|
Post by Prem Rogue on Dec 30, 2013 3:49:18 GMT
Is tax exemption for 'U'-rated films making Tamil films less edgy?"Non-star films and small budget films have to be non-formulaic to get noticed. But it has become a business necessity to get 'U' certificate because they will not have the opening of a star-driven film," says director CS Amudhan,who reveals that there is a lot of pressure from the production and distribution side to make 'U'-rated films because they cannot afford to lose 30 per cent of the revenue. Producer Rajkumar blames this situation for the current deluge of comedy films. "A film industry has to make all genres of films, but the compulsion to get 'U' certificate has made many wary of exploring new genres. It is a big task to recover your investment after being taxed 30 per cent of your revenue, so producers are reluctant to take on out-of-the- box stories. This is the reason why we have many 'safe' comedy films these days," he says and feels that it would benefit the industry if there is a uniform tax slab (which is lesser than the present percentage),where every film is taxed equally irrespective of their censor rating.
|
|
|
Post by Dil Bert on Dec 30, 2013 10:23:52 GMT
I think I side with the authorities on this one. Aren't there enough dreary, downbeat 'adult' Tamil films already?
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Dec 30, 2013 18:22:50 GMT
Anything to put a stop to those depressing Madurai films in which everyone kills each other with aruvals, right?
|
|
odadune
Star of the item number
not around much due to stuff in my personal life.
Posts: 1,494
Favorite actor: Currently a certain Kumar, but I like most of them
Favorite actress: whoever's in films I'm interested in this week
|
Post by odadune on Dec 30, 2013 18:26:26 GMT
How long has this tax approach been in effect? It seems like there's not been any shortage of hot-button pushing Kollywood films in recent years.
There are enough movies in the world that want to be controversial or edgy in a shallow way, that say nothing, mean nothing, and exist so that the hipsters can be titillated and the bourgeois can be trolled. Making it a bit harder for people to make films like that in one part of the world doesn't bother me especially-you could even argue that it might produce films with more integrity, because doing something offbeat becomes less about chasing extra rupees with sensationalistic content, and more about dealing with things that matter to the filmmaker, no matter its chances of commercial success. It's not really my place to have an opinion on whether India (or regions within India) should have a censor board and use tax incentives to encourage more of certain kinds of films, but carving out a space for less violent, less objectifying movies isn't necessarily a bad thing. (And I say that as someone who's basically okay with the kinds of movies Ajith Kumar and Vijay choose to make).
The issue one of the filmmakers raises, where quibbling over content is another political tool, or another excuse for bribes...I can believe that's a serious problem, but I don't know what can be done about it, and taking one particular tool for graft out of the bureaucracy's toolkit doesn't seem like it would make much difference. Another issue is the fact that certain very powerful people within the industry can get whatever rating they want, as when Endhiran got way too soft a rating for its content, probably due to the Rajnikanth factor.
|
|
|
Post by Dil Bert on Dec 30, 2013 22:58:03 GMT
Anything to put a stop to those depressing Madurai films in which everyone kills each other with aruvals, right? Thalaivaa got a U, as far as I can tell. Shootings, stabbings, explosions...
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Dec 31, 2013 20:33:15 GMT
...carving out a space for less violent, less objectifying movies isn't necessarily a bad thing. (And I say that as someone who's basically okay with the kinds of movies Ajith Kumar and Vijay choose to make). The issue one of the filmmakers raises, where quibbling over content is another political tool, or another excuse for bribes...I can believe that's a serious problem, but I don't know what can be done about it, and taking one particular tool for graft out of the bureaucracy's toolkit doesn't seem like it would make much difference. Another issue is the fact that certain very powerful people within the industry can get whatever rating they want, as when Endhiran got way too soft a rating for its content, probably due to the Rajnikanth factor. Tons of violence and objectification get through for U-rated films, but language and sexuality will quickly get a U/A or A rating and even for an A rating sometimes they ask for cuts. For example, Kalyana Samayal Saadham is pretty tame for a film about a man's struggle with erectile disfunction before his impending marriage. No obscene visuals or vulgar language, no nudity, and zero violence. But it got a U/A, while plenty of violent films get U ratings. I'm not saying KSS should have gotten a U, but there should be some consistency. The censor board should give the U/A or A rating to all those U films with people getting hacked to death if they give KSS a U/A. IMO the tax exemption has little or no effect on violence and misogyny, but it does affect any filmmaker who wants to make, say, a dark comedy or another film in which some boundary-pushing is necessary. The shallowly controversial films you bemoan are the price we pay for the good films that can come out of a more permissive playing field. If being able to watch a film like Aaranya Kaandam without having it go through the censors' machetes means that sometimes we get terrible films made for shock value, I'm fine with that. I can simply avoid those films. I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Either way, mediocre films get made. I have no more desire to see a mediocre film that's appropriate for the whole family than I do to see a mediocre film filled with violence and sex. I avoid both when I can. If anything, I just want to see better movies of all kinds.
