Words of caution

Is the Censor Board being overzealous as it brings out a list of words that it wants deleted from movies? Parshathy J. Nath speaks to a few filmmakers to find out what they think

March 01, 2015 11:43 am | Updated October 18, 2016 12:39 pm IST

Still from Fandry

Still from Fandry

What is the yardstick of choosing these people? There must be transparency in their selection. Who are these five jury members? What is their perception of art? Many of them are selected just because of their connection to political parties.” S. Kamala Kannan director Madhubaanakadai has strong views about the Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC). His film unfolds in a bar in Tamil Nadu and jury members had a problem with it. “They said my film did not carry a message against alcohol consumption. Now, can’t the audience judge for themselves if it is good or bad?” asks Kamala Kannan. He is responding to the recent controversy over the list of words that CBFC wants beeped out or deleted in films. The matter has set off a debate on censorship among the film makers across the country.

Censorship is the big elephant in the room, according to K.R. Manoj, an award-winning Malayalam director.

“We are so conditioned to not miff the board; even if it ceases to exist, we will still behave as if it does.”

His film, Kanyaka Talkies revolved around a B-grade theatre. “I had to re-imagine the narrative only so that I did not offend the board. It is hard for a film maker in this country to show nudity or voice anti-establishment sentiments strongly through their films.”

Political censorship is the worst, says Dr. Biju, another film maker. He recalls how the censor had issues with a scene in his Perariyathavar, a national award-winning film, referring to the eviction of residents in Moolampilly in Kerala. “The film had a scene where a woman swears at a government official who wanted to demolish her house. The board asked me how she could abuse an official who is doing his work!” The censor board has members some of whom have no political sensibility at all, he says. “They were not even aware about this eviction case in the state.”

The regulations get tighter for the low budget film makers, feels Sandeep Mohan, an indie film maker from Mumbai. “The big names escape unscathed. My first film was a relationship comedy. The censor board thought it had adult content.” Fed up with negotiating, Sandeep began to look for new avenues of distribution such as cafes and private spaces. “I do not want to go through the traumatic phase once again,” he says.

Internet is a parallel space for movie distribution, says Ganesh Mohan, a short film maker from Coimbatore. “One does not have to be burdened by thoughts of box office, controversies or censor board. It is a liberating experience.” And, no amount of censorship can stop the information outpour through the Internet, he feels. “You hear worse stuff online. What is the point in muting them in films?”

Blaming cinema for the malice in society is just childish, according to many. And, why should only films be sanitized, when abusive language is rampant amongst many politicians in the country, asks Surabhi Sharma, a Mumbai based film maker. “Also, many oppressed communities borrow heavily from double meanings to talk of their oppression. So, by telling us to eliminate these words, are they trying to define ‘good cinema’ only as those unreal ones, shot in Switzerland?”

“If cinema could change society, by now everyone should be either Mahatma Gandhi or Gabbar SinghSholay,” points out Nagraj Manjule. In his film Fandry, Nagraj had to eliminate a cuss word used by one of his characters. “Isn’t cinema supposed to be realistic? And hold up a mirror, reflecting both filth and virtues in the society. I think we are scared of seeing our own faces in the mirror,” he says.

Using cuss words is no longer a novelty , according to Sriram Raghavan, the director of Badlapur and Agent Vinod. “No one uses it just for the sake of it these days.”

Many would like to see the censor board as a guide rather than an authoritarian voice. Says R.V. Ramani, a documentary film director, “Let them rate the film based on the age group it caters to. Let the audience decide if they should watch the film or not.” Ramani recalls how the censor board said they could not ‘understand his work’. “It is irrational. You must leave the artist to himself and respect his intention. ”

If the director has bad intentions the society will hold him responsible, says Kamala Kannan. “You criticise his work. Why ban it? The audience is mature. They have been here for more than a 100 years. They have a longer history than the censor of watching films. They know better.”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.