Those naughty, naughty film-makers!

In today's Sun-Herald, Miranda Devine turns her attention to the Office of Film & Literature Classification with the heading Censors fail to give the true picture.

She wraps the Office and the film-makers over the knuckles with her opinionated wooden ruler, saying that The History Boys is "a fraud. It is a pederastic fantasy about teachers who fondle their students' genitals in the nicest way and the boys don't mind at all."

She goes on to say that, "it's about a British boys' school in the 1980s where all the students are openly or latently gay." Then stating that it's "not a bad movie for a niche gay agenda market".

But what about those dastardly censors? How could this film be let out of the Oxford Street centre for debauchery and let loose on that upstanding community in Baulkham Hills or Castle Hill.

Devine refers to a friend of hers who is "no prude, reeling out of a suburban theatre with his wife and two preteen children. They had walked out of The History Boys just as straight boy Dakin asks his teacher Irwin, "if there was any chance of your sucking me off"."

The Office of Film and Literature Classification has classified this film as M. According to the Office's website, "M is an advisory classification. This classification advises audiences that a level of maturity is required in relation to the film. While anyone can gain admission to an M film, material classified M is not recommended for under 15s."

What were Devine's friends doing taking their pre-teen children to this film? The Office had clearly advised that it was not recommended for under 15's and that a level of maturity was required to watch the film. How clearer does Devine require the office to be?

She then blames reviewers and advertisers for portraying the film as "a modern-day Goodbye, Mr Chips." I can assure Devine that all-male schools are no-longer a walk in the park as in the days of Mr Chips or even Tom Brown.

There is a larger question here which highlights that "them-and-us" mentality used by both heterosexual and homosexual communities. What exactly does "niche gay agenda market" mean? Do we, as a rule, watch something because of our sexual orientation? Should over 15's be protected at all times from literature that deals with sexuality, homosexuality and paedophilia?

There are plenty of films with an M rating that deal with the issues of sex, sexual leering, heterosexuality, physical abuse and extreme violence. Just look at the latest Pirates of the Caribbean films that are exposing under 10's to extreme physical violence.

I suggest that the Office deems it necessary and appropriate for members of our community who are in their puberty to be able to make judgements about their sexuality, not only in relation to films such as The History Boys, but through textual studies and other more heterosexual 'agenda markets'. As the Office's website says - "there must be some way that society can examine and discuss issues of paedophilia... through film". These teenagers are intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between the reality of what was being said in the film and what is acceptable.

If Devine wants to open up a discussion about the role of film and literature and how we should use classification and censorship, it would be more constructive to move away from an example of friends who took their pre-teen children to The History Boys.

What Devine is proclaiming is a more stringent use of classification, removing the vital and imperative use of judgement by guardians and individuals in making decisions about what film and literature they and their charges consume.

Devine was just as vocal about censorship during the Ken Park incident in 2003. I totally support her in her condemnation of paedophilia, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, shouldn't consider it through art and film. Devine, as her article about Ken Park clearly shows, prefers to see a discussion of taboos as a gradual acceptance of taboos.

In today's article she refers to the elephant in the room (paedophilia) that marketers and reviewers of The History Boys ignored. There is another elephant sitting in that same room. That elephant is the push of mass media commentators like Devine using examples like those of her friends to inflict us all with a nanny like commentary on who should make judgements on what literature we wish to engage with. That is a dangerous path to take and a more constructive debate that steers away from this sensationilism would be healthier for us all.

Image: drooker.com