So we know now the censor board is corrupt. But how necessary is it in the first place?
About the recent fuss around the censor board chief caught taking bribes, I have just this to add: I am not surprised. This was bound to happen. Over the years, censorship has become some sort of minor annoyance, something that has to be done or else your film won’t get released. It’s like making prints or booking theatres or putting up posters and banners. It’s just another bit of logistics in the long chain of events leading to a film’s release – and it’s an utterly unimportant step. Once the censor certificate is obtained, no one cares about it. Filmmakers don’t care to showcase the rating in any meaningful way. Theatres don’t take care to implement this rating. And we don’t seem to care whether our children end up seeing films they shouldn’t be seeing.
So who, really, is being benefited through this rating? At least in Tamil Nadu, there seems to be some sort of financial gain from obtaining a “U” certificate, some sort of tax exemption. But elsewhere? The system is broken because the people on the censor panels are often people who have no real relationship to films except as viewers. They seem to be unable to differentiate, among other things, between implied and overt sexuality, between psychological and physical violence. The minute there’s a lovemaking scene, the censors get uncomfortable and reach for a more adult rating, but they routinely let pass dance sequences where the suggestive, rain-soaked choreography is pretty much like lovemaking, except the participants have a bare minimum of clothes on. And let’s not even get to the bleeping out of “offensive” words, with scant regard to context.
Someone who wants to bypass this system can easily do it. Many skilled dialogue writers and lyricists have gotten away with double-meaning lines or lyrics that seem to have flown over the heads of the censor committee. And we’ve all heard of filmmakers who include a lot more blood and gore (or swear words, or sexual content) in the print they submit to the censors. The censors cut a bit of all this and feel they’ve done their job. The filmmaker comes away smiling because he still has the adult content he wants. And now, with the Internet, this sort of censoring is even more suspect. At least in earlier days, you could justify these cuts saying that you are protecting young viewers (or whatever), but now, when the most hard-core material is just a mouse click away, what is really being achieved? I am not saying that censorship is unimportant or unnecessary. I’m saying that we need to have a long, hard look at what it aims to do and whether these aims are being achieved.
Instead of focusing only on censorship, do we need a campaign to target parents and tell them that this ratings thing is a serious business and they have to be careful about what they expose their kids to? Let’s consider violence. When I was in school, I routinely watched action sequences, but the action choreography then was just a bunch of karate or kung fu moves – what used to be called dishoom-dishoom – and no one took any of it seriously. Even the blood looked fake. It looked like the red paint it was. So there was no question of being traumatised or becoming immune to violence – because it was all so clearly make-believe. But now, stunt choreographers take more trouble to ensure that the fights look real, the blood looks real. Is it okay, then, for kids to watch the endless shootouts in Singham Returns or the scenes in Anjaan where one bad guy is shot in the forehead and another one’s head is smashed in by a rock?
Perhaps the best kind of censorship is no censorship at all. I realise this sounds extreme, but when little children on TV end up doing the kind of dance moves that were once the prerogative of cabaret dancers in the movies (and with proud parents approving), and – of course – with the Internet all around us, do we really need a panel to decide what’s good for us and what isn’t? How many parents ask their children to change the channel when one of those lewd Govinda-Karisma Kapoor dances come on? Without censorship, at least the adult-skewing foreign films would come to us intact, without being butchered because, say, a demure housewife on the panel couldn’t handle Quentin Tarantino’s brand of violence. This, to my mind, is a worse crime than taking bribes.
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 ©2014 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Jetlagged
August 22, 2014
“demure housewife on the panel” ah…..apdi podu
LikeLike
Srinivas R
August 22, 2014
The censor should restric themselves to “certifying” as to what is contained in the movie , not decide what is “good” for the audience. We need a clear certifying method , some thing like
N – Nudity
S – Sexual Content
P – Profanity
V – Violence
G – General Viewing
So a “Pulp Fiction” will be NSPV , whereas a “Pokisham” will come with a G.
More importantly cinema halls and the audience should respect the certification in the sense that don’t take ur 5 yr old to “Rowdy Rathore” (which ideally shud come with a V) and complain about excessive violence. Thats clearly mentioned in the censor certificate.
This idea is from a TV guide that actually uses the above method to tell it’s readers , what the movie contains. I think all flight movie guides follow this.
LikeLiked by 6 people
ramitbajaj01
August 22, 2014
But sir, is it not a difference between developing and developed countries? I have an impression (because of various blogs and articles) that ratongs and censorship is seriously followed in US. Parents make sure which movies they should take their kids to. They have child monitoring/ lock systems on all of their gazettes. I have an impression that perhaps sex education is delivered properly there, that is disseminating information only at certain age. But I am not widely read/travelled. So, my impression could be wrong. But I remember one blog where they were discussing whether hanging scene should have been there in that animated movie or not. That kind of discussion gives me hope. So I really wish instead of removing cesor board, let us make it more powerful and diverse, liking starting campaigns for parents etc, like you suggest.
