Plea to unban karate film chopped

The Rhodesia Herald, 10 January 1974 THE censorship Appeal Board was told in Salisbury yesterday that the film — The Invincible Boxer — had been totally banned. The Censor Board had used, for the first time, the sole ground that the film would unduly exploit horror, cruelty or violence.

The Appeal Board was hearing the appeal by the Kinekor Films after the beginning of the film, which was made in Hong Kong and depicts a Chinese using karate forms of defence in contests with a gang of thugs.

The film is produced by the Asian film mogul Run Shaw.

Mr NJ McNally, for Kinekor, said there was no undue horror though people liked to be horrified a little.

He said two films currently showing

— Night Watch and The Godfather — depicted violence.

This film might be compared with some cowboy films and the early “skiet-and-donner” type of him.

During the hearing yesterday much argument centred on the meaning on “unduly” and unduly exploit in the wording of the Act.

The film was not likely to have any initiative impact, he said. One could not apply the type of karate shown in the film where a man had triumphed over untold odds.

There had been an incident where a man’s eyes had been seriously damaged or destroyed and where the hero’s hands had been smashed. Such incidents could be cut.

“The whole film was a blood and thunder tomato sauce type of production,” he said. “It is so totally unreal that one simply laughs at it.”

There was no question of the picture-goer identifying himself with anyone in the film or of emulating such feats.

Mr JC Allen, for the Board of Censors, said: “This film might cause a certain amount of trouble.”

He said a grave defect of the film had been to show a situation in the East where there had been no forces of law and order available or present.

Mr Allen said sensational film and TV did play a part: “I don’t want to stress this unduly” in the formation of “criminality on an imitative basis”.

He cited the cases of certain crimes overseas which had been reported in the Press and where such crimes had been repeated by criminals using the same method.

Mr Allen said it had been conceded the film had shown violence, it had shown undue violence. Mr Allen said the banning should be upheld and the film not shown.

Mr McNally said there was no evidence to show if Africans, for example, saw this film, there would be an immediate outbreak of violence.

“The film does not show violence towards authority,” he said.

Hearing the appeal were Col CR Dickenson with Mr NJ Brendon and Mrs D S. Atherstone.

Mr McNally was instructed by Coghlan, Welsh and Guest. Mr Allen was instructed by the Government attorney.

The Appeal Board’s decision will be given later.

Lessons for Today

◆ Zimbabwe’s Censorship and Entertainments Control Act was passed in 1967 following Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence. The Act of Parliament saw the Smith regime silence voices they deemed unsuitable to the regime.

◆ The Act was meant to target obscenity and blasphemy in literature and film, although the suppression was extended to include other information sources of information like newspapers and serials.

◆ The American Library Association (ALA) defines censorship as a “change in the access status of material, based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes” (ALA 2016).

◆ People that oppose censorship argue that freedom of information is paramount in any democracy, and that the Bill of Rights must be respected by any constitutional democracy.

◆ The information age, makes it difficult for the Censorship Board to operate effectively because of the Internet.