'Schindler's List' double take

The axe has fallen. The Film Censorship Board announced on Thursday that it had decided on Tuesday to pass Steven Spielberg's film Schindler's List on condition that some of the "pornographic" and sadistic scenes be cut. The decision was reportedly made after the Board convened a plenary meeting to view the film after it previously failed to win an unanimous vote among the five board members.

What the decision actually meant was that the Indonesian public will not be able to see the movie, since it has been known for some time that Spielberg, the producer and director, insists that his film should be shown either uncut or not at all.

However, before the public could even react to the decision, the Film Censorship Board came up with a surprise. Yesterday, it claimed that there were flaws in Tuesday's plenary meeting and thus it has decided to hold another meeting sometime next week.

Frankly, we smell something behind all of this. Everybody knows that for the last several weeks the film has stirred a public debate on whether it should be shown to the public here or not.

Certain groups, notably Moslem organizations, whose members have apparently have not seen the film, have demanded that the movie be rejected and have denounced it as "Zionist propaganda."

Obviously, those demands have a more political and emotional content rather than an artistic one. Yet, in a country like Indonesia, where of late Moslem groups have gained a stronger foothold, and "religious" considerations have attained more influence among our decision makers, one should not underestimate the power of those new "pressure groups."

We believe it was some consideration of this kind that compelled the Film Censorship Board to rectify yesterday its first announcement. We believe that there must have been pressure -- from above, or from certain pressure groups, or from whatever side -- strong enough to make the Board revise its earlier decision. And one can easily predict that next week's verdict will be much stronger than the first.

Whatever the case, the decision to retract the decision is nothing if not deplorable. To inject political judgment into the fate of a film or other any artistic product for that matter, is more than unfortunate. For years our artists, poets and writers have suffered from this kind of political approach. Poetry reading, plays and other performances are often banned, all for political or security reasons.

In the case of Schindler's List we can say -- having seen it -- that it is a very strong film. Sure, we admit that there are scenes in the film which, according to our moral value judgment, could be categorized as "pornographic" or "sadistic", but only when the film is viewed in pieces. When one considers the film in its entirety, as obviously should be done, those scenes become blended into the whole and are submerged in the thrill of the experience. So strong is the sense of humanity which the film conveys that those sex scenes, the oozing blood and naked bodies can only be taken as an inseparable part of the whole. Indeed, one could say that the film would feel less strong without those scenes.

However, one should be realistic enough to know that with the situation prevailing here it is futile to expect that the film will be passed, uncut, by our censors. What is all the more saddening is the hypocrisy of it all: There are so many local films with similar if not even worse pornographic and sadistic scenes, which have been passed by the censors without any fuss whatsoever.

As a final word: For certain audiences, Steven Spielberg's film Schindler's List is too valuable to be passed by. Thus, we suggest that organizations such as the Jakarta Kine Club, for example, borrow this film from, say, a foreign embassy here to be screened for limited audiences.

Of course, whatever is done, one should expect a certain amount of "excess", with unauthorized people gate-crashing to see the film out of sheer curiosity. But, if those people are willing to sit for an hour or two in the hope of seeing some breasts and bottoms, well, let them be. They might also be exposed to something of moral or intellectual value.