Foolish to think censor board is still relevant: RGV on Jana Nayagan row
The recent controversy surrounding Vijay’s film ‘Jana Nayagan’ not getting a censor certificate from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has sparked a heated debate about the relevance of the censor board in today’s digital age. Renowned film director Ram Gopal Varma has weighed in on the issue, stating that it’s “foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today.” Varma’s comments have ignited a fresh round of discussion about the role of the CBFC and its ability to regulate content in the face of rapidly changing technology and consumer behavior.
At the heart of the issue is the question of whether the censor board, established in 1952, is still equipped to handle the complexities of modern media. Varma argues that the CBFC was created in an era when the state controlled the media, and as such, it is no longer relevant in today’s digital landscape. “Censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, but today, any form of control is impossible,” he said. With the advent of social media, online streaming platforms, and other digital technologies, consumers have unprecedented access to a vast array of content from around the world.
Varma’s comments are not just a critique of the CBFC but also a reflection of the film industry’s complicity in allowing the censor board to exist for so long. “It’s foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today,” he said, blaming the film industry for not challenging the CBFC’s authority sooner. The film industry’s reluctance to confront the censor board has allowed it to maintain its grip on the industry, even as the media landscape has undergone significant changes.
One of the primary concerns with the CBFC is its tendency to impose moralistic and often arbitrary standards on filmmakers. The board’s guidelines, which emphasize the need to protect audiences from “obscene” or “offensive” content, can be subjective and open to interpretation. This has led to numerous instances of films being delayed or modified to conform to the CBFC’s requirements, often resulting in watered-down or sanitized versions of the original content.
Varma’s argument is that the censor board’s approach is not only outdated but also insults the intelligence of viewers. By assuming that audiences need to be protected from certain types of content, the CBFC is essentially treating them like children who cannot make their own decisions about what they want to watch. This patronizing attitude is at odds with the reality of modern media consumption, where audiences are increasingly sophisticated and discerning.
The controversy surrounding ‘Jana Nayagan’ is a case in point. The film’s failure to secure a censor certificate has sparked a heated debate about the CBFC’s role in regulating content. While some have argued that the board is necessary to protect audiences from objectionable content, others have countered that it is an outdated institution that stifles creativity and freedom of expression.
In the digital age, the notion of a single, centralized authority controlling access to content is no longer tenable. With online platforms and social media, consumers can access a vast array of content from around the world, often without any regulatory oversight. This has created a situation where the CBFC’s authority is increasingly tenuous, and its ability to regulate content is limited to traditional theatrical releases.
So, what is the way forward? Varma’s comments suggest that the film industry needs to take a more proactive role in challenging the CBFC’s authority and pushing for greater freedom of expression. This could involve advocating for reforms to the CBFC’s guidelines and procedures, as well as exploring alternative models for content regulation that are more in tune with the digital age.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding ‘Jana Nayagan’ and the CBFC’s role in regulating content is a symptom of a larger issue – the need for a more nuanced and sophisticated approach to content regulation in the digital age. As Varma so aptly put it, “It’s foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today.” It’s time for the film industry and policymakers to take a fresh look at the CBFC and its role in regulating content, and to consider new approaches that prioritize freedom of expression and creativity.
About the Author
