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. Renowned filmmaker 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 discussion on the role and relevance of the censor board in the modern era.
According to Varma, the film industry is to blame for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long. “The censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and it was necessary to have some form of regulation,” he said. “But today, any form of control is impossible.” With the advent of digital technology and social media, it’s become increasingly difficult for any authority to control the flow of information and content. Varma’s statement highlights the outdated nature of the censor board, which was established in 1952, long before the internet and social media revolutionized the way we consume media.
Varma’s comments are not without merit. The censor board’s primary function is to certify films for public exhibition, ensuring that they comply with certain guidelines and standards. However, with the rise of streaming platforms and online content, the traditional model of film certification has become redundant. Many films and shows are now released directly on digital platforms, bypassing the censor board altogether. This has led to a situation where the censor board’s authority is being increasingly challenged, and its relevance is being questioned.
Moreover, the censor board’s approach to film certification has often been criticized for being arbitrary and biased. Many filmmakers have complained about the board’s inconsistent and subjective decisions, which can be influenced by personal opinions and political agendas. This has led to a lack of trust and credibility in the censor board, with many in the industry viewing it as an outdated and unnecessary institution.
Varma also argued that the censor board “insults the viewers” by assuming that they need to be protected from certain types of content. “The audience is not a child that needs to be protected,” he said. “They can decide for themselves what they want to watch.” This statement resonates with many film enthusiasts who believe that adults should have the freedom to choose what they watch, without the need for a regulatory body to dictate what is acceptable and what is not.
The controversy surrounding “Jana Nayagan” has also raised questions about the role of the censor board in shaping the narrative of Indian cinema. The film, which is a political thriller, has been accused of promoting a particular ideology and agenda. The censor board’s decision to withhold certification has been seen by some as an attempt to suppress dissenting voices and stifle creative freedom. This has sparked a wider debate about the need for artistic freedom and the importance of allowing filmmakers to express themselves without fear of censorship or retribution.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s comments on the censor board’s relevance have sparked a timely and necessary debate about the role of regulatory bodies in the film industry. As the media landscape continues to evolve, it’s essential to re-examine the purpose and function of institutions like the censor board. With the rise of digital platforms and social media, it’s clear that the traditional model of film certification is no longer effective. It’s time for the film industry to rethink its approach to regulation and censorship, and to prioritize artistic freedom and creative expression.
The controversy surrounding “Jana Nayagan” is a reminder that the debate about censorship and regulation is far from over. As the film industry continues to navigate the complexities of the digital age, it’s essential to have a nuanced and informed discussion about the role of regulatory bodies like the censor board. By engaging with these issues and challenging outdated institutions, we can work towards creating a more vibrant and diverse cultural landscape, where filmmakers are free to express themselves without fear of censorship or retribution.
About the Author
