|
Local film-maker turns camera on law enforcement officers |
|
By Belmont Lay
|
|
Jan. 8 2008 |
Watching Martyn See’s “Speakers Cornered” is like watching “Crime Watch” except without the contrived dialogue and dramatic re-enactments.
The 28-minute film documents the three-day stand-off between local activists and the police in and around the vicinity of the Speaker’s Corner in Hong Lim Park during the IMF-World Bank Meetings in September 2006.
Shot and edited by See, the film features Singapore Democratic Party members, including Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, staging a stymied four-person march.
Those involved in the march against the government’s clamp-down on human rights during the meetings wore shirts bearing the slogan “Democracy Now.”
The video shows that police cordoned the marchers within a moving security perimeter. After three days, Chee Soon Juan resorted to holding within the park the press conference originally planned for the Parliament House.
And the camera was not just focused on the Chee siblings.
On-duty plain clothes and uniformed police filming or monitoring the scene were unwittingly filmed by See, the media and other onlookers.
See’s attempts to engage the law enforcement officers in conversation drew silence, uncertain answers and measured replies.
Although the film is pending approval for screening in Singapore since it was submitted to the Board of Film Censors on Dec. 31, the full version has been available for viewing on YouTube since Nov. 30.
In a statement posted on his blog, See explained that the film’s submission to the BFC was “only acting in accordance to the law as it currently stands.”
His two previous films, “Singapore Rebel” and “Zahari’s 17 Years,” were banned under the Films Act in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
See’s unconventional and improvisational style of turning the camera on law enforcement officers is probably a first for a Singaporean film-maker. His gritty guerrilla style is akin to the participatory documentary popularised by American film-maker Michael Moore.
Moore was known for catching his interviewees, including politicians and celebrities, off-guard.
Surprises caught on camera, staged or accidental, make for more interesting viewing.
And as reality shows can attest, the most gripping scenes can also be the most unflattering ones.
Being caught tongue-tied on camera creates tension. Dead air has a strange effect in conjuring up the imagination to fill in the unspoken.
It is disconcerting to watch professional police officers staying silent or refusing comment in the line of duty, possibly under instructions not to engage with the media or anyone holding a camera, while under civilian surveillance.
These nameless law enforcement officers are set to become characters forever-immortalised in digital format and watched by an international audience.
Agents of change in society are no longer invisible forces but given faces as the police can be seen to contribute to the clamp-down on human rights, during a protest march organised against such forms of repression in the first place.
And the film is expected to attract more attention in the coming months.
Interest in it is no less due to its subject matter than to the self-proclamation that it is “a recording of the only act of public defiance during the IMF-WB meetings in Singapore.”
Since its online release, it has been viewed more than 5,000 times. The film has also been shown in film festivals in Taiwan and Malaysia since 2006.
And the international media are watching as the verdict to approve or ban the film is still unknown.
Regardless of the decision, this film will test local censorship laws and have larger implications on Singaporean society, given the Media Development Authority’s recent publicity campaign to “get creative.”
Top MDA management honchos were cast in a rap video as a publicity stunt to encourage creativity among media content producers.
However, the implicit understanding is that creative expression does not extend to the political realm in Singapore.
It is difficult to state categorically what makes a film a political one, but it is relatively easy to label “Speakers Cornered” as one because of its subject matter. It can be seen as serving a political end by furthering the interest of the SDP in particular.
The conflict might endear the SDP to some people, but it may also alienate those that disagree with their methods.
It is the dynamic and indefinable nature of politics that allow the film’s meaning and purpose to be construed in many ways, allowing it to throw up a few conundrums.
For example, would labelling the film as “political” not only politicise the role of the activists but that of the law enforcers as well? And can there ever be a politically neutral position in such a situation of conflict?
The point is that censorship in the digital age is pointless. The Internet has allowed the film to circumvent state censorship and it has become a tool to further any agenda, political or otherwise.
The BFC is expected to come up with an indisputable decision. It would be better to let viewers decide whether the film meets their approval. |
