Foolish to think censor board is still relevant: RGV on Jana Nayagan row
The recent controversy surrounding Vijay’s film “Jana Nayagan” not receiving 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 reignited the 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 argued that the censor board was born in an era when the state controlled the media, and as such, it was necessary to regulate the content that was being produced. However, with the advent of technology and the internet, Varma believes that any form of control is now impossible. The censor board’s attempts to restrict content only serve to insult the intelligence of viewers, who are now more aware and informed than ever before.
The “Jana Nayagan” controversy has brought to light the outdated nature of the CBFC’s guidelines and regulations. The board’s refusal to grant a censor certificate to the film has been seen as an overreach of its authority, with many arguing that it is trying to impose its own moral values on the audience. Varma’s comments have echoed this sentiment, with him stating that the censor board’s actions are a relic of a bygone era.
The CBFC’s role is to ensure that films conform to certain standards of decency and morality, but Varma argues that this is no longer necessary. With the rise of streaming platforms and online content, audiences are now exposed to a wide range of material that is not subject to the same regulations as traditional cinema. This has led to a shift in societal norms and values, with people becoming more accepting and open-minded.
In this context, the CBFC’s attempts to censor films like “Jana Nayagan” seem out of touch with the times. The board’s guidelines are based on outdated notions of what is considered acceptable, and its actions only serve to stifle creativity and freedom of expression. Varma’s comments have highlighted the need for a rethink of the CBFC’s role and relevance in modern times.
The film industry has long been critical of the CBFC’s heavy-handed approach to censorship. Many filmmakers have complained about the board’s arbitrary decisions and lack of transparency, which can lead to delays and even the banning of films. The “Jana Nayagan” controversy has brought these issues to the forefront, with many calling for a more nuanced and liberal approach to censorship.
Varma’s comments have also sparked a debate about the nature of censorship itself. Is it necessary to have a regulatory body that decides what is acceptable for audiences to watch? Or should filmmakers be given more freedom to create content that pushes boundaries and challenges societal norms? These are questions that have been debated for years, but the “Jana Nayagan” controversy has brought them back into focus.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s comments on the “Jana Nayagan” controversy have highlighted the need for a rethink of the CBFC’s role and relevance in modern times. The censor board’s attempts to restrict content are seen as outdated and insulting to the intelligence of viewers. As the film industry continues to evolve and adapt to changing societal norms and values, it is time to reconsider the need for a regulatory body like the CBFC. Perhaps it is time to give filmmakers more freedom to create content that is innovative, challenging, and thought-provoking.
About the Author
