Sensitive films

By Wayne Leung
     As three Hollywood films recently had difficulty finding local distributors in Hong Kong, attention has been drawn to possible political pressure on the local film industry.
     Two of the films concern the life of Dalai Lama; the third involves the dark side of the legal system of mainland China. Seven Years in Tibet is one of the Dalai Lama films, and the Chinese government has banned its screening in mainland China.

     Some local distributors rejected claims that political considerations factor into their decisions.
     After public debate on this issue, one distributor agreed to show Red Corner, about the Chinese legal system, in February or March.
     Also, a group of film industry executives tentatively agreed to fund exhibition of the other films if exhibitors are not found.
     A “Miss Ho”, who requested that her full name be withheld, is a representative of the International Film Distributors. She said that her firm still uses the usual criteria to choose films for exhibition. Other distributors refused to comment on this issue.
     Said Miss Ho: “There are three criteria on deciding whether to distribute a film or not. First, we can distribute a film only if we can obtain the right from the filmmaker.
     “The second one concerns the schedule for showing. We have to make sure that time is available in local cinemas. A suitable time is also a main consideration.
     “The last and the most important criterion is the marketability of the film. This is mainly based on the market demand and the movie habits of Hong Kong people,” said she.
     She said that the company still uses the above three criteria as top considerations.
     However, Mr. Nze Man Hung, a media critic, believes self-censorship is being exercised.
     “Some distributors explained that they didn’t purchase the films because they have no commercial value. I find this ridiculous,” said he.
     “Two of the films star Hollywood superstars Richard Gere and Brad Pitt. The box office has shown their (Gere’s and Pitt’s) magic power to attract local audiences,” said Mr. Nze. “Obviously their explanations are just excuses.”
     He said that self-censorship may result from large distributors’ having business interests in mainland China.
     The director of the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, Mr. Law Yuk-kai, said this kind of information control is unfair to the public.
     Mr. Nze believes that the government has exerted pressure, and he said it is unwise.
     “I agree that some scenes in Hollywood movies are unreal and over-romanticised. But if the government is clever enough, it should first let the audience watch the films. Then it can criticise the exaggeration of the film afterwards and leave the audience to judge,” said he.
     Mr. Law agrees that the government has a responsibility.
     “There are many grey zones between what can and cannot be shown and discussed in films,” said Mr. Law.
     He said that imprecise law makes it difficult for distributors and film makers to decide what can be shown. Most of them thus try to avoid sensitive topics to protect themselves.
     Mr. Nze said that diversification of local distributors is a possible solution to the self-censorship problem.
     Mr. Shu Kei, a local filmmaker, said that voices from the general public are important.
     “If the pressure from the general public is large enough, the pressure of government on the mass media will be reduced. Then the worry of the mass media of offending the government can be eliminated,” Mr. Shu said.



 Covering China       The struggles




January 1998

[Editorial] [Letters] [Answer] [News] [Social] [Photo] [Culture] [Education] [Channels] [Science] [Celebrity]

Comments   Editor-in-Chief   Electronic Editor