|
Post by Prem Rogue on Jan 16, 2014 9:11:20 GMT
It’s time for a clean-up actNewly appointed Censor Board CEO Rakesh Kumar says he is here keep a check on the growing vulgarity and violence.What's the first thing on your agenda?
There is a huge backlog of films that needs to be cleared as we are short-staffed. I had a meet-ngreet with a set of leading filmmakers. I have to look into their request of allowing online submission of film trailers for approval. Also, Censor Chief, Leela Samson, has asked me to keep a check on the growing vulgarity and violence in films.
What's your take on today's films?
The seriousness in content is missing. Filmmakers are pushing the envelope a bit too far. They tell us, "Whatever we show is happening in our homes." But what is happening in their homes is not necessarily happening across the country. So it cannot be the yardstick. I seriously don't think Ranbir Kapoor should have shown his middle finger and bared his butt in Besharam. I also felt that given his reputation, Aamir Khan shouldn't have produced a cussloaded film like Delhi Belly(pauses).
|
|
|
Post by MrB on Jan 16, 2014 14:31:20 GMT
I also felt that given his reputation, Aamir Khan shouldn't have produced a cussloaded film like Delhi Belly(pauses). The more times I read that sentence, the less I like the idea that its perpetrator is in charge of the Censor Board. Let's hope he doesn't abuse his position by trying to influence people to produce only films that are fitting to their reputation. Fortunately, abuses of power are rare in India.
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Feb 6, 2014 19:13:58 GMT
How '12 Years a Slave' Broke Through India's No-Nudity ClauseBY LAYA MAHESHWARI FEBRUARY 5, 2014 10:48 AM "12 Years A Slave" has racked up more than 100 awards, but it now has an honor no other title can claim: Last week, Steve McQueen's slavery drama became the first American film in history to be cleared by the Indian censor board with nudity intact. For the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), India's censorship body, nudity has often been regarded as the deal-breaker. A notable exception to this blanket ban was "Bandit Queen," a 1994 film directed by Shekhar Kapur ("Elizabeth"). A biopic of the Indian dacoit Phoolan Devi ("bandit queen"), the film contained a long shot of a nude female body that was allowed by the Censor Board. This decision was not received smoothly. An Indian community, the Gujjars, protested against their depiction in the film and this instance of nudity. The matter eventually reached the country’s highest legal authority, the Supreme Court, which squashed the complaint and allowed distribution of the film as is. In India, the tolerance towards lovemaking, violence and swearing has increased considerably in recent years, but bare flesh still remains prohibited. For example, Martin Scorsese's "The Wolf of Wall Street" had to undergo nearly seven minutes of cuts before it could be released into theaters, also with an adults-only certificate. "Dallas Buyers Club," which opens in India on February 28, has had to cut several lovemaking scenes and still been slapped with an adults-only certificate. In an alternate universe, "12 Years A Slave" might have had a similar fate. The CBFC's examining committee had originally earmarked six cuts in the film. However, a revising committee was asked to step in and gave a greenlight to the film without any excisions. “'12 Years A Slave' was given clearance based on merit after it was felt that the scenes were necessary and that cutting them would take away from the film itself. However, this does not mean a blanket approval for nudity in adult-only films,” CBFC spokesperson Anjum Rajabali told DNA, a national daily. Rajabali was also the head of this film’s revising committee. This explanation is puzzling, and highlights the volatility of the censor board more than it does the long-term implications of this particular progressive move. Less than a year ago, another slavery drama featuring scenes of female and male nudity in similar contexts could not escape the censor board's scissors. The producers of Quentin Tarantino’s "Django Unchained" had to trim two scenes for the film to be released in India, again with an adults-only certificate. A scene where Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) was stripped of her clothes and thrown into a box as punishment had to be snipped, as did a scene where Django, nude, is nearly castrated. This unpredictability is now predictable for people with any knowledge of the CBFC's actions. Sometimes the examining committee may be seeing a film in a language they don't understand. An independent director once told me his film was given an adults-only certificate because of a shot in which a character throws money at the camera and, as a result, the screen. At the same time, a major studio release then in theaters had a song-and-dance sequence (called an “item number") with characters indulging in the same action. Yet, the latter film received a lighter rating. Whispered reports of bribery or exploiting influence to get lighter ratings persist. For the time being, Indian cinephiles can bask in the glory of a censorship body that has recognized the need for art to be exhibited as intended by the artist. McQueen agrees. "As a filmmaker, I needed to see the lashes on the back," he told DNA. "I needed to see the psychological effect afterward. If I hadn’t done that, I would have done a disservice because that evidence had to be shown. The lynching had to be depicted in the best possible manner because it happened to hundreds of thousands of people. As someone whose ancestors experienced it, I needed to do it the way I did it."
