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 discussion on the relevance and purpose of the censor board in today’s digital age.
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 necessary evil back then. But today, any form of control is impossible,” he said. With the advent of social media and online platforms, it’s become increasingly difficult for the censor board to regulate the content that’s being consumed by the masses. Varma’s argument is that the censor board is an outdated institution that’s struggling to keep up with the changing times.
The CBFC’s primary function is to certify films for public exhibition, ensuring that the content is suitable for different age groups. However, with the rise of online streaming platforms, the lines between what’s acceptable and what’s not have become increasingly blurred. Many films and shows that are available online would never have made it past the censor board’s scrutiny, and yet, they’re being widely consumed by the public. This raises questions about the effectiveness and relevance of the censor board in today’s digital landscape.
Varma also pointed out that the censor board’s approach is often arbitrary and inconsistent. What may be deemed objectionable in one film may be allowed in another, depending on the board’s whim. This lack of clarity and transparency can be frustrating for filmmakers who are trying to navigate the complex and often confusing guidelines set by the CBFC. By trying to control what can and can’t be shown on screen, the censor board is essentially insulting the intelligence of the viewers, Varma argued.
The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy is just the latest in a long line of films that have faced issues with the censor board. The film’s producers have been struggling to get a censor certificate, with the CBFC raising objections to certain scenes and dialogue. This has led to a delay in the film’s release, causing frustration for the cast, crew, and fans who are eagerly waiting to see the film.
Varma’s comments have sparked a debate about the need for a new approach to film certification. With the film industry evolving at a rapid pace, it’s essential to have a system that’s more in tune with the changing times. The current system, which is based on outdated laws and regulations, is no longer effective in regulating the content that’s being consumed by the public.
In today’s digital age, it’s impossible to control what people can and can’t watch. With social media and online platforms, content is being created and shared at an unprecedented rate. The censor board’s efforts to regulate this content are often seen as futile, and Varma’s comments have highlighted the need for a more nuanced approach to film certification.
Ultimately, the decision of what to watch and what not to watch should be left to the individual. The censor board’s role should be limited to providing guidelines and recommendations, rather than trying to dictate what can and can’t be shown on screen. By giving viewers the freedom to choose what they want to watch, we can create a more open and inclusive film industry that’s better equipped to handle the challenges of the digital age.
As Varma so aptly put it, “It’s foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today.” The film industry needs to wake up to the reality of the digital age and recognize that the censor board is no longer an effective or relevant institution. It’s time to rethink the way we approach film certification and give viewers the freedom to choose what they want to watch.