I do think that exposing children to violence/ghost stories really scares them out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andie
August 22, 2014
“A demure housewife on the panel?”
Seriously?
LikeLike
Prakash Ram
August 22, 2014
“A demure housewife on the panel?”
We are feeling a little feisty today, aren’t we ? 🙂
I don’t think the Indian censor board is unique in its arbitrary ratings, the MPAA did give a PG-13 for Titanic but a R rating for the King’s Speech but I do think our censor board’s ratings are the most ludicrous. But if the theaters don’t really enforce the ratings, then why do film makers care for it anyway (except in a few states like TN).
I am also puzzled why our film makers don’t try to release a Director’s cut, I understand the economics of home video market doesn’t work in their favor but wouldn’t a film maker give his arm and leg to get his unadulterated vision to the audience through any means possible, I know I could give mine to watch movies like Iruvar uncensored.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ravi K
August 22, 2014
The CBFC should stick to classification of films based on content, allowing for banning very extreme things like child pornography or real animal violence. And do away with the condescending smoking warnings. It is ridiculous that even “A” movies that are only for adults are still censored, as if adults are children who need Mother CBFC to shield their ears from gaalis. These days filmmakers can bypass the CBFC altogether by releasing their films online.
In the US, the idea of different age groups being separate demographics that sometimes overlap has been around for decades both for filmmakers and audiences, but in India that is relatively new. In the South it’s practically non-existent. Tamil/Telugu filmmakers’ idea of appealing to all demographics is to include scenes of grisly violence in films that are otherwise made to be family entertainers.
I don’t know how it is in India, but here in the US I see Indian parents taking their kids to Indian films that would either be inappropriate for them or simply boring, probably because they don’t want to hire a babysitter. That isn’t as common with American parents, though I think it was more common in the past. Theaters are pretty strict about not selling tickets to R-rated films to minors without parents accompanying them, though we used to get around that by buying a ticket to a different movie and walking into the R-rated one.
For some insight into the inconsistency of the MPAA, which rates films in America, watch the documentary “This Film Is Not Yet Rated.” They have major issues in how they rate films, but thankfully releasing a film without a rating is an option, if theaters are willing to show them. Some theater chains will not show NC-17 or unrated films. Blockbuster Video used to not carry NC-17 or unrated films (with a few exceptions), but they are out of business.
In the US it’s rare that a film is outright banned or required to be cut to be released. The only recent example I know of is “A Serbian Film.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
venkatesh
August 23, 2014
Very timely this. The Censor Board is really a relic of the License-Raj and should just be dismantled and oh yes – thanks for the Mr.India song , very well chosen sir.
LikeLike
pres
August 23, 2014
Latest allegations about Anjaan movie :
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/cbi-seeks-list-of-films-cleared-by-rakesh-kumar/article6342978.ece?homepage=true
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Film-cert-CEO-took-laptop-iPad-to-clear-Tamil-film-CBI/articleshow/40713047.cms
Very sad to hear this. Hope the concerned people take strong action.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 23, 2014
Honestly, I wish they would do away with the Censor Board, but let’s face it, our audiences aren’t that evolved. Try putting the ratings feature into place (and I think that is the best way to certify a film, leaving the onus on the parents to decide whether PG-13 is okay for *them* to take their kids to, instead of an arbitrary body deciding for them whether their kids are mature enough to view something), and you will have audiences in India merrily waltzing in with their kids and then howling with protests because their kids saw sex or violence. (And I say this, having watched an Indian couple bring their 6-year-old with them to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel and be outraged because the teenage usher wouldn’t allow them in. They had a heated argument with the manager as well (whom the teen had called in distress), and stormed out, vowing all sorts of retribution.)
The reason I say let the parents decide, was because I have seen this play out in my house: my elder son could watch a certain amount of sex and violence without a) being traumatised by it or b) maing a beeline for the nearest laptop to download porn. My second-born, on the other hand, will flinch at the sound of a punch landing, and cannot stand the stereophonic sound. It is up to me to manage which films are seen by which son.
p.s. While I usually do not take umbrage at certain generalisations, I, like Andie, was taken aback by the ‘demure housewife’ jab. Seriously, dude? (As an eight-year-old recently asked me.)
I cannot stand Quentin Tarantino and will not, voluntarily, watch one of his films, and I’m not ‘demure’ by any stretch of imagination. And more importantly, if I were, and if I had the responsibility of rating it, I would have passed it with an ‘A’ for (IMO gratuitous) violence. Not liking something, and not living up to the responsibility of the job we are entrusted with, are two separate things, and you, of all people should know that. That’s disappointing, Rangan.
