I have my own cinema here in the office where I watch about 300 films a year, but because it is in a work context I am rarely that affected by what I watch. But something like Sleepless in Seattle, now, I came out of that all red-eyed - I cry at the movies all the time!
Film has always been my area. I started out working for the Evening Press as a photographer, studied cinematography in Canada and came back to work in RTE, where I eventually became head of current affairs. I went on from there to Ardmore Studios in Bray, Co Wicklow and then I worked on a number of documentaries; I produced and directed a series with Peter Ustinov, and we were in the garden with her when Indira Gandhi was shot. Making another programme I was once stuck in a coup in the Philippines, and another time I was in Cyprus when Turkey invaded.
These days I get up early to play golf and get into the office for around 9 a.m. I do the usual administrative stuff for the first couple of hours and then look at a film. In the afternoon there would be meetings and more administration. There are 18 people working here, with responsibility for classifying videos, general administration - and of course we have a projectionist for the cinema. We would sometimes meet with Department of Justice officials, to discuss some sort of administrative thing.
Our office is an associate office of the department of Justice. However, it is entirely independent and self financing. This is all circumscribed by the legislation under which we operate, the Censorship of Films Act 1923-1992. It was one of the first pieces of legislation passed by the State - number 23 in 1923.
The first film censor was James Montgomery, who was quite wary of the Catholic Church. He once described his job as placing him "between the devil and the Holy See". The legislation itself is not specific. Essentially, material considered subversive to public morality or blasphemous is called into question. But how you define that is quite open, so it allows the censor to move with the times. My own interpretation has shifted over the last 13 years. The criterion I would tend to use would be public opinion. You learn to develop an awareness of that - partly through the correspondence we get here.
Language, sex and violence are the things you'd look at, and it would depend on the context in which they were used in the film. Violence is more of an issue for me personally, particularly gratuitous violence and violence which can easily be replicated, which is why I banned Natural Born Killers. I have a policy of not cutting at all. Sometimes the distributors would ask for cuts on the basis that they'll get a wider audience with a less restrictive certificate - but in my opinion it's up to me to leave the film intact and give it a higher certificate. The distributor has the right to appeal my decision. The appeal board meets about three or four times a year. Recently, for example, I gave Wild Wild West a 15 cert; it was appealed and the board changed it to 12.
We are also responsible here for video, under the Video Recording Act 1989 - we classify about 3,000 videos a year. Distributors send in videos, as do the gardai and custom and excise officers. If they are what we would call hardcore pornography, we would prohibit them. Usually two people would look at a video in on of our viewing rooms and make a report. If there are any doubts, there would be a general consultation. We are also responsible for ads and posters and I have to approve all the film trailers.
I am actually one of the only "film censors" left in the world. People who regulate film and video are generally called "regulators" these days. I'd like to see my own title changed: I don't censor, I classify.
Although I wouldn't necessarily choose to watch about 80 per cent of the films I see here, I never find it boring. Even the bad ones fascinate me: I am intrigued by how, having managed to raise so much money, that anyone could then go on and spend it so badly!
In an interview with Jackie Bourke
