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 17:45:30 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. I totally agree, violence is not considered in the same league as sex and nudity. I don't take offence to much however I felt the violence in Jai Ho for a ''family''/mass movie was slightly extreme, it was rated '15' here in the UK by the BBFC as a result. However had there been any sex scenes in the movie, the majority of the audience would have been complaining non-stop. EDIT: The majority of Indian audiences (from other arguments online that I've seen) seem to believe that violence - if justified - is perfectly fine, such as a one man fighting machine delivering a thick dose of social kick-ass. However audiences aren't ready to accept the fact that sex and nudity can be used tastefully in movies as well. There are such strong negative connotations attached to actresses baring or kissing in movies, as can be evidenced by an alarming number of hateful YouTube comments on such videos
|
|
|
Post by dancelover on Feb 11, 2014 17:45:44 GMT
I numbered Carla's points for reference. 1 - I argue that tobacco should be banned from movies entirely. I might allow the sight (but not the use) of it, only as The Mark Of The Villain. Failing that, I will accept and require No-Tobacco Warnings before and after each movie that uses it, and during each use. So, *Yes, I am.* 2 - Any activity that can only be suicidal or very damaging. Examples: heroin or cocaine use, cutting. Alcohol, in moderation, is a useful medicine, so I would not require a warning. 3 - I agree. 4 - I agree. Dancelover 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. 1 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 ? 2 If so, what other hazardous activities do you think ought to require such warnings? 3 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. 4 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.
|
|
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 18:01:17 GMT
I numbered Carla's points for reference. 1 - I argue that tobacco should be banned from movies entirely. I might allow the sight (but not the use) of it, only as The Mark Of The Villain. Failing that, I will accept and require No-Tobacco Warnings before and after each movie that uses it, and during each use. So, *Yes, I am.* 2 - Any activity that can only be suicidal or very damaging. Examples: heroin or cocaine use, cutting. Alcohol, in moderation, is a useful medicine, so I would not require a warning. 3 - I agree. 4 - I agree. Dancelover 1 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 ? 2 If so, what other hazardous activities do you think ought to require such warnings? 3 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. 4 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. But then why stop there, there should be the same warnings imposed on Bollywood songs, TV serials where characters smoke or sing about smoking. Equally you could argue why smoking is being used in the first place. The TV drama Mad Men is a good example, the show is set in 60s and as a result it would not be accurate to portray characters not smoking because back then attitudes to smoking was different, but similarly in India there are places where people smoke openly in villages etc and it was included then that wouldn't be glorifying or promoting the use it, it would simply be a reflection of real life. Although I agree that there are times when people smoke when it's not necessary such as background characters who are only in one shot of the entire film, certain things like that can be reduced down on. However having smoking exclusively the sign of a villain is incredibly manipulative, not to mention the fact that children are just as likely to model themselves after villains as they are heroes, what with today's villains or anti-heroes in Bollywood films becoming viewed just as ''cool'' as the protagonists themselves. EDIT: Anurag Kashyap in an interview once stated that the Bollywood industry is the most taxed industry in the country even more so than the tobacco companies! He explained that this was perhaps due to the government believing Bollywood to be a sleazy industry that should be taxed without guilt. Taking that point into consideration it can be seen that compared to other forms of entertainment in India, Bollywood does seem to get a lot of flak, however they do comply with the rules imposed upon them, yet it would be unfair that they were the only ones singled out
|
|
carla
Junior artiste
Posts: 62
|
Post by carla on Feb 11, 2014 18:50:43 GMT
1 - I argue that tobacco should be banned from movies entirely. I am so utterly stunned by this statement that I may just have to say "well, all right then" and move on. I wrote a long post expressing my complete astonishment in various ways but I'm not sure there is any value in belaboring it.
|
|
Xas
Guest appearance
Posts: 185
Favorite actor: Kunal Kapoor, Ranbir, Prabhudheva
Favorite actress: Madhuri, Rani, Vidya, Huma Qureshi, Divya Dutta, Nutan, Asha Parekh, Helen, Mumtaz
|
Post by Xas on Feb 12, 2014 0:44:20 GMT
2 - Any activity that can only be suicidal or very damaging. Given this is Bollywood we're talking about, I'll assume this includes 'crossing the road'...
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Feb 12, 2014 5:26:28 GMT
I numbered Carla's points for reference. 1 - I argue that tobacco should be banned from movies entirely. I might allow the sight (but not the use) of it, only as The Mark Of The Villain. Failing that, I will accept and require No-Tobacco Warnings before and after each movie that uses it, and during each use. So, *Yes, I am.* 2 - Any activity that can only be suicidal or very damaging. Examples: heroin or cocaine use, cutting. Alcohol, in moderation, is a useful medicine, so I would not require a warning. Thankfully the CBFC has not reached such ridiculous levels of finger-wagging micromanagement. It is not the job of filmmakers or the CBFC to be moralizing parents to anyone, especially adults.
|
|
drk
Dancing in the chorus
Posts: 10
|
Post by drk on Feb 12, 2014 14:51:00 GMT
I'm against censorship in general, but it's hard to accept all these analogies between smoking and sex/violence/speeding/etc. Drug use is an addictive behavior in a way that none of the others are. Not saying it should be censored, but a disclaimer at the beginning of the film would at least raise awareness on the issue and its health effects. Especially in a country where tobacco use prevalence is approaching 50% for males.
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Feb 12, 2014 16:52:20 GMT
The disclaimer at the beginning is fine, but showing it on-screen whenever someone smokes or drinks is just intrusive nannying. Even a non-intrusive disclaimer merely gives the appearance of doing something about smoking. It's not a serious public education effort, which doesn't belong in the movies anyways.
|
|
|
Post by dancelover on Feb 12, 2014 21:51:29 GMT
No, because once-in-a-while BW characters survive crossing-the-road. And then there is dancing-in-the-road, which they always survive, and glory in! Dancelover 2 - Any activity that can only be suicidal or very damaging. Xas replied: Given this is Bollywood we're talking about, I'll assume this includes 'crossing the road'...
|
|
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 13, 2014 16:56:38 GMT
The disclaimer at the beginning is fine, but showing it on-screen whenever someone smokes or drinks is just intrusive nannying. Even a non-intrusive disclaimer merely gives the appearance of doing something about smoking. It's not a serious public education effort, which doesn't belong in the movies anyways. I was watching Ankur Arora Murder Case yesterday and there was only one scene where a character takes out a cigarette and that too he didn't light. The warning at the bottom still displayed however. If they want to keep these warnings then they have to be consistent and do the same for other addictive devices such as drugs etc
|
|