LikeLike
Ashwin Sundar
August 23, 2014
This interview of Kamal Haasan’s with The Hindu interestingly talks about the same.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/silencing-cinema-amounts-to-fascism-kamal-hassan/article6339409.ece
LikeLike
brangan
August 23, 2014
I’m sometimes baffled by the things people are offended by. I was looking for a loose stereotype of someone who was likely to flinch at QT’s levels of violence, and someone like my mother came to mind — hence “demure housewife.”
This is not to say that EVERYONE who cannot abide QT’s violence is “demure.”
There’s a difference, surely!
LikeLiked by 3 people
udhaysankar
August 23, 2014
Well… I’m an 17 year old doing my engineering first year…..
Me and my friends were so interested in watching Gangs of wasseypur, which was released 2 years ago….
Since I was 14 at that time, the guy who sat at the ticket counter refused to give us tickets. So we guys waited for 2 months before some public servant could upload the Blu-ray rip of the movie online, so that we could download it as a torrent. We wanted to see the movie not because of it’s frequent utterances of profanity, sexual content or violence, but because we were interested in genuine art.On the lines of Scorsese, Tarantino, sergi Leone it was exciting to hear the idea of an Indian filmmaker and that too Anurag Kashyap giving us a blood spattered gangster epic with an epic runtime of 6 hours.
Now is the censor board really effective in withholding the movie to us till we’re 18?,the answer definitely is No. Because of Internet, cinephiles just a click away from downloading the uncensored version of the movie we want.
And another annoying thing is the way in which subtitles are censored before telecasting the Movies in star movies or HBO. F**k,s**k…. I mean any average Indian teen can understand what it means… So what’s the need to censor it….
LikeLike
Sadhana
August 23, 2014
hi brangan, I’m more shocked and repelled by the violence in movies than the wet sari dances. i think the former will affect children more. we should safeguard our children. you are right; the dishum dishum of olden days didn’t look real, so kids would not have been affected.
leave alone movies, i think people abroad take even books more seriously than we do. i’ve read books in highschool that wouldn’t have been allowed for children of that age in the U.S.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
August 23, 2014
Its Baffling for us too Brangan. The terms that rile people up the most in your blog. Filter kapi, long hard red substance, now demure house wife. Atleast this is not as bad as the filter kaapi revolution of Vazhakkam en. where you had been accused of being a racist, casteist, child rapist, axe murderer and what not….. 🙂
A great and timely piece btw. Shyam benegal has been asking for the abolition of censor board as long as one can remember. But i guess thats not the right solution in our country.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Andie
August 23, 2014
A) I’m not offended, B) It wasn’t the use of ‘demure’ that I found a lazy stereotype, but the fact that it had to be a woman who presumably sits at home and isn’t enlightened enough to appreciate a violent Tarantino movie and not say, a streetwise young man. I like your blogs, I don’t seek out things to complain about. It’s just disappointing when you expect better from an otherwise good writer. Your blog, your rules, so I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it, but presumably you put your blog out there so you expect people to offer opinions. I don’t believe in censorship except in extreme circumstances, therefore, I also believe in freedom of speech.
LikeLike
ThouShaltNot
August 23, 2014
“but let’s face it, our audiences aren’t that evolved..”
“..While I usually do not take umbrage at certain generalisations, I, like Andie, was taken aback by the ‘demure housewife’ jab. Seriously, dude?”
“..you, of all people should know that. That’s disappointing, Rangan..”
Hmm.
Funny, how on a blog about censorship, people get all riled up over an innocuous phrase. Imagine a 2 – 3 hour film and the many instances and variants of such “offense giving”. Account for the myriad demographics and special interest groups that have a stake in not being offended (including on behalf of others from the group) and you can appreciate the tough job of having to police art.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sreeda
August 23, 2014
Loved reading this article but I agree with Sadhana!!!
And the hypocrisy of people also irritates me…Arima Nambi has umpteen comments on the female protagonists dress or wine drinking habit…but no one seems to complain when Anjaan cringeworthy “ek do theen char” song is 20 time playe every hour in Tamil Channel and i think Samantha is a worse dress than was even shown in AN….
Or lets take any random Vijay movie…(Sivakasi/Pokkiri/Jilla)…what these movies showed spoil youngsters more than….any violence or sex scene or nudity!!!
Sadly none this is curtailed or even questioned by Censor board or parents who let their kids watch these movies!!
