|
Browsing on the worldwide net for news about films, one easily comes across ratings from all over the world. Finland, Hong Kong, Sweden, UK, Australia. All take an interest in what their citizens should and should not see. Malta is no different.
 We keep our roads and valleys clean and chase cigarette smoke out of our restaurants. There is no reason why our public cinemas should not similarly respond to discipline.
But censorship is not a nice word. Ideally, it is exercised by the few over many for the good of society. At best it comes over as bitter but necessary medicine.
Censorship, like all control, has its correct and incorrect times. It is unpopular when the going is good, but in urgent demand when things go wrong.
When we get the wrong medicine, or find that we have been duped by adverts, or wake up to the disappearance of a lovely building, then we all demand that the public watchdogs should have done their duty.
Opponents of censorship usually ask questions like, “Who decides what is good for me? Why should I not be able to decide for myself what I want? Why should anyone restrict my freedom? Why cannot I, in my own country, see and do whatever is permissible in others? Why must we have different standards?”
Theoretically, of course, these questions make sense. There is nothing so precious as freedom to do what you want; and nobody should be allowed to restrict that freedom. Democracy has come into existence precisely because we all value our freedom.
But we live in a society where no man is a little island on his own: and even if we don’t think that God has a right to interfere with us, we have to face the reality of dysfunctional members among his subjects. We have laws to safeguard our freedom. Democracy and laws are best when they interfere least. Too many laws are a sign of distress in some form.
Censorship is high under dictatorships. We have only to remember Nazi and Communist regimes. It is bad to build human relations on strict conformity and censorship.
But a modicum of control on what goes on in society is necessary. We do not want to be had by the few unscrupulous ones.
Easy resort to banning and censoring never did any good, nor will it ever lead to a better society. It is as bad as the easy lynching that the unruly mob often requires.
But the wise man keeps his feet on the ground. As there are those among us who threaten anathemas at the screech of a pen, so there are the trouble makers, the sensationalist mongers, the tail-less monkeys who would have all creatures cut off their tails to be like them.
In the last resort – and only in the last resort – censorship exists. With films for the cinemas it usually amounts to classification of age limits. Some films come out in different lengths for different countries (Eyes Wide Shut) and some films daren’t make an appearance everywhere. At the same time censorship, like all systems of control can always be refined and made more honest and bearable.
The truth is, that if we value our liberty we must always be on our guard. Persuasion is always preferable, but the unscrupulous must never be allowed to thwart our liberty.
Norbert Ellul-Vincenti is art critic for The Times and member on the censorship board
Censorship is a crime against liberty and freedom. Censorship is a tactic used either by dictators or by the church in the middle-ages when it assigned certain books (many of which were classics or masterpieces) to the famous list of books no one could read, a tactic that the church itself has abandoned.
 I find it highly hypocritical of our country to scorn Muslims for their recent outburst against the Mohammed cartoons and then retain and adhere censorship on the arts. I will not go into the controversy of the Mohammed cartoons here, lest some fanatic should attack this newspaper or one of my productions (No… these things don’t happen in Malta!) and besides it is not my competence to do so. However, how can we deride a culture for its reaction and then allow a law in our country that silences expression because material is deemed controversial by a couple of experts?
I believe that if issues and beliefs are not challenged, they become stagnant. However, censorship is a threat to this challenge. If issues and belief, even values, are not challenged, they become irrelevant and with our law on censorship we are promoting just that. It is no wonder that in all democratic countries censorship is a crime of the past. No nation anywhere still allows its government to treat it like a child and decide what is best for it.
My main field of work is theatre and, by law, for every production I must submit my chosen script to the censors and pay them a fee to approve it. The censors, on the other hand, might opt to cut out certain parts of the play or stop the production altogether. I will be honest and admit that so far, I’ve never had trouble with the censors but then that could change any day because of my stubborn attraction to controversial material. I understand and accept the compromise of classification, because it is understandable that certain material needs a more mature audience, but that’s as far as I am prepared to be tolerant.
My argument against censorship is that, at the end of the day, it is irrelevant. When I put on a production, I invite people to attend. Those who deem the subject matter as offensive may just decline the invitation and no one is hurt. If what I put on is a slur, then let those who I slur sue me, but it is never anyone’s right to stop me expressing myself, or anyone else for that matter, through my art.
I tend to get the vibes from these people who believe in censorship that they do not accept that one should understand and comprehend. Rather, they would prefer to dictate what is produced because they believe that rather than understand and comprehend, people should consent and accept without questioning. It is like what Geddy Lee sings in Rush’s famous Witch Hunt: “Those who know what’s best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.”
I conclude with the description Geddy Lee ascribes to censors in the same song: “The righteous rise, With burning eyes Of hatred and ill-will. Madmen fed on fear and lies To beat and burn and kill. . . Quick to judge, Quick to anger, Slow to understand Ignorance and prejudice And fear walk hand in hand.”
Adrian Buckle is artistic director at Unifaun
|
