Foolish to think censor board is still relevant: RGV on Jana Nayagan row
The Indian film industry has been embroiled in a controversy surrounding the release of Vijay’s latest film, Jana Nayagan. The film has been denied a censor certificate by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), sparking a heated debate about the relevance and role of the censor board in today’s digital age. 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 sparked a fresh wave of discussion about the need for a censor board and its ability to control the content that is consumed by the masses.
Varma’s statement is not just a reaction to the current controversy, but a reflection of the changing times and the evolution of the media landscape. The censor board was established in an era when the state had control over the media, and the primary means of entertainment were films and television. 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of content from around the world, and the idea of a centralized authority controlling what can be seen or heard seems outdated.
Varma blamed the film industry for allowing the CBFC to exist for so long, despite its apparent irrelevance. He argued that the industry has been complicit in perpetuating the censor board’s existence, even as the world around it has changed. The fact that the CBFC still has the power to dictate what can be shown on screen is a testament to the industry’s failure to adapt to the changing times. Varma’s comments are a call to action, urging the industry to recognize the need for a new approach to regulating content.
The Jana Nayagan controversy has highlighted the arbitrary nature of the censor board’s decisions. The film’s denial of a censor certificate has been seen as an overreach of the board’s authority, and many have questioned the criteria used to make such decisions. The CBFC’s guidelines are often vague and open to interpretation, leading to inconsistent and biased decision-making. This has resulted in a lack of trust in the board’s ability to make fair and impartial decisions.
Varma’s statement that the censor board “insults viewers” is particularly significant. The implication is that the board’s attempts to control what can be seen or heard are a form of patronization, assuming that audiences are unable to make their own decisions about what they want to watch. This is a fundamental flaw in the censor board’s approach, as it fails to recognize the intelligence and agency of the viewer. In today’s digital age, audiences have access to a vast array of content and are capable of making their own choices about what they want to watch.
The censor board’s irrelevance is further highlighted by the fact that most people can access uncensored content online. The internet has democratized access to information, and anyone can watch or read whatever they want, regardless of the censor board’s decisions. This has rendered the board’s attempts to control content largely ineffective, as people can easily bypass its restrictions. The fact that the CBFC is still trying to exert control over what can be shown on screen is a testament to its failure to adapt to the changing media landscape.
The way forward is not to abolish the censor board entirely, but to reform its approach and make it more relevant to the digital age. This could involve adopting a more nuanced and context-specific approach to regulating content, rather than relying on blanket guidelines and arbitrary decisions. The industry and the government need to work together to create a new framework for regulating content, one that recognizes the complexity and diversity of the media landscape.
In conclusion, Ram Gopal Varma’s statement that it’s “foolish to think that the censor board is still relevant today” is a timely reminder of the need for change. The Jana Nayagan controversy has highlighted the flaws in the censor board’s approach and the need for a new way of thinking about content regulation. As the media landscape continues to evolve, it’s essential that the industry and the government work together to create a more effective and relevant framework for regulating content. The censor board’s irrelevance is a symptom of a larger problem, and it’s time for the industry to take a stand and demand change.
About the Author
