Does censorship make much sense in the movies, when “objectionable content” comes at us from so many different directions?
A few weeks ago, I wrote about Agneepath and the horrific killing it supposedly inspired, and how movies with violent content aren’t responsible for the violent acts of individuals. After all, not everyone who saw Agneepath ended up on the front pages of newspapers after committing copycat crimes. This week, we get the news that Bittoo Boss, a forthcoming comedy about a man who records wedding videos, has been awarded a Parental Guidance (PG) rating, the country’s first. The news item in Mumbai Mirror reports a “source” – don’t you always wonder who these shadowy people amidst the arc lights are, whispering secrets into the ears of the press as if they were deep throats destined to bring down governments? – as saying, “Parental Guidance can only be recommended in India since we don’t have it here. For the first time, an announcement on behalf of the censor board will be carried on hoardings saying for Bittoo Boss, it is recommended that children under 15 be accompanied by a parent.”
Apparently, the censor board has even instructed the filmmakers about the size of the letters to be used for the announcement. (What? No guidelines on the fonts? May I suggest Goudy Stout or Wide Latin?) What I am waiting to see – and what a television news channel should investigate, stationing videographers at the ticket counters of various theatres for a sting operation – is how many parents actually follow this instruction, never mind that the parental-guidance suggestion might be in flashing neon lights the size of a movie screen. We are a nation that regularly dismisses Do Not Spit signs, Use Pedestrian Crossing signs, Please Do Not Pluck Flowers signs, Do Not Urinate Here signs, Please Stand in Line signs, Only One Person In Front Of The Red Line signs, Please Silence Your Mobile Phone signs, and even Hospital Zone Please Keep Quiet signs. And we are just going to submit meekly to a sign that asks us to ensure that children do not end up consuming inappropriate content all by themselves?
I watched The Hunger Games, last week, for a review in this paper, and I was shocked to see a truckload of school kids around me. They were accompanied by a teacher, who looked extremely harried right about interval time, taking down with a pad and pencil various snack orders from children who kept changing their minds every minute. But he didn’t seem the least bit flustered that his wards, so far, had witnessed children not much older than them kill one another in the most brutal of ways – slicing throats as blood spurted out, for instance, scornfully mimicking the victim’s piteous pleas. Yes, a lot of this violence was obscured with fast-moving hand-held cameras that didn’t linger on the gore, but the implications of these acts were unmistakable. I think we’re just inured to violence on screen from a very young age, and it doesn’t occur to us that children could absorb these scenes and end up more than a little jaded.
I offer myself as an example. After a childhood and a misbegotten youth filled with no censorship whatsoever, there is very little on screen (in terms of violence) that can shock me anymore. One of the few scenes that provoked me to literally flinch appeared in Tony Kaye’s American History X, where Edward Norton brings his heel down on the head of a man for a “curb stomping,” thus smashing his jaw with a gut-sickening crunch. It takes that kind of barbarity to make me react, thanks to a zero-censorship policy earlier. (Oh, films could be rated “A,” Adults Only, but no one really enforced it, certainly not the tired men at the ticket counters who, as long as we proffered the right amounts of money, wouldn’t even look up to see who we were.) Ratings have always existed in India, long before this supposedly “historic” Parental Guidance recommendation. It’s just that no one cared. It was just a sign like all the other signs we never gave much thought to.
But the rating guideline of Bittoo Boss is supposedly for sexual/vulgar content, not violence, and that has always been a bit more problematic. We don’t think twice before seating children in front of a screen where things blow up, but we squirm when something sexual happens. The K Bhagyaraj movie Dhavani Kanavugal illustrated this hypocrisy, very amusingly, when the hero took his five younger sisters to a movie, and whenever the screen threatened to heat up with lovemaking, he’d throw down change and ask his siblings to search for the coins on the floor. But that was a time before 24-hour television, when we didn’t have near-naked people parading around our living rooms on Fashion TV. If the purpose of censorship is to keep young and impressionable minds from being warped, how can someone justify a parental-guidance rating for a film that merely has a few lines of objectionable dialogue, when far more explicit content is freely available on TV, on the Internet, on mobile phones? It’s a whole new world, and it may need a few wholly new rules.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2012 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
rameshram
March 30, 2012
Is it ok if Im not her parent, but old enough to be her father?
