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 wave of discussion on the role and relevance of the CBFC in modern times.
According to Varma, the film industry is to blame for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long. He argued that the censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and as a result, it was necessary to have some form of regulation. However, with the advent of technology and the internet, Varma believes that any form of control is now impossible. “Censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, but today, any form of control is impossible,” he said.
Varma’s comments come at a time when the CBFC is facing criticism for its handling of ‘Jana Nayagan’. The film, which stars Vijay in the lead role, has been denied a censor certificate due to its perceived anti-government content. The CBFC’s decision has been met with widespread outrage, with many in the film industry accusing the board of censorship and stifling artistic freedom.
The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy is not an isolated incident. In recent years, the CBFC has been at the center of several high-profile controversies, including the censorship of films like ‘Udta Punjab’ and ‘Lipstick Under My Burkha’. These incidents have raised questions about the role and relevance of the CBFC in modern times.
Varma’s argument is that the CBFC is an outdated institution that no longer serves a purpose. With the rise of streaming platforms and social media, audiences have access to a vast array of content from around the world. As a result, the idea of a government-appointed body deciding what is suitable for public consumption seems archaic.
Moreover, Varma believes that the CBFC’s approach to censorship is not only outdated but also insulting to viewers. By assuming that audiences need to be protected from certain types of content, the CBFC is essentially treating them like children. “It insults the viewers’ intelligence,” Varma said. “The censor board thinks that the audience is not mature enough to decide what they want to watch.”
The film industry has been slow to respond to the changing times, and the CBFC’s continued existence is a testament to this. While some filmmakers have spoken out against the CBFC’s censorship, others have chosen to work within the system, often making compromises to get their films certified.
However, with the rise of streaming platforms, filmmakers now have alternative avenues to reach their audiences. Platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime have given creators the freedom to produce content without the constraints of traditional censorship. As a result, audiences are being exposed to a wide range of content that would not have been possible under the CBFC’s watch.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s comments on the CBFC’s relevance are a timely reminder of the need for change. The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy is just the latest example of the CBFC’s outdated approach to censorship. As the film industry continues to evolve, it’s time to rethink the role of the CBFC and consider alternative approaches to regulating content.
The CBFC’s existence is a relic of a bygone era, and it’s time for the film industry to move on. By acknowledging the changing times and the rise of new technologies, filmmakers can work towards creating a more open and free environment for artistic expression. As Varma said, it’s “foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today.” It’s time to move on and embrace the future.
About the Author
