by URTHER RWAFA submitted in accordance with the requirements

336 Pages·2013·1.39 MB·English

LANGUAGE CENSORSHIP IN SELECTED ZIMBABWEAN
FILMS IN SHONA AND ENGLISH

by

URTHER RWAFA

submitted in accordance with the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY

in the subject

AFRICAN LANGUAGES

at the

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

PROMOTER: PROF DE. MUTASA

JOINT-PROMOTER: PROF MT. VAMBE

JUNE 2012
DECLARATION

Student Number: 4590-497-9

I declare that Language Censorship in Selected Zimbabwean films in Shona and English is
my own work and that the sources I have used or quoted have been indicated and
acknowledged by means of complete references.

………………. ……………
Signature Date

i
SUMMARY

The aim of this study was to explore language censorship in Zimbabwean films in Shona and English.
The study concentrated on the themes of politics, culture and economic in the genre of the
documentary, feature and short film genres. It was demonstrated that the Zimbabwean laws enabled
authorities to impose censorship strategies that ranged from banning, restriction, persecution of
filmmakers, withdrawal of films from circulation, and threats of withdrawal of permits of film
retailers. These visible, direct and banal forms of censorship have forced some filmmakers to flee the
country. Most of the filmmakers who have remained in the country have been forced to deal with
themes that appear harmless to the state. This state induced form of self-censorship on the filmmakers
has resulted in the production of uncritical, and unreflective films whose staple diet were embedded in
cultural stereotypes. The study argued that language is a signifying practice that cannot be interpreted
in a single direction. Thus, despite these realities of film censorship some filmmakers deliberately
encoded or used verbal and visual film language that generated surplus meanings with which the films
could be re-read in ways that reveal new linguistic strategies to evade and challenge both the
restrictive censorship laws as well as criticise the undemocratic political culture that has taken root in
Zimbabwe. The study used eclectic theories such as Marxism, audience-reception approach, critical
legal theories and language theories to analyse the films. The explanatory capacity of these theories
helped to reveal the contradictory ways in which the desire to impose restrictions on film meanings
was constantly undermined in the innovative language of the films.

ii
KEY TERMS

• Zimbabwe
• Film
• Censorship
• Language
• Shona
• English
• Verbal
• Visual
• Subvert
• Dominant narratives
• Political film
• Cultural film
• Economic film
• Short film genre
• Documentary
• Feature film

iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

AIPPA Access to Information Protection of Privacy Act

ANC African National Congress

CAFU Central African Film Unit

CCJP Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace

CIA Central Intelligence Association

ESAP Economic Structural Adjustment Programme

GNU Government of National Unity

GPA Global Political Agreement

HIV Human Immuno Virus

ICC International Criminal Court

MDC Movement for Democratic Change

MIC Media Information Commission

PG Parental Guidance is needed

POSA Public Order and Security Act

VLSN Film contains Violent Language, Sexual scenes and Nudity

UN United Nations

ZANLA Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army

ZANU PF Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front

ZAPU Zimbabwe African People’s Union

ZIPRA Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army
iv
ZNLWVA Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am greatly indebted to the following:

• My two promoters, Prof. DE. Mutasa and Prof. MT. Vambe who
molded my critical approach to the analysis of language of
censorship and the censorship of language as applied to
Zimbabwean films. I speak with conviction that this study could
not have seen the light of day if it was not for the untiring and
constructive criticism I got from my two promoters.

• UNISA library and its work force for creating a conducive
atmosphere for my studies.

• UNISA Financial Aid Bureau (FAB) for generously making
available the bursary that made me pursue my studies without
facing financial constraints.

• The director of Zimbabwe Media for Development Trust, Mr
Mahaka—a filmmaker, Dr Mboti, a film academic and Mr
Ndebele—a filmmaker for taking their precious time when I
engaged them during the interviews.

• My wife Rumbidzai and children—Karen, Mitchell and
Arthur(Jnr) for creating an enabling social environment with their
encouragements and prayers even when the going got tough.