LikeLike
Rahul
August 23, 2014
I am myself agnostic about that phrase, but it was interesting to read Andie’s perspective. On this blog, where “the irrelevance of authorial intent” is a dead horse that is constantly beaten, I think people should be made comfortable to be offended by , or disagree with stuff, without having to face condescension.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Evan Hand Ed
August 24, 2014
Respected Sir Mr. Brangan Sir,
I wish to register my non-offense regarding your following statement (emphasis mine):
Someone who wants to bypass this system can easily do it.
The Random Dictionary At Hand defines ‘bypass’, the verb as:
provide (a town) with a route diverting traffic from its centre.
The bypass, as you will have already noticed, is an entirely honorable and redoubtable type of road covering. In fact, I can personally attest that I’ve travelled over it with keen pleasure–even sanguineness. Hence, I was entirely taken aback when you use the word with a cunningly negative connotation. This not only throws bypasses in bad light, it also disparages the yeoman service rendered by bypasses internationally (see http://goo.gl/kdrWaB ; for more links apply personally). Do you want our children, and our children’s children, and so on and so forth and so on again for fun, to think that bypasses are bad things? Do we want to scare and scar them for life? When the medical profession respects bypasses and uses the word with a heart-warming and warmhearted connotation (see http://goo.gl/gjqsj2), why cannot the critical profession do the same?
Please, I beseech that you do not think that I am offended. I am just surprised that person of your repute you would suggest all bypasses are underhand and sinister. This is so starkly premodern. If you were a theatre critic who was writing up on Ben Jonson’s ‘Alchemist’, or if you were a literary critic doing critic-work about the ‘Dunciad’, I would have been able to sympathize with your careless worldview much better. But such callous stereotyping does not behoove a film critic. No, I say Sir Brangan Sir.
I hope you will not disregard this timely warning. Bypasses are not as powerless as you think they are. They have as much legal representation as main roads do, only nobody cares much about us. We have little to complain though–shortcuts and have it much worse. But then, subways have it much better. No one says ‘he craftily subways the system, and as a result poor people are not getting their meals on time.’
I make the following comment in my personal capacity. You say (emphasis mine, again):
[…] you could justify these cuts saying that you are protecting young viewers (or whatever), […]
Now, I am not sure what gives you the right to put words into my mouth, and make them reappear on your blog as if by magic. Speak for yourself, sir. Do not overabuse your freedom of speech by telling me what I could or could not do. To tell us that, we too have our grandfathers; we feel condescended when you assume that our grandfathers had either such soiled genes or such disreputable habits that they’ve already passed away leaving us looking askance at you for such suggestions.
Please take this friendly warning seriously. If you take housewives so seriously, you should also take bypasses and shortcuts seriously (flyovers can be taken a teaspoon less seriously, but please don’t make it a big heap; too small is also to be avoided; make it just about right). You are facing the inevitable reality that one day you will have to travel on a bypass. We don’t easily forget such insulting generalizations and stereotyping Sir Mr. Brangan Sir. You pay a toll to cross a highway, but you pay a price to cross a bypass.
With the finest regards,
Always your servant,
Evan
LikeLike
Ravi K
August 24, 2014
The phrase “demure housewife” perfectly captures in just two words a certain type of matron who is typically not in the audience for a Tarantino movie, and usually disapproves of such things. I think most people who read this article knew exactly the kind of person Rangan was talking about (a.k.a., most of our mothers, unless yours is particularly hip). I suppose he could have tried to create a phrase about some man instead, but that wouldn’t have been nearly as evocative, and trying to think of a similar male equivalent would have been more trouble than it was worth.
Prakash Ram wrote: “I am also puzzled why our film makers don’t try to release a Director’s cut, I understand the economics of home video market doesn’t work in their favor but wouldn’t a film maker give his arm and leg to get his unadulterated vision to the audience through any means possible, I know I could give mine to watch movies like Iruvar uncensored.”
The CBFC has to classify all home video releases as well, so the same rules apply. They could release it online, though.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 24, 2014
@Thoushaltnot – since you deemed fit to pick on certain things I said in my post – the point is that Rangan does not need to resort to that line to get his point across. To me, that is lazy writing. His declaration that he looked for a stereotype who would flinch at QT’s violence and so he picked that phrase – eh, my point was that how does it matter if it was a woman or a man who did not like the violence? Why perpetuate that stereotype?
At the risk of echoing Andie (again!), I was not offended, I was taken aback. And repeating myself, not liking something, and not living up to the responsibility that someone has been entrusted with, are two different things.
As for: the many instances and variants of such “offense giving”… you can appreciate the tough job of having to police art.
Where have I defended censorship? If you read my comment (other than the quotes you have seen fit to cherrypick), you will find that I spoke about rating a film and allowing the audience to decide what they want to watch.
