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 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 discussion about the role of the censor board in the film industry and whether it’s time to rethink its purpose.
Varma blamed the film industry for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long, arguing that the board was created in an era when the state controlled the media, and it’s no longer effective in today’s digital landscape. “Censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and it was a tool for the government to control what people saw and heard. But today, any form of control is impossible,” he said. With the rise of social media, online streaming platforms, and the internet, it’s become increasingly difficult for the censor board to regulate the content that people consume.
The CBFC was established in 1952, with the primary objective of regulating the content of films to ensure that they conform to certain standards of decency and morality. However, over the years, the board has been criticized for its arbitrary and often biased decisions, which have led to the censorship of many films. The board’s guidelines are often vague and open to interpretation, which can result in inconsistent decisions. This has led to frustration among filmmakers, who feel that the board’s censorship can stifle their creativity and limit their ability to express themselves.
Varma’s comments are not just a reaction to the ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy but also a reflection of the changing times. With the advent of online streaming platforms, people have access to a vast array of content from around the world, much of which is not subject to the same level of censorship as Indian films. This has created a mismatch between what people can watch online and what they can watch in theaters. The censor board’s attempts to regulate content can often seem outdated and irrelevant in this digital age.
Moreover, the censor board’s decisions can be seen as an insult to the intelligence of the viewers. By dictating what people can and cannot watch, the board is essentially treating audiences like children who need to be protected from certain types of content. This approach is patronizing and ignores the fact that people are capable of making their own decisions about what they want to watch. As Varma pointed out, the censor board’s existence is based on an outdated assumption that the state needs to control what people see and hear.
The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy has highlighted the need for a rethink of the censor board’s role in the film industry. The film’s producers have been struggling to get a censor certificate, which has delayed the film’s release. This has not only caused financial losses but also raised questions about the board’s ability to adapt to changing times. The incident has sparked a debate about the need for a more nuanced approach to film regulation, one that takes into account the changing media landscape and the evolving tastes of audiences.
In recent years, there have been several instances of films being censored or banned by the CBFC, which has led to a growing perception that the board is out of touch with the times. The board’s decisions have been criticized for being arbitrary, biased, and often driven by political considerations. This has created a sense of uncertainty and frustration among filmmakers, who feel that the board’s censorship can be unpredictable and unfair.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s comments on the censor board’s relevance are a timely reminder of the need for a rethink of the board’s role in the film industry. The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy has highlighted the challenges faced by filmmakers in dealing with the censor board, and it’s time for a more nuanced approach to film regulation. The censor board’s existence may have been justified in the past, but in today’s digital age, it’s foolish to think that it’s still relevant. As Varma pointed out, the board’s attempts to control content are not only outdated but also insulting to the intelligence of viewers. It’s time for the film industry to move on from the censor board and embrace a more modern approach to film regulation.
About the Author
