used the classification character and consumer advice, rather than combination box,
in a program for a “film festival” of classified films. • 5 cinema printed handbills had no classification information and no consumer
advice.11 The problematic handbills are identified in the following table:
11 Roseville Cinema produced handbills in-house for the following titles which were also non-compliant: “In Her Shoes”, “Little Fish”, “Pride & Prejudice”, “Queen of Sheba’s Pearls”, and “Yes”.
27
Distributor produced handbills Title Distributor Cinemas offering hanbills Nature of breach
Josh Jarman Instinct Distribution Dendy Newtown United Collaroy
Black and white marking
Kyon Ki Hot Chillies Fairfield Unmarked
Little Fish Icon Hoyts Mt Druitt United Avalon
Out of date exemption message
Me, You and Everyone We Know
Icon Cremorne Orpheum Dendy Newtown Dendy Opera Quays
Out of date exemption message
Must Love Dogs Roadshow United Collaroy Out of date exemption message
Omagh Rialto Hoyts Cinema Paris Incorrect marking and consumer advice
Oyster Farmer Dendy Films United Collaroy Odeon Hornsby
Out of date exemption message
Pride and Prejudice UIP Beverly Hills Cremorne Orpheum Manly Twin Palace Norton Street United Collaroy United Warriewood
Out of date exemption message
Rememberance Not specified Cremorne Orpheum Unmarked
Serenity UIP Hoyts Bankstown Manly Twin
Unmarked
The Brothers Grimm Roadshow Hoyts Broadway Black and white marking
The Exorcism of Emily Rose Sony Pictures Releasing Reading Auburn United Avalon United Warriewood
Out of date exemption message
The Proposition Sony Pictures Releasing Cremorne Orpheum Hoyts Mt Druitt Dumaresq Street
Out of date exemption message
The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill
Gil Scrine Cremorne Orpheum Unmarked
Titles not in English Not specified Fairfield Unmarked
Cinema produced handbills Title Cinema Nature of breach
Little Fish Roseville Unmarked
In Her Shoes Roseville No Consumer Advice
Pride & Prejudice Roseville No Consumer Advice
Queen of Sheba’s Pearls Roseville No Consumer Advice
Yes Roseville No Consumer Advice
Table 7 – Non compliant handbills
Handbills displaying an out of date exemption message As mentioned above, 22 handbills in this study, pertaining to 7 titles, displayed an out of date exemption message. With a very small number of exceptions, handbills are supplied to cinemas by film distributors. It is understood that handbills for films with advertising approval are generally not reprinted once the film is classified. This means that cinemas would have to mark the handbills or remove them from the cinemas within prescribed timeframes.
28
Use of black and white markings As identified above, there were 3 handbills, for 2 titles, that used black and white markings on coloured advertising. The use of black and white markings on coloured handbills, whether on the front or back, undermines the purpose of the coloured markings. Accordingly, The markings determination provides that the prescribed coloured markings must be used on all coloured advertisements to draw the consumer’s attention. Placement of classification information There are instances of the marking not being displayed in the lower left corner of the handbill12. While the incorrect location of the marking is, technically, a breach, it has not been counted as such for the purpose of this study. However, the requirement for consistency in placement is designed to assist consumers to readily find classification information and is an important component of the markings requirements. Also, a number of handbills were noted with classification displayed on the back, rather than the front, of handbills. The following table identifies the handbills at issue from this study:
Title Distributor
Everything is Illuminated Roadshow
Wolf Creek Roadshow
Howl’s Moving Castle Madman
The Brother’s Grimm Roadshow
Thumbsucker Sony Pictures Releasing
The Exorcism of Emily Rose Sony Pictures Releasing
The Proposition Sony Pictures Releasing
Winter Solstice UIP
Table 8 – Handbills with classification markings displayed on the back
To ensure classification information is as prominent as possible, it is the policy intention that the marking should be located on the front face of any double-sided or folded advertising. Size of classification markings As the following table indicates, several distributors used under-sized classification markings on handbills. There is a wide variability in sizing and, in some cases, the size of the text in the combination box is so small as to be near illegible (See Fig 6).
12 For example “Red Dust” (Polyphony)
29
Distributor produced handbills Title Distributor Cinemas displaying non-compliant handbills
Bee Season Twentieth Century Fox
Cremorne Orpheum, Hoyts/GU George St, Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin, Hoyts Mt Druitt, Palace Verona, Randwick Ritz, United Collaroy
Enron Dendy Films Cremorne Orpheum, Dendy Newtown, Dendy Opera Quays, Palace Academy Twin, Palace Verona
Everything is Illuminated Roadshow Palace Academy Twin, Palace Norton St, Palace Verona, Cremorne Orpheum, Hoyts/GU George St
Gallipoli Ronin Films Hoyts Merrylands, Palace Academy Twin, Palace Verona,
Jewboy Porchlight Dendy Newtown
Josh Jarman Instinct Distribution Dendy Newtown, United Collaroy
Mad Hot Ballroom Icon Films GU Campbelltown, Palace Verona, Roseville, United Avalon, United Collaroy
Me and you and everyone we know Icon Films Cremorne Orpheum, Dendy Newtown, Dendy Opera Quays
Omagh Rialto Entertainment Hoyts Cinema Paris
Red Dust Polyphony Entertainment Dendy Newtown, Palace Norton St
Russian Dolls Palace Films Palace Academy Twin
The King Jump Street Films Hoyts Cinema Paris
The Land Has Eyes Ronin Films Hoyts Broadway, Hoyts Merrylands
The wild parrots of the telegraph hill Gil Scrine Films Cremorne Orpheum
Wolf Creek Roadshow
Dendy Newtown, Hoyts/GU George St, GU Campbelltown, GU Liverpool, Hoyts Bankstown, Hoyts Broadway, Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin, Hoyts Eastgardens, Hoyts Fox Studios, Hoyts Merrylands, Hoyts Warringah Mall, Hoyts Wetherill Park, Reading Auburn, United Avalon, United Warriewood
Cinema produced handbills
Title Cinema
In Her Shoes Roseville
Queen of Sheba’s Pearls Roseville
Yes Roseville
Table 9 – Handbills with undersized classification markings.
While the size of the markings was not used to identify breaches for the purpose of this study, undersized markings are, technically, a breach. It is important for distributors to be aware that the marking determination prescribes six sizes of the classification marking for print advertising between 75cm2 and 2.5m2. Cinema produced handbills While most handbills are printed by distributors, some cinemas also prepare flyers in-house regarding the films they are exhibiting. 5 handbills of this nature were considered in this study and all were non-compliant (1 had no classification information and 4 had no consumer advice). Flyers produced in-house by cinemas must satisfy the same classification markings requirements as those produced by film distributors.
30
Fig 6 – a comparison of combination boxes on handbills of identical size illustrates the disparity in the quality of classification information provided to consumers. For handbills over 310cm2, the 15mm combination box must be used. The handbills displayed here are 619.5cm2. The handbill for “Marilyn Hotchkiss Ballroom Dancing & Charm School” (Imagine Films) is fully compliant with the size requirements.
31
Posters This study involved examination of 936 posters for 91 titles.13 138 of the posters were for films with advertising approval, 757 of the posters were for classified films14, 7 were for unclassified films15. Overall, 819 of the posters (87%) were compliant. This is a very significant and commendable improvement on the findings of the July 2005 snapshot (45%). 16 of the cinemas in this study were 100% compliant with the requirements for the display of posters. These are identified, along with the number of posters assessed, below: • Hoyts Fox Studios (n=38) • Greater Union Hurstville (n=28) • Greater Union Miranda (n=27) • Hoyts Mt Druitt (n=22) • Greater Union Castle Hill Piazza (n=21) • Hoyts Eastgardens (n=21) • Greater Union Bondi Junction (n=20) • Greater Union Hornsby (n=17) • Greater Union Macquarie (n=19) • Greater Union Liverpool (n=12) • Palace Academy Twin (n=11) • Greater Union Castle Hill Towers (n=11) • Greater Union Campbelltown (n=10) • Greater Union Mosman (n=9) • Dendy Opera Quays (n=9) • Odeon Hornsby (n=6).
