ASA Adjudication on Paramount Pictures UK

Ad

A TV ad, for the film “Tropic Thunder”, appeared on the Setanta pub channel. The ad showed scenes from the film which included characters saying “This motherfucker’s dead” and “You’re the dumbest motherfucker that ever lived”. A character was shown holding a severed head dripping blood. Another character hit his own hand with a mallet.

Issue

A viewer, who saw the ad during a football match screened at her local conservative club, complained that the graphic scenes and swearing were offensive and inappropriate.

BCAP TV Code

BCAP TV Scheduling Code

Response

Paramount said the campaign had finished and they did not intend to broadcast the ad again.  

Setanta, the broadcaster that cleared the ad, said the target audience for their pub channel was adults.  They explained that it was impossible to obtain accurate audience figures because they would vary depending on the popularity of the featured programming, the fact that not everyone in the pub was there to watch TV, and the size of each establishment.  They said 90% of ads on the pub channel were cleared by Clearcast because they were also broadcast on home channels, and any pub-specific ads were cleared internally by them.

Setanta argued that in the context of a pub environment, the swearing in the ad was not sufficient to cause offence against generally accepted standards.  They believed the use of humour throughout the ad would reduce the risk of offence, and that the swearing would take a secondary role behind the action and humour of the piece, reducing its impact significantly.  They said, when they considered the likely effect of scenes in the ad, they had concluded that although they contained bad language and violence, they would be unlikely to encourage similar behaviour in any children who might see it, due to their humorous content and 'spoof' nature.  They pointed out that the voice-over made clear that the film was about a group of actors filming a war movie.  They said the severed head was described as a "prop" and the clip of a character hitting his own hand with a mallet was brief and showed a character hitting a butterfly which sat on his hand, in a clearly comic manner.  They maintained that the ad did not condone violence or bad behaviour, and that it was aimed at an adult audience rather than children.

Setanta pointed out that two of the broadcasts that attracted the complaint were shown relatively late in the day, at 17.15 and 18.15.  They considered that pubs were not traditionally establishments suitable for children, and the number of young people present at any time of the day was low.  They said, as a consequence, scheduling restrictions were not appropriate.  They believed it was adults decision and responsibility to take children into pubs and they should recognise the likelihood of adult language being used, particularly during sporting events.  They pointed out that the Code acknowledged it was not easy to predict the reactions of children of different ages and each case was required to be judged on its own merits.  Setanta added that, because children must be supervised by adults when in pubs, that further minimised the likelihood of the ad causing fright and distress.  They said the voice-over and dialogue made it clear that the characters in the film were themselves "acting" and the scenes depicted should therefore not be interpreted seriously by the audience.  They pointed out that the Code stated that "theatrical" violence, included in action films, was generally acceptable, as was violence which had a stylised "cartoon" or "slapstick" quality.  They said that clearly applied given the context of the film. They maintained that the blood and violence shown were exaggerated and unrealistic, and believed that would be apparent to young people.  They also believed many viewers would recognise the actors Ben Stiller and Steve Coogan as featuring in films with slapstick humour.

Assessment

Upheld

The ASA noted the viewer reported seeing the ad at 15:00, 17.15 and 18.15, during coverage of weekend football matches.  We also noted the ad contained repeated use of a swear word that was generally regarded as highly offensive, along with graphic footage of a severed head with its contents dripping, and other scenes that featured blood and violence.  We noted Setanta's argument that the ad appeared on a pub channel, and that it was parents decision to take their children in to a pub and that they should be prepared for the possibility of encountering swearing and anti-social behaviour in a pub environment, especially during sporting events.  We noted, however, that pub channels could also be seen at licensed premises such as social clubs, which catered for families with children.  We concluded that the ad was offensive and unsuitable for broadcast during the afternoon and early evening.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 6.1 (Offence), 7.4.1 (Mental Harm), 7.4.7 (Use of Scheduling Restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) Rules on the Scheduling of Advertising rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children).

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)