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 discussion about the role of the CBFC and whether it’s time to rethink its purpose.
According to Varma, the censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and its primary function was to regulate the content of films to ensure they conformed to societal norms. However, with the advent of the internet and social media, the dynamics of content consumption have changed dramatically. Today, anyone can access a vast array of content from around the world with just a few clicks, making it impossible for any authority to control what people watch.
Varma blamed the film industry for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long, despite its growing irrelevance. “The film industry has been allowing the censor board to exist for far too long, and it’s time we recognize that it’s no longer needed,” he said. His comments are not without merit, as the CBFC has often been criticized for its arbitrary and outdated approach to film certification.
The CBFC’s guidelines for film certification are based on a set of rules that were formulated decades ago, and they have not kept pace with the changing times. The board’s decisions are often influenced by political and social pressures, leading to inconsistent and biased judgments. This has resulted in many films being unnecessarily censored or banned, causing financial losses to the producers and depriving audiences of their right to watch the content they want.
Moreover, the rise of digital platforms has made it possible for audiences to access uncensored content from around the world. This has created a paradoxical situation where the CBFC’s attempts to censor films are often rendered meaningless. For instance, a film that is banned or censored in India can still be easily accessed on streaming platforms or through pirated copies.
Varma’s comments have been met with mixed reactions from the film industry, with some supporting his views and others opposing them. While some argue that the CBFC is still necessary to protect children and vulnerable audiences from explicit content, others believe that it’s time to move towards a more nuanced and progressive approach to film regulation.
The question of whether the censor board is still relevant is a complex one, and there are valid arguments on both sides. However, it’s undeniable that the CBFC’s approach to film certification needs to be reexamined in light of the changing media landscape. The board’s guidelines and procedures need to be updated to reflect the realities of the digital age, and it’s time for the film industry to take a more proactive role in shaping the future of film regulation.
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding “Jana Nayagan” has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and progressive approach to film regulation. As Varma said, “Censor board insults the viewers’ intelligence by treating them like children who can’t make their own decisions.” It’s time for the CBFC to recognize that audiences are capable of making their own choices about what they want to watch, and that it’s no longer feasible to control the flow of information in the digital age.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the relevance of the censor board is a timely one, and it’s essential to consider the implications of a regulatory body that is no longer fit for purpose. As the film industry continues to evolve, it’s crucial to reassess the role of the CBFC and explore new approaches to film regulation that are more in tune with the changing times.
About the Author