A further 10 cinemas had only 1 error in the posters on display. These cinemas were: • Greater Union Tuggerah (33:34) • Hoyts Erina (28:29) • Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin (26:27) • Hoyts Wetherill Park (24:25) • Cremorne Orpheum (21:22) • Hoyts Bankstown (20:21) • Hoyts Chatswood Westfield (18:19) • Palace Norton Street (17:18) • Palace Verona (4:5) • United Avalon (2:3). 13 This included 1 poster advertising a classified film in a “film festival” 14 18 of the posters were for 2 films classified within 7 days of the study. These titles were “Rumour Has It” (n=7) and “The Family Stone” (n=8) 15 World Cinemas Fairfield: 7arb Atalia (x3); 4 titles not in English
32
Exemption message 140 posters considered in this study were for films with advertising approval. Of these, 129 (92%) displayed an exemption message.16 This is a significant improvement on the July 2005 study (68%). The exemption message was partially obscured by a poster box on 13 posters. While this is technically a breach, it has not been counted as such for the purpose of this study. As the following table illustrates, 9 posters for films with advertising approval did not display an exemption message:
Title Distributor Cinemas
Ice Age II – The Meltdown 20th Century Fox Reading Auburn (x2)
Memoirs of a Geisha Roadshow Reading Auburn
Nanny McPhee UIP Reading Auburn
The Da Vinci Code Sony Pictures Releasing Reading Auburn
Underworld Evolution Sony Pictures Releasing Reading Rhodes Hoyts Penrith Hoyts Wetherill Park
X Men III 20th Century Fox Reading Auburn
Table 10 – Posters for films with advertising approval that did not display the exemption message.
The fact that posters for all the titles in table 10 were identified as displaying an exemption message at other cinemas suggests there may be problems at particular cinemas related to obscuring of the message by the poster boxes or possibly that the exemption markings are so discreet that they were not noted by coders.
16 3 posters for films classified within the previous 48 hours also displayed the exemption message.
33
Fig 7 – Posters for films with advertising approval are required to include an exemption message as in this example for “The Chronicles of Narnia – the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” (BVI). 22 posters for eligible films in this study did not include the exemption message or the message was obscured by a poster box or not noted by the coders.
34
Classification markings 787 posters for classified films, 7 posters advertising unclassified films and 1 poster promoting a “film festival” were assessed in this study (n=796). Overall, 686 (89%) of these posters displayed the correct classification markings, a very significant improvement on the July 2005 study (45%). 109 posters advertising classified films did not meet the statutory requirements for one or more of the following reasons: • 22 (pertaining to 16 titles) displayed no classification information
• 32 (pertaining to 17 titles) displayed an out of date exemption message
• 7 (pertaining to 5 titles) displayed the coloured classification symbol without any
consumer advice
• 11 (pertaining to 9 titles) displayed the wrong consumer advice
• 20 (pertaining to 9 titles) displayed illegible or incomplete consumer advice
• 2 (pertaining to 1 title) displayed the older style classification markings on posters for
films classified since 26 May 2005 and did not have consumer advice.
• 1 displayed a black and white marking on a coloured poster
• 1 displayed an incorrect classification
• 8 posters advertised unclassified films and all were unmarked.
Also, the classification markings on 53 posters, pertaining to 28 titles17 were assessed as partially obscured by a poster box or other object, though not sufficiently to render the marking illegible. While not counted as a breach for the purpose of this study, any obscuring of a classification marking renders the advertisement technically non-compliant. Collaboration across the sector is important in respect of the design of artwork for posters and devices used for their display. It is recommended that the flexibility provided in the markings determination with respect to the placement of the markings within the lower left third of print advertising is utilized in the design of the artwork for posters to ensure that the markings are not obscured by back lit poster boxes. It would also be beneficial for cinemas to bear this issue in mind when applying classification stickers to posters and selecting back lit poster boxes as there appears to be some boxes that obscure more of the poster than others.
17 Blowin’ in the Wind; Bom bon (El Perro); Doom; Elizabethtown; Enron; Four Brothers; Inside Deep Throat; Into the Blue; Jewboy; Kiss Kiss Bang Bang; Little Fish; Mad Hot Ballroom; Me & You & Everyone We Know; Must Love Dogs; Paradise Now; Pride and Prejudice; Prime; Saw II; Sky High; The 40 year old Virgin; The Brothers Grimm; The Constant Gardner; The Exorcism of Emily Rose; The Man; The Proposition; Valiant; Stay, Wolf Creek.
35
Fig 8 – 87% of posters in this study displayed the correct classification markings, a significant improvement on the previous study (45%). The dramatic turnaround in compliance is partly due to cinemas printing classification markings in-house. The poster for “Shop Girl” (20th Century Fox) illustrates a correct classification marking for a poster.
36
Posters without classification information The following table identifies the posters for classified films that did not display any classification information:
Title Distributor Cinemas
All about love Yu Enterprises Reading Market City
Corpse Bride Roadshow Palace Norton Street
Just Like Heaven UIP Cronulla Cinema
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Roadshow Hoyts Broadway
Kyon Ki Hot Chillies Reading Auburn Reading Market City
Pride and Prejudice UIP Roseville Cinema
Rumour Has It Roadshow Reading Auburn
Sharks 3D World’s Biggest Screens Imax, Darling Harbour
Stay 20th Century Fox Reading Auburn
The 40 year old virgin UIP Beverly Hills Cinema
The Family Stone 20th Century Fox United Collaroy
The Legend of Zorro Roadshow Hoyts Merrylands
The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill Gil Scrine Cremorne Orpheum
Walking on the Moon 3D World’s Biggest Screens Imax, Darling Harbour
Wallace & Gromitt – the Curse of the Were Rabbit
UIP United Collaroy
Table 11 – Posters for classified films that did not display any classification information.
The compliance problems in this area appear to be limited to 11 cinemas. For several of the titles identified in the above table, the same posters were identified as being marked at other locations suggesting that the classification marking was obscured by the poster frame in these instances. Posters with out of date exemption message 34 posters for classified films (4%) displayed an out of date exemption message, rather than the appropriate classification markings. This is a significant improvement on the July 2005 study (32%), but there remains need for improvement amongst the 15 cinemas responsible for breaches in this area. The following table identifies the posters that were in breach because they displayed an out of date exemption message:
Title Distributor Cinemas
Chicken Little BVI Hoyts Broadway United Warriewood
Doom UIP George Street Hoyts/GU Reading Market City United Warriewood GU Burwood
Elizabethtown UIP Cronulla Cinema Manly Twin
Flight Plan BVI Dumaresq Street Reading Rhodes United Collaroy
Just Like Heaven UIP United Warriewood Cronulla Cinema
Little Fish Icon Roseville Cinema
Night Watch 20th Century Fox United Warriewood
Pride and Prejudice UIP Cronulla Cinema
37
Title Distributor Cinemas
United Collaroy United Warriewood
Prime Roadshow Cronulla Cinema
Rumour Has It Roadshow Randwick Ritz Reading Rhodes Manly Twin
Saw II Hoyts Cronulla Cinema Hoyts Broadway
The 40 year old Virgin UIP Cronulla Cinema
The Exorcism of Emily Rose Sony Pictures Releasing United Warriewood
The Family Stone18 20th Century Fox Hoyts Warringah Mall
The Legend of Zorro Roadshow Hoyts Broadway Dumaresq Street
The Proposition Sony Pictures Releasing United Avalon
Wallace and Grommit – the Curse of the Were Rabbit
UIP United Warriewood
Table 12 – Posters displaying an out of date exemption message.
For several of the titles listed in the above table, the distributor has advised that classification marking stickers were printed and sent to cinemas within the prescribed timeframe. This would suggest that there may be problems at particular cinemas in terms of receiving the stickers at all or receiving them within the prescribed timeframe allowed for the replacement of the exemption message or with applying the stickers to posters. Where cinemas have not received the classification markings, or in a timely manner, it is recommended that they contact the relevant distributor. Changeover of classified films that previously had advertising approval 18 posters in this study relate to 2 titles classified within 7 days of the commencement of the study. These films were “The Family Stone” (classified on 31 October 2005) and “Rumour Has It” (classified on 1 November 2005). The timeliness with which classification information is being displayed on posters for films that previously had advertising approval can be gauged by examining the advertising of these films. Of the 10 posters for “The Family Stone”:
• 1 displayed no classification information • 1 displayed an out of date eligible film message • 2 displayed a current eligible film message • 5 displayed the correct classification markings • 1 displayed incorrect classification markings.
