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 in the film industry. Amidst the row, renowned filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has come out and expressed his strong views on the relevance of the censor board in today’s digital age. According to Varma, it’s “foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today.” He went on to blame the film industry for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long, stating that the board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, but today, any form of control is impossible.
The CBFC, established in 1952, is responsible for certifying films for public exhibition in India. Over the years, the board has been criticized for its strict censorship policies, often leading to delays and disputes with filmmakers. The latest controversy surrounding “Jana Nayagan” is just another example of the board’s outdated approach to film certification. Varma’s comments have sparked a fresh debate on the need for a censor board in the digital age, where content is readily available on various platforms.
Varma’s argument is that the censor board insults the intelligence of viewers by assuming that they need to be protected from certain types of content. He believes that the board’s approach is not only outdated but also patronizing, treating audiences like children who cannot make their own decisions about what they want to watch. In an era where the internet has made it possible for people to access a wide range of content, the idea of a censor board controlling what can and cannot be shown in films seems archaic.
The film industry has long been critical of the CBFC’s strict censorship policies, which often lead to delays and disputes. Many filmmakers have argued that the board’s approach stifles creativity and freedom of expression, leading to a lack of innovation and experimentation in Indian cinema. The fact that the CBFC has been allowed to exist for so long is a testament to the film industry’s failure to challenge the status quo and demand change.
Varma’s comments have been welcomed by many in the film industry, who see the censor board as a relic of the past. With the rise of digital platforms and social media, the way people consume content has changed dramatically. The idea of a central authority controlling what can and cannot be shown in films seems outdated and unnecessary. In fact, many argue that the censor board’s approach is not only irrelevant but also counterproductive, as it often creates more buzz and curiosity around a film than it would have otherwise.
The controversy surrounding “Jana Nayagan” is just the latest example of the censor board’s outdated approach to film certification. The film, which is a political thriller, has been denied a censor certificate due to its allegedly “sensitive” content. The CBFC’s decision has been met with widespread criticism, with many arguing that the board is overstepping its bounds and stifling freedom of expression. Varma’s comments have added fuel to the fire, highlighting the need for a more nuanced and modern approach to film certification.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s comments on the censor board’s relevance in today’s digital age have sparked a much-needed debate in the film industry. The fact that the CBFC has been allowed to exist for so long is a testament to the industry’s failure to challenge the status quo and demand change. As Varma so aptly put it, it’s “foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today.” The time has come for the film industry to rethink its approach to film certification and move towards a more modern and nuanced system that respects the intelligence and freedom of audiences.
About the Author