|
|
|
Post by dancelover on Feb 6, 2014 20:54:59 GMT
Here is a new word for y'all: "Sercon" It derives from "serious and constructive." Invented by science fiction fandom, it describes people who believe, or act as if they believe, that all discussions, expecially discussions of Art, and even all Art as well, ought to be Serious and Constructive. No humor ought to be applied. Certainly no parody or misrepresentation, and definitely no vulgarity. Censors are Sercon! Howard "Dancelover" Wilkins It’s time for a clean-up actNewly appointed Censor Board CEO Rakesh Kumar says he is here keep a check on the growing vulgarity and violence.What's the first thing on your agenda?
There is a huge backlog of films that needs to be cleared as we are short-staffed. I had a meet-ngreet with a set of leading filmmakers. I have to look into their request of allowing online submission of film trailers for approval. Also, Censor Chief, Leela Samson, has asked me to keep a check on the growing vulgarity and violence in films.
What's your take on today's films?
The seriousness in content is missing. Filmmakers are pushing the envelope a bit too far. They tell us, "Whatever we show is happening in our homes." But what is happening in their homes is not necessarily happening across the country. So it cannot be the yardstick. I seriously don't think Ranbir Kapoor should have shown his middle finger and bared his butt in Besharam. I also felt that given his reputation, Aamir Khan shouldn't have produced a cussloaded film like Delhi Belly(pauses).
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Feb 8, 2014 6:40:18 GMT
Here's an exchange with the censor board, posted by Anand Gandhi (Ship of Theseus) about his upcoming documentary, Gulabi Gang. It reads like an Abbott and Costello routine:
The first Censor Board Review committee on Gulabi Gang –
Censor Board: You have to put a disclaimer in the beginning, "Any similarities to actual events or situations or actual people are purely coincidental".
Me: But this is a documentary...
Censor Board: Ah... in that case you should put "The film based on real events, true story" at the end of the film.
Me: It's not BASED on real events, it IS real people and real events!
Censor Board (flummoxed): But that policeman - he was acting so well... the father and uncle too...Why do you want documentary certification? You should take feature certificate to attract more people.
Me: Ah Ok, you can give me feature certification.
Censor Board (After a brief consultation): Sorry but we cannot give you feature certification because you have applied for documentary. You'll have to apply once again.
Me: Oh that would be too much trouble. I'm fine with the documentary certification.
|
|
gulfam
Junior artiste
Posts: 60
Favorite actor: Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan
Favorite actress: Alia Bhatt and Deepika Padukone
|
Post by gulfam on Feb 9, 2014 16:44:22 GMT
Speaking of censors, here is a brilliant interview with Anurag Kashyap about the smoking warnings placed in films and why he is challenging them.
Honestly I don't understand censorship in India, movies that gain an A certificate are clearly for adults, yet you still find that they blur nudity or demand cuts to particular scenes and this isn't just the case for erotic movies such as Hate Story (where the sex scenes were ordered to be shortened), but can be seen in movies such as Grand Masti where cleavages were blurred! Particular movies such as Mr Singh and Mrs Mehta which employed the use of female nudity (where exploitative or not is a different topic) were not given the creative freedom that the filmmakers perhaps desired, and this translates to home video as well where the same blurred scenes can be seen.
|
|
|
Post by James on Feb 9, 2014 20:04:13 GMT
In Hindi he gives a good example that is actually funny and shows the stupidity of the smoking warnings. He says that where will this sort of censorship stop, if you can't show smoking because it's not healthy, then you can't show speeding on the roads either, and then Race would never have been made. There are too many activists with too much time on their hands and too many gov't officials who don't want to do anything constructive so they introduce stupid measures like this. It's a bad combination...