I’m a regular reader of this blog, and I have great respect for Rangan as a writer. I disagreed with his use of that phrase to illustrate his point. *shrug* You are free to disagree with me. But don’t pick and choose my comments to misinterpret what I said in my original post.
LikeLike
Rahul
August 24, 2014
With respect to a few people taking offense to something that you wrote…came across this from a discussion between Stephan Fry and Christopher Hitchens, where Fry said this,
‘It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so fucking what?’
The offense to the ‘demure housewife’ phrase in a discussion about censorship.
Irony?
Cheers,
Rahul
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gradwolf
August 24, 2014
Rangan, you must have just said Ambi mama or something. Nobody takes offence to that. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
August 24, 2014
Andie: but the fact that it had to be a woman who presumably sits at home and isn’t enlightened enough to appreciate a violent Tarantino movie and not say, a streetwise young man
Let’s consider your statement here. There are assumptions here that I wouldn’t necessarily go with.
“isn’t enlightened enough” — no, she could be a Masters degree holder and yet could also be genuinely intolerant of violence. There are plenty of people who cannot stand violence. My point was that they shouldn’t be allowed to dictate what should be viewed by those who CAN stand violence.
“a streetwise young man” — again, not necessary. it could also be an older man who cannot stand violence.
I believe stereotypes exist for a reason. At least in the Indian context, I have seen many women of a particular generation like certain things (mega soaps on TV, etc.) and not like certain things. I was just using one such person to make a point.
And yes, I too believe in freedom of speech, which is why I never censor comments. All of this is in the spirit of discussion, I believe — not always finger-pointing.
Rahul: But where is the condescension? Just as people are free to disagree with my piece surely people should be allowed to disagree with comments…
Evan Hand Ed: You’ve had a lot of time this weekend, haven’t you? 🙂
Gradwolf: Dude, what are you doing commenting and all? Shouldn’t you be in Gstaad or something? 🙂
Anu Warrier: Why perpetuate that stereotype?
Hmmm… I’m a little confused about how this is perpetuating a stereotype. If I want to make a point about non-veg food and I make a reference to an “Iyer Mama” who turns squeamish, would that be perpetuating a stereotype too? Because we all know there are Iyer Mamas who do drink and eat non-veg and all that…
Rahul: I don’t think it’s irony. It’s two different things.
Censorship is the outright banning of something.
Taking offence and talking about it is the exact opposite of censorship because some of us are disagreeing here and are actually talking about this disagreement instead of asking me to repeal that phrase…
LikeLiked by 2 people
SreeV (@SreekrishnanV)
August 24, 2014
demure housewife? In some cases it is mostly the men either wanting to appease such Demure housewife who are not in the panel or the narrow minded men who sit on the panel. Directors or producers should know this better.
On the other hand Just rate it and leave it to the audience seems like a very nice thing which most of us are all for. [Or if you mean No Rating No Censorship]
But the society isn’t ready to accept something that would apparently “hurt” some sentiment. Showing a muslim as a terrorist would be acceptable to the US but showing that in India would build insecurities in the society where a muslim lives in the fear of being stereotyped while a Hindu kid watching all this grows up with that thought in mind.
Do we then include religious opinions/stereotypes and such to be rated say A (or R)? Then where would the stereotype Brahmin having dubious characterization with a “Naamam” or “Pattai” on his forehead fall?
There is just no end to it. We would need Censor where govt. protects it interest but on the other hand directly censor them based on legality or how the judiciary decides the “intent” along with explicit rating.
When this is done, people like Kamal Hassan end up with absolutely nothing to portray from real life on screen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ThouShaltNot
August 24, 2014
What has liking Tarantinoesque violence got to do with enlightenment? That genre preferences show gender polarization is not a shocking revelation! Saying that a demure housewife is less likely to enjoy violent imagery in a film (rather more likely to use the proverbial scissors on a censor panel) is neither meant to disempower women nor meant to perpetuate a “negative stereotype”. There is nothing here to get touchy feely about, nor does the phrase/usage merit the evisceration it did. Why insinuate about an author’s egalitarian bonafides or complain about slackness in writing over this where there’s none?!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 24, 2014
Not only on the subject of censorship, in general, I believe we should grow up and stop demanding govt to shackle us more and more with restrictions and learn to take responsibility for our actions. Because the Rakesh Kumar episode is exactly what happens if you entrust govt with the responsibility of deciding what you can and cannot see. It only becomes an avenue of rent seeking and corruption for a privileged few while those who cannot afford the rent or find it abhorrent as a matter of principle would get unfairly sidelined by the system. I do not like the idea that films can potentially be used as a means to promote racism or religious discrimination. But I dislike much more the idea of using govt to decide what film is or isn’t racist as that is a disastrous approach which will only be used conveniently by govt to stop filmmakers from raising uncomfortable but pertinent questions of any sort.
