Thursday April 27, 2006
Moving with the times
By ALLAN KOAY
For a long time now, the National Film Censorship Board (LPF) has been the brunt of jokes and criticism, and very rarely the recipient of praise. Film buffs and filmmakers alike may bear similar grouses, but the issue of censorship is probably as old as the world itself.
But recently, when Yasmin Ahmad’s Gubra and Amir Muhammad’s semi-documentary, Lelaki Komunis Terakhir (The Last Communist), were passed without cuts, Malaysians raised their heads in surprise. Two potentially controversial films allowed to be shown without cuts? Impossible!
 |
Mohd Hussain Shafie (above) says Amir Muhammad’s Lelaki Komunis Terakhir is nothing more than a historical documentary. |
“As far as Gubra is concerned, we are waiting for feedback about the film,” said Mohd Hussain. “As for us, we thought all the scenes were all right, and they had reasons why they put certain things in the film. And it fit our criteria. That is why we allowed it to be shown without cuts.
“But if the public has certain things they don't like about the film, or they disagree with us, we would also like to know. At least we can do our assessment and make adjustments for the future.”
Meanwhile, he also said Lelaki Komunis Terakhir was nothing short of a harmless documentary, despite it being about Chin Peng, exiled leader of the banned Communist Party of Malaya.
“When a film tries to promote the ideology, then we will not allow it,” Mohd Hussain explained. “Our prime function here is to look for things that threaten the security of the country. But from our assessment, the film is nothing more than a documentary about the historical things that people can even read in history books, or find them anywhere now.”
Asked if the censorship rules have been relaxed, he said the rules remain unchanged but the approach to them is being reviewed.
“We are changing the methods and approaches of looking at certain things,” he said. “With the changing times, we look at certain things with a different perspective ? Sometimes, when we only look at things from our own perspective and not take into account others' perspectives as well, we become limited in our views.”
This new approach, it seems from Mohd Hussain’s explanations, stems from his wish to get a more representative consensus among all parties, including the filmmakers themselves and also the public. He understands that certain things are not easily defined, and the vagueness is what often leads to a clash of opinions.
“When we let five or six people see the same thing, they will all have their own opinion about it, based on their experiences, their upbringing and perception,” he explained. “My duty is to bring together all these opinions and interpret what the majority's opinion might be and what the public at large might think.”
He cited “obscenity” as an example.
“To some people, showing a leg is obscene,” he said. “But to others it may be nothing. And nudity; what is nudity and how do we look at it? Which part can we show? Sometimes it is difficult to give an exact ‘measurement.’
 |
This may sound like quite a turnaround, especially after years of having the LPF dictate what the public should see and what they should not. But it does not mean that from now on, anything goes. Mohd Hussain stressed that there will still be a limit to everything, mostly due to culture and religion. He drew up a hypothetical scale of one to 10 to illustrate the reviewed approach to censorship.
“Maybe in the past, they took it up to only five,” he said. “Right now, we are trying to bring it up to seven. Let’s say 10 is the maximum allowed, and if the filmmakers move within 10, if we can allow them to, we will. So what comes after 10? After 10 is what the public cannot accept.”
Public opinion counts; however, as is so often the case, it only takes one person to complain about something before action is taken to ban a film or stop a stage performance. But Mohd Hussain gave the assurance that this will not be so.
“We cannot please everybody,” he said. “We are more concerned about what the public at large can accept. We would not be concerned if only one person writes in and complains about something. That is only his opinion and he may be looking at things only from his own perspective ... We are trying to get a general opinion on things.”
He also agreed that a scene should be looked at within the context of what the film, as a whole, is trying to convey. A violent scene may not be gratuitous but may be a statement on violence itself.
“We do try to watch a film and see it in its context,” he said. “But it still has to be within what the public can accept. The problem, at times, is that we might move too fast and the public at large may not be ready. Then we would be clashing again.”
But to read a film would require people who are well-versed in film and film language. Members of the LPF are only made up of ex-civil servants but from various disciplines such as the police, the armed forces, education, and others.
However, Haji Mohd Hussain said the members of the LPF are given training, and academics and experts are sometimes invited to give talks and seminars.
“We expose our members to all this to help them understand how to watch a film,” he added. “And we assess and monitor (their progress).”
Related stories:
RSS
