CAIRO - The Egyptian Government clearly underestimated the power of social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Indeed, the attempted censorship of these outlets by completely shutting down the internet service did not really work either. If anything, it fuelled the young protesters even more; clearly the former government went about all wrong. One would think that a country facing that same predicament wouldn't follow suit in such lock-step, but that's exactly what Libya's raving leader Muammar Gaddafi is doing. They are following the same flawed script, adding a good extra dose of extreme violence, which might work in favour of the protesters in the long run anyway. Regardless of the form of censorship didn't take here. Egypt is not like the Gulf countries, where television is censored, even the internet is censored, and their film industry is non-existent (leaving little to censor). After a revolution that screamed freedom, laws are being changed left and right; thus, the censorship of the film industry should clearly also not stay the same. Some people already feel that many films, especially now, are actually getting away with more than they should especially those of Khaled Youssef and Hany Gargis Fawzy. A recent statement signed by 200 Egyptian artists involved in the country's cinema industry has called for the cancellation of the censorship imposed on films. The group included actors, producers and filmmakers. The statement was responded to by criticism that less censorship would open the door to more nudity or obscenity. Actor and producer Is'ad Yonis responded to the criticism by saying: "Some believe that censorship in Egypt was created to disallow nudity or pornographic scenes, which is a mistaken view that surfaced because of the false sexual concepts that control Egyptian minds in an unhealthy way, which is [also] a result of the lack of sexual education at schools that terrifies our community." That is certainly true, but here the objection to the cancellation of the censorship might be valid because of the point that Egypt is still a Muslim country, and films that may contain explicit sexual scenes or just outright nudity, be it front or back nudity, will be considered offensive. The films industry will end up fighting lawsuits left and right, continually being accused of being a corrupting Western influence, and so on. This would effectively prevent the film industry from doing anything at all. Films can't have their full freedom by just throwing out the censorship board in a country that bases its laws on religion; once there is a clear separation between religion and state, much like in the US, where there is such a policy in effect, then perhaps there can be something to similar to the rating film committee as there in US, i.e. the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). What some of the artists who signed that statement may not know is that the MPAA doesn't have to clear a film or give it rating for it to be released; in fact it's the studios who want to make sure that the film becomes profitable by making it accessible to the largest segment of the population possible. To pass it by as unrated film is to ensure that it will not end being screened at many theatres, and thus will not be shown to that large of audience. The MPAA committee can't actually tell the filmmaker to edit the film in any way, because if they did that it would be truly out-and-out censorship of the freedom of the artist; but by giving them a rating of "R" (Restricted – Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian), a film that the studio wants to be seen by bigger audience will ask the filmmakers to cut out scenes that will secure it the " PG-13" rating (parents Strongly Cautioned – some material may be inappropriate for children under 13). Those films are the biggest money-makers, so the truth is that it's not all peachy when it comes to the MPAA system, since it still has some of the basic flaws that the censorship board in Egypt had, such as giving a lesser rating to a film that is full of brutal violence. For example, "The Passion of the Christ" (2004)" got an "R" rating even with all its graphic violence, while a film like "Blue Valentine" (2010), which depicts a married couple shifting back and forth in time between their courtship and the dissolution of the marriage several years later, had to fight for their "R" rating, since it was initially given the much harsher "NC-17" (No children under 17 admitted), which limits the film potential audience for a film that has been critically acclaimed. The film was giving the hard rating due to the sexual material, but the production company appealed the decision and aimed for an "R", without any trims to the film, and the film finally received the desired rating. It does not make sense that a film that shows sex is criticised harder than a film that shows a man being nailed in painful detail to a cross. This is not to say that the revolution should just pass by the film industry; it won't. Many filmmakers are already working on their depiction of the events that started the January 25th demonstrations. What should be fought for is the freedom of the word: no films should pass any government office that censors the truth. The state television is certainly living through the backlash of that now, since it censored the revolution. The film industry needs freedom to speak as freely as they want; nothing should be off limits, including state officials and the president: former, current or upcoming.