|
|
gulfam
Junior artiste
Posts: 60
Favorite actor: Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan
Favorite actress: Alia Bhatt and Deepika Padukone
|
Post by gulfam on Feb 10, 2014 3:45:52 GMT
In Hindi he gives a good example that is actually funny and shows the stupidity of the smoking warnings. He says that where will this sort of censorship stop, if you can't show smoking because it's not healthy, then you can't show speeding on the roads either, and then Race would never have been made. There are too many activists with too much time on their hands and too many gov't officials who don't want to do anything constructive so they introduce stupid measures like this. It's a bad combination... I agree with what he says. Indian cinema has pressure not just from the government but also concerned parents that filmmakers should aim to make ''family-friendly'' films, which as Anurag puts it affects the work of the filmmaker. He also gives a good example of killing being wrong yet there is no warning telling you not to kill . He also mentions the fact that even though children are impressionable, Hindi film heroes are not their only role models and that they're just as likely to see someone smoking on the streets in real life and decide to take it up themselves. Saif Ali Khan said it best last year during an interview for Go Goa Gone regarding the use of a particular swear word, that we (actors/industry) are not your mother.
|
|
|
Post by karanjoharfan on Feb 10, 2014 3:49:03 GMT
I don't have problems with a crackdown because of how vulgar and violent the movies have indeed become. There is not enough of an age split in the ratings system they have in India, or in the audience that watches the movies overseas, for them to responsibly just let everything go. You know young kids are going to be taken to watch whatever it is, especially if it comes from a big-name director or production house, or has a big-name star.
|
|
gulfam
Junior artiste
Posts: 60
Favorite actor: Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan
Favorite actress: Alia Bhatt and Deepika Padukone
|
Post by gulfam on Feb 10, 2014 19:21:04 GMT
I don't have problems with a crackdown because of how vulgar and violent the movies have indeed become. There is not enough of an age split in the ratings system they have in India, or in the audience that watches the movies overseas, for them to responsibly just let everything go. You know young kids are going to be taken to watch whatever it is, especially if it comes from a big-name director or production house, or has a big-name star. I don't agree there, I think that movies should be allowed to have whatever content they desire. At the end of the day there are many avenues of information set up to allow parents to make an informed decision about what films to take their families to. For example with the hype around Ragini MMS 2 being a ''dirty'' movie that should be enough to deter families from watching that movie. Other sources of information include the IMDb Parents Guide which gives a breakdown of sex/violence/smoking, drugs and profanity in movies to better inform parents of what to expect in a particular film. EDIT: I forgot to mention trailers for movies, given the fact that if there are any scenes of a sexual nature at times they are hinted at in the trailer for film to draw in audiences looking for such titillation. Parents can use trailers to access whether they think the level of sexuality being portrayed is suitable for family viewing e.g. Race 2 does not have any kissing or sex scenes and everything is either implied or actresses wearing revealing clothes, now it comes to down to individual sensibilities, some parents may consider that perfectly fine for their kids to watch whereas more conservative folk will steer clear. At the end of the day it comes down to the parents making the right choice. After all some families might find a problem with something specific such as violence as being unacceptable over sex whereas for some its vice versa
|
|
|
Post by dancelover on Feb 10, 2014 19:41:18 GMT
I find a problem with this particular analogy "smoking-speeding." Speeding is not a deliberate attempt to cause a collision. The Speeders believe that they drive well enough to avoid collisions, and in fact they usually do avoid them. Tobacco is a poison - several poisons - and any use of it shortens the lives of the users. Q. E. D. Dancelover In Hindi Kashyup gives a good example that is actually funny and shows the stupidity of the smoking warnings. He says that where will this sort of censorship stop, if you can't show smoking because it's not healthy, then you can't show speeding on the roads either, and then Race would never have been made. There are too many activists with too much time on their hands and too many gov't officials who don't want to do anything constructive so they introduce stupid measures like this. It's a bad combination...
|
|
|
Post by karanjoharfan on Feb 11, 2014 1:56:16 GMT
I disagree it should only be up to the parents -- if they are irresponsible parents, their kids shouldn't suffer. Also, trailers do not actually give an idea of how violent or vulgar a movie will be many times. Trailers only give a brief 1 or 2 minutes. In the US, we have G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 for a reason. We don't just expect people to judge based on a trailer. India with its much less differentiated rating system, and its single-screens instead of multiplexes in the rural areas so that families there don't have a large range of choices as to what to watch at the theater, has very good reason to have the Censor Board making cuts.
