Susie O’Brien: Keep your consent labels off our movies

Affirmative consent is an important topic for sex ed class but less likely to be relevant to dark films with flawed characters making bad choices — so let’s keep the classification off our movies.

The Cate Blanchett movie Tar is mentioned by Consent Labs as needing a C classification.

It’s Oscars time.

Can we please talk about great movies, big stars and pretty dresses rather than diversity quotas, consent scenes and hashtags?

Sadly, no.

The 2023 Academy Awards ceremony has reignited the push for a new rating for movies from Consent Labs, an education provider offering respectful relationships training to young people. The organisation wants movies and TV shows to have a new classification – C – indicating Lack of Consent.

The Classification Board already takes violence and sex into account when rating movies, but doesn’t include a lack of on-screen affirmative consent. Affirmative consent, in case you’re wondering, involves explicit, informed and voluntary agreement.

I am all for students getting the best consent and respectful relationships training, but I wish this mob would get their hands off our movies.

Affirmative consent is a good topic for sex ed classes, but less likely to be relevant to dramatic movies with flawed characters making bad choices.

The Cate Blanchett movie Tar is mentioned by Consent Labs as needing a C classification.. Picture: Supplied

Movies, particularly the serious, dark ones that attract many awards, are rarely seen by viewers as primers for life, and shouldn’t be treated as such.

The same thing is happening with books. Roald Dahl’s been cleaned up and toned down by the sensitivity police, along with Enid Blyton audio books, as The Australian reported on Monday.

We are doing young people a grave disservice by spoon feeding them in this way, and allowing do-gooder groups to take ownership of our cultural products.

Consent Labs doesn’t want the offending scenes to be censored or removed, but think it’s important that people know the interaction isn’t sending the right messages.

I would argue people know this already.

In a press statement on Monday, the organisation argued that Academy-nominated movies such as Blonde, Tar and Triangle of Sadness need the benefit of their C rating.

Chief executive Angelique Wan said it would help Aussies make informed decisions about the content they’re consuming and educate them on the difference between consensual and non-consensual acts when seen on screen.

But since when do dark and dramatic movies have to educate us or help us make informed decisions?

Art and movies are not always pleasant and easy; sometimes they’re designed to shock people and promote uncomfortable feelings.

I reckon young people can watch a movie like Blonde and understand for themselves that its contents are highly disturbing and not a Saturday date night how-to.

This desire to reduce all romantic or sexual interaction to something clinical, neat and vanilla is doing us all a disservice.

Surely the aim is to teach our young people good values so they make good choices and treat each other with respect. Isn’t that more important than telling them what to say and do according to a pre-set plan?

I reckon young people – who are presumably the target audience for the C classification – can watch a movie like Blonde and understand for themselves that its contents are highly disturbing and not a Saturday date night how-to.

When it comes to Blonde, a deeper discussion needs to be had about the distressing scenes, including the graphic sexual assault of Marilyn Monroe by a casting director.

The movie has been rightly panned for its one-dimensional portrayal of Monroe and lack of compassion for her suffering.

We need better movies, more empathy to victims, more nuance and more real-life reactions rather than more classifications.

The Cate Blanchett vehicle Tar is another movie mentioned by Consent Labs as needing a C classification.

Such a simplistic approach overlooks the fact that conductor Lidia Tar is a deeply flawed individual with questionable judgment – viewers don’t need the Classification Board to teach them that.

Dark and deeply funny, Triangle of Sadness it’s full of unlikeable characters and unlikely situations, and its viewers will know this.

Another masterpiece in the Consent Lab sights is Triangle of Sadness, a movie that won the Cannes Palme d’Or. Dark and deeply funny, it’s full of unlikeable characters and unlikely situations, and its viewers will know this.

Consent Labs use their own research (yes, of course they do) to back up their call.

They say the push comes as 54 per cent of people have watched a movie or TV show with a non-consensual act.

But this doesn’t mean they are condoning the interaction, or will go out and use it as a primer for their own sexual advances.

They also say 57 per cent of Australians are unable to recognise non-consensual acts in popular films and TV shows.

Perhaps this is because the notion of consent has become so black and white and simplistic that people doubt their ability to identify it as something that happens in fumbling real-life interactions.

The Labs’ research shows 93 per cent of Australians want more education on sexual consent from school teachers, parents or workplaces. Oscar-chasing movie directors aren’t high on the list of preferred providers.

The C classification push infantilises young people and fails to give movie audiences the credit they deserve.

I give it an F.

Susie O’Brien is a Herald Sun columnist