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 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 such, it was a tool used to regulate and censor content. However, with the advent of technology and the internet, the concept of control has become obsolete. “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 statement highlights the changing landscape of the media and entertainment industry. With the rise of digital platforms and social media, content is now more accessible than ever before. The traditional model of censorship, where a centralized authority decides what is suitable for public consumption, is no longer effective. In fact, it can be argued that the CBFC’s attempts to censor content often have the opposite effect, drawing more attention to the very thing they are trying to suppress.
The “Jana Nayagan” controversy is a prime example of this. The film’s inability to secure a censor certificate has generated a significant amount of buzz, with many people taking to social media to express their opinions on the matter. This has not only increased interest in the film but also highlighted the perceived shortcomings of the CBFC.
Varma’s comments also touch on the issue of artistic freedom and the importance of trusting the audience. He believes that the censor board’s attempts to dictate what can and cannot be shown on screen are an insult to the viewers’ intelligence. By imposing strict guidelines and cuts on films, the CBFC is essentially treating the audience like children who need to be protected from certain themes or content.
This approach is not only outdated but also undermines the audience’s ability to make informed decisions about what they want to watch. In today’s digital age, people have access to a vast array of content from around the world, and they are capable of distinguishing between what is suitable and what is not. The idea that a centralized authority needs to dictate what is acceptable is no longer tenable.
Furthermore, the CBFC’s guidelines and regulations often seem arbitrary and inconsistent. Different films are treated differently, with some being given a free pass while others are subjected to stringent cuts and edits. This lack of transparency and consistency has led to frustration and confusion among filmmakers, who are often left wondering what is and is not acceptable.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s comments on the relevance of the censor board are a timely reminder of the need for change in the film industry. The CBFC’s outdated approach to censorship is no longer effective in today’s digital age, and it’s time for a new approach that prioritizes artistic freedom and trusts the audience’s intelligence. As Varma so aptly put it, “It’s foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today.” The film industry needs to move forward and embrace the changing landscape of media and entertainment, rather than clinging to outdated notions of control and censorship.
About the Author
