The Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) has heard arguments on whether the Film and Publication Board and its Appeals Tribunal should both be part of the matter involving the reclassification of the award-winning film Inxeba. The Witness reports Judge Joseph Raulinga argued he had watched the film to help him with the case.

The film’s producers had requested a review of the decision of the FPB’s Appeal Tribunal, which had awarded Inxeba a rating of X18SNLVP, overturning the FBP rating of 16LS – essentially classifying the film as hard-core pornography. Advocate Viwe Notshe, representing the Appeals Tribunal, said of the board: ‘The board is lost, your Lordship, the board needs your direction. The classification is the decision of the board.’

Advocate Dali Mpofu – representing the Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA (Contralesa) and the Man and Boy Foundation – said his team was representing members of the public who had a grievance. He said according to the Films and Publications Act, a decision of the tribunal is deemed as a decision of the board.

Stephen Budlender – representing the producers and the distributors of the film – said the debate was not on whether the film was offensive to anybody or whether Contralesa enjoyed the film. ‘The Appeals Tribunal has purported to classify the film X18. This is a review of the statutory body.’

Budlender said it was a question of whether the Appeals Tribunal had made the correct decision or not.

Full report in The Witness (subscription needed)

‘If this film is pornography, then the filmmakers are a disgrace to pornography,’ Budlender told the court.

The Star reports his main argument is that the classification as hardcore pornography meant that the film could only be viewed at ‘adult premises’ and no longer at mainstream cinemas. Raulinga questioned whether the law did not allow the court to order that the sex scenes be deleted. But Budlender said this could never be allowed.

He said that in any event, the three sex scenes were vital to the ‘extraordinary ending’ of the film. ‘Your Lordship knows the extraordinary ending. It if were not for the three sex scenes, it would not make sense,’ he said. The judge commented that it was the extraordinary ending which bothered the cultural organisations opposing this application. Budlender argued the scenes were not graphic, as one would expect in an X-rated film.

‘Your Lordship did not even see any genitals (in viewing the film). When you think about pornography you think of close-ups of genitals and drawn-out sex scenes,’ Budlender said. In referring to the cultural opposition, Raulinga remarked that one should not simply think about the West, but also about African culture.

Full report in The Star (subscription needed)