Amendments to law on national films sought

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.