Margaret Pomeranz, film critic and host of ABC TV’s At The Movies, talks to Byteside about the Australian classification system and the lack of an R18+ classification option for video games.

Bookmark and Share

17 Responses to “Margaret Pomeranz on R18+”

  1. thomas mabbott Says:

    bravo this women knows exactly whats on my mine atm atkinson needs to go

  2. Ty Pendlebury Says:

    Excellent interview Ben. It’s funny Margaret brought up Ken Park because that’s the film she showed and was arrested for as soon as she pressed play.

  3. Steve Says:

    Thank you Margaret for being a voice of reason.

  4. Mr1979 Says:

    I think she would be a great replacement for the massive wowser no 18+ for Australia Michael Atkinson. Margaret is on the ball!

  5. Tarwin Says:

    I totally agree with what’s been said for most of it. I do feel the comment that “anything legal” should be able to be in films is a little strange as ‘taking a shotgun to a diseased person’s face’ (killing zombies) isn’t, as is a lot of things you would do in games. So it’s a little more complex than that.

  6. tbonetony Says:

    I only see one thing I can ever do, if Mr Atkinson is not voted out by the time I finish University in 2012, then I am going to get a job in Australia, and then go and get a job transfer into Canada, and I don’t have to worry about being a crimminal all because I want to play R18+ videogames and Hentai games from Japan.

    If my country is going to class me as a criminal all because of my interests in Anime/Manga and Videogames, then I don’t need to live in this country that tells me that I have freedom of speech except for the things I love as a hobby.

    Move to Canada, walk away from Australia, and live a new life, that is what I am striving to do.

  7. Toejam Says:

    Thank you, Ben and Margaret. A great interview.

  8. Andy Says:

    I find it weird that her argument is that you should be allowed to watch things on film that aren't illegal, but the film she got in trouble for (Ken Park) contains all sorts of things that are illegal, like child abuse. I'm not sure what she's trying to say…

  9. Lyndon Says:

    I think her point is that you shouldn't be able to watch real depictions of illegal activities. So for example it's okay to watch a pretend murder and not okay to watch a real one. See the difference?

  10. Jake Says:

    She also may be touching on the irony in that depictions of legal activity is banned, while depictions of illegal activity is permitted.

  11. Jake Says:

    Haha, Good call… Margaret your seat is ready in S.A!
    And if that doesn't work out, grab a seat on the OFLC review committee =)

  12. Paul` Says:

    She means as long as it isn't actually real. A snuff film would obviously be illegal but those crappy Saw movies keep getting released.

  13. Juice. Says:

    Watch out tbontony, hentai is considered child pornography in canada, might wanna move to sweden instead.

  14. Alan Says:

    I find this an interesting debate when Australians so passively give up their rights to DO things (i.e. not smoke in public places) but fight so ferociously for their rights to SEE things. Personally, I agree with the view that classification and advice on content is more appropriate than banning. However, given the scientifically proven facts surrounding the effects of violence in the media and the proven inability of parents to regulate not only themselves, but also their children presents society with quite a dilema.
    P.S. I also can't wear this comment that not allowing violence stiffles the creativity of the game designer. What's creative about resorting to the same old, same old? Putting obstacles in a truely creative person's way surely encourages and gives them even more reason / opportunity to come up with something new and not thought of previously.

  15. Schmucktacular Says:

    Alan, please supply some sources for your assertion of "scientifically proven facts". In the meantime, here is some real evidence regarding the fallacy that media violence causes real-world violence: http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm

    As Dick Cavett put it, "There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?"

  16. Alan Says:

    Hi Schmucktacular, Thank you for your link to the research you have found. This study is new to me, and I found it very interesting in that it presents the proposition that most research is coming from the wrong end of the question. Not being a social scientist, I don't feel qualified to present a peer review of the work, but my only comment is that it is now relatively old reserach, having being published in 1998. I have attached some links to more recent studies which you might find interesting. There is heaps of it out there, as I am sure you probably know.

    http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/ande…

    http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/viol…

    P.S. Glib comments from commedians are amusing, and entertaining but in this debate they are hardly relevant.

  17. Matt Says:

    She means actual footage of illegal acts, not actors acting them out. I must say I disagree with her – what about docos that detail the real life of an ice addict or something? But, as Lyndon said, that's what she means.

Leave a Reply