LikeLike
udhavn
March 30, 2012
The whole idea of censorship itself doesn’t make sense in this day and age. But, I think, recommended viewing may be necessary. Although majority of parents today may not look at the censor certification, there might be those who are indeed taking it seriously, and it is for their benefit that we must continue certifying movies.
I feel this is not an issue as much as censoring political dissent from making it to the theaters. That is more of a problem. Filmmakers are still not allowed to make films about few personalities, about few incidents of history.
What they do care about is diverse political dissent being accessible to younger generation. That’s where we should now be focussing. But you are right, this is just a waste of time. Neither kids nor parents care about sex anymore, nor violence. They just maintain the status quo of not talking about it and keeping mum.
But hey, government is creating more jobs! :))
LikeLike
Ravi K
March 30, 2012
One problem with the system in India is that filmmakers are often required to delete things even to get an A rating. This means that the CBFC does not even trust ADULTS to handle certain things! When “Agneepath” flashes “cigarette smoking is injurious to your health” on-screen whenever someone lights up, it is clear that the CBFC thinks Indians are idiotic children.
In the US, “Hunger Games” was rated PG-13, meaning that it is recommended, but not required, that adults accompany children under 13 to see it.
There is an uproar over the MPAA’s decision to give an R rating to the documentary “Bully,” about school bullying, because that rating means that most schools will not screen it for children, and that children cannot go see the film without an adult if they want to. The filmmakers are releasing it unrated, which is an option here, but many theater chains as a rule do not screen unrated films. The documentary “This Film is Not Rated” shows how impenetrable and opaque the MPAA is. Here we have the same hypocrisy about violence and sex.
LikeLike
MumbaiRamki
March 31, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8N3EztyOoAt title score )
( The film is not yet rated – excellen
LikeLike
Shankar
March 31, 2012
It’s not just the consumers, but the providers too. I was appalled, a few years ago, when news telecasts during day hours were freely showing grotesque images from the Kumbakonam school fire accident with no warnings whatsoever. These can have a very debilitating effect on the psyche of young children ( and adults). As you say, we are inured to much of this from a young age…and in my mind, it’s a shame. Even recently, I was witness to an American friend who was quite moved by an incident and to me, that incident hardly registered as something to cry about or feel moved. It got me thinking, if I had lost my sense of empathy because I was exposed to much more at a younger age.
Censorship is controversial and more difficult in today’s world, with the innumerable avenues. I’m not sure what the right approach is, since I see merit on both sides. But I do see a need for some moral responsibility, both on the sides of the consumers and providers…we owe it to our children. We can’t be hypocrites then…
LikeLike
sriram
March 31, 2012
nice article br.
LikeLike
db
March 31, 2012
What is U/A? I thought U/A was the Indian take on PG.
Wiki says:
[[
U/A Parental Guidance All ages admitted, but certain scenes may be unsuitable for children under 12. This rating is similar to the MPAA’s PG-13, the BBFC’s 12A, and the OFLC’s PG and M ratings.
]]
LikeLike
aandthirtyeights
March 31, 2012
Years ago, Hey Ram made its way to theatres in Udupi – where I grew up – months after its release. I was naturally excited – Kamal and Gandhi and all, and wanted to go. My mother saw that “A” sign on the poster and asked me to call the theatre to find out if it was actually “A” rated. I called the theatre, like a dutiful son, and asked the fellow. He barked, “This is a movie about Gandhi. What “A” rating and all?!”
