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 latest controversy surrounding Vijay’s film ‘Jana Nayagan’ not getting a censor certificate from the CBFC has sparked a fresh wave of criticism against the board. Renowned filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma has joined the fray, 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 issue of creative freedom and the role of the censor board in regulating content. The CBFC, established in 1952, was tasked with certifying films for public exhibition in India. However, with the advent of digital technology and the rise of online streaming platforms, the board’s relevance has been called into question.
According to Varma, the censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and its primary function was to regulate content to ensure that it conformed to the government’s ideology. “But today, any form of control is impossible,” he said, highlighting the futility of trying to regulate content in the digital age. With the proliferation of social media and online platforms, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the censor board to keep pace with the vast amount of content being created and consumed.
Varma also blamed the film industry for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long. “It’s foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today,” he said, emphasizing that the industry has been complicit in perpetuating the board’s existence. By complying with the CBFC’s guidelines and regulations, filmmakers have inadvertently given the board a sense of legitimacy, even when its decisions are often arbitrary and subjective.
The controversy surrounding ‘Jana Nayagan’ is a case in point. The film, which is a Tamil-language drama, has been denied a censor certificate by the CBFC, allegedly due to its depiction of certain themes and scenes. While the board’s decision has been met with widespread criticism, it’s also raised questions about the board’s role in regulating content. Should the CBFC have the power to dictate what audiences can and cannot watch, or should filmmakers be free to create content without fear of censorship?
Varma’s comments have sparked a debate about the need for a more nuanced approach to film certification. Rather than relying on a blanket ban or censorship, the CBFC could adopt a more flexible approach, taking into account the context and intent behind a film. This could involve introducing a rating system, similar to those used in other countries, which would allow audiences to make informed choices about the content they watch.
Moreover, the censor board’s decisions often seem to be based on a paternalistic approach, where the board assumes that it knows what’s best for audiences. This approach insults the intelligence of viewers, who are capable of making their own decisions about what they want to watch. As Varma pointed out, the censor board’s attempts to control content are not only futile but also condescending, implying that audiences need to be protected from certain ideas or themes.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding ‘Jana Nayagan’ has highlighted the need for a rethink on the role of the censor board in today’s digital age. As Ram Gopal Varma said, it’s foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today. The film industry must take a stand against censorship and demand a more nuanced approach to film certification. By doing so, we can ensure that creative freedom is protected, and audiences are given the freedom to choose what they want to watch.
About the Author
