“This film has been refused classification by the film and
publications board, in terms of the Film and Publications Act of 1996.
Unfortunately we may not legally screen the film Of Good Report as doing
so would constitute a criminal offence.“

That was the statement on the screen in which Jahmil XT Qubeka‘s follow-up to A Small Town Called Descent titled Of Good Report was supposed to premiere in; the film was censored instead on its scheduled opening night at the 34th Durban International Film Festival (DIFF), in Durban, South Africa, on July 18.

To recap on Tambay’s post from a few days ago, several DIFF attendees were outraged at the unanimous decision of 4 board members of the Film and Publications Act of 1996, a South African Parliament act – formed post-apartheid by the way – to assess media (including cinema) and regulate it according to what they deem appropriate to their respective audiences. For the sake of understanding these regulations, or try to, one could compare – albeit loosely – this act to the MPAA here in the USA.

The
Act currently prohibits films or publications that advocate war, violence, and
hatred especially if based on race, ethnicity, gender and religion.

However, Qubeka’s film – described as “Little Red Riding Hood from the wolf’s perspective,” wasn’t exactly banned for violating the aforementioned. The word from “opposers” of Of Good Report – which centers on a demented schoolteacher who has a sexual
relationship with a 16-year-old student and later attempts to get away with murder, is that it “promotes child abuse & pornography.“

Defenders of the film, according to The Guardian, are accusing South Africa of apartheid-style censorship, especially since Of Good Report is the first mainstream film banned since the end of apartheid in 1994. Said defenders claim that the film raises social issue awareness when it comes to teachers who sexually prey on schoolgirls. To their chagrin, the decision to censor the film was a consensus of a four-member panel from the film and publications board, who made their decision after ONLY watching 28 minutes of the film.

And, apparently, the scene – which is the culprit of this brouhaha – depicts the teacher performing oral sex on the 16-year old girl, played by Petronella Tshuma, who is actually 23-years old in real life.

BUT, according to the film’s producer Michael Auret – who was in “absolute shock” after the decision – in the allegedly “controversial” scene “when the characters go home, they’re fully clothed. He puts his head
under her skirt. It’s obvious he’s going down on her. In the festival
there are much more explicit things being shown, and on TV as well. When
people watch this film they’re going to wonder what all the fuss is
about.”

What’s also disheartening in this situation is that the so-called “Film and Publications Act of 1996” is allegedly made up of “Christian and
nationalist in some form,” which ruled the apartheid government, and, according to producer Auret – who is challenging the decision in the constitutional court – none of the people in the board are well versed in films or the media.

And now others involved in the making of the film are speaking out.  Director Qubeka appeared on the stage with his mouth taped as a sign of protest, and has said that he wants to protect the right to show his film, and he’s willing to go to prison for it. Tshuma, the actress who plays the schoolgirl, said the decision “is disappointing and
upsetting and a letdown. Pornography is a very strong word; it’s not to
be taken lightly. I’m getting calls from friends and family to justify
myself.” In regards to the sole 28 minutes for the censorship deliberation, which Tshuma called “stupid,” she added “If you’re going to switch off before the end, you’re lazy. You have no
idea what the film is talking about. A big hoo-ha has been made out of
nothing.”

Now the DIFF is appealing the decision with the board’s appeals tribunal, so they definitely had nothing to with the decision. Furthermore, Kobus van Rooven, who drafted the current legislation, and who is the former chairman of the publications appeal board, criticized the “board’s interpretation.” If you have seen The Reader, the 2008 drama starring Ralph Fiennes and Kate Winslet, you might remember the sexually charged scenes between Winslet – in character as an older woman – having sexual relations with a 16-year old boy in the film, and both were buck-naked in those scenes.

Well, that film passed the South African film board censorship test!

According to van Rooven, the explanation for that decision, and the model in which films – including Of Good Report – should be evaluated against, is that “our attitude when the government asked me to write
the act was the idea that banning should never take place unless you
have child pornography, but we defined it by international definitions,”
he added “If it’s artistic or academic or scientific, it shouldn’t
be banned.” van Rooven says the board has “totally misunderstood the act,” and he wishes they would follow the guidelines, that “within a dramatic context it’s OK,
it’s not child pornography. I’m sure that’s the position here. It seems
they’ve made an error and I wish it wouldn’t happen in modern times.”