1. Introduction -- 2. Methodology -- 2.1. Panel recruitment and specifications -- 2.2. Panel procedure -- 3. Classification decisions by the panels and by the board -- 3.1. Films where the classifications differed -- 3.2. Comparison of all classifications by the panels and the board -- 4. Classifiable elements -- 4.1. Violence -- 4.2. Language -- 4.3. Sex -- 4.4. Adult themes -- 5. Interpretation by the panels of the guidelines -- 5.1. G / PG classifications -- 5.2. M / MA classifications -- 5.3. R / Refused classification -- 6. Further comparisons between the board and the panels -- 6.1. Panel training -- 6.2. Comparison with other films -- 6.3. Third person effect -- 6.4. Young audience appeal -- 6.5. 'Copy-cat' effect -- 7.0. Sydney community assessment panel -- 7.1. Sydney panel procedure -- 7.2. Sydney panel composition -- 7.3. Sydney panel's responses to Fairytale - A True Story -- 7.4. Sydney panel's responses to A Life Less Ordinary -- 7.5. Sydney panel's responses to One Eight Seven -- 7.6. Conclusions - Sydney panel -- 8.0. Brisbane community assessment panel -- 8.1. Brisbane panel procedure -- 8.2. Brisbane panel composition -- 8.3. Brisbane panel's responses to Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway -- 8.4. Brisbane panel's responses to Tomorrow Never Dies -- 8.5. Brisbane panel's responses to The Winter Guest -- 8.6. Conclusions - Brisbane panel -- 9.0. Wagga Wagga community assessment panel -- 9.1. Wagga Wagga panel procedure -- 9.2. Wagga Wagga panel composition -- 9.3. Wagga Wagga panel's responses to Anastasia -- 9.4. Wagga Wagga panel's responses to Primary Colors -- 9.5. Wagga Wagga panel's responses to Dangerous Beauty -- 9.6. Conclusions - Wagga Wagga panel.ed c
Analysis
Attitudes
Censorship classifications
Community participation
Federal issue
Films
Opinion surveys
Violence
Notes
"15 June 1998"
"J84/97"
At head of cover: Office of Film and Literature Classification
"Prepared for Office of Film and Literature Classification"
