When Yana Mintoff Bland spoke out against the way her father had been portrayed in the Dear Dom film, she may have thought that she was protecting his legacy and his reputation.

Some critics of Dear Dom are coming across as people who will not tolerate the expression of opinions which do not chime in with their own- Claire Bonello

No doubt, the legions of ardent Mintoff admirers thought likewise. They too, railed against the way the former prime minister was depicted in the documentary.

For them the film was either (a) subtle Nationalist propaganda (b) a full blown hatchet job of Dom Mintoff or (c) a superficial assessment of the man which failed to relay the complexities of the man, and the events which spurred him to act as he did.

Mintoff Bland announced she was talking to her lawyers – with the faint threat of legal action which that implies. The defenders of Dom congregated online.

The inevitable Facebook group was formed urging the Mintoff faithful to boycott the film. Yet another group page was set up and we were told to press ‘Like’ if we thought that the film did not portray the whole truth about Dom. The irate rumblings from Labour quarters continue, as his supporters try to defend the memory of the Mintoff they know.

After so many years away from the centre stage of politics, Mintoff still manages to elicit fierce loyalty from his admirers.

In praising Mintoff, they hark back to the golden age when the Labour Party was a force to be reckoned with – a party united behind a leader who was more myth than man.

It is this myth which Mintoff’s admirers want to protect – a myth which is a reality for them, so much so, that they fail to comprehend why others should not share their views about it.

The criticism of Dear Dom is a call to arms (figuratively speaking of course) to all those who want to preserve the myth of the greatness of Dom. However, by launching an attack on the film, its detractors have shown themselves to be amateurs in the field of media strategy. Their efforts – however motivated – will have an adverse effect on the Labour cause and will largely serve to alienatepeople from the Labour fold.

There are several reasons why banging on about Dear Dom wasn’t such a good idea for Labour. The first relates to the magnificent (and free) publicity which the film detractors are managing to drum up for it. By creating and sustaining controversy about it, the film’s detractors are unwittingly stirring up people’s curiosity, causing them to flock to the cinema to watch it and making Dear Dom a box-office hit.

This is the unintended consequence of trying to suppress or censure information or a performance. People will want to know what all the fuss is about and flock to watch it, even if they had never given a thought to the matter before.

It’s happened so often in the recent past that I’m surprised to see that Labour exponents haven’t twigged on to the fact that coming down on anything will have the adverse effect of promoting it.

Think back to the Da Vinci Code. Chances are that if there hadn’t been the almighty fuss about the book or the film, they would both have been modest successes and then sunk without a trace as many B movies do. Instead the prayer vigils and boycotts gave it the aura of forbidden fruit and turned it to box-office gold.

Something like that is happening with Dear Dom. Initially the film attracted audiences from older generations. We can safely assume that these viewers came from the ‘love him’ or ‘loathe him’ camp and constituted the primary target audience for such a film.

One cinema owner said the film was attracting a diverse mix of people. It began by attracting the older generation, including many people who were not regular cinemagoers. However – following the debate raging about the film – it is reported that more younger people are choosing to watch it. I presume this is not the result intended by the film’s critics.

Besides the claims about the film’s superficiality, the one aspect that has irked Labour exponents most is the way that the film has portrayed Dom Mintoff – a portrayal which does not coincide with their view of him.

In effect, they are not disputing the facts – but the producer’s assessment of them. Some critics have even questioned whether such a film should be shown or even partially subsidised through public funds.

In expressing such thoughts they are probably not realising how alarming such views are. By talking in this way, they are coming across as people who will not tolerate the expression of opinions which do not chime in with their own.

Maybe this wasn’t intentional, but Labour exponents have to come up to speed and wake up to the fact that there are no longer any sacred cows and that people will discuss what they will and come to their own conclusions.

Calling for boycotts and lawyers is no longer the way to go. If Labour wants to be heard it has to set up its stall in the marketplace of ideas instead of trying to dismantle the stall of others.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt