Censorship during Apartheid
Censorship
is linked to power: Through censoring, a regime, and more specifically the
censor, can determine what is desirable to publish and what not, thereby
controlling the information flow that circulates within a society.
During
Apartheid, censorship in South Africa was regulated by the Publications Act,
consisting of 6 clauses that specify whether a publication is allowed. As said
by Coetzee (1996), concepts that were used, are not further defined and leave,
therefore, much room for personal interpretations. As such, the Act can easily
be used in an arbitrary manner thereby ascribing much power to the one who
exercises the Act.
In
1988 the movie “Cry Freedom” was released. It tells the story of Steve Biko,
leader of the Black Consciousness movement, and his struggle for equal rights
and freedoms for both the black and white population in South Africa. He
criticized the apartheid regime, which resulted in police custody and
eventually his death.
At
the time of the movie’s release, Kobus van Rooyen served as the South African’s
censor. His interpretation of the clause’s concepts was more moderate in
comparison to its predecessors. Van Rooyen’s approach was centered on balancing
between the interests of the different societal groups. In addition, his
conception of society was broader than merely the white population (Coetzee
1996). Although the movie had a critical stand towards the regime, the censor
did not consider it posing a threat to society and approved its showing (Kraft).
The
movie has been in the cinemas for exactly 1 day part. Then, censor van Rooyen
was overruled and the movie was banned by the ‘white’ government stating that
the movie is a threat to public safety and security and that that it might lead
to violence among the black majority (Kraft).
As
the clauses leave room for multiple interpretations, both parties were in
theory acting within the boundaries of the Publication Act. However, a larger
discrepancy between the notions of the clause’s concepts is almost impossible.
One might argue that the government’s position was more conservative, while van
Rooyen seems to work towards the end of Apartheid. Following question would be:
what has led to the difference in the position of the government and Van Rooyen,
as both are products of the same South African regime?
Coetzee, J.M.. “The Work of the Censor: Censorship in South Africa.” Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship. Univ.
of Chicago Press, 1996, 185-203.
Kraft,
Scott. "'Cry Freedom' Viewed as a History Lesson : S. African Critics
Oppose Government Suppression of Movie." Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times, 02 Aug. 1988. Web. 21 Feb. 2015.
Well thought of idea to use the movie Cry Freedom as a unit of analysis for describing censorship in Apartheid South Africa. This movie shed light on the most notorious crimes of the regime and was released when South Africa was under Apartheid rule. So indeed, it is interesting to see how Van Rooyen, according to Coetzee, a neutral arbiter balancing between the interests of the different groups within society, initially allowed Cry Freedom to be shown in South Africa. Still, this decision was overruled by the Apartheid government and the movie was labelled, funny enough, as a threat to national security. Interests were not so much balanced between societal groups after all as the decision weighed mostly in favor of the white South African population.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you could have questioned Coetzee’s description of Van Rooyen as an arbiter that balanced between interests of societal groups. Yes, this was the reasoning of Van Rooyen, but perhaps this was not how the PAB put it into practice?