Must CUT! - 15 views

• 
  #3 Ang Yao Zong on 01 Sep 09

   

  Before I start, I should first say that this is coming from my previous experience as a non-professional film-maker hahaha......
  
  I feel that film producers and directors should have the freedom to express their thoughts and opinions in their films (and possess the "artistic licence" to do so). However, in the Singaporean context, there are film-makers that stay within the OB-markers but try to push its limits. Jack Neo is one of them, but one must realise that the film-makers that usually practice restrain (or self-censorship) are those whose films are deemed to be commercially viable (to be screend in all major theatres).
  
  Royston Tan's "15" (a short film about gangsterism in Singapore) was banned by the authorities previously. One of the reasons given was that rival gangs might take offence to the gang chants that were depicted in the film. He has since moved on to more "commercial" films such as "881" and "12 Lotus".
  
  This is where cinemas that screen the movie come in as the "1st line" of "moral defence" in deciding whether they should screen a controversial film. However, one should remember that in this day and age, one can easily find online versions of almost any film produced via online platforms.
  
  Perhaps the bottom line really boils down right to the individual and his/her autonomy to select the shows that he/she wants to watch. The government (in Singapore's case) has implemented different age restrictions to the various categories of film ratings (G, PG, NC-16, M-18, R-21), but one can argue that its effect is limited and is only but an attempt to construct an artificial barrier for local audiences.
  
  After all, I think most of us must have heard of stories of friends who bought tickets for a show that was "rated PG" and ended up in the movie theatre screening "Saving Private Ryan" when it was released with a restricted rating quite some time ago in Singapore. hehehe...
  
  
  Weiye Loh wrote:
  > http://yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1056.htm
  >
  > My friend asked: So, if we cut out these parts, we can submit again?
  > Yes, she said.
  > Fine, then, we'll do that. But where's the film?
  > You can't have it, she said. It's been rejected, so we're keeping it.
  >
  > [...]
  >
  > Instead of asking the film to be cut in France, the original country, and then having to courier the edited version back here -- it would take too long and cost too much -- we asked a filmmaker in Singapore to make the necessary edits for us.
  >
  > We asked her to insert a still frame at each point where she made a cut, as in the example on the left. We wanted our audience to know that what they were seeing was not the entire original but a mutilated version of it. We wanted them to know exactly where the cuts were made and how much. We believed it was important in terms of our transparency and accountability to our audience.
  >
  > This second version was resubmitted a few days later to the MDA.
  >
  > When my friend went back to collect it -- I was too busy to go with him -- the MDA told him it was rejected too. The censors said the still frames were not allowed. And this time, they insisted on retaining the copy.
  >
  >
  > ------------------
  > Ethical question: Who should be accountable for (non-)censorship? The producers or film makers? The screening cinemas/ organizations? Members of the public (to choose what they watch)? The government or some higher moral vigilante?
  >
  > Ethical problem: If censorship is absolutely necessary, what then is the best way to practice it given the varied stakeholders involved?

   

  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Before I start, I should first say that this is coming from my previous experience as a non-professional film-maker hahaha...... <br /> <br /> I feel that film producers and directors should have the freedom to express their thoughts and opinions in their films (and possess the "artistic licence" to do so). However, in the Singaporean context, there are film-makers that stay within the OB-markers but try to push its limits. Jack Neo is one of them, but one must realise that the film-makers that usually practice restrain (or self-censorship) are those whose films are deemed to be commercially viable (to be screend in all major theatres). <br /> <br /> Royston Tan's "15" (a short film about gangsterism in Singapore) was banned by the authorities previously. One of the reasons given was that rival gangs might take offence to the gang chants that were depicted in the film. He has since moved on to more "commercial" films such as "881" and "12 Lotus". <br /> <br /> This is where cinemas that screen the movie come in as the "1st line" of "moral defence" in deciding whether they should screen a controversial film. However, one should remember that in this day and age, one can easily find online versions of almost any film produced via online platforms. <br /> <br /> Perhaps the bottom line really boils down right to the individual and his/her autonomy to select the shows that he/she wants to watch. The government (in Singapore's case) has implemented different age restrictions to the various categories of film ratings (G, PG, NC-16, M-18, R-21), but one can argue that its effect is limited and is only but an attempt to construct an artificial barrier for local audiences. <br /> <br /> After all, I think most of us must have heard of stories of friends who bought tickets for a show that was "rated PG" and ended up in the movie theatre screening "Saving Private Ryan" when it was released with a restricted rating quite some time ago in Singapore. hehehe... <br /> <br /> <br /> Weiye Loh wrote: <br /> > <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1056.htm">http://yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1056.htm</a> <br /> > <br /> > My friend asked: So, if we cut out these parts, we can submit again? <br /> > Yes, she said. <br /> > Fine, then, we'll do that. But where's the film? <br /> > You can't have it, she said. It's been rejected, so we're keeping it. <br /> > <br /> > [...] <br /> > <br /> > Instead of asking the film to be cut in France, the original country, and then having to courier the edited version back here -- it would take too long and cost too much -- we asked a filmmaker in Singapore to make the necessary edits for us. <br /> > <br /> > We asked her to insert a still frame at each point where she made a cut, as in the example on the left. We wanted our audience to know that what they were seeing was not the entire original but a mutilated version of it. We wanted them to know exactly where the cuts were made and how much. We believed it was important in terms of our transparency and accountability to our audience. <br /> > <br /> > This second version was resubmitted a few days later to the MDA. <br /> > <br /> > When my friend went back to collect it -- I was too busy to go with him -- the MDA told him it was rejected too. The censors said the still frames were not allowed. And this time, they insisted on retaining the copy. <br /> > <br /> > <br /> > ------------------ <br /> > Ethical question: Who should be accountable for (non-)censorship? The producers or film makers? The screening cinemas/ organizations? Members of the public (to choose what they watch)? The government or some higher moral vigilante? <br /> > <br /> > Ethical problem: If censorship is absolutely necessary, what then is the best way to practice it given the varied stakeholders involved?</div>

  ...

  Cancel

To Top