|
|
odadune
Star of the item number
not around much due to stuff in my personal life.
Posts: 1,494
Favorite actor: Currently a certain Kumar, but I like most of them
Favorite actress: whoever's in films I'm interested in this week
|
Post by odadune on Jan 3, 2014 1:09:57 GMT
...carving out a space for less violent, less objectifying movies isn't necessarily a bad thing. (And I say that as someone who's basically okay with the kinds of movies Ajith Kumar and Vijay choose to make). The issue one of the filmmakers raises, where quibbling over content is another political tool, or another excuse for bribes...I can believe that's a serious problem, but I don't know what can be done about it, and taking one particular tool for graft out of the bureaucracy's toolkit doesn't seem like it would make much difference. Another issue is the fact that certain very powerful people within the industry can get whatever rating they want, as when Endhiran got way too soft a rating for its content, probably due to the Rajnikanth factor. Tons of violence and objectification get through for U-rated films, but language and sexuality will quickly get a U/A or A rating and even for an A rating sometimes they ask for cuts. For example, Kalyana Samayal Saadham is pretty tame for a film about a man's struggle with erectile disfunction before his impending marriage. No obscene visuals or vulgar language, no nudity, and zero violence. But it got a U/A, while plenty of violent films get U ratings. I'm not saying KSS should have gotten a U, but there should be some consistency. The censor board should give the U/A or A rating to all those U films with people getting hacked to death if they give KSS a U/A. IMO the tax exemption has little or no effect on violence and misogyny, but it does affect any filmmaker who wants to make, say, a dark comedy or another film in which some boundary-pushing is necessary. The shallowly controversial films you bemoan are the price we pay for the good films that can come out of a more permissive playing field. If being able to watch a film like Aaranya Kaandam without having it go through the censors' machetes means that sometimes we get terrible films made for shock value, I'm fine with that. I can simply avoid those films. I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Either way, mediocre films get made. I have no more desire to see a mediocre film that's appropriate for the whole family than I do to see a mediocre film filled with violence and sex. I avoid both when I can. If anything, I just want to see better movies of all kinds. Those are good points, I will have to think about those.
|
|
barathi
Dancing in the chorus
Posts: 2
|
Post by barathi on Jan 14, 2014 3:56:09 GMT
As far as I know, during Karunanidhi's rule as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, any film with a Tamil title got the tax exemption. So essentially, just about every movie got the tax exemption. I believe this was from about 2006 to about 2011. After the elections, the rules changed. "Now, films that have been given a 'U' certificate by the censor board alone are eligible for tax exemption. The storyline should lead to the development of Tamil as a language or as a culture, and majority of the dialogues in the film should be in Tamil. Also, films that are violent or those that boast off adult content aren't eligible for this tax waiver."Strict norms on entertainment tax
I suppose the comparison could be made between films made during 2006-2011 and films made after 2011 to see if there is a noticeable difference in quality/content. Thalaivaa was initially given a U but was denied the tax exemption. I remember this because I was amused that the official reason given for not getting the tax exemption was that there was too much Hindi and English dialog in the film. I think the film was eventually re-certified with a U/A before it finally released.
|
|