Others in the cast and crew, including its young stars, spoke eloquently about their disappointment and dismay over the decision. The 23 year old actress who plays a the female student insisted there was "no graphic sex." She was almost in tears, and still shaken when I spoke to her at a festival event later in the evening.
Many
members of the audience were outraged, calling for a petition, and protest. They also asked on local politicians
at the event to speak out. The decision touched off a storm of critical media
attention throughout South Africa..
The film is has also been accepted for screening at prominent film festivals worldwide, including the prestigious Toronto Film Festival. The furor over the banning has already become news worldwide. South Africa's The Independent reports, "artists and filmmakers around the world are calling for the unbanning."
South African filmmakers were meeting at the film festival to organize a united response which may include picketing the board.
These protests are likely to continue.
In
one sense, this has become the most provocative film never shown, the first
film to be banned since South Africa won its freedom in 1994. Director Qubeka
told the Sunday Times, "overnight, this has changed my life"the support I am
getting overseas is ridiculous.
The Festival and the producers are appealing a decision that seemed to be premised on a law built around the idea that if you show or even hint at some behavior, you are encouraging it.
One woman in the audience said the government agency mistook "a victim of sexual abuse with a subject of sexual attraction."
The
Mercury newspaper reported that the "Film and Publication Board has a special
project focusing on what it considers to be child pornography." Its website ( http://fpb.org.za/ ) seeks the public,
rather vaguely, to report "what they might consider child pornography."
Writing in Variety, my colleague on the film project I am working on, South Africa's top film publicist, Dezi Rorich, reported the board's response: "The fact that the committee refused classification does not mean that it does not have artistic merit. It is implementing legislation."
Yoliswa Makhasi, CEO of the Film and Publication Board, said. "The
decision of the classification committee is informed by the Film and
Publications Act, and the committee is required by law to refuse classification
(if the film contravenes that law). It is merely implementing the legislation."
Makhasi added, "The minute there is any element of
child pornography, as defined in the Act, the committee has to stop
viewing." It was around 28 minutes into the film when the committee made
its decision."
This prompted producer Mike Mills to retort, "this is a problem
because it means they did not bother to see the rest of the film. You cannot
take a feature film and sum it up in one scene. The overall narrative must be
taken into account."
The film's producer, Mike Auret, a lawyer, said he would take
the issue to the Constitutional Court.
"It is not the function of state to moralize"if the committee was acting
within a law of South Africa, that law is unconstitutional," he insisted
angrily.
Violations
of the Film Board's codes are subject to penalties of up to ten years in jail.
The Board did say they would not recommend prosecution Of Good Report until all appeals are decided. They issued a
statement Monday warning than anyone with copies of the film will be arrested.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
