Impact of censorship on movies
“Censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions” — George Bernard Shaw
This article was originally written in 2017 but wasn’t published. Some facts and numbers in this article will be dated.
Indian movies have had a long connection with censorship. One walk down the history of the Indian cinema industry will be enough to give a glimpse of how censorship has chopped off content from movies in order to make it more suitable for the Indian audience.
The advent of cinema in India emerged in the 1890s, at a time when there were regulations already in place. The Dramatic Performance Acts, 1876 was one such regulation in place. Censorship in cinema was actively practiced during British rule as they wanted to curb Indian patriotism depicted through various themes addressed in Indian movies.
There was no restitution from censorship even when India attained freedom from the British Empire and adopted a constitution of its own. Things worsened when the government passed the Cinematograph Act, 1952. This was the point in history where the requirement for a dedicated regulatory authority or body was realized, composed of 15–20 members, and thus, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) was formed.
One of the first movies after India’s independence to have received a national ban was Mrinal Sen directed movie Neel Akasher Neechey. It was a Bengali movie that came out in 1959.
One of the most shameful incidents in the history of India’s constitutional machinery was the declaration of National Emergency and the suspension of rights of the common man. The Emergency period is undeniably an example to the state of censorship. Now popular movies like Aandhi (1975) and Kissa Kursi Ka (1977) were given a nationwide ban from theatrical release owing to the content of the movie. In the case of Kissa Kursi Ka, the movie caused an uproar and as claimed by certain reports, the movie’s negatives as well as several copies of movie reels were burned in the CBFC office. Sanjay Gandhi was accused of perpetrating the act of burning the movie reel and was imprisoned but served only a month in prison before being released. Even forty years after the ban of the movie, the reel has not been returned to the Nahata family (Amrit Nahata was the director of the film). Although, sometime back the Information and Broadcasting Ministry announced that it was considering returning the movie reels as well as compensating the family for the loss borne by the due to destruction of the movie prints. The total monetary loss borne by Amrit Nahata because of loss of movie print and ban on the movie, as quoted by Raakesh Nahata, son of Amrit Nahata, is Rs. 17 lakhs. He still awaits the final compensation.
There have been allegations against the Censor Board which has led to social pundits questioning the purpose and existence of the Censor board as a cinematic content regulating body. These allegations gained movement during the early 80s when Raj Kapoor’s movie caused an uproar in the media for the depiction of skin-clad women and nudity in his movies like Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Ram Teri Ganga Maili ho Gayi, Mera Naam Joker, etc.. The point raised by the concerned pundits was that how exactly was the movie cleared for screening with only a few cuts or less when movies involving not so popular cast were not given some leeway. Over the years, the nomination and selection of the incumbent of this regulatory body have been a bone of contention. Around 13,500 movies are reviewed every year by the body which has approximately 500 members. There has always been an association of political agenda to the selection of the chairperson or the members of the body. There have been acquisitions of unnecessary cuts that have not been backed by any justification for the same by the accused. For instance, Shekhar Kapur objected to the cuts demanded by Asha Parekh, who headed CBFC in 1998, for his movie, Elizabeth, which as claimed, did not have appropriate themes and scenes for the Indian audience. Also, during Sharmila Tagore’s stint as CBFC head, it seemed unfair to certain cine pundits that making her incumbent of the cinema regulation body when her son and daughter were acting in movies seemed inappropriate. There were also incidents of arrest of CBFC CEO, Rakesh Sharma, who was arrested on grounds of accepting bribes for giving certification to movies.
CBFC’s former chairperson, Pahlaj Nihalani was one of the most controversial figures. Even his appointment has been questioned on several grounds, one of which includes the central government improving its interference in the body through liaisons. There were also a lot of insights shared by the outgoing chairperson, Leela Samson who brought to light the way the body was functioning.
The current operating manner of CBFC is not compliant enough with changing times. The ban on the movie 50 shades of grey, after asking for several cuts, which affected the movie critically was uncalled for. Clearly, the movie was meant for a different audience and a certificate could have been awarded. The question that needs to be raised is that why should a body that regulates cinema have government interference and so much autonomous power to curtail the content that the audience should see? These decisions have a major effect on the producer’s investment when their movie is given a certificate that does not reach the targeted audience. In a modern society that India is becoming, why is culture used as a measure to curb the freedom of citizens? There have been instances where documentaries that have gone out there and dared to present a different perspective have been condemned and deemed unfit for screening in India. Documentaries like Raam ke Naam that addressed the Babri masjid demolition issue and Final Solution which addressed issues like Gujarat riots have been banned from screening. Even in mainstream media, movies with megastar cast have had to visit the doors of the Censor board. The huge controversy surrounding the release of PK is one such example. Another major controversy that was in news was when ‘India’s Daughter’, a documentary on Nirbhaya (Delhi rape victim) was banned. The recent controversy that centered around censoring the word ‘lesbian’ in Dum Lagaa ke Haisha by muting it is a clear example of what content is being called suitable for our viewing and how the circulation of certain content that is deemed unfit by the board is being curbed from reaching the audience.
Censorship raises certain questions that pertain to topics like freedom infringement to the losses borne by the movie producers, from favoritism and nepotism to reliability on the board for censoring content deemed unfit by them. Censorship, in a way, has affected piracy. If a consumer has to pay a handsome amount for viewing a movie in a cinema hall that has been censored and the same movie can be watched online or downloaded through proxy servers or torrents i.e. illegally then the obvious choice is going to be watching it online. It is known that Game of Thrones is the most downloaded show through torrents and proxy servers. The show has a lot of scenes that are censored for television audiences. This is one of the major reasons that people prefer to download the show illegally so that they can view the uncensored version. Also, censoring movies or content results in huge losses to the producer. For instance, The Wolf of Wall Street which is a 180-minute long film was released in India after several cuts which brought down the total running time to 174 minutes. The budget for the movie stood at $100 million. Therefore, the per-minute cost of the movie can be estimated at $555555.5. A 6-minute cut would have resulted in a loss amounting to $3.3 million.
The autonomous status enjoyed by the Censor board is evident from the fact that the Censor Board has banned 256 movies in the last decade.
Also, the number of scenes cut out from foreign movies released in India and that too because they depict kissing scenes which are common in Hindi movies as well as a demotivating factor and can amount to reduced foreign movie releases in India. A recent example is of when censor board cut kissing scenes between Daniel Craig and Monica Belucci and another scene between Daniel Craig and Ley Seydoux by 50%, calling it too passionate for the Indian audience.
In another case, the censor board cut off a lot of scenes from the movie Angry Indian goddesses sighting several reasons. The cut severely affected the screen time of actress Tannishtha Chatterjee. Fortunately, the censored scenes were uploaded online and shared through the movie’s Facebook page. With Censor Board’s diktat on censoring movie content backed by baseless explanations, a rise in the sharing of uncut scenes through online mediums may become a common practice.
Conclusion
Thus, there are several factors that enter the picture that affects the overall performance of a movie after it goes under the cut. What is worth observing is how alternatives are identified in the long run to tackle this problem. Also, in context of Indian cinema and taking into account all the allegations being leveled upon the Censor Board about Pahlaj Nihilani’s appointment being linked to saffronisation of the Indian cinemas which to a great extent affect the minds of the audience, the future of Indian film industry looms in a perilous, dark time.
