 "What we need on the Censor Board are people who won't become political tools: Anurag Kashyap")
After Leela Samson resigned as chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) citing governmental interference amid allegations of corruption, 12 other members followed suit. The information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry, under which the body falls, appointed film maker Pahlaj Nihalani, a self-professed admirer of "healthy films with a strong social message", as the new chairman. Anurag Kashyap, the director of films such as Black Friday and Gangs of Wasseypur, who has had his share of run-ins with CBFC, speaks to Ritika Bhatia about the role the body should play
How can CBFC fulfil its role better?
Ideally, it should only be a film certification board. It should be an autonomous body and have no political appointees. Endless discussions have already been held on what CBFC should do. The points raised and directives suggested are gathering dust in the information and broadcasting ministry for years.
The argument is that there should not be any censorship. Instead, CBFC should focus on certifying a film for its suitability to different audiences, the way it is done in the United States. There is also a demand for viewer representation.
This is wishful thinking, especially in an intolerant country like ours. We need to work on ourselves as a society. Unless we start with that, you can't wish away the censorship. We have to give people an atmosphere to think for themselves. Religion and politics are the scariest things in this country when it comes to cinema. Anything to do with either of these gives CBFC the jitters. Sex and nudity are major problems when it comes to censorship, when they really shouldn't be. The root cause of this is that we are a very hypocritical country. Sunny Leone's films have the largest single ticket sales here. But I haven't met one person who will admit to actually having watched her films. How are her films becoming blockbuster hits if people just pretend that nobody watches them? This is the kind of hypocrisy I'm talking about. I have fought a lot of battles and that has made me very cynical about the amount of change that can be brought in.
Yes, we do need viewer's representation. But everybody is a viewer. You and I both watch films, don't we? What we actually need are people who will not let themselves become political tools, who don't believe in dumbing down the audience.
Films like PK are cleared by the board and yet are attacked at theatres. Why?
That is a law and order problem. If the film has got a clearance certificate from the Board, the law of the country should render these hooligans unlawful. One film cannot be representing every person's morality. How is it that political protests are permitted to get violent, while many silent protests are suppressed? This is not the problem of the censor board.
There are allegations that people in the censor board demand money from directors to clear their films, else they delay giving the film a certification.
The board was quite transparent during the time of Pankaja Thakur (former CEO, CBFC) and Leela Samson. They were working very well together and things were starting to look up. I don't know why they have been shunted out, but it reeks of sexism. If you keep throwing out the people who are doing the kind of work that is required, who are trying to change the system, then what is the point? We need to weed out the political appointees. But it is a process that takes time.
Nihalani has said: "I will listen to what the film industry has to say. But the overall agenda is to ensure that we don't put out anything that will be harmful for society".
Who is going to decide what is harmful to society anyway? By saying this, many times they do not allow serious content to reach the audience. In an overly moralistic country like ours, the government refuses to let things be more real and political. Nihalani is quite new, so we'll have to wait for 5-6 months to get a clearer picture of his approach. Besides there's only so much the board can do anyway. It's not an autonomous body, but completely controlled by the I&B ministry. We don't know the prime minister's stance on art, cinema, and culture either.
How can CBFC fulfil its role better?
Ideally, it should only be a film certification board. It should be an autonomous body and have no political appointees. Endless discussions have already been held on what CBFC should do. The points raised and directives suggested are gathering dust in the information and broadcasting ministry for years.
Also Read
We need to throw out political appointees, and have people from all walks of life in the panel. We need to allow freedom of expression. Neither the industry nor the censor board encourages people to think for themselves. An adult is not just a person who is above 18 years of age; an adult is a person who can think for himself or herself.
The argument is that there should not be any censorship. Instead, CBFC should focus on certifying a film for its suitability to different audiences, the way it is done in the United States. There is also a demand for viewer representation.
This is wishful thinking, especially in an intolerant country like ours. We need to work on ourselves as a society. Unless we start with that, you can't wish away the censorship. We have to give people an atmosphere to think for themselves. Religion and politics are the scariest things in this country when it comes to cinema. Anything to do with either of these gives CBFC the jitters. Sex and nudity are major problems when it comes to censorship, when they really shouldn't be. The root cause of this is that we are a very hypocritical country. Sunny Leone's films have the largest single ticket sales here. But I haven't met one person who will admit to actually having watched her films. How are her films becoming blockbuster hits if people just pretend that nobody watches them? This is the kind of hypocrisy I'm talking about. I have fought a lot of battles and that has made me very cynical about the amount of change that can be brought in.
Yes, we do need viewer's representation. But everybody is a viewer. You and I both watch films, don't we? What we actually need are people who will not let themselves become political tools, who don't believe in dumbing down the audience.
Films like PK are cleared by the board and yet are attacked at theatres. Why?
That is a law and order problem. If the film has got a clearance certificate from the Board, the law of the country should render these hooligans unlawful. One film cannot be representing every person's morality. How is it that political protests are permitted to get violent, while many silent protests are suppressed? This is not the problem of the censor board.
There are allegations that people in the censor board demand money from directors to clear their films, else they delay giving the film a certification.
The board was quite transparent during the time of Pankaja Thakur (former CEO, CBFC) and Leela Samson. They were working very well together and things were starting to look up. I don't know why they have been shunted out, but it reeks of sexism. If you keep throwing out the people who are doing the kind of work that is required, who are trying to change the system, then what is the point? We need to weed out the political appointees. But it is a process that takes time.
Nihalani has said: "I will listen to what the film industry has to say. But the overall agenda is to ensure that we don't put out anything that will be harmful for society".
Who is going to decide what is harmful to society anyway? By saying this, many times they do not allow serious content to reach the audience. In an overly moralistic country like ours, the government refuses to let things be more real and political. Nihalani is quite new, so we'll have to wait for 5-6 months to get a clearer picture of his approach. Besides there's only so much the board can do anyway. It's not an autonomous body, but completely controlled by the I&B ministry. We don't know the prime minister's stance on art, cinema, and culture either.