Much a do about film thing

The censorship board's failure yesterday to decide whether to withdraw True Lies, an American film now circulating in this country, is understandable.

The ban was requested by the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI), an influential non-governmental body, which sees the film as degrading Islam.

The main reason for the board's ambivalence seems to be because it is understandably hard for the censor to annul its own decision with the clear absence of any strong reason to do so.

It seems that the ulemas have not been able to provide that.

The film, a banal comedy, has been showing in domestic theaters for about a week and is reportedly attracting a huge number of people, particularly since the controversy emerged. And strangely enough, none of the viewers has come forth to say that they perceive any scene as abasing Islam.

Film lovers here are apparently quite aware of the reality that mockery has long been part of the products of America's film industry. In many of their products the filmmakers have severely criticized their own government, but since this has been done in a comic way it is easy to write off to humor.

So, in this particular situation, the censorship board is being very cautious out of fear of confusing the public and tarnishing its own credibility in the eyes of the film business people.

MUI's request is legal since it was submitted directly to the right authority, but the ulemas have fallen short of pinpointing exactly which part of the film they think degrades Islam.

True Lies is clearly purely fictional. And it mocks a non- existent guerrilla group which the storyline bases in the Middle East. The only Islamic element to all of this is that the group is called "jihad" (a holy war waged as religious duty). The rest has nothing to do with religious beliefs or practices in any way, shape or form.

We tend to believe that MUI has proposed the idea in an effort to protect Moslems from what it perceives as the influence of the negative ways the West -- or at least the filmmaker -- views Islam. But in this case the reasoning is not very convincing because a film is a cultural and commercial product, which might or might not have a social impact.

And it is not very clear whether the council took the logical step of consulting sociologists, psychologists and film critics before submitting the proposal for the banning to the censorship board.

It is also not very clear whether the representatives of the MUI and the Ministry of Religious Affairs in the censorship board opposed the passing of the film or whether they failed to get their message across.

We tend to believe that this film problem is too trivial a matter for MUI to be fussing about. After all it has its high- profile mission to protect the ummah (Moslem community) from any serious threats to Islamic laws and morality to worry about. It was MUI that played a major role in the campaign to ban the notorious SDSB lottery and MUI which is now issuing licenses for halal food products in an effort to protect Moslems from anything inedible under Islamic law.

If the ulemas council is, indeed, trying to set itself in place as a moral watchdog, its potential area of observation is certainly large enough since we are now living in a fast changing world. However, although it is true enough that the negative impacts of modernization have long caused concern among many segments of our society, it is unnecessary and unwise to exaggerate this fear. Oversensitivity towards insignificant or borderline matters can be perceived as springing from a lack of self confidence.

We are of the opinion that MUI should pay greater attention to more serious challenges to public morality such as the excessive violence showing on TV on a daily basis and the lurid sex scenes currently flashing across the screens in the cinemas across the country.