Banning ‘Primetime’ sabotages Malaysia’s creative economy

 If we trust Malaysians to vote, pay taxes, and raise families, we should at least trust them to sit in a dark room and critically analyse a movie.

From Jamaluddin Aziz

The sudden announcement by local film distributor Antenna Entertainments that A24’s psychological thriller “Primetime” has been banned by the Film Censorship Board (LPF) is more than a disappointment for film fans and scholars alike.

As a critical media studies scholar analysing our regulatory systems, I see this as a glaring case of policy misalignment that actively undermines the government’s own economic directives.

Once again, a high-profile international asset has been flatly erased from the local market without public justification.

Instead of treating these adjustments as routine protection, the government must evaluate how opaque decisions create structural risks that dismantle the industry.

If we expect our creative sectors to thrive globally, we must stop allowing unpredictable censorship to disrupt them from within.

Destabilising the Finas growth mandate

This enforcement strategy directly contradicts the developmental goals of the National Film Development Corporation Malaysia (Finas).

Just recently, Finas chairman Hans Isaac made a strong public case for increased national budget allocations to strengthen the local film ecosystem and elevate the global competitiveness of Malaysian stories.

The complete ban on “Primetime” represents a stark policy paradox that terrifies investors.

Instead of building a viable market, heavy-handed bans signal to international studios that the Malaysian theatrical space is highly volatile.

This regulatory uncertainty creates a chilling effect, forcing local filmmakers into defensive self-censorship out of fear their projects will be permanently shelved.

If the government wants a return on investment for public funds, it must first guarantee a stable environment where creative risks can safely exist.

Loss of public pedagogy and revenue

From an educational and media literacy standpoint, erasing complex texts like “Primetime”, which critiques vigilante media and the sensationalism surrounding child exploitation, is deeply counterproductive.

Banning a film does not stop it from being consumed in the digital age. A theatrical ban simply drives audiences to illicit online spaces and foreign streaming platforms.

Instead of protecting the public, the government achieves zero educational oversight while local exhibitors and cinemas lose vital box-office revenue.

We are effectively routing taxable domestic entertainment expenditure straight out of the country, starving the exact ecosystem the communications ministry is trying to fund.

If we want citizens to develop critical thinking skills, we cannot keep removing the very educational materials required to teach them.

Need for structural transparency

We must move beyond treating film as mere passive entertainment.

Finas CEO Azmir Saifuddin Mutalib recently said that the censorship framework has shown signs of opening up by increasingly relying on age classifications like PG-18 over extensive cuts.

The banning of “Primetime” feels like a massive step backward from that progressive rhetoric.

Instead of systemic censorship that suffocates open discussion, LPF must transition toward a transparent classification system.

The board must publicly publish detailed, analytical justifications for its restrictions.

Explaining why a piece of content crosses cultural boundaries helps educate the public on media ethics and artistic boundaries, fostering a mature and responsible film culture.

If we trust Malaysians to vote, pay taxes, and raise families, we should at least trust them to sit in a dark room and critically analyse a movie. - FMT

Jamaluddin Aziz is an associate professor in critical media studies at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s Centre for Research in Media and Communication and an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.