“If this film is pornography, then the filmmakers are a disgrace to pornography,” counsel acting for the producers and distributors of the controversial film Inxeba told the high court in Pretoria yesterday.
The court earlier this month, by agreement between the parties, temporarily lifted the X-rating given to Inxeba (“The Wound”), and it was allowed back on mainstream cinema screens, pending the outcome of yesterday’s proceedings.
It was agreed that the film would, for now, carry an 18 age restriction and not be classified as pornography. But the applicants maintain that the film should carry a 16 age restriction, as it was initially classified by the Films and Publications Board.
The board’s appeal tribunal, however, reclassified the film to an X-rating, following appeals lodged by Contralesa Gauteng and The Man and Boy Foundation.
The applicants want the court to review and set aside the X-rated classification.
Their main argument is that the classification as hardcore pornography meant that the film could only be viewed at “adult premises”, which are known as “sex shops”, and no longer at mainstream cinemas.
Inxeba has won multiple awards at festivals across the world, and it recently won several honours at the South African Film and Television Awards at Sun City.
The board’s appeal tribunal, in reclassifying the film to pornography status, found that it held no artistic merit and that it contained three graphic sex scenes.
Judge Joseph Raulinga and counsel viewed the film on Monday, prior to yesterday’s court proceedings. The judge questioned whether the law did not allow the court to order that the sex scenes be deleted.
But advocate Steven Budlender, acting for the applicants, said this could never be allowed. He said that in any event, the three sex scenes were vital to the “extraordinary ending” of the film. “Your Lordship knows the extraordinary ending. It if were not for the three sex scenes, it would not make sense,” he said.
The judge commented that it was the extraordinary ending which bothered the cultural organisations opposing this application.
Budlender argued that the film did not deserve an X-rating and said the scenes were not graphic, as one would expect in an X-rated film.
“Your Lordship did not even see any genitals (in viewing the film). When you think about pornography you think of close-ups of genitals and drawn-out sex scenes,” Budlender said.
In referring to the cultural opposition, Judge Raulinga remarked that one should not simply think about the West, but also about African culture.
Advocate Viwe Notshe, acting for the appeal tribunal, said it found that Inxeba contained an anal sex scene. The judge remarked that there were no exposed genitals, but Notshe said there was exposed buttocks.
Advocate Dali Mpofu, acting for the cultural organisations, said it was a misrepresentation that their objections to the film had anything to do with homophobia.
“Let me tell you the matter has absolutely nothing to do with homophobia. Nothing. We are not talking about sex in a hotel. We are talking about it in the context of a mountain.”
Mpofu said the circumstances surrounding initiation were sacrosanct and sex under these circumstances was taboo.
Judgment was reserved.