Also, of the 8 posters for “Rumour Has It”:
• 1 displayed no classification information • 3 displayed an out of date eligible film message • 1 displayed a current eligible film message
18
This film was classified on 31st October 2005 and the cinemas concerned were visited on 6th November 2005.
38
• 3 displayed the correct classification markings. Having regard to the dates of classification of these films and the dates of the site visits, it appears that changeover from exemption to classification marking can be effectively managed by most cinemas. Consumer advice errors 34 of the breaches on posters for classified films were due to issues pertaining to the display of consumer advice. The following table identifies the 5 titles for the posters that displayed the coloured classification marking but no consumer advice:
Title Distributor Cinemas
Four Brothers UIP Reading Auburn
Inside Deep Throat Dendy Films Dendy Newton
Serenity UIP Manly Twin
The 40 year old Virgin UIP Beverly Hills
The Brothers Grimm Roadshow Hoyts Chatswood Westfield
Table 13 – Posters omitting to display consumer advice.
It is understood that some cinemas are cutting off the consumer advice component of the combination box and using the classification component where they do not have a correct combination box to affix to a poster. This practice is problematic because consumers are deprived of important information regarding the content of the film provided by the consumer advice and is technically a breach. It is recommended that cinemas contact the relevant distributor to obtain the correct classification marking and withdraw posters from display pending the receipt of classification markings from distributors or print markings in-house.
Fig 9 – This poster for the UIP film “Serenity” is non-compliant because the cinema concerned has excluded the consumer advice component of the marking.
There was an error in the consumer advice on the poster advertising the film “Omagh” (Rialto Entertainment). This study found that major cinemas are printing classification markings in-house for films that previously had advertising approval. This practice is commendable because it
39
enables consumers to receive advertising information in a timely way. However, it is noted that not all cinemas, particularly independents, have colour printing facilities in-house. There is clearly greater scope for human error when cinemas create in-house classification markings are to be affixed to posters. However, this study found only 10 instances where the classification markings on posters had been mixed up and the incorrect consumer advice provided. Five of these breaches occurred at one cinema. The following table identifies the errors in this regard: Title Distributor Correct CA CA on poster Cinema
Corpse Bride Roadshow Scary scenes, Mild themes Mild suggestive language George Street
Corpse Bride Roadshow Scary scenes, Mild themes Mild threatening scenes George Street
Doom UIP Strong violence Frequent strong sexual humour, Frequent coarse language
United Warriewood
Elizabethtown UIP Infrequent coarse language Moderate violence, Moderate themes
Hoyts Broadway
Flight Plan BVI Moderate violence Moderate violence, Moderate course language, Sexual reference
George Street Hoyts GU
Little Fish Icon Strong drug references, Drug theme, Strong coarse language
Strong drug reference, Drug themes, Moderate coarse language
Dendy Newtown
The 40 year old Virgin
UIP Frequent strong sexual humour, Frequent coarse language
Strong sexual references, Drug use, Infrequent strong coarse language
GU Tuggerah
The 40 year old Virgin
UIP Frequent strong sexual humour, Frequent coarse language
Medium level violence United Warriewood
The Family Stone 20th Century Fox
Mature themes Frequent sexual references, Frequent coarse language
George Street
The Man Roadshow Moderate violence, Moderate coarse language
Moderate violence, Infrequent coarse language
George Street
Table 14 – Posters displaying incorrect consumer advice.
It is recommended that cinemas contact the relevant distributor to obtain the correct classification marking or ensure there are procedures to ensure that in-house printed markings are accurate. There were also 20 posters where the consumer advice was obscured by the poster box to such a degree that it was incomplete and/or illegible (see Fig 10). The following table identifies the posters at issue:
Title Distributor Cinemas
Bad News Bears UIP Reading Auburn
Doom UIP Reading Auburn Hoyts Penrith
Elizabethtown UIP Reading Auburn Hoyts Merrylands
Four Brothers UIP Hoyts Merrylands Hoyts Warringah Mall
In Her Shoes 20th Century Fox Hoyts Broadway Palace Verona
Into the Blue 20th Century Fox Randwick Ritz
Prime Roadshow Hoyts Broadway Hoyts Warringah Mall
Stay 20th Century Fox Hoyts Bankstown Hoyts Erina Hoyts Warringah Mall
The Constant Gardener UIP Manly Twin
40
Roseville Cinema
The Queen of Sheeba’s Pearls Rialto Entertainment Roseville Cinema
Wolf Creek Roadshow Randwick Ritz Reading Auburn
Table 15 – Posters with illegible consumer advice due to obscuring by poster boxes.
It is understood that, where the classification marking is positioned so low on a poster that it would be obscured by the poster box, some cinemas have instituted the practice of cutting the marking off and affixing it where it would be visible. This practice is clearly time consuming and costly for cinemas but is commendable as a strategy to ensure consumers receive classification information. Going forward, collaboration is desirable to find a solution to this issue within the parameters of the markings determination with respect to the placement of the markings within the lower left third of print advertising and in the selection of back lit poster boxes. Cinemas should also consider the poster box when applying classification stickers to posters.
Fig 10 - In designing poster artwork it is recommended distributors and exhibitors collaborate to ensure markings are positioned so as to avoid obstruction by poster frames as has occurred in these examples for “The Constant Gardener” (UIP) and “Wolf Creek’ (Roadshow). Marking type errors 2 posters advertising the film “Wait Til You’re Older” (Yu Enterprises), classified on 28 September 2005, incorrectly displayed the previous classification markings, rather than the new coloured markings.
41
One poster, for the film “Flight Plan” (BVI), was marked as MA15+, rather than M by Hoyts Broadway. One poster, for the film “Garam Masala” (MG Distribution), was displayed with a black and white photocopied marking, rather than a coloured marking, by Hoyts Cinema Paris. 7 posters for other unclassified films carried no markings.19 Other poster issues There were several posters where the classification marking was difficult to read due to bleeding through of information underneath20– generally the exemption message – or the markings were so undersized that they were assessed as in breach.21
Fig 11– As illustrated here, the classification markings on several posters were practically illegible due to their placement over the top of the exemption message. Ensuring the classification markings are not obsured by the information underneath should be a priority for cinemas.
In designing artwork for posters for films with advertising approval, it is desirable to ensure there is an appropriate place on the poster for the classification marking so that the marking is not illegible due to bleed through when the poster is displayed in a back lit poster box.22 As discussed above, the dimensions of poster boxes is an important consideration in the design of the artwork for other posters that may be displayed in this way.
19 World Cinemas Fairfield 20 See examples for “Saw II” and “The Family Stone” 21 For example: “Queen of Sheba’s Pearls” 22 The new eligible films determination is intended to assist in addressing this issue by exempting one sheet posters from having to display the exemption message.
42
Fig 12 – For films with advertising approval, distributors should ensure poster artwork is designed in such that there is an area in the lower left corner to which a classification marking can be affixed by cinemas. Placement of classification markings anywhere other than the lower 1/3 left corner is a breach of statutory requirements.
Historical posters Some cinemas had on display film posters of historical significance for films which are not being exhibited. Some of these posters displayed classification information and others did not. These posters were not assessed in this study. However, as a matter of historical interest, it is noteworthy that the classification markings on these posters were often several times larger than the current markings require. Cinema Trailers This study involved consideration of 179 cinema trailers. There were 131 trailers for classified films23, 45 trailers for films with advertising approval, 1 trailer for an unclassified film without advertising approval, 1 trailer for a “film festival” and 2 trailers computer games (1 classified and 1 unclassified). Overall, 148 of the trailers (83%) displayed the correct classification information. This is a significant improvement on the July 2005 study (69%). Twenty-six of the cinemas surveyed were 100% compliant with the requirements in respect of the display of trailers. These are identified, along with the numbers of trailers assessed, below: • George Street (n=10) • Greater Union Hurstville (n=8) • Greater Union Bondi Junction (n=7) • Greater Union Burwood (n=5) • Cremorne Orpheum (n=5) • Greater Union Campbelltown (n=5) • Greater Union Hornsby (n=4) • Greater Union Liverpool (n=4) • Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin (n=4)
23 Of these, 9 trailers for 2 titles were permitted to carrying the advertising approval message for some or all of the period of the study.
