An information sharing workshop by the Film and Publications Board at the Durban Film Festival yesterday quickly turned into a tense question-and-answer session that mainly revolved around the board’s banning of Jahmeel Qubeka’s Of Good Report, which was supposed to open the festival last week.
The debate arose as members of the board fielded questions from the floor following their presentation on their guidelines in classifying films.
The film’s producers, Mike Auret and Luzuko Dilima, were in the audience, which included other filmmakers, festival participants and members of the media.
Auret quoted Constitutional Court cases involving two films that had raised issues about film classification laws being too broad.
In the case of an Argentinian film called XXY, he said the board’s appeals tribunal had overturned the board’s initial ruling and unbanned the film.
“Now in 2013 you put a ban on a South African film with the same implications as XXY... Do you consider yourself negligent in that you didn’t inform the classification committee (which had viewed Of Good Report) of this case law which is relevant? And as a result of your decision you have damaged the reputation of this company and the actors involved.”
The acting chief operating officer of the board, Sipho Risiba, said the board respected that people had the right to express their opinions, but this was now a matter for the appeals tribunal.
“We support the decision made by the classifications committee (with regards to Of Good Report). From where we stand that decision was based on the law. We did refer them to the constitutional cases...
“We are not here to justify their decision. We have come under attack over the last few days... but we are unfazed...
“We will take it to the appeals tribunal. There have been times when the tribunal has ruled against us, and, in fact, they may rule against us now, and if that is so we will abide by their decision.”
Auret later questioned whether the board was being vindictive in the classification of the film.
Another member of the audience questioned whether it was normal for the classifiers to stop viewing before seeing a movie to its end.
Board spokesman Prince Mlimandlela Ndamase said the reason the board requested Of Good Report and seven other films that were to screen at the festival was because of elements in their synopses that raised a flag.
“There was an indication in the synopsis of this movie of a simulated sex scene involving a 16-year-old...
“We have accommodated a substantial amount of attacks from the creators of this film. We’ve been called retards, I have personally been threatened. But we have chosen not to respond to those attacks. We have not expressed being vindictive at any stage.
“This issue is no longer in our hands but in the hands of the tribunal. Their decision will be based not on the attacks on the board, but based on facts before them.”
Ndamase added the board had been in the forefront of highlighting issues such as those addressed in the film – a teacher’s sexual abuse of power over a pupil.
“We’ve been at the forefront of raising these issues. We do not contest the message of this film as the board. It is a topic we engage with consistently.
“However, it is how the classifiers view the film in terms of the law (as outlined by the Film and Publications Act).”
Mdamase said this was why the act was open for public opinion before it was gazetted.
“We have proof that we’ve engaged the public on these guidelines. We don’t want to interfere with your creative ideas, but it is important for you to understand the guidelines so that by the time you bring your film to the board, you know the guidelines that will be used to classify your film.”
As to the classifiers stopping the film at 28 minutes and six seconds, board members explained that, by law, classifiers can stop a film at any point if they deem part of it to be illegal.
“We don’t have a problem with the message of the film. The classifiers have to classify according to the act, we don’t classify on the basis of common sense. At all times the decision has to fall in line with the act,” said Mdamase.
On the appeal of Of Good Report, Mdamase said the appeals tribunal would try to sit by the end of the week.
The tribunal comprises chairman Professor Karthy Govender, Nomveliso Ntanjana, Dianne Terblanche, Kasturi Moodaliyar, Penny Marek, Hazel Devraj, David Bensusan, Professor Adelaide Simangele Magwaza and Reverend Mike McCoy.
How the board classifies movies:
• “Classification” means any decision by the Board in terms of the Film and Publications Act.
• The board has classification committees that do daily viewing and age ratings for film distribution in the country. The pool of classifiers is appointed by the Film and Publication Council, based on nomination. They have to be from varied backgrounds – including psychology, law and film – to ensure a balanced view is represented. A balance of race, gender, ethnicity and religion is also needed.
• A committee’s decision becomes the board’s decision.
• In the event that a decision is challenged, this can be done through the appeals tribunal (also known as the review board), which is an independent administrative tribunal. There have been cases where the tribunal has overturned the board’s initial ruling on films.
• If a party is still not happy with the outcome of the appeals tribunal, they can take the matter to a court of law, such as the Constitutional Court, which, should this happen in this case, the makers of Of Good Report have indicated they will do.