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 about the relevance of the censor board in today’s digital age. Renowned film director 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 round of discussions about the role of the CBFC in the film industry and whether it’s time to rethink its purpose.
According to Varma, the film industry is to blame for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long. He argues that the censor board was created in an era when the state controlled the media, and it was necessary to regulate the content that was being consumed by the public. However, with the advent of the internet and social media, it’s become impossible to control the flow of information, making the censor board redundant. “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 are not unfounded. The CBFC was established in 1952, a time when the Indian government had strict control over the media. The board’s primary function was to certify films for public exhibition, ensuring that they conformed to certain standards of decency and morality. However, with the rise of digital platforms and social media, the way people consume content has changed dramatically. Today, anyone can access a vast array of content from around the world with just a few clicks, making it impossible for the CBFC to regulate what people watch.
Moreover, the CBFC’s role has been criticized for being overly restrictive and arbitrary. The board has been known to cut scenes, mute dialogues, and even ban films that it deems objectionable. This has led to a cat-and-mouse game between filmmakers and the CBFC, with many filmmakers feeling that the board is stifling their creativity and freedom of expression. Varma’s comments suggest that the CBFC’s approach is not only outdated but also insulting to viewers, who are capable of making their own decisions about what they want to watch.
The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy is a case in point. The film, which stars Vijay, has been denied a censor certificate by the CBFC due to its alleged criticism of the government. The film’s makers have been asked to make certain cuts and changes before the board will consider certifying it. This has sparked a debate about the CBFC’s role in regulating political content in films. While the board argues that it’s trying to maintain social harmony and avoid offending certain groups, many see this as an attempt to stifle dissent and free speech.
Varma’s comments have been met with a mixed response from the film industry. Some have praised him for speaking out against the CBFC’s outdated approach, while others have criticized him for being overly simplistic. However, one thing is clear: the debate about the CBFC’s relevance is not going away anytime soon. As the film industry continues to evolve and adapt to new technologies and changing audience habits, it’s time to rethink the role of the censor board and whether it’s still necessary in today’s digital age.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s comments on the CBFC’s relevance in the wake of the ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy have sparked an important debate about the role of the censor board in the film industry. While the CBFC was established to regulate content and maintain social harmony, its approach has become outdated and restrictive. As Varma argues, it’s foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today, and it’s time for the film industry to rethink its purpose and adapt to the changing times.
About the Author