Thank you all.

May God bless you!

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page…………………………………………………

Declaration……………………………………………... ii

Summary………………………………………………… iii

Key terms………………………………………………. iv

List of abbreviations……………………………………. v-vi

Acknowledgements…………………………………….. vii

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………… 1

1.0 Background…………………………………………… 1-5

1.1Area of study………………………………………… 5-7

1.2 Statement of the problem……………………………… 7

1.3 Hypotheses……………………………………………. 7-8

1.4 Research aims…………………………………………… 8

1.5 Research goals…………………………………………… 8

1.6 Research Objectives………………………………………. 8-9

1.7 Research questions……………………………………… 9

1.8 Justification……………………………………………… 9-11

1.9 Understanding the concept ‘Language’…………………… 11-12

1.10 Film censorship defined …………………………………… 13-15

1. 11 Typologies of film censorship in Zimbabwe…………….. 15

1.11.0 State Censorship ……………………………………….. 15-18

1.11.1 Administrative state censorship ………………………. 18

1.11.2 Institutional censorship…………………………………… 18-19
vii
1.11.3 Economic censorship ……………………………………… 19

1. 11.4 Patronage as censorship …………………………………. 19

1.11.5 Internalised or self-censorship …………………………. 20-21

1.11.6 Political Censorship ……………………………………… 21-22

1.12 Theoretical framework …………………………………. 22

1.12.0 Theories on media law and film censorship …………… 22-24

1.12.1 Marxist theories and the Production/Prohibition model…. 24-26

1.12.2 The psychological Explanation …………......................... 26-27

1.12.3 The sociological explanation…………………………… 27

1.12.4 Film censorship and Audience-Reception Approaches... 27-29

1.12.5 Language Theories of censorship and the politics of Interpretation 29-32

1.12.6 The liminality of visual languages in film ……………… 32-33

1.13 Methodology …………………………………………….. 33-34

1.13.0 Textual Analysis………………………………………….. 34-35

1.14 Organisation of the study……………………………….. 35-36

Chapter 2: Literature Review: Historical background on censorship in
postcolonial Zimbabwe

2.0 Introduction…………………………………………………. 37

2.1 Rhodesian Censorship laws on film in historical perspective… 37

2.1.0 Obscene Publications Ordinance Act of 1911…………… 38-39

2.1.1 The Cinematography Ordinance Act of 1912…………… 39-40

2.1.2 The Rhodesian Literature Bureau and Censorship of African
viii
fiction………………………………………………………… 40-41

2.1.3 Censorship and Entertainments Control Act of 1967…… 41-42

2.2 Capturing moments of transition: From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe… 42-44

2.3 Zimbabwean Laws on film censorship…………………………… 44

2.3.0 Censorship and Entertainments Control Act of 1996[Chapter 10:04]…… 44-49

2.3.1 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act [AIPPA] of
2001[Chapter 10:27]………………………………………… 49-55

2.3.2 Public Order and Security Act [POSA] No.18 of 2002… 55-58

2.4 Ambiguity in legal discourse……………………………. 58

2.4.0 Legal Ambiguity further redefined………………………. 59-60

2.4.1 Ambiguity and legal fictions…………………………… 61-63

2.4.2 Ambiguities within the ideologies of censorship………… 63-64

2.5 Vagueness in legal language 64-65

2.5.0 Vagueness and interpretation……………………………… 65-66

2.5.1 Vagueness as censorship…………………………………… 66-67

2.6 The question of clarity in the language of censorship laws 67-68

2.6.0 Criteria for clarity in Film language ………… 68

2.6.1 Readability/Understandability……………………………… 68-70

2.7 Homes and the semantic approach to censorship……………… 70-73

2.8 A critique of theories on legal discourse…… 73-74

2.9 The liberal rule of law………………………………………… 74

2.10 The Marxist imperative……………………………………… 75-79

2.11 Locating ‘gaps’ and ‘silences’ in scholarly criticism about
Zimbabwean films……………………………………………… 79-80

ix