 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 Nov. - 1 Dec. 1999 Issue No. 457 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 25 Nov. - 1 Dec. 1999 Issue No. 457
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Profile Travel Living Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Plain talk
By Mursi Saad El-Din
Whenever the Cairo International Film Festival is held the question of censorship is raised. I believe that according to the rules of international film festivals, films should be shown without any interference from the censor. And in fact the Cairo festival, for several rounds now, has always abided by this rule. This explains the hordes of young people who flock into cinemas in the rather banal hope of finding some sex scenes.
We are all opposed to any kind of censorship but alas, it exists in many countries and under many guises.
I was intrigued to read what might be termed the "confessions of a censor" in the form of an article entitled "Porn, violence and what the public wants" by Andreas Whittam-Smith, founding editor of The Independent and currently the president of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). In this article he explains a new step taken by the board -- organising public meetings with a view of finding out what people really want.
Whittam-Smith believes that the purposes of such meetings are purely democratic. They are not, he emphasises, an exercise in market research, but rather an attempt to gauge the public reaction to decisions made by the board. If you restrict citizen's freedoms, he says, "you must regularly explain what you are doing and why and answer publicly for your actions."
The BBFC president mentions an interesting question that was raised in one of the meetings convened as part of this process of consultation. A French film called Romance, in which far more explicit scenes than the board would normally allow was passed "uncut". The question raised was whether the board would have treated Romance so leniently had it been an English or America production. In other words does the board find explicit sex more acceptable if they occur in a foreign language film?
The board's president is refreshingly candid in his answer, insisting that one thing that must be taken into account is the likely audience for any given film. Art house movies, and the cinemas that specialise in their screening, do not appeal to mass audiences, and therefore the products that they do choose to screen may well be treated differently to those intended for a more general release.
The meetings with would-be audiences were valuable, he says, in disclosing people's attitudes to violence. One member of the audience asked why explicit violence in the context of war is acceptable (referring to Saving Private Ryan), when explicit sex in the context of a loving relationship is not passed for viewing by the same age group.
The article also reveals some interesting facts about the legislation governing what can and what cannot be seen, including details of the Video Recording Act which is based upon a blunt and by no means incontestable premise that "videos can harm both the individual and society". Until now there is no consensus on whether or not this is true. No conclusive research has been done to illustrate the existence of a simple, causal link between viewing and subsequent action. Yet such a link appears to have gained wide currency in the minds of the majority.
Finally there was an interesting proposal by a participant in one of the meetings. As no guidelines can be exhaustive, he said, would it not be better to leave the decision as to what people can watch either to themselves or their parents, based on advisory ratings by BBFC? Which, of course, is precisely what does happen. And is precisely what happens in the Cairo Film Festival. So just what are all those crowds doing clamouring around a cinema showing an obscure Polish film?
