The ‘Flying Butter’ that does not melt in our mouth

Syumaila Salihin (right) and Arjun Thanaraju play school friends Aishah and Suresh in the film. – Anomalist Production

MENTEGA TERBANG should be banned, but for this sole reason: it’s boring. My colleague Nadia and I are not happy we lost over one hour of our lives watching this tepid Yasmin Ahmad wannabe film, but we watched demi negara dan rakyat (for the people and country).

The film is about a family who loses their mother due to an illness, and a precocious daughter who is curious about the world. She can be combative, like all teenagers are, as she navigates her little world with her best friend, Suresh (the only good thing about the film). The two fancy themselves as purveyors of culture and debate, as they deal with crushes, death and grief, and yes, multiculturalism in Malaysia.

Aishah’s father acts as the hipster Muslim provocateur, who encourages his daughter to go on this journey, and discusses religion and faith with her over dinner. [Nadia: Who talks about religion and cultures over dinner? Tak lapar ke? (Are they not hungry?)]. Towards the end, as Aisyah copes with loss and grief, her father tells her she can be whoever she wants and that he would always love her. [Dina: Wah, ini tunjuk on screen, pitam diaorang... (Wah they are showing this on screen, they’ll black out... )].

As many of us know, Mentega Terbang has been in the news for its take and “promotion of blasphemy” and an “unIslamic lifestyle”. The religious authorities are up in arms, the conservatives have taken to writing petitions and statements, and netizens on the film’s Instagram are impassioned and hysterical.

How morally reprehensible is this film?

Putting aside our need to stay awake throughout the film, and we kept dragging the cursor across the screen to fast forward to the so-called juicy bits in the film, Mentega Terbang does raise a few issues that we as a society have to address.

Firstly, we need to address how we will approach contentious, sensitive issues in public. There is no way we can police and monitor what people consume on the Internet, films, books – banning will only push these activities underground.

Secondly, art is meant to make us question ourselves. It is not meant to be pretty and admired, art seeks to shock us into debate and throttle our sensibilities. This is a topic to ponder. In the first place, Mentega Terbang is a film. It is an artwork produced via film. If the answer to the question above is yes, do we need to control art? How do we even control art production? How far does art production need to be controlled to ensure creative expression is not restrained?

Now, the answer to all of these questions can only be answered by artists, filmmakers, dancers, singers, and any other practitioners of artistic expression. They are provocateurs of society. Yes, Malaysia is multicultural, hence sensitive issues must be dealt with sensitively. But, art is a space where you question the normal activities you do in your daily life. It puts forward the things you have taken for granted and there are times arts are supposed to provoke people. For example, Fahmi Reza uses graffiti and graphic images to stir citizens into action or think about current issues. He has irked the ire of our authorities, but for activists, students and many Malaysians, Fahmi is an icon of truth.

Thirdly, can religion be synthesised into an art form? In Christianity, the Prophet Jesus has been immortalised into paintings, figurines. The Hindu faith also has similar forms of their deities. In Islam, we can make films, paint, but we cannot portray our Prophet Mohammad in human and art form. Is there a “correct” way to create under Islam?

As such, the question of synthesising religion into art will always be controversial. If you are the artist who conforms to mainstream ideas of religion, great. For the artist wanting to break boundaries and create debate, the space is difficult to find in Malaysia. One of the things we find Malaysians fear is the ability to agree to disagree. Everyone believes they are always correct, and do not want to tread into heated discussions, arguing about hard topics. Anger must be contained. Still, how are we going to learn from each other if there are limits to creative expression on the issue of religion?

We refer to the former Wilayah Persekutuan mufti, Datuk Dr Zulkifli Mohammad Al Bakri’s statement on Mentega Terbang (https://zulkiflialbakri.com/18-ulasan-tentang-filem-kontroversi- mentega-terbang/). We will only reproduce one or two points from his statement due to the word limit. We agree with his statement that the film was successful in bringing to the table positive themes such as family and racial unity. We also support his other point that everyone, whatever creed and background they have, has the right to seek his or her truth when it comes to beliefs.

The question is how do we portray truth seeking in an artistic way and yet thoughtful and provoking? From our point of view, each faith has its own philosophies, jurisprudence and etymologies. Could the problem and reason why Mentega Terbang was filmed this way was because of the lack of knowledge on the part of the creative team? Nadia and I are not filmmakers, but we devour books and popular culture continuously. Having the knowledge is important and needs to be the basis of everything.

A coalition of NGOs, academics and creative professionals have signed a statement condemning the threats of violence that the filmmakers of Mentega Terbang have received. We do not condone threats nor violence, but what we would like to do, if not IMAN Research, then Nadia and I, would like to extend an invitation to Datuk Dr Zulkifli Mohammad Al Bakri and his team to discuss this matter and how to proceed from there. We will get a troupe of creatives and film critics and historians as well. Perhaps, what we can do is take the positives from this brouhaha. IMAN Research of which we are part of, has taken the stance that creativity cannot be censored nor policed.

May Nadia and I suggest the following?

If we can compartmentalise certain scenes such as when the young girl wanted to know how pork tasted, let us have a discussion among ourselves and our non- Muslim friends about why pork is haram for us to consume. Fact: Jews do not eat pork either and it is stated in Leviticus 11:3, animals like cows, sheep, and deer that have divided hooves and chew their cud may be consumed. Pigs should not be eaten because they don’t chew their cud. The ban on the consumption of pork is repeated in Deuteronomy 14:8. Discuss similarities and differences and find the middle path.

When the father told the daughter that she could be whoever she wanted to be, and follow any faith she wanted to as well, we can take this rather startling scene to talk to our young about why the scene was unsettling and if this happened, why? After all, this is not just a Muslim matter, many non-Muslims have converted and shocked many family members along the way!

As the dust settles on this issue, Nadia and I hope that the film sparks debate among Malaysians and that we can use it as part of critical religious discourse, instead of social media wars and threats. Selamat Berpuasa semua! (Happy fasting, everyone!)

Dina Zaman is co-founder of IMAN Research, a think tank studying society, religion and perception. Nadia Lokman is a researcher at IMAN. The views expressed here are solely the writers’ own.