43
• Hoyts Eastgardens (n=4) • Hoyts Erina (n=4) • Hoyts Mt Druitt (n=4) • Greater Union Mosman (n=4) • Greater Union Castle Hill Piazza (n=3) • Greater Union Macquarie (n=3) • Greater Union Tuggerah (n=3) • Hoyts Chatswood Westfield (n=3) • Palace Academy Twin (n=3) • Reading Market City (n=3) • Randwick Ritz (n=3) • Dendy Opera Quays (n=2) • Reading Rhodes (n=2) • Palace Norton Street (n=1) • Hoyts Warringah Mall (n=1) • Beverly Hills (n=1) • Dumaresq Street (n=1).
Fig 13 – Reading Market City was one of 26 cinemas that was fully compliant in providing classification information with film trailers. Some cinemas in the Dendy, Palace, Greater Union and Hoyts chains were also fully compliant in this regard.
44
Exemption message 54 trailers in this study were permitted to carry the advertising exemption message. 45 of these were for unclassified films with advertising approval and 9 were for films classified within the previous 7 days24. As with the July 2005 study, there was 100% compliance with the display of the exemption message. With respect to the 9 trailers for films classified within the previous 7 days, 3 displayed the advertising exemption message and 6 displayed the appropriate classification tag. Of the films carrying classification tags, in 3 cases the film had been classified 5 days earlier, in 2 it had been classified 6 days earlier and in 1 it had been classified 2 days earlier. Classification markings Of the 131 trailers for classified films in this study, 102 (78%) displayed the correct classification information. While this compares favourably with the July 2005 study (58%), there remains a need for improvement in this area by the following cinemas:
Cinema No of trailer breaches for classified films
Reason for Breach
Cronulla Cinemas 2:2 A
Dendy Newtown 1:4 C
GU Castle Hill Towers 1:5 D
GU Miranda 1:4 A
Hoyts Bankstown 2:4 A
Hoyts Broadway 4:12 A. B. D
Hoyts Cinema Paris 3:5 C,H
Hoyts Fox Studios 1:8 A
Hoyts Merrylands 1:4 C
Hoyts Penrith 3:4 B,D,G
Hoyts Wetherill Park 1:4 A
Hornsby Odeon 1:2 B
IMAX 1:1 G
Manly Twin 1:1 A
Palace Verona 2:12 B,F
Reading Auburn 1:3 A
Roseville Cinema 1:1 B
United Avalon 1:2 B
United Collaroy 1:1 E
United Warriewood 2:3 B
Table 16 – Cinemas with non-compliant film trailers for classified films
Non-compliance in respect of trailer advertising was for the following reasons: A use of out of date exemption message (14 trailers) B failure to display any classification information (6 trailers) C use of the previous classification markings for films classified after 26 May 2005
(4 trailers) D display of incorrect classification information (3 trailers) E use of a foreign classification marking (1 trailer) F clinical errors in the display of the current classification tags (1 trailer)
24 “Rumour Has It” and “The Family Stone”
45
G advertising an unclassified film or computer game (2 trailers) H application of the marking to a “film festival” (1 trailer). The cinemas and issues regarding each of these breaches are discussed below. Use of out of date exemption message 10 cinemas screened a total of 14 trailers advertising classified films with an out of date exemption message. This constituted 12% of all trailers for classified films. While an improvement on the July 2005 study (which found 18% of trailers for classified films carried an out of date exemption message), there remains scope for improvement in this area by cinemas. For 7 of the 14 trailers that carried an out of date exemption message, correctly marked banners, posters and/or handbills were available on site. In a further 2 cases, the posters were also in breach by displaying the exemption message after classification. The following table specifies the amount of time that has elapsed since the classification of the films for which an out of date exemption message was used:
Cinema
Film trailer displaying out of date exemption message
Distributor Days since classification of film
Correctly marked posters, banners and/or handbills available
United Warriewood Prime Roadshow 52 Not on site
Cronulla Cinemas The Exorcism of Emily Rose Sony Pictures 31 Yes
Hoyts Bankstown Corpse Bride Roadshow 30 Not on site
GU Miranda Chicken Little BVI 29 Yes
United Warriewood Corpse Bride Roadshow 29 Not on site
Hoyts Broadway Corpse Bride Roadshow 29 Yes
Manly Twin Elizabethtown UIP 19 Not correct
GU Castle Hill Towers Elizabethtown UIP 18 Yes
Hoyts Wetherill Park Saw II Sony Pictures 15 Yes
Cronulla Cinemas The Legend of Zorro Roadshow 13 Yes
Hoyts Bankstown The Legend of Zorro Roadshow 13 Not on site
Hoyts Broadway The Legend of Zorro Roadshow 12 Not correct
Hoyts Fox Studios The Legend of Zorro Roadshow 11 Yes
Reading Auburn The Legend of Zorro Roadshow 10 Not on site
Table 17 – Number of days that have elapsed since classification of films displaying out of date exemption message on a trailer. It is noted that for a number of titles correctly marked advertising was available at one or more cinema(s) and not at another. This would suggest that there are problems at particular cinemas in terms of displaying the markings supplied by distributors on advertising.
On 30 August 2005, the OFLC commenced distribution of a classification bulletin to cinemas with a view to ensuring classification information, particularly in respect of films with advertising approval, was provided in a timely way in order to improve compliance in this area. Cinemas that receive this bulletin, or information derived from this bulletin, should ensure relevant staff receive and understand this information to ensure compliance is achieved. Cross checking of trailers and other advertising materials may also be of assistance in improving compliance.
46
Failure to display any classification information As the following table sets out, 6 cinemas screened trailers for classified films without classification information. In all cases, a significant period had elapsed since classification of the film being advertised. For 3 of the 6 trailers, correctly marked banners, posters and/or handbills were available on site.
Cinema
Film trailer displaying no classification information
Distributor Days since classification of film
Correctly marked banners, posters and/or handbills available
Odeon Hornsby Howl’s Moving Castle Madman 197 Yes
Hoyts Broadway Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Roadshow 176 Yes
Roseville Cinema Yes Potential 125 Yes
Palace Verona Russian Dolls Palace Films 66 Not on site
United Avalon The Constant Gardener UIP 55 Not on site
Hoyts Penrith Domino UIP 16 Not on site
Table 18 – Trailers displaying no classification information or exemption message.
The requirement for all trailers to display either the classification tag or exemption message has received significant attention in the education and supporting information that has been provided to cinemas since the July 2005 snapshot. Use of the previous classification markings for films classified after 26 May 2005 There were 5 instances of trailers displaying the older style classification tags in this study. In 1 case, the trailer was compliant because the film concerned was classified prior to 26 May 2005. In 4 cases, the films were classified after 26 May 2005 and the trailers should have been preceded by the new classification tags. While the old tags contained the correct classification, they did not contain the classification description as required under the markings determination. The cinemas that used the old tags in breach of the requirements were: • Dendy Newtown • Hoyts Cinema Paris (x2) • Hoyts Merrylands. When discussing the issue of trailer tags with cinema managers, the OFLC was advised that there continues to be delays in the supply of tags for classified films that previously had advertising approval and that this is being managed by cutting off tags from trailer reels that are no longer needed. The costs associated with this practice are being met by cinemas. Cinema managers also raised the issue of two distributors that are continuing to supply the older style tags with their trailers. Display of incorrect classification information Three cinemas displayed the wrong classifications in trailer advertising. The errors related to confusing the M and MA15+ classifications. For example:
47
Cinema Film title Distributor Correct classification Classification on trailer
Hoyts Broadway Flight Plan BVI M MA15+
Hoyts Penrith The Cave Sony Pictures M MA15+
Hoyts Penrith Saw II Sony Pictures MA15+ M
Table 19 – Incorrect classifications displayed with film trailers.