LikeLike
Madan
August 24, 2014
Splitting what I want to say into different comments….now as for what may or may not affect children, IF parents feel uncomfortable about what impact cine violence would have on children, it is up to them to do what they can to ensure the child does not see it at home. They shall have to surrender their avenue of entertainment through such films, there’s no other way. You cannot both watch such films and then blame filmmakers and govt for distorting children’s mental growth.
And on another note, I believe there are limits to the powers of nurture. There is evil and there is good everywhere in the world. If a child is predisposed to be attracted to evil, he shall seek and find and no censor board on earth can possibly stop him from doing so. And he might be better off watching respectable films with just a sprinkling of ultra-violent scenes than something far more shady. If a child is not so attracted, just mere exposure to violence in a film is not going to turn him into a violent person.
LikeLike
Madan
August 24, 2014
I know parents are very cagey about the use of cuss words in films and what it would do to children. Well, let me tell you that there are no censor beeps in school and I picked up every single hue of ugly tapori invective there was to savour from classmates. Except, that I never used it and never have,except if provoked by an onslaught of such language and then only in extreme cases, if I really felt the other guy was a dickhead and richly deserved a taste of his own medicine.
In short, I can only say that don’t bother too much about it. My aunt desperately tried to keep clean all exposure to entertainment that my cousin sis got and she was still, as early as age 10 or so, giggling away to porn fiction. She is, five years since then, far more advanced in her reading than I am right now and a very intelligent and articulate person already and asks me how could she help slum children in Mumbai with their education (she stays in US). Of all the things that could lead a child astray, art is in my view the most benign and the taboos that people seek to use to control thought and action far more malignant as they provoke rebellion without a cause.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MANK
August 24, 2014
I dont think the Rakesh Kumar episode was the first of its kind – given the amount of power that censor board holds over a multi crore film industry- i am sure there has been numerous instances in the past where board officials have been paid off for swift\inappropriate certification of films. Perhaps Rakesh kumar was stupid enough to get caught or somebody just set him up. The solution perhaps is to have someone from the industry – as it was the norm earlier- but i know the industry people are vehemently opposed.
I was listening to mahesh bhatt the other day about his experiences with censoring- and he said , it was most atrocious when an industry member was at the helm of the board. Which is understandable considering the kind of ugly battles he & cohorts fought with Asha parekh – then censor chief- on the film Zakhm. The problem is that even when the most broadminded , liberal,movie literate people are appointed to the board, they become overawed with the new found power and responsibility – suddenly being thrust to become the moral guardians of the entire country – and becomes overcautious wrt to the content of the films and tend to make decisions that defy their better judgement.Not to mention the fact that the censor guidelines that define their responsibilities are archaic and outdated, which only the govt has the power to change.Its a vicious cycle and doesn’t have easy solutions, i suppose!.
LikeLike
Andie
August 24, 2014
“Evisceration,” “touchy feely,” “offended,” all your words, not mine. I gave an opinion about something I didn’t like, without demanding he change it or any abuse or even anger. I found it lazy and disappointing because it came from someone I expected better from. There are a number of people who would use that phrase and I wouldn’t bat an eyelid because I wouldn’t expect any different. Nor have I insinuated anything, I think I’ve been quite clear about my thoughts on the subject. I am able to decide what I say for myself, but thanks you for your input on what merits an opinion and what doesn’t.
LikeLike
Andie
August 24, 2014
My use of ‘streetwise young man’ was just to make the point that it goes against the stereotype. I understand what your point was and agree with it, I just thought it could’ve been made in a better way. Not all stereotypes are there for a reason. I’m sure there are as many men who detest violence as women, in our society though, they’re probably less likely to vocalise it. My mum, a ‘demure housewife’ scarred us for life by watching horror movies when we were children. I know you weren’t tarring all women with the same brush,, but you only have to look at some of the comments to see how gleeful some people (mostly men) were about the fact that you made it and therein lies the problem. The problem lies with me for expecting better and with my expectations. I absolutely hold my hands up to that.
LikeLike
Andie
August 24, 2014
Are there 2 Rahuls here? Otherwise the 2 comments seem to contradict each other. Or perhaps I’m not quite grasping what you’re trying to say. Sorry dude.
LikeLike
Rahul
August 24, 2014
Hi Andie, apologies about confusion. This is the Rahul of the Fry comment 🙂
My point was that, knowing Brangan’s writing over the years, I wouldn’t attribute him of perpetuating a stereotype, knowingly. But, in the world we live in now, it is difficult to please all, but easy to offend another’s sensibility…and a creative enterprise like writing or any form of art will be limited if the parameter of offense was used to sanitize it.