LikeLike
Dinesh
March 31, 2012
Dont know if anyone tried out the “American History X” scene in real life, but “Shootout at Lokhandwala” used the exact same MO to off some guy…Real danger is not the street thugs aping, its more the unoriginal pervs
LikeLike
brangan
March 31, 2012
MumbaiRamki: Thanks for that link.
Shankar: One of the most vivid memories I have is of watching “Paayum Puli” in Jayanthi theatre. There’s this scene where Rajini’s sister (Indira) is killed by a car collision. (There may have been a rape involved.) She goes flying in the air. The scene is repeated several times, as a flashback. And we kids were watching it as if it were a thrilling action scene. Horrible 🙂
aandthirtyeights: LOL!
LikeLike
MumbaiRamki
March 31, 2012
The whole discussion needs to have a frame in the maze of thinking to avoid ending up debating if Darwanian theory was correct – very difficult discussion.
There are two threads of thoughts here – one is that certain scenes should be censored even in a A rated movie and other thinking is that not to cut any scenes , but just rate them . In our diversified country, i think we should do both for better stability.
“If the purpose of censorship is to keep young and impressionable minds from being warped, how can someone justify a parental-guidance rating for a film that merely has a few lines of objectionable dialogue, when far more explicit content is freely available on TV, on the Internet, on mobile phones?”
That is correct – but i don’t find the second one as a sufficient reason not to do the first one. Its atleast not cut, but only rated. Yes, it requires new rules – but new technology will always find a way underneath the rules . The fact that number of murders and accidents have increased does not pose a condition to remove the laws. It is imperfect, but so be it .
Somehow, talks on artistic freedom always finds a high decibel partner on homo sexuals, sex, than about other things which art can express – and beyond a point i feel bored on the biased discussion – for example, it is impossible to take a honest movie on quota, nuclear energy even without swear words, expletives and yet no one raises a concern on this .
We are probably creating a culture where we might have an increasing ratio of more unidimensional filmmakers than researchers. Most of the film makers who cry foul on this probably have a view of society where everybody is saturated with all violence, sexual things that their view of film is completely artistic ,appreciative but devoid of any sub conscious message the film may find in the way into their minds .
And , i find the argument of slotting rules to Rating a bit complete . To some extent, it would definitively go subjective and i understand that is going to make a film maker a bit . But it is impossible that in what we call as experience that is a combination of context, camera angles, expressions, character backgrounds, depth of the controversial scene, objects used, length of the scene , it is almost impossible to put a N X N matrix and define ratings . When we have moderation for blogs instead of rating them ( 😉 ) , i don’t see a reason why films alone should be different.
LikeLike
Shankar
April 2, 2012
Baddy, my earliest memory was when I was 5-6 years old and got taken to see Darwaza. This particular Ramsey assembly line product had Sanjeev Kumar turn into a monster ever time he saw a newly wed in her red bridal attire. I remember watching (well, not exactly!) the entire movie sitting under the theater seat…no kidding!! 🙂
LikeLike
Suganth
April 2, 2012
There can never be any consensus on censorship. A movie (or any work of art for that matter) will always speak differently to different individuals, even if they belong to its target group… Last night, I was watching Baby’s Day Out with my two-and-a-half-year-old son and he was quite affected by the scenes that take place in the zoo with the gorilla that he asked me to change the channel. On the other hand, Spider-man was playing at the same time on another channel and he didn’t flinch watching Spidey and the Green Goblin fighting it out. He was scared of a movie targetted at kids while enjoying one that was for a relatively older audience. Truly an eye-opener that!
Btw, what gets my goat is the smoking disclaimers that pop up in some films, even when the character is a drunk. Just takes me out of the film every single time. What is worse is that it appears even for films rated U/A and A.
LikeLike
Ravi K
April 6, 2012
“Btw, what gets my goat is the smoking disclaimers that pop up in some films, even when the character is a drunk. Just takes me out of the film every single time. What is worse is that it appears even for films rated U/A and A.”
Once again, the CBFC treats people, even adults, like idiots. We could say that filmmakers treat audiences the same way too 😛
LikeLike