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 fresh discussion on the role and relevance of the CBFC in modern times.
According to Varma, the film industry is to blame for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long. He pointed out that the censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and its primary function was to regulate and censor content that was deemed inappropriate or sensitive. However, with the advent of technology and the internet, the dynamics of media consumption have changed dramatically. Varma argued that in today’s digital age, any form of control is impossible, and the censor board has become an outdated institution.
Varma’s comments are not without merit. The CBFC was established in 1952, and its primary objective was to certify films for public exhibition. However, over the years, the board has been criticized for its arbitrary and often subjective decisions. The board’s guidelines for certifying films are based on a set of rules that were formulated decades ago, and they often seem out of touch with the changing societal norms and values.
The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy is a case in point. The film, which is a Tamil-language political thriller, has been denied a censor certificate by the CBFC due to its alleged criticism of the government and its policies. The film’s producers have argued that the board’s decision is unfair and amounts to censorship. The incident has highlighted the often-contentious relationship between the film industry and the CBFC.
Varma’s statement that the censor board “insults viewers” is also worth considering. The CBFC’s guidelines are based on the assumption that the audience needs to be protected from certain types of content. However, this approach is paternalistic and undermines the intelligence and maturity of the average viewer. In today’s digital age, audiences have access to a vast array of content from around the world, and they are capable of making their own informed decisions about what they want to watch.
Moreover, the CBFC’s decisions often seem arbitrary and biased. The board has been criticized for its inconsistent approach to certifying films, with some films being given a clean chit despite containing objectionable content, while others are denied certification for seemingly trivial reasons. This lack of transparency and consistency has led to frustration and anger among filmmakers and audiences alike.
The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy has also raised questions about the role of the state in regulating artistic expression. The CBFC is a government-appointed body, and its decisions are often seen as a reflection of the government’s attitude towards freedom of expression. The incident has sparked debates about the limits of creative freedom and the need for a more nuanced approach to regulating artistic content.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s comments on the relevance of the censor board are thought-provoking and timely. The ‘Jana Nayagan’ controversy has highlighted the need for a re-examination of the CBFC’s role and function in modern times. As Varma pointed out, the censor board is a relic of a bygone era, and its continued existence is a reflection of the film industry’s failure to adapt to changing times. It’s time for the industry to rethink its approach to regulating artistic content and to recognize the intelligence and maturity of the average viewer.
About the Author
