Foolish to think censor board is still relevant: RGV on Jana Nayagan row
The Indian film industry has been embroiled in a controversy surrounding the upcoming Tamil film, Jana Nayagan, starring Vijay. The film has been denied a censor certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), leading to a heated debate about the relevance of the censor board in today’s digital age. Amidst this row, renowned filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has weighed in with his opinion, stating that it’s “foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today.”
Varma’s comments have sparked a fresh wave of discussion about the role of the CBFC in the film industry. The censor board, established in 1952, was initially tasked with regulating the content of films to ensure they conformed to certain standards of decency and morality. However, with the advent of the internet and social media, the traditional models of content consumption have undergone a significant shift. Today, audiences have access to a vast array of content from around the world, making the concept of censorship seem outdated and irrelevant.
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 there was no other way for people to access information,” he said. “But today, any form of control is impossible. The internet has democratized content, and people can access whatever they want, whenever they want. It’s foolish to think that the censor board can still dictate what people can or cannot watch.”
Varma’s comments are not without merit. In an era where online platforms have become the primary source of entertainment for many, the traditional models of censorship seem archaic. The CBFC’s attempts to regulate content often come across as heavy-handed and arbitrary, leading to frustration among filmmakers and audiences alike. The fact that the CBFC can deny a film a censor certificate, effectively banning it from release, is seen as an infringement on the creative freedom of filmmakers.
Moreover, the censor board’s decisions often seem to be driven by a moralistic agenda, rather than a genuine concern for the well-being of audiences. The board’s guidelines, which dictate what constitutes “objectionable” content, are often vague and open to interpretation. This has led to a situation where films are frequently delayed or modified to conform to the board’s standards, resulting in a watered-down version of the original content.
The controversy surrounding Jana Nayagan is a case in point. The film, which is reportedly a political thriller, has been denied a censor certificate due to its allegedly “sensitive” content. While the CBFC has not explicitly stated what aspects of the film are objectionable, it is rumored that the board has taken issue with the film’s portrayal of certain political figures and events. This has led to accusations that the CBFC is attempting to stifle free speech and creativity, rather than protecting audiences from harmful content.
Varma’s statement that the censor board “insults viewers” is also worth considering. By assuming that audiences are incapable of making their own decisions about what they want to watch, the CBFC is essentially treating them like children who need to be protected from “objectionable” content. This patronizing attitude is not only condescending but also ignores the fact that audiences are capable of making informed choices about the content they consume.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Jana Nayagan has highlighted the need for a rethink on the role of the censor board in the film industry. As Ram Gopal Varma has pointed out, the CBFC is a relic of a bygone era, and its attempts to regulate content in today’s digital age are not only futile but also insulting to audiences. It’s time for the film industry to recognize that the censor board is no longer relevant and to find new ways to engage with audiences and promote creative freedom.
About the Author
