Can India not do without Censorship in films?

There’s not going to be much of discrepancy when the imprudence of the ‘Censor’ board in India will come into prospect. Raising concerns about a film’s content being precarious for a section of audience is one thing, having doubts over clearing the film at all is other. The recent NH10 episode that got the censor board talking only goes out to prove why Indian cinematic arena can never cross boundaries in terms of content, impact and recognition. 

Right from the stupid cuss words list, to Nihalani’s bashing of previous censor chiefs and now this NH10 controversy, is there anything this censor board would do right? Though the film has now been passed with an ‘A’ certificate along with some audio/video cuts, but why this fuss? How can censor board ever serve its best by refraining a filmmaker explore ideas and use it to the maximum realism?

Have the cinematic values changed ever since the new censor board team has taken charge? Have audiences suddenly started looking at things with a high moral ground? Do viewers across the nation take more offence if a film has abuses or violence in abundance? Are children being brought to an unwanted exposure of vulgarity, sex and gore? This seems idiotic. From an audience that received an Omkara with much acclaim and gave a thumbs up to Gangs of Wasseypur, would censorship do enough justice?

This is just about imposition of opinions while the best service would be leaving the decision on us. Can the audience not choose what’s right and what’s wrong? Is Indian cinematic audience so ineffectual that someone else on their behalf would choose what scenes are safe enough for them to be viewed? Certainly not! May be it’s time the system changes itself. The bottom line question at the end of it all would always be ‘Can India not do without censorship’?

Source: www.in.com

If cinema is a free medium, so is the choice of an audience. The 5000 odd crowd that went in to watch AIB Roast at the National Sports Stadium had purchased a ticket with consent. Not a single complaint has been filed by anybody amongst the audience against the performers. Doesn’t this speak enough? Surely the ones who weren’t interested in such a roast didn’t watch it. Make your choice, pick your choice, as simple as that.

The Motion Picture Association of America has a rating system that goes along something like this.

G – General Audience

PG – Parental Guidance Advised

PG 13 – Parental Guidance Strongly Cautioned

R – Restricted

NC 17 – Adults Only

Can we not have a system like this and do away with censorship instead? It’s easy, logical and so much appropriate. As Aamir Khan rightly pointed out in a recent interview how Indian certification of U, U/A and A is so much confusing and ineffective, that it’s better to go against censorship and choose rating.

At a time of I pads and smart phones, it’s not even remotely possible that anything found detrimental in terms of content is duped under the table. While the system hasn’t even been able to take piracy under control, why can’t we be just done with it and make a better one instead. What the censor board should really cater upon is to attach a strong rating process with a film so the parents would know what their kids should watch and what not. 

Things as we speak around here hold absolutely no relevance at all. I mean for a censor board that doubts over clearing a film like NH 10, to expect shifting to a rating system, isn’t that pure rhetoric? At the end of the day, what a true filmmaker would want is to not work under a coop of restrictions doubting every second dialogue. What an audience would want is to go and watch a film that has stuck to its subject in such a way that pragmatism has come out in profusion to affirm the message. Alas, it never seems like happening. Censor board, you’re going absolutely wrong.