Betty Caplan
29 June 2009
column
Nairobi — Censorship is far too important to be taken lightly by any society that calls itself a democracy.
But "Censorship and Western 'Freedom'" by Philip Ochieng (May 25-31) failed to address the subject systematically.
Perhaps the editor was to blame for the inverted commas on the word freedom in the title, but what sense could there have been in this slight?
It's true that in the western world, there is very little censorship of entertainment or reading material of any kind, though that has not always been the case.
As recently as 1968 in England, homosexuality was a crime and could not be depicted in any form of art. There was even a fierce debate about conduct in schools where teachers were warned not to preach in favour of it.
Fortunately, reason won the day, and it was accepted that sexual orientation couldn't be passed on in that manner.
The main problem is that Mr Ochieng makes it patently obvious that he doesn't watch either film or television.
Let's face it, he is a deeply bookish man and would probably consider them a waste of time.
Which they all too often are, especially the ghastly soaps with dubbed voices.
But if you are going to write about these things, surely you must show some proof of knowledge?
IN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, HE mentions not a single example of a film or director -- local or foreign -- by name. And it appears that in his view, films are made chiefly for children to gain some educational value:
"What lesson can our children learn from a movie in which gunshots rend the air at every corner?"
He has obviously not seen Judy Kibinge's "Dangerous Affair." "Saikati", "Kibera Kid" or the work of Robbie Bresson or Cajetan Boy.
Bob Nyanja's delightful "Malooned" is not mentioned, nor is Jane Munene's moving account of a troubled violent Kenyan marriage titled "Behind Closed Doors."
Or perhaps marital violence doesn't count, being too commonplace? Has Mr Ochieng taken the trouble to watch some of the newer soaps like "Wash and Set" which relate to the lives of ordinary people. From what I have seen, for every violent scene there is a soppy love one.
Yet even these appeal to certain audiences -- something Mr Ochieng tends to forget.
For him we are all one, a large, undifferentiated mass subjected to violent movies entirely against our will. And our tastes must be tamed by force because we lack the intelligence to make our own choices.
Worse still, he makes no distinction between the many artforms: if you are going to censor, surely it should apply across the board. And who, pray, is more violent than Shakespeare?
DOESN'T EVERY ONE OF THE tragedies end with a pile of bodies on the stage? Many schoolchildren must read "Macbeth", in which a kindly, devout king is put to death by his own host and hostess in their own home.
Or "Timon of Athens" where a parent is served a pie made of his/her own child's body parts?
These horrors didn't begin in Austria or Germany in the 21st century, although the horrifying murders of innocent classmates, especially in American schools, may indeed be a modern phenomenon.
Upon examination, it turns out that the murderous students are not strictly speaking "mindless", that they have been sick, disturbed, alienated and with no-one close enough to them to perceive how desperate they were.
Living in a gun-toting society just made their work far easier.
Then there is painting. Should we cover children's' eyes lest they see an image of Picasso's Guernica which shows more graphically than anything I know the agony and chaos of war?
Would Mr Ochieng have us turn away from the many frightening masks and fetishes that have formed a key part of all African cultures, and the beliefs and fears that go with them?
Mr Ochieng muddles up questions of aesthetics and morality with realpolitik -- as in whether you like Westerners or not, itself a nonsense because judging whole races because of the deeds of some of their forbearers is irrational, spiteful and prejudicial.
Because we need their aid, he goes on to argue, we must pretend to be nice to them and watch their awful pictures -- this from a man who was educated at one of the best American universities!
COULD HE HAVE WRITTEN SUCH things if he were fully aware of the great contribution that Francophone African cinema has made to world art? A cinema which is the very antithesis of the worst kind of realism that comes out of Hollywood?
Could he have seen the works of the "Father of African Cinema" Sembene Ousmane -- a magnificent writer as well -- the last of which was "Moulade", which dealt with the ugly subject of female circumcision?
In the end, the question of censorship founders on the decision about who should make these choices. If it is to be the Kenya Film Censorship Board, they might prevent us from seeing great classics like the Russian Eisenstein's "The Battleship Potemkin" or Spanish Luis Bunuel's "Le Chien Andalou" which opens with an eye being sliced open.
Don't forget, Mr Ochieng, America is not the West, and even it has a long and honourable history of magnificent cinema, too little of which is seen today.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 The East African. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
