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 raised eyebrows, and in this blog post, we will delve into the details of the controversy and explore the relevance of the censor board in today’s digital age.
The CBFC, established in 1952, is responsible for certifying films for public exhibition in India. The board’s primary function is to ensure that films comply with the country’s moral and cultural standards. However, over the years, the CBFC has been criticized for its arbitrary and often outdated guidelines. The board’s decisions have been questioned, and many filmmakers have accused it of stifling creativity and freedom of expression.
Varma’s comments on the censor board’s relevance come at a time when the film industry is grappling with the changing landscape of media consumption. With the rise of digital platforms and social media, the traditional models of film distribution and exhibition are being disrupted. The ease of access to information and entertainment has made it impossible for any authority to control what people watch or consume.
According to Varma, the censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and there was a need for regulation. However, he argues that those times are long gone, and any form of control is now impossible. The filmmaker believes that the censor board has become an anachronism, and its existence is an insult to the intelligence of the viewers. Varma’s statement is not just a critique of the CBFC but also a commentary on the film industry’s failure to adapt to the changing times.
The “Jana Nayagan” controversy is a perfect example of the censor board’s outdated approach. The film, which reportedly deals with themes of politics and social justice, has been denied a censor certificate due to its alleged anti-government content. The CBFC’s decision has been met with widespread criticism, with many arguing that the board is trying to stifle the film’s message and silence the filmmaker.
Varma’s blame on the film industry for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long is not entirely unfounded. The industry has often been criticized for its lack of unity and failure to challenge the censor board’s decisions. Many filmmakers have chosen to compromise on their creative vision rather than taking on the CBFC. This approach has emboldened the board, allowing it to continue its arbitrary and often draconian decisions.
The issue of censorship is not unique to India, and many countries have grappled with the question of how to balance creative freedom with social responsibility. However, in today’s digital age, the traditional models of censorship are being challenged. The rise of streaming platforms and social media has created new avenues for content creators to reach their audiences, bypassing traditional censorship mechanisms.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s comments on the censor board’s relevance have sparked an important debate in the film industry. The “Jana Nayagan” controversy is a reminder that the CBFC’s approach is outdated and often at odds with the values of creative freedom and freedom of expression. As the film industry continues to evolve, it is essential to re-examine the role of the censor board and its relevance in today’s digital age. The industry must come together to challenge the CBFC’s arbitrary decisions and fight for the right to creative freedom.
About the Author
