Foolish to think censor board is still relevant: RGV on Jana Nayagan row
The Indian film industry has been embroiled in a heated debate over the relevance of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), also known as the censor board, in today’s digital age. The controversy surrounding Vijay’s latest film, Jana Nayagan, not getting a censor certificate from the CBFC has sparked a fresh round of discussions on the role of the censor board 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 come at a time when the film industry is grappling with the challenges of censorship in the digital era. With the rise of streaming platforms and social media, the traditional notion of censorship has become increasingly obsolete. The censor board, which was established to regulate the content of films, has been criticized for being outdated and irrelevant in today’s context.
According to Varma, the censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and its primary function was to ensure that films conformed to the government’s ideological and moral standards. However, with the advent of technology and the proliferation of social media, it has become impossible to control the flow of information and ideas. “Censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, but today, any form of control is impossible,” Varma said.
Varma blamed the film industry for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long, despite its irrelevance in today’s context. He argued that the industry has been complicit in perpetuating the censor board’s powers, even when it has become clear that its role is no longer tenable. “It’s foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today,” Varma said, emphasizing the need for the industry to recognize the changing times and adapt to the new reality.
The controversy surrounding Jana Nayagan has highlighted the arbitrary nature of the censor board’s decisions. The film, which has been cleared by the Tamil Nadu censor board, has been denied a certificate by the CBFC, citing objections to certain scenes and dialogue. The film’s producers have been forced to make cuts and modifications to the film, sparking a debate about the role of the censor board in determining what constitutes acceptable content.
Varma’s comments have resonated with many in the film industry, who have long argued that the censor board’s powers are excessive and arbitrary. The censor board’s decisions are often seen as being driven by a moralistic and conservative agenda, which can stifle creativity and freedom of expression. By insisting that films conform to its standards, the censor board is essentially dictating what audiences can and cannot watch, which is an insult to the intelligence and maturity of viewers.
The issue of censorship is not limited to the film industry alone. It has far-reaching implications for freedom of expression and the democratic principles of a society. In a country like India, where diversity and pluralism are celebrated, the need for censorship is increasingly being questioned. With the rise of social media and streaming platforms, audiences have access to a vast array of content from around the world, which has made the traditional notion of censorship seem outdated and irrelevant.
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. Ram Gopal Varma’s comments have sparked a necessary debate about the relevance of the CBFC in today’s digital age. As the film industry continues to evolve and adapt to new technologies and platforms, it is essential to recognize the changing times and move away from outdated notions of censorship. The industry must take a stand against the arbitrary powers of the censor board and fight for the freedom of expression and creativity that is essential to its survival.
About the Author