In addition, 1 cinema (United Collaroy) advertised the film “Marilyn Hotchkiss Ballroom Dancing and Charm School” (classified M) with a foreign classification tag of PG13. This error is particularly concerning given the potential for confusion with the Australian PG classification. Cinemas must ensure that foreign classification tags are removed from trailers. Also, there was 1 instance of a technical problem where the trailer tag was displayed upside down and in reverse. Advertising unclassified films and computer games There was 1 instance of a trailer for a film that did not have advertising exemption approval and was yet to be classified25 and 1 instance of advertising an unclassified computer game.26 The film advertisement was not preceded by any classification information. The computer game advertisement was preceded, incorrectly, by the new MA15+ trailer tag. Application of the markings to a “film festival” There were 2 trailers advertising “film festivals” identified. In one instance, the film festival was advertised without any classification information – this was correct having regard to the nature of the exemption granted for this festival. This advertisement was therefore excluded from the study. In the second instance, the “film festival” involved the exhibition of 12 films, all of which were classified G, PG or M. However, a trailer promoting the festival itself, rather than a particular film, was preceded by the new M classification tag. While M was the highest classification of any film at the “festival”, the advertisement was not for a film and should not have been accompanied by any classification information. If, however, the advertisement had promoted particular titles, then the multiple title moving image advertisement provisions of the markings determination would apply. Foyer loop tapes Foyers loop tapes of trailers were also considered in the study. However as all of these were not assessed by coders on-site27, data has not been included. Some of the issues that were identified as requiring attention by the sector in compiling loop tapes are:
25 Imax: “Volcanoes of the Deep” 26 Hoyts Penrith: “Evolution: Uncovered” 27 For some cinemas, a master loop tape was provided to the OFLC.
48
• The markings must be legible (ie not blurry) • Trailers for classified films need to display the correct classification markings (ie
a tag preceding the trailer or a ticker during the trailer) • Trailers need to display the exemption message or classification markings for the
required duration • The exemption message must be promptly replaced with classification markings
for films that have been classified. Failure to comply with this requirement can result in withdrawal of advertising approval for an eligible film.
Fig 14 – This still from a foyer loop tape illustrates a trailer with a combination box which is not an option for non-celluloid moving image advertisements as the consumer advice is not legible. The marking options for non-celluloid moving image advertisements are either a tag proceeding the trailer or a ticker during the trailer.
49
CHAPTER 4 – BEST PRACTICE
Introduction This chapter describes the work of cinemas who voluntarily elected to go beyond statutory requirements in the provision of classification information. For the purpose of this study, the provision of classification information that exceeds statutory requirements is known as “best practice”. Compliance by cinemas with statutory requirements is described in Chapter 3. Compliance in respect of websites and newspapers is described in Chapters 5 and 6. Overall findings 34 cinemas (72%) demonstrated use of some best practice strategies in one or more of the following areas: • Display of additional approved notices • Inclusion of classification markings on banners greater than 2.5m2 • Inclusion of classification markings on standees. Cinemas have not implemented best practice in the following areas: • Screening of the OFLC’s “Use Classifications” promotional film clip (either in
cinemas or foyers) • Display of the OFLC’s “Use Classifications” banner • Use of coloured classification symbols on exterior title listings • Display of classification information for the duration of advertisements on foyer loop
tapes.
50
Approved notices Twenty-seven cinemas (57%)28 voluntarily opted to go beyond statutory requirements by displaying more than 1 approved notice, with a total of 90 notices identified across all the cinemas in the study. These cinemas are commended for enhancing the profile of this tool for consumers. The cinemas in this study which displayed 4 or more approved notices were: • Hoyts Cinema Paris • Hoyts Penrith • Hoyts Fox Studios • Hoyts Bankstown • Greater Union Castle Hill Towers • Greater Union Campbelltown • Beverly Hills Cinema. Hoyts Fox Studios, pictured below, warrants particular commendation for display of the approved notices in the most prominent manner. This cinema has A4 sized approved notices at each pay point and an A1 sized notice behind the cashiers. This is a benchmark for best practice in respect of the requirement to display approved notices. It is acknowledged that the A1 sized notice is smaller than a one-sheet poster and that several cinemas have made special arrangements to effectively display it in a poster box. At the request of cinemas, the OFLC has now issued artwork for a one-sheet sized approved notice (see Fig.1) and this is available on the OFLC’s website.
Fig 15 – Hoyts Fox Studios sets the benchmark for best practice in display of the approved classification notices – encouraging consumers to use classifications to choose films. A majority of cinemas surveyed voluntarily exceeded the statutory requirements for the display of classification notices.
28 Hoyts Cinema Paris; Hoyts Penrith; Hoyts Fox Studios; Hoyts Bankstown; Greater Union Castle Hill Towers; Greater Union Castle Hill Piazza; Greater Union Campbelltown; Beverly Hills; United Warriewood; Hoyts Warringah Mall; Hoyts Mt Druitt; Hoyts Chatswood Westfield; Greater Union Tuggerah; Greater Union Mosman; Greater Union Hurstville; Greater Union Bondi Junction; George Street; Hoyts Erina; Palace Verona; Palace Academy Twin Twin; Hoyts Merrylands; Hoyts Eastgardens; Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin; Hoyts Broadway; Greater Union Macquarie; Greater Union Hornsby; Dendy Opera Quays.
51
Banners over 2.5m2 The markings determination does not require banners exceeding 2.5m2 to display classification markings. However, as some cinemas sought to pursue best practice in this area, these were included in the study. Of the 151 banners assessed by coders as exceeding 2.5m2 or possibly exceeding this size, 89 (59%) voluntarily displayed the classification markings or exemption message. As the marking of such advertisements is not required under the markings determination, the 23 cinemas29 concerned are to be commended for striving for best practice in this regard. The leading cinemas, in terms of marking of oversized banners were Hoyts Fox Studios (14:16) and Imax Darling Harbour (15:16). Unfortunately, there were 2 errors in the classification information displayed on banners exceeding 2.5m2. In one instance a banner for a film classified M displayed a G marking30 and in another a film classified M was displayed with a MA15+ marking31. Also, there was an example of an unclassified film displaying a PG marking32. In the main, the markings on banners were applied by cinemas themselves. It is noteworthy that the application of such markings can be costly and difficult for cinemas because the banners are often displayed well above the reach of staff. While cinemas are to be commended for marking these banners, the size of the markings used are generally those use for posters resulting in the consumer advice on the markings being illegible. Going forward, it would be useful for larger classification markings to be used on banners.
Fig 16 – The inadequate size of the classification markings on painted banners, in particular those over 2.5m2 (such as the one illustrated here) was an issue common to most cinemas in this study. The classification marking in this example (the red MA15+ combination box in the lower left corner) is too small to be legible.
29 George Street; Greater Union Burwood; Greater Union Campbelltown; Greater Union Castle Hill Piazza; Castle Hill Towers; Greater Union Hornsby; Greater Union Hurstville; Greater Union Liverpool; Greater Union Macquarie; Greater Union Tuggerah; Hoyts Bankstown; Hoyts Eastgardens; Hoyts Erina; Hoyts Fox Studios; Hoyts Merrylands; Hoyts Mt Druitt; Hoyts Penrith; Hoyts Warringah Mall; Imax Darling Harbour; Palace Academy Twin; Roseville Cinemas; Randwick Ritz; Odeon Hornsby 30 Greater Union Hurstville – “Elizabethtown” 31 Hoyts Penrith – “Four Brothers” 32 Imax – “Titanic 3D”
52
Fig 17 - Imax cinemas demonstrates best practice by inclusion of classification markings on banners exceeding 2.5m2. 59% of oversized banners in this study were marked even though this is not legally required.
Standees The markings determination does not require standees to display classification markings. Accordingly, standees were not assessed in the July 2005 snapshot. As cinemas pursuing best practice may choose to mark standees, these were assessed in this study. 115 standees were identified in this study and classification information was displayed on 37 (32%) of these and the exemption message on a further 5 (4%). Standees for 10 titles displayed classification markings33 and standees for a further 2 titles carried the exemption message34. In total, 19 cinemas demonstrated best practice by displaying classification information on standees. These were: • Dendy Opera Quays • George Street • Greater Union Burwood • Greater Union Castle Hill Piazza • Greater Union Hornsby • Greater Union Liverpool • Hoyts Bankstown • Hoyts Broadway • Hoyts Chatswood Westfield • Hoyts Eastgardens
33 Chicken Little; Cinderella Man; Corpse Bride; Doom; Look Both Ways; Must Love Dogs; Sharkboy & Lavagirl; Sky High; The 40 year old Virgin; Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit 34 The Chronicles of Narnia – The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe; Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
53
• Hoyts Erina • Hoyts Merrylands • Hoyts Mt Druitt • Hoyts Penrith • Hoyts Warringah Mall • Hoyts Wetherill Park • Odeon Hornsby • Palace Verona • Randwick Ritz Unfortunately, in 2 cases the consumer advice provided was incorrect (although the classification was accurate).Also, in 1 case the classification description, rather than consumer advice, was provided. As the correct markings for the same titles were noted on other standees, this suggests problem at particular cinemas with in-house printing. Foyer loop tapes Best practice classification information on foyer loop tapes involves the display of a ticker, containing the classification and consumer advice, for the duration of advertisement (rather than the 10 seconds prescribed for advertisements over 60 seconds). This practice ensures that consumers who do not see the commencement of the advertisement are not deprived of classification information. Industry is encouraged to move toward this standard. Cinemas are encouraged to implement this best practice strategy.
