ASA Adjudication on Curzon Artificial Eye Ltd

Ad

A national press ad for the film 'Antichrist', which appeared in The Times, The Guardian and The Independent, showed a naked man and woman having sex. They seemed to be lying at the base of a tree, from which hands protruded. Text stated "WHEN NATURE TURNS EVIL, TRUE TERROR AWAITS ... 18 CONTAINS STRONG REAL SEX, BLOODY VIOLENCE AND SELF-MUTILATION". The ad contained several quotes from reviews, including " ... CINEMA AT ITS MOST EXTREME ... THE STRANGEST AND MOST ORIGINAL HORROR MOVIE OF THE YEAR ... NOTHING CAN PREPARE YOU FOR THE EXPERIENCE OF ANTICHRIST. NOTHING ... THE MOST SHOCKING FILM IN THE HISTORY OF THE CANNES FILM FESTIVAL ...".

Issue

Seven complainants, some of whom said the ad's imagery was pornographic, thought the depiction of a naked couple having sex was offensive and inappropriate for publication in a newspaper where it might be seen by children.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Artificial Eye Film Company (AEFC) said the image of the naked couple having sex was the international key art design for the film, which their sales agent supplied to them.  They had a relatively short amount of time to release the film in the UK and decided to use the artwork provided.  They also produced an alternative ad, consisting of quotes from reviews but no images, for publishers and outdoor venues to use if they found the original design unsuitable.  AEFC thought The Times, The Guardian and The Independent were read by adults, not children, so saw no reason to change the ad for appearance in those publications, which all editorially approved the ad.

AEFC said the advertising campaign for the film's cinema release had now ended but, as a result of the complaints, they would ensure that the image of the naked couple was not used in any advertising for the DVD release of the film.

The Times' view was that the amount of flesh on display was not excessive and the imagery was not pornographic, because they did not believe there was an intent to create sexual excitement.  They said that, although the newspaper might be seen by children, the reader would need to be reasonably adult to understand what was being portrayed.  They argued, furthermore, that the context was surreal and dream-like; the effect of the tree and hands was to alter the image so that it was less literal.  They believed the image, taken as a whole, was therefore not as offensive as ordinarily would be expected from a depiction of a couple having sex.  According to their records, they had received no complaints about the ad. However, they did understand that the ad had offended some people, which was not their intention.  They said the ad was not scheduled to run again.

The Guardian said they had received no complaints, as far as they were aware.  They explained that they scrutinised the copy for all ads before carrying them and had paid particular attention to this one, because of the nature of the film it promoted and the publicity surrounding that film.  They believed the ad was not offensive or pornographic, because the image was not explicit and the ad contained no swear words or obscenities.  They said the film was controversial but thought the ad promoting it was not.  They stated that The Guardian was aimed firmly at an adult audience and they thought the ad would not have caused serious or widespread offence to their readers.

The Independent said both the film and the newspaper were aimed at adults; they did not publish a children's page or section, and did nothing to recruit readers of school age.  They said the newspaper was editorially challenging and its readers tended to be intelligent, well educated, and much less likely than the national average to have children under 15 years of age in the household.  They expected those readers who did have children under 15 (less than one-third of their readership) to use discretion and common sense regarding leaving children unsupervised with the paper.  They stated that the ad appeared within the main news section, not on the cover, so was less likely to be spotted by non-readers.  Although they recognised that the ad's imagery was intended to be provocative, they felt it was no more graphic than many other ads or editorials that appeared in other newspapers or media which were equally, if not more likely, to be seen by children.  They had received no complaints to date about the ad.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA considered that the ad, which had a dark tone, was unlikely to cause sexual excitement and was therefore not pornographic.  We were of the view that The Times, The Guardian and The Independent were read mostly by adults and, although the possibility of children seeing the ad in those publications could not be ruled out, we considered it unlikely.  If children did see the ad, we considered it was not particularly explicit and the dream-like context, introduced by the hands protruding from the tree (or roots), had the effect of making the image of the naked couple seem removed from reality.  We noted the film itself contained graphic scenes of sex, and considered that readers would understand that the image of the naked couple in the ad was relevant to the advertised product.  We considered that the ad did not go too far in its depiction of the film's content, and was unlikely to be seen as irresponsible or cause serious or widespread offence to readers of The Times, The Guardian and The Independent.

We investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising) and 5.1 (Decency) but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)