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. 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 discussion 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. “The censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and it was a tool for the government to exercise control over the content that was being consumed by the public,” he said. “But today, any form of control is impossible. With the advent of social media, streaming platforms, and the internet, people have access to a vast array of content from all over the world. The idea of a censor board trying to control what people can and cannot watch is not only outdated but also insulting to the viewers.”
Varma’s comments come at a time when the film industry is grappling with the issue of censorship and the role of the CBFC. The CBFC has been criticized for its arbitrary and often inconsistent decisions, which have led to delays and cuts in films. The board’s decision to deny a censor certificate to ‘Jana Nayagan’ has been seen as a prime example of its overreach and lack of understanding of the changing times.
The CBFC was established in 1952, with the primary objective of regulating the content of films to ensure that they conform to certain standards of decency and morality. However, over the years, the board’s role has evolved, and it has become a tool for the government to exercise control over the film industry. The board’s decisions are often influenced by political and social pressures, which can lead to arbitrary and biased decisions.
In today’s digital age, the concept of censorship is becoming increasingly redundant. With the rise of streaming platforms and social media, people have access to a vast array of content from all over the world. The idea of a censor board trying to control what people can and cannot watch is not only outdated but also impractical. The CBFC’s attempts to censor content are often seen as a form of moral policing, which can be insulting to the viewers.
Varma’s comments have been echoed by many in the film industry, who feel that the CBFC is no longer relevant in today’s digital age. Many filmmakers and actors have spoken out against the board’s arbitrary decisions and have called for a more nuanced approach to censorship. The issue of censorship is complex and multifaceted, and it requires a thoughtful and informed approach.
The government has also been criticized for its role in the controversy surrounding ‘Jana Nayagan’. The film’s producer has alleged that the CBFC’s decision to deny a censor certificate was influenced by political pressure. The government’s involvement in the film industry has been a subject of controversy for many years, with many filmmakers and actors accusing the government of trying to exert control over the content of films.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding ‘Jana Nayagan’ has highlighted the need for a rethink on the role of the CBFC in the film industry. Ram Gopal Varma’s comments have sparked a debate about the relevance of the censor board in today’s digital age. As the film industry continues to evolve, it’s time to rethink the concept of censorship and the role of the CBFC. The board’s arbitrary decisions and attempts to control what people can and cannot watch are not only outdated but also insulting to the viewers. It’s time for the film industry to come together and demand a more nuanced approach to censorship, one that takes into account the changing times and the evolving needs of the audience.
About the Author