In the US also, there is a push to limit smoking in movies BTW, limiting them to PG-13 or even R-rated movies, and I don't see a problem with that or requiring a "no smoking" disclaimer. Media has a powerful effect on people and adding a little disclaimer is hardly a huge imposition.
The UK also has pre- and post-"watershed" guidelines for when things should air on television, acknowledging that parents cannot control everything. And the US bans certain language and nudity from TV (while, strangely, allowing tons of violence but that's another story).
Some censorship exists everywhere. And it should. It is just a matter of degree and type.
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Feb 11, 2014 6:03:44 GMT
The smoking/drinking disclaimers are fine at the beginning of the film but slapping them on the screen whenever someone smokes or drinks is idiotic. Where does it stop? "Don't commit crime," "Don't lie," etc.? If these are kids movies, that's one thing, but it's patronizing to do that for movie aimed at adults, or to overly censor them. Here's an excerpt from an interview with the director of a Malayalam film, Papilio Buddha Papilio Buddha would have been mutilated if I accepted those 30 cuts: Jayan CherianYes, your film was mired in a big censorship controversy. What did the CBFC really object to?It was not certifiable because there is a scene where Ambedkarites protest by burning the effigy of Gandhi, there is another scene where a girl is gang-raped by a group of rickshaw drivers which was based on a true story. There is another character in the film who is gang-raped by a group of auto rickshaw union leaders because she chooses to be an auto driver, a Dalit female auto driver. She is transgressing all boundaries and is supposed to be controlled. Rape has become a legitimate tool of social control in India. Rape scenes are all over Indian films but they felt that my film is political because my focus is not on the female body – I wanted to avoid that kind of voyeuristic element – I was focusing on the violence of the men who attack these women. Besides, the Censor Board has a huge issue with the language of the people. The people in my film talk in day-to-day language, and not any kind of projected, sophisticated, filmy language. Also, there is one character in the film who quoted Ambedkar on Gandhi’s Yerwada Satyagrah in 1932. Gandhi did not want a separate constituency for the untouchables. Sikhs had it, Anglo-Indians had it, Muslims had it but Gandhi was afraid of giving a separate constituency to untouchables thinking that would divide the Hindus. So he opposed it. Then he started a Satyagraha, which is called the Yerwada jail Satyagraha; Ambedkar was literally forced to sign a contract with Gandhi which is known as the Poona Pact. Ambedkar is quoted in a popular book saying “There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul and filthy act. The fast was not for the benefit of the Untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless people to give up the constitutional safeguards (which had been awarded to them)”. That is history. But the CBFC wanted to delete the portion in the film where a character quotes Ambedkar because Gandhi is supposed to be treated as a Holy Cow. Then we went to the revision committee that consisted of 12 members including some famous directors. They suggested about 50 changes including 30 cuts and mutes and blurs. So the film structure would be totally mutilated if I accepted those cuts. Then we went to the revision committee that consisted of 12 members including some famous directors. They suggested about 50 changes including 30 cuts and mutes and blurs. So the film structure would be totally mutilated if I accepted those cuts. So we went to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) in Delhi; it took us 8 months to reach there. Then that committee suggested that I blur the visuals of the burning of Gandhi’s effigy and I remove the political quote by Ambedkar. It is shocking to me that in a country like India – that brags of being the biggest democracy in the world – there is such direct intervention in a work of art! Then we got an ‘A’ certificate from the Appellate Tribunal. So you had to make those cuts?Personally as a director I refuse to accept it. But we have to show the film. I cannot even imagine the plight of my producers. Meanwhile another thing happened. This film was selected for the International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) but they pulled it out after receiving a phone call from a politician. During the festival, we had a private screening in a private auditorium. Before the film started the cops barged in and shut down the theatre. The people who had come to see the film protested in front of the festival venue. How has censorship thwarted the avenues of distribution for this film? Most of the government funded festivals refused to show Papilio Buddha. The ‘A’ certification by the FCAT killed satellite distribution of the film. Mainstream theatrical distributors didn’t touch the film after our ‘feud’ with the Censor Board. We have to keep focusing on private screenings in dalit colonies and university campuses. Now we are exploring the possibilities of Internet distribution. How do you feel about film censorship in India and the repercussions it has had for your film?The Censor Board operates on an archaic set of guidelines, which I think, is designed to give overwhelming power to the state. I believe it is politically motivated intervention in a piece of art by a government agency. Probably they think that this citation may ‘unsettle’ the ‘national narrative’ of Gandhi that they propagate. If there is no space for a counter narrative to the ‘official narrative’ in a society, we cannot call it a democratic’ society. There is no justification for the Censor Board’s action.