Fig 18 – Industry guidelines prepared by film distributors in conjunction with Free TV Australia could assist cinemas to ensure foyer loop tape advertising is compliant. The image above, extracted from industry guidelines, demonstrates a ticker that could be displayed throughout the duration of an advertisement by a cinema seeking to achieve best practice.
54
Title listings While not required, best practice with respect to title listings would involve the use of the coloured classification symbol square as mocked up in Fig 19. None of the cinemas in this study implemented this best practice strategy.
Fig 19 – Film title listings displayed on the outside of cinemas must include classification information – either the classification character or symbol. Best practice involves the use of the coloured classification symbols as demonstrated in this mocked up example.
OFLC “Use Classifications” film clip and banner Since the July 2005 snapshot, the OFLC has been actively encouraging the sector to screen a 45 second promotional film clip in cinemas and foyers. The clip explains the meaning of each classification and encourages the use of consumer advice. The OFLC met the costs of production of this clip and distributed digital copies to cinemas. Celluloid copies of the clip can be purchased from Atlab for a very modest fee ($56). The OFLC has also actively encouraged cinemas to purchase and display a 2.1m high banner encouraging consumers to use classifications (Fig 20). The artwork for this banner is available from the OFLC’s website at no charge and cinemas were provided with the contact details of an appropriate supplier. The exhibition of the classification film clip and display of the classification banner at cinemas would greatly assist consumers in understanding classifications and assist them in making informed decisions. This would be similar to the widespread screening of a promotional film clip regarding film piracy.
55
Fig 20 – This banner, measuring approximately 2.1m high, encourages consumers to use classifications in deciding films. The OFLC encourages cinemas to display this banner at the point of sale.
56
CHAPTER 5 – NEWSPAPER COMPLIANCE Introduction This chapter describes statutory compliance in respect of classification information in newspapers. Compliance by cinemas with statutory requirements is described in Chapter 3 and best practice activities are identified in Chapter 4. Compliance in respect of websites is described in Chapter 6. Overall compliance This study involved assessment of 279 items in 8 newspapers for compliance. As the following table illustrates, 246 items (88%) were fully compliant.
Number of items assessed
Number correct
Number of breaches
Newspaper session times 74 71 3
Newspaper advertisements 175 164 11
Newspaper legends 30 11 21
Overall compliance 279 246 35
Table 20: Newspaper compliance rates by item
The breaches identified (n=35) involved: • Failure to include a legend (or reference to legend) on each page of advertising
(n=21) • Use of incorrect classification types (n=3) • Use of incorrect classification markings (n=11). Exhibitor advertisements and cinema session times 90 exhibitor ads displayed in conjunction with the session times were also considered in this study. 100% of these displayed the correct classification characters. This is an excellent result. A total of 74 cinema session times were considered in this study. 71 of these (96%) used the correct classification characters (ie G, PG, M, MA15+, R18+). The only errors in the
57
exhibitor newspaper ads related to 3 uses of MA, rather than MA15+ by the Hornsby Odeon. All other cinemas used the correct classifications in their session times. One cinema used the words “This film is yet to be classified” in an advertisement. While this is not the correct exemption message, it was not assessed as a breach for the purpose of this snapshot. Two other exhibitors used (TBA) for this film. From 1 January 2006, when the new Eligible Films Instrument comes into effect, the letters “TBC” (meaning “to be classified”) should be used in such circumstances. Distributor advertisements This study involved consideration of 85 distributor advertisements in newspapers. 74 of these advertisements (87%) displayed the correct classification information. Of the 11 errors, 4 pertained to advertisements for the film “Marilyn Hotchkiss Ballroom Dancing and Charm School” (Imagine Films) and 7 to “Gallipoli” (Ronin Films). In both cases the breaches related to the use of the classification symbol square, rather than the classification combination box (which includes the relevant consumer advice).
Fig 21 - 87% of newspaper ads by distributors displayed the correct classification information. The two advertisements that breached the requirements are illustrated above. The advertisement for Gallipoli is 123 cm2 and the advertisement for Marilyn Hotchkiss is 98 cm2. Advertisements that exceed 75cm2 must use the appropriately sized combination box (see Fig 22).
58
ANCED SCREENINGSMORROW Fig 22 – The above newspaper advertisement for “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” (Roadshow) uses the correct type of marking for printed advertising. The advertisement, which is 176 cm2, includes a combination box.
Classification legends All 8 of the newspapers in this study included a legend with an accurate explanation of the film classifications. The legend (or a reference to the page on which the legend appears) should be included on all newspaper pages advertising films. While there were 30 pages of newspaper advertising, there were only 11 legends. The Sun Herald and Spectrum (in the Sydney Morning Herald) included more than 1 legend. Of the 11 legends considered in this study: • 4 did not include all the classifications • 2 were problematic, although technically compliant, because they did not display the
classifications in the correct hierarchy (all of these were in landscape, rather than portrait format).
None of the legends considered in this study were in colour. Best practice by newspapers would involve the use of coloured legends on all pages with coloured advertising. Going forward, it would be desirable for all newspapers to use the legend artwork available from the OFLC website rather than in-house artwork.
59
Option 1
Option 2 Option 3 Fig 23 – All newspapers in this study included legends explaining the film classifications. Best practice legends are in the form illustrated above with the classifications following the correct hierarchy.
Competitions and film promotional giveaways This study considered film ticket giveaways by 2 newspapers for the films “Red Dust” (Polyphony Entertainment) and “Corpse Bride” (Roadshow). As advertisements of this nature are effectively promoting a film, they are required to carry the classification marking appropriate to the dimensions of the advertisement. Neither of the giveaways met the markings requirements.
60
CHAPTER 6 – WEBSITE COMPLIANCE Introduction This chapter describes statutory compliance with respect to classification information on certain websites. Compliance by cinemas with statutory requirements is described in Chapter 3 and best practice activities are identified in Chapter 4. Compliance in respect of newspapers is described in Chapter 5. Overall compliance This study involved consideration of 24 Australian hosted exhibitor and distributor websites. A total of 286 online trailers and 568 other advertisements on these sites. As the following table sets out, 307 of the advertisements (54%) were compliant.
Number of items
Number correct
Number of breaches
Website still advertisements 568 307 261
Website trailer advertisements 286 12 274
Website legends 24 7 17
878 326 552
Table 21: Website compliance rates by item The major areas of non-compliance were: • Use of incorrect classification markings • Failure to display classification markings • Failure to include a link to a legend explaining the classifications. The Sony Pictures Releasing website, www.sonypictures.com.au , was fully compliant with the markings requirements. This website, which provides accessible and legible classification information and consumer advice, is the industry benchmark to date.
61
Fig 24 – Sony Pictures is the leader in the provision on classification information online achieved 100% compliance and provided classifications for all trailers. For an advertisement consisting of a still and moving image, the markings determination provides that the marking must be displayed on the still image. Each page on this site contains a link to a classification legend and an explanation of the ratings system. The site can be accessed at: www.sonypictures.com.au
While Dendy Films, Greater Union, Hoyts and Village Cinemas also had very good compliance overall, a failure to include classification information on trailers or links to trailers, meant that these sites were not fully compliant. The Sony Pictures Releasing website provides a possible model to address these issues. Distributors’ websites A total of 67 film advertisements (non-trailer) on 7 Australian-hosted distributor websites were considered in this study. 45% of advertisements displayed the correct classification marking (ie combination box or classification symbol and consumer advice). 41% of advertisements for films classified greater than G displayed the consumer advice. As mentioned above, Sony Pictures Releasing was 100% compliance with the markings requirements.
