It is "unutterable nonsense" that Cy Freedom is being denied to South African cinemagoers to save its producers money, according to Sir Richard Attenborough, producer/ director of the Donald Woods/ Steve Biko epic. "Let there be no question about this – we want to show the film in South Africa," he said in his first comprehensive interview about the controversial film given to a South African newspaper.
Speaking before Cry Freedom's premiere in Mbabane – held for the 25th anniversary of Waterford Kamhlaba non-racial school – Attenborough also revealed the complex to-ing and fro-ing between the distributors, United International Pictures, and various government ministries. Three of these ministries – Law and Order, Justice and Home Affairs have asked for and been given private screenings of the film no-one else can see in South Africa.
According to Attenborough, the decision on whether South Africans will see the film "lies squarely" in the hands of these three ministries. Attenborough hit out against "palpably dishonest" reports – particularly in the local press – which contended that the film was an international, flop" and that the producers were withdrawing it to cut their losses. "It is ludicrous to suggest that a film which, at present estimates, is going to take $35-million, is a failure," he said. (Cry Freedom cost just over $20-million.) "It is perfectly true that the reception in the United States has been disappointing, but it is a great success in the majority of countries in the world. It is not ET or Star Wars, but will take the sort of money that Gandhi did in most countries," he said. Gandhi, his previous film won eight Oscar Awards.
Allegations that the producers' economic concerns – and not the South African government – were stopping local screenings of the film did not bear intelligent scrutiny, said Attenborough. "Not only are the costs of a South African advertising campaign derisory in overall terms, but we had already pledged to donate all profits to the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef). "In any event, the picture would draw an enormous audience in South Africa – it is already the biggest- ever box-office hit in Zimbabwe."
It was also a "monstrous slur on our integrity" to claim the producers wanted to have the film banned in South Africa in order to gain publicity abroad: "We want the film to be seen there, and innumerable South Africans have urged this. If we were not sincere, why would we now – when the film has in large measure been distributed – be persisting?"
He said he had "certainly been surprised" by the initial decision of a publications committee to pass the film – "It is a fairly unequivocal indictment of apartheid, and we didn't expect it to be welcomed" – but now believed the government was "playing a game". "They gave the impression to the world that the film would be shown — it was a palpable piece of deviousness. They did not choose to say that regardless of the decision of the censors, it could fall foul of security laws. "I must say publicly now: it is their game, not ours. We were totally straightforward, and we want it shown. They don't."
Attenborough said that after the publications committee announced it had passed the film-on November 27 last year, advertisements were prepared for the proposed release "as a matter of normal distribution practice". They were placed in seven South African newspapers. Following remarks by the Witwatersrand attorney-general, however – suggesting that prosecutions could arise from quoting a banned person (Woods) – one paper refused to carry the advertisements, and the producers sought legal, advice. UIP was told, on February 19, that the proposed showing of Cry Freedom could result in prosecution under the Internal Security Act.
This article originally appeared in the Weekly Mail.
