Amendments to law on national films sought

By Gotot Prakosa

JAKARTA (JP): Law No. 8/1992 on films, containing 48 articles, is considered to be dominated by the administrative power in respect of national film development and growth. Half of those articles stipulate the government's involvement in the fostering of national films. Yet, the confirmation of film fostering is only stipulated in Paragraph VII, articles 36 and 37.

The law, enacted in the New Order era, underlines that the government should be the most responsible party for the collapse of the national film industry. If we scrutinize the elucidation of article 36, it is written that fostering is an uninterrupted continual effort in its widest sense with regard to film activities.

Ideally the government should have taken a fostering initiative when the film industry was collapsing by the end the 1980s. Moreover, in the same elucidation, it is mentioned that the fostering could be realized through several policies and attempts to encourage Indonesian film development and progress.

A symposium and workshop at the National Film Appreciation Agency (BP2N) will be held from July 19 to July 20 for the revision of the law on films. About 125 people from various circles are expected to attend. The results are expected to become a draft for revised law and to be submitted to the government.

The current law is no longer appropriate for application in the national film industry, and it also states that those working in the industry are still responsible to the ministry of information, which has been dissolved.

Problems

Paragraph 1 of Article 1 stipulates that a film is an art and cultural work, constituting an audiovisual mass communication medium -- produced on the principle of cinematography. But a film formulated according to a mass communication medium has never been allowed to enter into a politically controlled arena, while the media are permitted to do so, for instance on television.

More serious is what is contained in article 31: the government can withdraw films which in the government's eyes can arouse "security disturbances and social unrest".

As such, it's quite relative and it can be interpreted as wanted by the government, and the government can then determine films as propaganda, bringing about cases like that of the film Langitku Rumahku (My Sky, My Home).

The film released by PT Peredaran Film Nasional (Perfin) was only in circulation for one day. In this case, the law on national films couldn't protect the film, which was directed by Slamet Raharjo, for continued screenings in theaters, whereas the film quality is, in fact, fairly good.

It has even received several awards in various Indonesian film festivals and some awards in several international film festivals, among other things, from UNESCO, as the best children's film of 1994.

A communication expert from Hasanuddin University in Makassar, Andi Muis, in a Jakarta newspaper, commented that Law No. 8/1992 on films reflects an authoritarian media system because of too much domination by the government.

A consequence is that, among other things, the film people can't exert political control through films, because there is a strong prohibition from screening films containing political issues.

In his opinion, the law had better be replaced, instead of being revised only, which enforces films as a mass medium. Such treatment, according to him, leaves the film free to depict cultural dreams.

If there is something wrong with the administrative bureaucracy, films can blast it through stories of fiction, which can avoid their producers from accusations of committing offense acts.

He argued that in the law, the functions of films as a means of social control, education, information and economy need to be arranged by emphasizing their entertainment function. The economic function puts emphasis not? on the support of the film industry, but as an entertainment industry with consistent emphasis on the national culture, without ignoring traditional and religious values.

The film censor problem is also an obstacle in the circulation of "artful" films to be screened in Indonesia.

This censor obstacle frightens "artful" film screening events. Therefore, people need a law capable of arranging and helping the distribution of films categorized as "artful films".

Lack of strategy

BP2N chairman Slamet Raharjo reemphasized that in the law the fostering is to be carried out without a chance of empowerment, there is a lack emphasis of national strategy and culture and there is also an ignorance of education. The development of national films requires quality resources. In addition, there were three urgent items for revision in the law: the problems of funding, production and marketing, he said.

There are also show tax problems; national film taxes should have been differentiated from those of imported films, which are distributed through commercial movie theaters.

According to Djonny Syafruddin, chairman of the Association of Indonesian Movie Producers (GPBSI), who is also chairman of the symposium and workshop committee, the ideal national film show tax should be 5 percent. Since the current tax is about 20 percent to 30 percent, equal to that of foreign films, it is considered unfair because national film production costs are higher than the purchase price of foreign films circulating in Indonesia.

Djonny said there were 12 items requiring serious deliberation in revising the film law: film definition, vision of mission and function, institutions, sociocultural problems, technology, human resources, public roles, economic problems, ethical codes, the upholding of the law and government accountability.

This effort might be somewhat late after giving rise to a lot of sufferers, from film producers and capital owners to employees, theater building owners and the public. The film law should be continuously adjusted to the development and needs of the era, because films also have their own development, artistically as well as technologically.