We tend to think that the Films Act applies only to cinema films or videos made by professionals, but as you can see from the discussion above, the law itself makes no such distinction. Every video you shoot with your mobile phone or digicam is within the scope of the law. Every YouTube video you embed in your blogpost is a violation of the law too unless you have a censorship certificate for it. The law does not say that it applies only to films screened in cinemas. It says you cannot exhibit any film without prior censorship and approval. Putting a video on your blog for the public to see, like I have done below (scroll down), is "exhibition".

Moreover, before you even whip out your digicam to capture a bit of video, you may be required to obtain a prior licence from the government to shoot, as stated in Section 6. See also, the box at right.

Then, after you have recorded the images, according to Section 12, you must deposit the film in an approved warehouse. How many of you have complied with the law in this regard, after you have shot something with your cellphone?

Clearly, the Films Act, which was first enacted in 1981, was designed for a different age, one in which film-making was a relatively capital-intensive enterprise, not open to the average Joe. It was also an age when "exhibiting" a film only meant screening it in some kind of hall and "importing" meant the physical entry of a tape reel by air, land or sea.

But its sweeping language today makes virtually every person on this island a criminal. After all, how many of us do not have a series of moving pictures ("films" according to the law's definition) on our computers or mobile phones?

 
What about film classification?

Wait a minute, some of you may say. What about the film classification purpose of this Act? Isn't that useful?

First, we need to pick apart the euphemism -- "classification". It actually contains 3 separate elements: Some films are left intact but classified. Some are cut before they are classified. Some (like 4 films in this year's Singapore International Film Festival) are banned altogether.

 
Let me make my position clear: No film should ever be cut or banned. We should only be labelling them or issuing consumer advisories.

Another point to note: stop thinking "cinemas". The technology already exists for entire feature films to be downloaded from the internet. I see in today's newspaper that Apple Inc's iTunes has now surpassed Walmart as the United States' top music reseller. For films too, the writing is on the wall. In fact, Singaporeans can already download as much online pornography as they wish. We'd be kidding ourselves to think that the Films Act is "protecting" anybody from being as "depraved" as he wishes.

To be relevant, any attempt to regulate films must be do-able for the primary platform -- the internet. To try to regulate only the cinema hall (the future secondary platform) is like trying to guard your back door against burglars when your house doesn't even have a front wall. It will be little more than a sick joke before long.

The reality, though, is that regulating film downloads cannot be done without massive damage to our hopes of being a knowledge economy with free flow of information. It's just not practical. This means that the defence we should rely on to counter any ill influence of media is our own critical faculties. It also means we shouldn't delude ourselves any further by guarding the back door, because the longer we continue to think that the government and the Films Act will protect us, the more we remain complacent about learning to think for ourselves.

What is left of film classification in such an environment? The best response is to encourage corporate social responsibility in the media industry, i.e. where film producers and  distributors affix advisory labels. Ultimately, however, it should still be for the consumer to decide whether he wishes to download the product.

Notice that I said, "film producers and distributors". Not the state. Yes, it may result in different distribution channels affixing different labels to the same film. Different cinema chains may apply slightly different admission standards. So what? Consumers are smart enough to judge which cinema chain's or download provider's advisories have credibility and which do not.

Another way by which community moderation can take shape is by encouraging a conversation among citizens about what is good or bad about notable films. Parents can take note and keep an eye on what their kids do. After all, they'd have to borrow your credit card to download a film.

We don't need the Films Act. We don't need it for all the above reasons, and one more: So long as it serves as a crutch, Singapore will never mature as a society to be truly part of the information age.

© Yawning Bread