SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's chief censor, Amy Chua, says she loves human interest films -- the kind where the humble protagonist succeeds against all odds.
"Erin Brockovich," "Billy Elliot" and "Million Dollar Baby" are among her favorites. "Cut," in which Singapore director Royston Tan settled a score with the censors for mutilating one of his films, is not.
In "Cut," a film buff chases a frumpy censor as she wheels her cart down a supermarket aisle, and reels off a string of films which the bureaucrat had snipped -- from "Lost in Translation" to "Titanic." "Cut" itself, first shown in 2004, was not censored.
"This film misrepresents the Board of Film Censors (BFC) because we are portrayed as being "scissors-happy" when this is far from the truth," Chua, the BFC's chairwoman, told Reuters. "I'd prefer if we are viewed as classifiers rather than censors.
The film won a following among cineastes in the city-state, where an outing to the cinema often used to be memorable not so much for the film itself as for the jerky edits excising bare breasts, sex scenes and obscenities.
"'Cut' is a plea from the Singapore film industry," said Tan.
However, Singapore's long-standing stranglehold over content is being eroded thanks to technology, now that many films can be downloaded for free over the Internet.
Two years ago, following a review of censorship practices, Singapore revised its classification of films and videos, giving a wider range of ratings. Now there is a category for viewers over 18 years old, in addition to existing ones for 16-plus and 21-plus. Now there is less need to cut "adult" scenes as a film can be rated for a mature audience.
NUDES AND PRUDES
"Censorship is a reflection of a country's social norms and values," said Chua, a demure woman in her 50s who is in charge of content for film, video, broadcast and publications at the information ministry's Media Development Authority (MDA).
"In Scandinavia full nudity (on screen) might not be a problem, but if we had full nudity, parents would complain."
The censors' vetting of videos brought into the country for personal use may be eliminated next, Chua said.
The addition of the category for over 18s gave viewers more choice while protecting younger audiences, she said. As a result, films that deal with controversial issues -- at least for Singapore -- can be seen in cinemas.
The city-state officially outlaws gay sex.
Wong Kar-Wai's gay love story "Happy Together" was shown first at a film festival but was not allowed for commercial distribution under the old rating system.
But award-winning "Brokeback Mountain," based on Annie Proulx's story about two gay cowboys, was shown uncut this year.
"It didn't really glorify homosexuality as a lifestyle, and scenes were tastefully shot," said Chua who, as head of the BFC, reviews controversial films such as "Brokeback Mountain" and "Kinsey," which is based on the life of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey.
But Tan, the Singaporean director, ran afoul of censors with his film about local youth gangs: "15" had 27 cuts for offensive language, violence and gang chants which the authorities feared might incite violence and glorify gang culture.
SEX, VIOLENCE AND POLITICS
Singapore's sensitivities extend beyond sex, violence and swear words to political, racial and religious issues, reflecting more than four decades of one-party rule and a population mix of ethnic Chinese, Malays and Indians.
The People's Action Party, which has dominated politics since independence in 1965, has repeatedly used defamation lawsuits against opposition politicians. In the run-up to the May 6 general election, the government warned Singaporeans against posting political commentary in blogs and podcasts.
Last year, Singaporean film director Martyn See had to withdraw his documentary on opposition politician Chee Soon Juan from a film festival. See was then questioned by police, who confiscated copies of the film as well as his film equipment.
"Political subjects can be treated in a film. It's how you treat it, whether it's balanced," said Chua who spent most of her career at Singapore's state broadcaster making documentaries and managing programing.
The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) said last year that "party political films are disallowed because they are an undesirable medium for political debate in Singapore." MICA said "the ban here is only on films which deal with political issues in a partisan manner."
The See saga prompted a member of the public, Kelvin Lau Jit Hwee, to write to a local newspaper pointing out that the state-owned broadcaster had screened a series about government leaders: Could they also have violated regulations and face investigation by police, he asked.
The government said the series did not breach the Films Act "as the discussions were conducted in a non-partisan manner."