Also, aren’t you been a tad judgmental when you write about ‘gleeful…(mostly men)’ comment 🙂
In this case, I wouldn’t attribute the ‘demure housewife’ comment to laziness and he has explained himself.
For that matter, I am of the opinion, for better or worse, censorship is not the way to go. An evolved form will be a ratings…and leaving it to the audience to figure out what to do with it.
Cheers,
Rahul
LikeLike
Andie
August 24, 2014
Rahul, I would dignify this with a response if you actually read what I said. I’m not offended, try again.
LikeLike
Andie
August 24, 2014
Apologies for taking over your comments thread. I wasn’t expecting so many people to have an opinion on a one word comment. I’ll stop now. I will continue to read your other posts with interest.
LikeLike
KayKay
August 24, 2014
In Malaysia, we have what is easily the most archaic, ridiculous and inconsistent approach to rating and censoring movies. EVER. Which is why the bulk of my views are via downloads or DVDs.
In keeping with this inconsistency, and given the fact that Tarantino is bandied about a fair bit in the comments above, I have a perfect example of how censorship should be approached.
Last year, surprisingly, Django Unchained was released in cinemas here in it’s glorious unexpurgated form. As a die-hard Tarantino fan, I didn’t miss this opportunity to see The Master’s work intact on the the big screen. The movie was rated 18+ for violence. A young couple sat next to me, and during the final bloody shootout, they got up and left. Of course, there may well have been myriad reasons for them doing so, but given that I noticed the lady physically flinch during the brutal Mandingo Fight scene earlier , I’m willing to wager they left because they couldn’t stomach the graphic gunfight with blood and viscera spattering the screen.
And that for me encapsulates how censorship should work. Screen the movies uncut, rate them to inform the public what they’re paying to watch, then let them exercise the best censorship there is: Self-Censorship.
As someone pointed out, if the Walking Lobotomies who bring their 5 year old to a film where eyeballs get gouged out because they were too cheap to hire a babysitter and too stupid not to breed , then ticket sellers at the box office need to inform them politely that this movie isn’t suitable for a child and ushers should be stationed in front of those specific halls to enforce this.
In Europe there are concert halls where you’re not permitted to enter once the show’s begun. Another rule I would dearly love to be enforced in local multiplexes , especially when the Aunty with her Jumbo Popcorn Bucket squashes my knees and shoves her Fat Ass in my face as she makes her way three seats down, 25 minutes AFTER the movie’s begun.
But that’s a rant for another post 🙂
LikeLike
Rahul
August 24, 2014
BR – in my opinion getting baffled by what people get offended by is not disagreement, its condescension.
Andie, yes, two Rahuls.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 24, 2014
For everyone who insist I’m ‘offended’ by Rangan’s statement, and therefore take offence at my comment – for the last time – I’m not offended by it. And since I haven’t asked Rangan to repeal that statement or apologise for it, I fail to see why I cannot question what he wrote even if the article is about censorship.
I seem to have tread on many a toe here. So I will pass on for now. And I will continue to read Rangan’s articles because I like his writing, and am curious about his point of view, even if I do not always agree with it. I will own that I hold BR to higher standards when it comes to his writing than I do others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ravi K
August 24, 2014
Brangan, from now on please use the phrase “gender-neutral placeholder,” so as not to offend anyone with your horrific stereotyping. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 24, 2014
I second what one of the two Rahuls said here. Just as Rangan has every right to write what he chooses to in his articles, likewise people commenting on his articles have the right to express it if they feel offended by something he said. Their mere saying so is not an impingement on his freedom of expression, it is just feedback and they should be afforded room to provide it without having to field several comments in turn criticising them for saying they felt offended. They are within their rights to say so and, frankly, to have the temerity to tell them they are being over-sensitive only comes across as being very insensitive.That is NOT a particularly conducive atmosphere for discussions. I would request certain participants – you know who you are – not to take criticisms of Rangan’s articles so personally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ashutosh
August 25, 2014
The following does not amount to much more than a commentary on what BR said:
This, to my mind, is a worse crime than taking bribes.
Most of us are not comfortable with the suggestive powers of art, because only rarely are we taught how to process art: how to use it as a surrogate for the world in which we can safely examine our ideas, responses, and philosophies for what they are worth. Our fears in the real world are carried over and imposed on to the artistic world. I would argue that a major point of art is to allow us to explore these fears and anxieties from the real world by seeding them in an artistic world that is, by definition, not the real world. I am playing a bit of a Devil’s advocate here, and I definitely don’t suggest the following as a the single best way to set up tomorrow’s society.