62
The key issues for other distribution sites include: • absence of any classification marking • use of out of date classification characters (eg M15+, MA, R – rather than M, MA15+
and R18+) • use of classification character, rather than classification symbol • absence of consumer advice • consumer advice not prominently displayed • use of classification combination boxes with illegible consumer advice • absence of a link to a key or legend explaining the classifications • absence of markings on film trailers or links to trailers • advertising of unclassified films. 23 film trailers were also assessed. Of these 11 (48%) contained the relevant classification information. The majority of trailers are viewed through links to internationally hosted websites and do not carry Australian classification information. Australian consumers would be supported by the inclusion of Australian classification and consumer advice next to the link or the model used by Sony Pictures Releasing (discussed above). Notably, 3 locally hosted trailers35 did not feature the classification marking as a ticker, tag or still image. Exhibitors’ websites This study considered a total of 501 advertisements (non-trailer) for films on 17 Australia-hosted exhibitor websites. Only 276 (49%) of advertisements displayed the correct classification marking. Problematic exhibition websites included the same issues identified above for distribution websites. Of particular note, the majority of incorrect advertisements featured only the classification character, rather than classification combination box (or classification symbol and consumer advice). 279 (66%) advertisements for films classified greater than G displayed the consumer advice. Even amongst the best exhibitor sites (Greater Union, Village Cinemas, Hoyts Cinemas), there is scope for enhancing the prominence of consumer advice. While classification information is provided on the “Now Showing” pages, consumer advice is only available if the user clicks through to an individual film’s page. Best practice would be for consumer advice to appear on the “Now Showing” pages. With the best of intentions, some exhibitors websites have reproduced out of date classification guidelines and modified classification description markings. 263 film trailers were also assessed. Of these, only 2 carried the required classification information. 1 of these was on the Hoyts site and the other on the Village Cinemas site. 35 “Nightwatch”, “Look Both Ways”, “Tarnation”
63
The majority of trailers are viewed through links to internationally hosted website and do not carry Australian classification information, however 11 locally hosted trailers did not feature the classification marking as a ticker, tag or still image.36
Fig 25 – The websites for Village Cinemas and Greater Union are commended for giving prominence to consumer advice and the coloured classification symbols on the individual film pages. Inclusion of consumer advice on the “Now Showing” advertisements would have made these sites best practice. View these sites at: www.greaterunion.com.au and www.villagecinemas.com.au
Fig 26 – Hoyts website meets the markings requirements by using the classification combination box in conjunction with text about the classification and consumer advice on individual film pages (but not the “Now Showing” page). Several sites reviewed in this study used combination boxes that were so small as to be illegible. If such sites had also included the classification and consumer advice in the accompanying text they would have been compliant. The Hoyts site can be accessed at: www.hoyts.com.au
36 “Little Fish” (x 5), “Look Both Ways” (x 2), “Josh Jarman” (x 2), “Oyster Farmer”, “The Proposition”.
64
Fig 27 – The Dumaresq Street Cinema displays the classification character and consumer advice on all advertising. While not technically compliant (because the relevant classification symbol is not displayed), this website demonstrates that independent cinemas can readily provide consumers with classifications and consumer advice during their transition to full compliance. See: www.dumaresqstreetcinema.com.au
Classification legends Two distributors’ websites, Sony Pictures Releasing and Dendy Films, provided the required link to a key or legend that includes the classification marking and classification description (29%). Five exhibitors’ websites provided the required link to a key or legend that includes the classification marking and classification description (29%). These websites were for the exhibitors Greater Union, Village Cinemas, Hoyts, Reading Cinemas and United Cinemas.
Fig 28 – Online advertisements are required to include a link to a legend explaining the classifications. An example of a fully compliant classification legend is available on the Greater Union website. Of the exhibitor websites, Greater Union, Village Cinemas, Hoyts, Reading and United Cinemas included links to a classification legend.
65
CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSION This study has demonstrated that overall compliance with the classification marking requirements by Sydney cinemas is high, although various areas continue to require attention. This study commends a number of cinemas, and in particular Greater Union Campbelltown, for the display of classification information during the snapshot period. The study has also identified industry bench marks in respect of a number of the compliance requirements. Key themes The key themes which emerge from this study are: • compliance is improved overall, with dramatic improvements by a number of cinemas
and these cinemas are to be congratulated on their commitment • the key systemic problems identified in the July 2005 snapshot have improved overall
and dramatically at particular sites (ie display of approved notices; use of the correct classification character in advertising and session times; timely marking of classified films that previously had advertising approval; websites)
• a very positive attitude towards compliance has been achieved and this has produced
good figures overall • most cinemas have voluntarily implemented best practice classification information
initiatives • distributors and cinemas, particularly major cinemas, have implemented initiatives to
ensure delays in the distribution of classification markings and trailer tags do not adversely effect compliance
• anecdotally, independent exhibitors report that they are struggling to comply due to delays in the dissemination of classification markings, an inability to print coloured classification markings in-house and insufficient quantities of trailer tags
66
• various issues have been identified that require the attention of distributors, particularly related to the design of artwork for posters, banners and handbills
• there is scope for further improvements in compliance with respect to trailer
advertising, both in cinemas and, in particular, foyers • site specific problems amongst a few cinemas of the major exhibitors and poor
compliance by some independents is adversely impacting on the good outcome for sector
• ongoing work across most of the sector is necessary to achieve website compliance
and the appropriateness of specific online marking requirements rather than cross application of the print and moving image advertising requirements requires consideration at a policy level
• targeted compliance education is required for certain cinemas with poor compliance. Industry bench marks This study has identified a number of industry bench marks for the provision of classification information: • Compliance with all requirements – 100% (Greater Union Campbelltown) • Display of approved notices – A4 notice at each pay point and A1 notice behind
cashier (Hoyts Fox Studios) • Display of posters – 100% compliance (38:38 – Hoyts Fox Studios) • Inclusion of classification markings on posters for films that previously had
advertising approval – 3 days (Greater Union Tuggerah) • Display of banners < 2.5m2 – 100% compliance (5:5 – Greater Union Miranda) • Display of handbills – 100% compliance (10:10 titles – Palace Verona) • Cinema trailer advertising – 100% compliance (10:10 – George Street) • Inclusion of classification markings on trailers for films that previously had
advertising approval – 2 days (Hoyts Broadway) • Printed session time flyers – correct classifications, consumer advice and legend –
100% compliance (Greater Union Campbelltown) • Websites – 100% compliance (Sony Pictures Releasing).
67
Conclusion This study has demonstrated that a sector wide collaborative approach can substantially improve statutory compliance where there is chief executive officer level commitment and effective follow through at an operational level. Some cinemas, such as Greater Union and Hoyts, are very close to achieving full compliance, whereas others still have some work to do to achieve this goal. Similarly, there are still opportunities for the performance of distributors in delivering technically compliant and useable advertising material to be improved. There remains a challenge for film distributors and exhibitors to collaborate to demonstrate that classification information can be provided in a timely way for films that previously had advertising approval. The distributors and major cinemas have reportedly absorbed substantial costs to achieve this objective, and while in-house printing of classification markings and stock piling of classification tags are to be commended they may not be possible for independent exhibitors, and ultimately this is the responsibility of distributors. Collaboration across the sector is also important in respect of the design of artwork for posters. It is recommended that the flexibility provided in the markings determination with respect to the placement of the markings within the lower left third of print advertising is utilized in the design of the artwork for posters to ensure that the markings are not obscured by back lit poster boxes. It would also be beneficial for cinemas to bear this issue in mind when selecting back lit poster boxes as there appears to be some boxes that obscure more of the poster than others. Cinemas should also consider the poster box when applying classification stickers to posters. Further work is required by most of the sector in terms of website compliance and there is a need to assess the compliance of advertising on websites that are not distributor or exhibitor specific. However, one distributor, Sony Pictures Releasing, is outstanding in respect of website compliance. It is acknowledged that upgrading of websites to achieve compliance may be an expensive exercise but the inclusion of classifications and consumer advice in all advertisements should be given the highest priority. The inclusion of a legend, explaining the Australian classifications should also be prioritized. The substantial improvements in compliance made since the July 2005 snapshot will be of interest to all jurisdictions participating in the National Classification Scheme. The report will also be of the interest to the Australian Attorney General’s Department which will soon commence a review of the advertising provisions. Ongoing monitoring of compliance is warranted. There is a need for compliance education to reinforce the classification compliance obligations, with particular attention given to: • Marking of banners under 2.5m2 • Foyer loop tape advertising • Front of cinema title listings • Website advertising marking requirements.