"Things have improved, but it's often a case of two steps forward, one step back," said poet and writer Felix Cheong.
2 Jun 2006
In Singapore, a censor's cuts and sensibilities
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Interesting, Amy Chua. I suggest you are spending more time back at your HDB flat making leather dilgos for your girl friends. Your knowledge of the film industry nil.
leather what? keep it clean please. We will have not of that in here please.
It's weird that the people in charge of the creative industries are typically executives who aren't equipped with the know-how and objectivity to deal with the arts. Who needs prudes and Christians like Amy Chua to tell us what to watch? We can form our own opinions thank you very much.
The Film Censor Board is generally composed of a panel of non-professionally trained people from all walks of life who are not trained in principles of film appreciation or criticism or filmmaking. They could be your statutory board civil servant, or a professor from some university, or whoever has been selected from amongst a list. Film appreciation is generally placed last, and the principles of affirming what is viewed as "integrity" etc. come first. I am not even trying to talk about how much there is a standard or criterion to upkeep.
To rebut, the BFC is not in charge, they mainly just classify. It may be held by extreme libertarians that no censorship/classification should be done. I would agree in the space of the persons being able to do what they want. However, in the public space, it is a different issue. As it affects all, likewise even in the liberal areas of Aust/NZ/UK,there are zoning areas and also film classifications as per the comfort zone of the countries concerned. So the arguments raise do not hold water as the Singapore BFC decides the comfort zones being a reflection of the main crosssection of society.
Am I reading this right??? "...classifiers rather than censors"?! Who is Amy Chua kidding? It's almost insult to intellect of all movie-goers to make such a blatantly untrue statement. Or perhaps she's too ignorant to know anything about what's really going on in the cutting room while she sits behind her mahogany desk on the 52nd floor.
It is FACT that the board practices censorship on ALL levels (i.e. from nudity to politics). Censorship defeats the purpose of classification, since the purpose of classification is to inform viewers of potentially offensive content. Amy Chua bears the typical Big Brother mentality (no doubt that's how she got to the position she's in now) that Singaporeans cannot make their own decisions nor handle the material they are exposed to. If parent's are going to complain, then maybe Amy Chua should let them have a go at being the 'responsible' people they should be and NOT bring their kids to watch a particular feature.
Finally, I am hoping most of you here will see how Amy Chua further proves how redundant the BFC really is. When she mentions scenes from Kinsey and Brokeback Mountain, they were exceptional and "tastefully" shot. In her opinion, they did not glorify homosexuality. Umm..so essentially there are no clear lines when it comes to censorship then.. If a "cross-section" of society deems it tasteful, then the rest should find it suitable as well? Tell that to the staunch religious groups!
This is the problem with censorship; apart from being an extremely short-sighted attempt to control intellectual exposure (thanks to file-sharing, piracy etc), it is also intellectual dictatorship. It allows people such as Amy Chua to climb into a position to assume moral ground and control what you see. Far from 'classifiers', it allows people like Amy to snip away like a woman in her rose garden, and then blatantly lie to your face. Ingorance is bliss indeed.
Clyde
BFC censors/classify based on the request or requirement of the film owner/conglomerate. Hence, if they want a more broad audience, than censorhip occurs. If not, than little if any censorship is done under R21. The staunch religious may object but they still do it within the BFC guidelines and most if not all released eg Da Vinci Code(which I disagree personally).
If you claim that they BFC are not representative of the cross section of society but should only represent the "creative" & "arty-farty", than this would be a separate argument.
I'm not going to blame the film industry. Because they are not the ones who set the guidelines for what constitutes a PG, NC-16/18, R21 film. I can sympathise with why Warner Bros might reach a broader audience at the cost of censorship. It's all about the dollars. But my qualms are with the unjustified restrictions imposed by the BFC. The result is plenty of over-21s watching vandalised films. And that makes me wonder why taxpayers are paying to run a redundant organisation to ruin their evenings every Friday/Saturday night.
Post a Comment