|
|
gulfam
Junior artiste
Posts: 60
Favorite actor: Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan
Favorite actress: Alia Bhatt and Deepika Padukone
|
Post by gulfam on Feb 11, 2014 9:59:37 GMT
I disagree it should only be up to the parents -- if they are irresponsible parents, their kids shouldn't suffer. Also, trailers do not actually give an idea of how violent or vulgar a movie will be many times. Trailers only give a brief 1 or 2 minutes. In the US, we have G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 for a reason. We don't just expect people to judge based on a trailer. India with its much less differentiated rating system, and its single-screens instead of multiplexes in the rural areas so that families there don't have a large range of choices as to what to watch at the theater, has very good reason to have the Censor Board making cuts. In the US also, there is a push to limit smoking in movies BTW, limiting them to PG-13 or even R-rated movies, and I don't see a problem with that or requiring a "no smoking" disclaimer. Media has a powerful effect on people and adding a little disclaimer is hardly a huge imposition. The UK also has pre- and post-"watershed" guidelines for when things should air on television, acknowledging that parents cannot control everything. And the US bans certain language and nudity from TV (while, strangely, allowing tons of violence but that's another story). Some censorship exists everywhere. And it should. It is just a matter of degree and type. I don't see how it should be the job of someone else to monitor what kids watch. Take for example books, even in the UK there is no such censorship on books or specific age ratings meaning a kid is more likely to pick up a book at random and it could have explicit sex scenes described within than be allowed in to watch a 15 or 18 rated film here as censorship for visual material is stricter. On the other hand films have done their best to comply to all the changes and compromises that have been forced upon them. Also as mentioned above censorship would be fine if it's for a kids movie however an A certificate should now be recognised as being adults only and why impose cuts on films made for adults? It's like saying horror movies should be made tame and less scary for those people who might happen across them accidentally and will get scared. You also mentioned the pre and post watershed on TV in the UK, well tbh if someone has irresponsible parents I don't see how that would stop the child from just watching content after 9pm that might be considered adult. I admit that trailers are sometimes short but I would like you to find me a trailer that doesn't at least give some hint at the level of violence and "vulgarity" that will be contained within. In the US there are two types of trailers green and red band, the red band trailers are more explicit and give a clear indication of what the movie will contain, now that same movie with a red band trailer could have a green band trailer also which could be seen as enticing younger viewers however again that is the job of the parent to make the end decision and there is the imdb parents guide as I mentioned earlier which is more effective for Hollywood films. Bollywood trailers on the other hand always display some sort of USP e.g. Trailers for films aimed at families as Bewakoofiyan and Main Tera Hero show the actresses in bikinis and hints of kissing scenes, now that should be enough to allow parents to make an informed decision and again there is the parents guide after release.
|
|
carla
Junior artiste
Posts: 62
|
Post by carla on Feb 11, 2014 15:55:50 GMT
I find a problem with this particular analogy "smoking-speeding." Speeding is not a deliberate attempt to cause a collision. The Speeders believe that they drive well enough to avoid collisions, and in fact they usually do avoid them. Tobacco is a poison - several poisons - and any use of it shortens the lives of the users. Q. E. D. What is your conclusion here - are you arguing that this fact justifies showing warnings before (or even during) movies that portray the use of tobacco ? If so, what other hazardous activities do you think ought to require such warnings? On the subject of the thread, I will be highly skeptical of any statement by any censor board member (or any ratings board member in the US or any other country) until they can explain cogently why people getting their heads blown off or their stomachs stabbed or their teeth kicked in is more acceptable for a broad audience than nudity or sexuality. The statements quoted above talk about "sex and violence" as though these things are equal but the data don't bear it out. There is still much more graphic, stomach-churning violence in movies than there is sex.
|
|