68
Certain cinemas would also benefit from one to one guidance from the Community Liaison Section of the OFLC. There is also a need to assess compliance in respect of advertising not included in this study – particularly television, magazine and off-site (eg bus shelters). There is a need to assess the compliance of advertising on other types of websites. The need for further snapshots, with higher assessment thresholds, will be informed by ongoing monitoring and liaison with the sector.
69
ATTACHMENT 1
1st September 2005 MEDIA RELEASE
Cinema industry and Government regulator agree on initiatives to ensure families are
better informed
At a joint meeting today, the cinema industry and the Office of Film and Literature Classification have committed to work closely together to ensure that families have access to clear, correct, easy-to-find classification information about the films they might be choosing to see at the cinema. “The OFLC have worked hard to devise a system that responsibly informs parents and other cinema-goers about the classification and the content of the films they can choose to see at the cinema,” said Cinema Industry spokesperson and Chairman of the Motion Picture Distributors Association of Australia, Joel Pearlman today. “We in the cinema industry take the responsibility of providing this information very seriously in the interests of providing the best possible cinema experience to consumers, particularly those with children,” Mr Pearlman said. Cinemas are required to feature classification information on advertisements for films in newspaper and magazine advertisements, posters, flyers, at box-office listings, on websites and before trailers at the cinema and on television. The meeting was requested by the cinema industry following a recent report by the OFLC about classification compliance by cinemas across Sydney. It revealed that the industry was still struggling to incorporate these requirements into all of their advertising. “Given the commitment the Australian Government has to protecting children from material that could be harmful or upsetting to them, I am heartened by the seriousness with which the cinema industry has responded to the Snapshot report,” said Director of the OFLC, Des Clark. “I was also delighted by the interest expressed by film distributors and exhibitors in working with the OFLC on best practice classification strategies,” Mr Clark said. Both the MPDAA and the OFLC agreed that it was preferable for both organisations to achieve a clear mutual understanding about how compliance with classification requirements will be achieved so that legal enforcement of the provisions would not be required. The Australian Independent Distributors Association, Independent Cinema Association of Australia, Greater Union, Hoyts, Village, Dendy, Palace and other independent distributors were also represented at the meeting.
Media contacts Brinsley Marlay (OFLC) 02 9289 7187 or 0438 889 759 Brendan Gutsell (MPDAA) 02 9265 0260 or 0407 614 922
70
ATTACHMENT 2
CINEMAS VISITED IN THIS STUDY: City / East 10/11
George St Randwick Ritz
Hoyts Fox Studios Govindas - Movie Room
Hoyts Cinema Paris Reading Market City
Greater Union Bondi Junction Palace Academy
Palace Verona
Imax
Dendy Opera Quays
North 13/13
Hoyts Warringah Mall Cremorne Orpheum
Hoyts Chatswood Mandarin Roseville Cinema
Hoyts Chatswood Westfield United Avalon
Greater Union Hornsby United Warriewood
Greater Union Mosman United Collaroy
Greater Union Macquarie Odeon Hornsby
Manly Twin Cinema
South 8/8
Hoyts Eastgardens Cronulla
Hoyts Bankstown Beverly Hills
Greater Union Miranda Dumaresq St (Campbelltown)
Greater Union Hurtville
Greater Union Burwood
West 11/11
Hoyts Broadway Reading Rhodes
Hoyts Wetherill Park Reading Auburn
Hoyts Mt Druitt Palace Norton St
Hoyts Merrylands Dendy Newtown
Greater Union Castle Hill - Towers World Cinema Fairfield
Greater Union Castle Hill - Piazza
Fringes 5/7
Hoyts Erina (Central Coast) The Edge Katoomba
Hoyts Penrith Glenbrook Cinema
Greater Union Tuggerah
Greater Union Campbelltown
Greater Union Liverpool
1st number visited by OFLC staff / 2nd number total of cinemas in area
SUMMARY
Hoyts 13
Greater Union 12
Hoyts / Greater Union 1
Reading 3
Dendy 2
Palace 3
Independent 16
Number of Cinemas Visited 47 (94%)
Number of all Cinemas 50
71
ATTACHMENT 3 UNCLASSIFIED FILMS W ITH ADVERTISING APPROVAL AS AT 4/11/05: Film Title Distributor Advertising conditions
AEON FLUX UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
BACHKE REHNA RE BABA EROS AUSTRALIA P/L Passed (M Conditions)
BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE 2 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM DIST. PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
CASANOVA BUENA VISTA INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) Passed (M Conditions)
CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM DIST. PTY LTD Passed
DERAILED BUENA VISTA INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) Passed (MA Conditions)
ERAGON TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM DIST. PTY LTD Passed
FUN WITH DICK AND JANE SONY PICTURES RELEASING P/L Passed
HAPPY FEET ROADSHOW FILM DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD Passed
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE
ROADSHOW FILM DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD Passed
HUMAN TOUCH DENDY FILMS Passed (M Conditions)
HUSTLE AND FLOW UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
ICE AGE 2: THE MELTDOWN TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM DIST. PTY LTD Passed
JUST FRIENDS MAGNA PACIFIC PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
KING KONG UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA ROADSHOW FILM DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - 3 UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
OPEN SEASON SONY PICTURES RELEASING P/L Passed
OVER THE HEDGE UNITED INTERNATIONAL PICTURES PTY LTD Passed
PERFECT CREATURE MAGNA PACIFIC PTY LTD Passed (MA Conditions)
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 2: DEAD MAN'S CHEST
BUENA VISTA INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
BUENA VISTA INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD Passed
THE DA VINCI CODE SONY PICTURES RELEASING P/L Passed (M Conditions)
THE DESCENT ICON FILM DISTRIBUTION Passed (MA Conditions)
THE MATADOR BUENA VISTA INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
THE PINK PANTHER TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM DIST. PTY LTD Passed
THE PRODUCERS SONY PICTURES RELEASING P/L Passed (M Conditions)
THE SHAGGY DOG BUENA VISTA INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD Passed
THE SQUID AND THE WHALE SONY PICTURES RELEASING P/L Passed (M Conditions)
THE WILD BUENA VISTA INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD Passed
TOMORROWLAND: A DAY WITH WILBUR ROBINSON
BUENA VISTA INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD Passed
UNDERWORLD: EVOLUTION SONY PICTURES RELEASING P/L Passed (MA Conditions)
V FOR VENDETTA ROADSHOW FILM DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
X-MEN 3 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM DIST. PTY LTD Passed (M Conditions)
ZATHURA SONY PICTURES RELEASING P/L Passed
72
ATTACHMENT 4 WEBSITES VISITED IN THIS STUDY: Exhibitor websites Cinema Website
Beverly Hills http://www.beverlyhillscinemas.com.au/
Cremorne Orpheum http://www.orpheum.com.au/
Cronulla http://www.cronullacinemas.com.au/
Dumaresq St Cinema http://www.dumaresqstreetcinema.com.au/
Glenbrook Cinema http://www.glenbrookcinema.com.au/
Greater Union http://www.greaterunion.com.au/
Hoyts http://hoyts.ninemsn.com.au/
Imax Sydney http://www.imax.com.au/home.asp
Manly Twin Cinemas http://www.manlycinema.com.au/
Palace Cinemas http://www.palacecinemas.com.au/
Randwick Ritz http://www.ritzcinema.com.au/
Reading http://www.readingcinemas.com.au/
Roseville Cinemas http://www.rosevillecinemas.com.au/home.asp#
The Edge http://www.edgecinema.com.au/
United Cinemas http://www.unitedcinemas.com.au/
World Cinemas http://www.worldcinemas.com.au/
Village Cinemas http://www.villagecinemas.com.au/
Distributor websites Film Distributor Website
Dendy Films http://www.dendyfilms.com.au/
Rialto Entertainment http://www.rialtoentertainment.com/
20th Century Fox http://www.foxmovies.com.au/
Sharmill http://www.sharmillfilms.com.au/
Hopscotch http://www.hopscotchfilms.com.au/flash.html
Sony Pictures Releasing http://www.sonypictures.com.au/
Palace Films http://www.palacefilms.com.au/
