Cutting nude scenes in Titanic has created a
tide of discontent with censorship. Would two ratings have solved
I REFER to the explanation by the Secretary
of the Board of Film Censors, Mr Tan Chiu Kee, for Kate Winslet's
snipped nude scene in Titanic (Nude Scene Was Sunk To Keep Titanic
Rated PG, Life!, Feb 13).
According to Mr Tan, the board's guidelines stipulate that frontal
nudity is not permitted for PG films.
If that is the case, why did they not cut the scene where Kate Winslet's
nude portrait first appeared? Does that not constitute some kind
of nudity? But I disagree.
Does anybody remember Nell? Screened in 1995, the movie contains
nude scenes (three, in fact) of Jodie Foster.
Tagged with a PG-rating, it was passed with a clean bill of health.
To some folks, it was no big deal until it was mentioned in Parliament
by MP Peh Chin Hua who objected to Nell's PG status. To him, it
deserved an R(A) rating - but does it?
Defending the BFC's stand was Information and the Arts Minister
BG George Yeo. He told Mr Peh that there is no blanket ban on female
nudity, even in PG films: "It all depends on the context and
whether it is exploitative."
In Nell, the nude scenes reflect the character's naivety; it was
not intended to titillate. The same can be said of Winslet's nude
scenes in Titanic. The context is not sexual. Since the precedence
has been set, why can the BFC not keep nudity intact in Titanic?
And to think that in order to have Titanic passed uncut, it has
to be rated R(A), is just plain silly.