I have recently submitted a short filmed called Chal Chaliye for certification to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The film has been given an Adults (A) certificate or I have been asked to delete two kissing shots for a U/A certificate. The decision seems arbitrary considering that umpteen films with kissing shots have been certified U or U/A. For those of us who find censorship an anathema to modern open civilized society it is another blow to our sensibilities. I would like all of you to consider the case and raise a voice in favour of uniform application of censor laws if not its repeal or reform.
The present system of Film Certification involves four layers of scrutiny.
First layer is an examining committee that consists of members from the public who are part of a government appointed panel, with no specific knowledge of films which awards one of the four certification, namely U, U/A, A and S. Certain fees are charged for the service depending on the length and type of film.
In case of dispute the film can be put forth before a revising committee that comprises, the Regional Officer, members of the panels and experts on film. The same amount of fees is to be paid for the service as step one.
If the producer is still dissatisfied he can ask for a review by an appellate tribunal that consists of a Chairman and not more than four other members appointed by the Central Government.
The fourth layer is the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting that reserves the right to over-rule any of the rulings given by the previous committees or the tribunal.
I am told that they can only go by the content which when seen from their point of view is the length of the shot, its magnification, clarity etc. and not what happens in the shot or what context it is in. This to me is laughable.
The problem with the system is that the scrutiny of the film is highly subjective. In the present case, two shots appearing at two different points in the film are judged to be unsuitable for a U/A certification. It is plain to see that the shots are not remarkably different from other kissing shots in films passed with U or U/A certification. The regional officer, Mumbai attributes it to the judgement of the particular examining committee. Further he says that there are no guidelines set for kisses. The committee judges the film by its overall impact.
My impression is that this overall impact is to be seen in perspective. It is not about the impact on the viewers mind or conscience but the groin of ones being. For when pointed out that the film has a redemptive value that it promotes instinct over conditioning, the answer is that the board does not take it in to consideration. They are not in a position to judge its artistic merit or its social value which is in direct contravention of the Cinematograph Act 1952 which says in section 5b that, “It is not elements of rape, leprosy, sexual immorality which should attract the censor's scissors but how the theme is handled by the producer”. This brings to mind the famous case of K.A. Abbas vs The Union of India & Anr in the Supreme Court of India. He made a film called A Tale Of Four Cities in 1969 about the contrasts between the rich and the poor strata of the society based on his own book. The plea in the case was that how can a film based on a book that has not been judged unfit for general consumption be restricted for exhibition. The case proved to be a seminal one and brought out arguments on whether films were an exclusive form of expression requiring different yardsticks for judgement compared to other arts. The section of the judgement of interest in the case of Chal Chaliye is:
447 This arises from the instant appeal of the motion picture, its versatility, realism (often surrealism), and its coordination of the visual and aural senses. The art of the cameraman, with trick photography, vistavision and three dimensional representation, has made the cinema picture more true to life than even the theatre or indeed any other form of representative art. The motion picture is able to stir up emotions more deeply than any other product of art. Its effect particularly on children and adolescents is very great since their immaturity makes them more willingly suspend their disbelief than mature men and women. They also remember the action in the picture and try to emulate or/ imitate what they have seen. Therefore, classification of films into two categories of 'U' films and 'A' films is a reasonable classification. It is also for this reason that motion pictures must be regarded differently from other forms of speech and expression. A person reading a book or other writing or bearing a speech or viewing a painting or sculpture is not so deeply stirred as by seeing a motion picture. Therefore the treatment of the latter on a different footing is also a valid classification. [458 G]
The point is that in the intervening period since 1969 communication has leapt so far ahead and the average movie-goer is so well educated in the codes of filmic representation that it is facile to think that he or she leaves his brains at the door as he enters a cinema hall.
Further in the ruling the court observes in subsection (iii) of section 447:
(iii)A real flaw in the scheme of the directions under s. 5-B(2) is a total absence of any direction which would tend to preserve art and promote it. The artistic appeal or presentation of an episode robs it of its vulgarity and harm and this appears to be completely forgotten. Artistic as well as inartistic presentation are treated alike and also what may be socially good and useful and what may not. In Ranjit D. Udeshi's case this Court laid down certain principles on which the obscenity of a book was to be considered with a view to deciding whether the book should be allowed to circulate or withdrawn. Those principles apply miutatis mutandis to films and also other areas besides obscenity. Although it could not be held that the directions are defective in so far as they go, directions to emphasize the importance of art to a value judgment by the censors need to be included. [471 H]
The court by this judgement has asked the government to formulate clear and specific guidelines towards censorship.
Which brings us back to what the regional officer says that there are no guidelines set for a kiss.
So I set about making a set of guidelines for your consideration. See if this gets any better.
| Measurement | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Magnification of the shot | Extreme long | Long | Mid | Close Up | Extreme Close Up |
| Length of the shot | 5 secs | 7 secs | 10secs | 15 secs | 20 secs |
| Obfuscation value | Hidden behind flowers | Hidden behind umbrella | Out of Focus | Silhouette | Fully visible |
| Producer’s clout | Yash Raj Films | Dharma Productions | Vishesh Films | Others | Tanmay Agarwal |
15 points or above: U
10 to 15 points: U/A
Under 10: A
The task is difficult but this could be a starter. Or can it?
It is a study in circularity to set guidelines to something so subjective as cinematic appraisal. As illustrated it is well nigh impossible. The powers that be use this to keep matters loose to suit their convenience.
The progressive recommendations of the various committees on film censorship have repeatedly been ignored while the regressive ones have been adopted.
It is also fascinating that a government organization can charge twice or thrice over for a service and come out with opposing rulings on the same film. To my mind a full refund should be given to the producer if the superior panel over-rules the prior committee’s ruling.
A word about the U/A certification. Unlike what many would believe, the U/A certificate does not allow exhibition of a film to an audience over twelve years of age accompanied by adults. Rather it allows unrestricted exhibition to them but puts forth the rider of adult accompaniment to those under twelve years of age. Therefore a film meant for an audience of teens and above technically cannot find a suitable certification if the board thinks it is unsuitable for under twelves in any circumstance. I think the categorization of film should be widened and should incorporate the present realities of communication and the open ideals that our society aims for rather than the narrow conservatism that watchdogs of our culture fall back on every time such an argument is raised.
In the meantime Chal Chaliye, a film that is aimed primarily for teens, who are still forming ideas on love and marriage, has to face the scissors. It does not matter if it leaves them thinking that instinct is better than conditioning.
What do you say?