I would argue that the real power of art lies in the fact that the blood looks real to the young person who is viewing a violent scene. If— and I say it again for those who take umbrage for breakfast–if a young person is taught to process this properly (and films might not be the best way to teach this; literature might be better) it can serve as a meditation on violence: what the person’s response to it is, why it is so, and whether he can do something about it personally and socially. Taken this way, art (and films especially, because they are visual) can come up with powerful thought experiments using which we might understand the world better. There is no point allowing a child’s view of violence to be formed randomly, and only then allowing them to view artistic depictions violence; then art becomes entertainment, something that is detached from ourselves; it loses most of its suggestive power when the viewer is safe from it’s influence. We cannot afford to allow people to consume art only when such consumption will not affect them in any significant way (and, if we do we end up with a population that avoids ‘art films’; it also creates the epicurean movie-goer who proudly says he watches films only for entertainment without realizing that entertainment is also significant mind-altering). I want to watch a film and then go and have dinner with my long lost uncle, but I don’t want the film to influence my psychology in any way; except maybe perk me up a bit and put me in a good mood for the rendezvous. Sure, there is a place for such art, but not all art has to be that.
I don’t advocate we now mindlessly drag our children into violent films and scar them. Like I said, we have to take a hard look at this, and train ourselves and our children. Otherwise, art will always be pass-time; and, there are more vigorous and healthier ways to pass the time than watching a ‘family entertainer’.
Given the right critical tools to process art, relatively young kids can watch the same stuff that adults do. In fact, I would argue that it prepares them for a more psychologically mature adulthood. Of course, the right age and what capabilities the brain actually has at different stages has to be informed by psychology and neuroscience. It should only partly be informed by anecdotal evidence from parents about what they believe is good for their children. They might be well-meaning but they have to concede that their (entirely understandable) anxieties get in the way of an objective assessment.
One tenuous evidence that supports my hypothesis: our epics and puranas which have several shocking (to our current sensibilities) elements. I would argue they must have been shocking even in the past. But because they were always projected as stories that happened hundreds of thousands of years back (in a different yuga with different ethics and realities), people basically took them as allegorical stories that might be used as a testbed to examine life. We, today, have not really understood that storytelling has become more sophisticated by becoming closer and closer to real life; but, that still doesn’t mean art and real life are one and the same; our ethics in one need not always be cross-pollinated into the other.
More important (but I concede less practicable) than modifying censorship is to actually educate ourselves and our children about art. Otherwise, we will simply continue to call films ‘art’ without really know what that means; it seems like most of us call it art simply to mean not-science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ravi K
August 26, 2014
Why touts thrive in censor board office: An Independent filmmaker’s first hand account of getting a censor certificate in India
http://dearcinema.com/article/touts-thrive-cbfc/2603
LikeLiked by 1 person
Azazel
August 28, 2014
@brangan Censorship is a necessary evil in a country where everyone takes offence at everything and are allowed to do so. And so you end up with a group of individuals with a misplaced sense of self importance who now think it is their sole duty to sagaciously address each of these concerns and ensure no one is offended after watching a particular movie. And whilst they pleasure themselves by asking for scenes to be cut and warnings to be shown, a majority of the population is busy watching racist jokes, manslaughter and item numbers with nary a whimper about the potential impacts of these on the young’uns.
Btw… am glad you did not say ‘streetwise young men’. I would have been offended. Only because I am not young any more and you do not need to remind me of that.
And no one can claim to get censorship or certification right. I took my 6 year old niece to watch an animated movie called Caroline here in Sydney and can vouch for the fact that the rating was wrong. It was, to quote from your review of Hawaa Hawaaii ‘a movie about children for adults’. Yet the hall was packed with kids and a lot of parents walked away after the first 30 minutes.
Therefore the decision to not allow their kids to continue watching this movie was taken by the parents – Not by a group of wankers who got it wrong anyway.
LikeLike
rothrocks
August 29, 2014
Interestingly, a newspaper ad for Mardaani has the caption “Kicking ass nationwide” or something to that effect. Now why didn’t they snipe that. And it’s a YRF camp film, no less. Way to go. Maybe such things will teach censor hawks that no matter what they do, they can’t stop people reading/seeing/hearing the things they try so hard to dissuade them from. By the by, such a caption also affirms that English expletives have become fully accepted in the mainstream. Perhaps with our renowned Anglophile tendencies, they even have, ahem, an aura of respectability that the Hindi “saalon” or “haraami” which are used very conversationally in Mumbai will never acquire in the eyes of our politically correct opinion makers.
LikeLike
rothrocks
August 29, 2014
And before it is pointed out to me, would like to add that I do know very well that in the context of “kicking ass” the use of that word is not really derogatory. That is not the point.
LikeLike