CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT
The Censor Board’s ratings
for mainstream Bollywood films reveal a gender bias and star obsession, over
and above the extreme conservatism of which it is often accused
By Anna M.M. Vetticad
By the time you read this, chances are that the heated
discussions about Anurag Kashyap’s Bombay Velvet would have died down,
to be replaced by chatter about Aanand L Rai’s Tanu Weds Manu Returns.
Chances are too that in the midst of the din about the quality of Kashyap’s
film, a crucial point would have been lost: that its gruesome violence was
rated U/A by India’s Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The U/A certificate indicates that it is deemed fit for
unrestricted viewing, though parental discretion is advised for children below
12. Producers prefer U/A to an A (adult) rating which affects collections by
limiting a film’s potential audience.
Let me make it clear: this column is not against violence on
screen. Unless a film glorifies, romanticises or advocates violence (Bombay Velvet has not done any of this) no one should curb a director’s freedom of
expression. The issue here though is that the CBFC is consistently
inconsistent.
Back when Gangs of Wasseypur 1 & 2 were released with
A ratings in 2012, there was cause for celebration, because the films’
narrative steeped in expletives, crime and bloodshed was expected to incur the
Board’s wrath. These assumptions were based on the Board’s track record, which
included a refusal to clear Kashyap’s remarkable debut feature Paanch in
2001 on charges that it glorified crime, indulged in double entendre and bore
no positive social message. The absurdity of the accusations lay in the fact
that Paanch, quite to the contrary, was about the pointlessness of
violence.
Over a decade later, GoW was handled by a different Board
headed by classical dancer Leela Samson whose tenure (April 2011-January 2015)
marked the dawn of a new progressiveness in the CBFC. Samson’s Board was not
without flaws, mostly though because of the dated rules under which even
liberals are compelled to operate and because the overall system desperately
needs an overhaul. Despite these constraints, films like GoW were
released.
However, then too, as it is with the abysmally regressive
present Board headed by Pahlaj Nihalani, and in fact long before Samson entered
the picture, the ratings for mainstream Bollywood films reveal two aspects of
India’s Censor system: a gender bias and a star obsession. First, over the
years, films by directors who are perceived as ‘artistic’ and ‘serious’ —
Kashyap being an example — have been far more likely to get scissored or rated
A or both, than films by directors widely considered more mass-oriented and/or
mainstream.
Second, films revolving around big-league commercial male stars
tend to get gentler treatment than those with younger, less established actors
or those primarily associated with off-mainstream cinema. Third, female-centric
films seem to be viewed through an entirely different lens from male-centric
projects, possibly because they are automatically seen as ‘serious’. Take for
instance the A-rated Rani Mukerji-starrer Mardaani (2014). When
actor-producer-director Aamir Khan was informed about Mukerji’s reported
intention to challenge the A, he was quoted as saying he agrees with the rating
because young children should not be exposed to the kind of language and
violence depicted in the film, adding: “Most absurd and strange things are
shown in some films which are U or U/A. I cannot believe how it is shown in the
film. I think we should be careful about what we are exposing our children to.”
(Source: ibnlive.com)
That’s a curious statement, considering that Khan appeared to
have no qualms about the U/A certification for his blood-spattered 2008 film Ghajini
in which he played a ferocious, murderous hero. Ghajini featured far
more gory aggression depicted far more graphically than anything in Mardaani.
Yet it was deemed fit for children whose parents thought it suitable for their
young wards.
The pattern of the Censor response to women-led films cannot be
a coincidence. In a year when Bombay Velvet has received kid-glove
treatment, the Anushka Sharma-starrer NH10 was certified A. Yes, NH10
is bloody. No doubt too that NH10 and the comparatively mild Mardaani
merited As. The question is: why the double standards?
As already mentioned, women are not the only victims of this
hypocrisy. Three years after Ghajini and Aamir Khan got lucky, the John
Abraham-starrer Force — with its unrelenting scenes of blood-spurting,
bone-crunching police brutality — got away with a U/A. In 2015, while Bombay Velvet headlined by Ranbir Kapoor has been awarded a U/A, Badlapur
was certified A. Can it be happenstance that Badlapur starred the
popular but still emerging youngster Varun Dhawan and gave equal significance
to the darling of indie projects, Nawazuddin Siddiqui?
Can it be just chance that Badlapur’s director Sriram
Raghavan remains best-known for his non-massy films Ek Hasina Thi (albeit
a Saif Ali Khan-starrer) and Johnny Gaddaar? Can it possibly be a fluke
that the only two U/A ratings in Kashyap’s filmography of 14 years as a feature
director have gone to No Smoking (2007) with John Abraham and Bombay Velvet starring the hottest hero of this generation?
If India’s
film rating norms are to be believed, it would seem that Kay Kay Menon’s highly
believable, wild, amoral character in Paanch is objectionable; but not
the violence of Ranbir Kapoor’s Johnny Balraj, including a close-up of him
wrapping his arm around a man’s neck to crush and twist it. It would seem that
a policewoman bashing up a criminal in Mardaani could ruin our children;
but a policeman committing many more grievous acts of violence in Force
cannot. Just saying.
(Anna MM Vetticad is the author of The Adventures of an Intrepid Film Critic.
Twitter: @annavetticad)
(This column by Anna MM Vetticad was first published
in The Hindu Businessline newspaper on May 23, 2015)
Original link:
Note:
This
photograph was not sourced from The Hindu Businessline
An instance of the inconsistency of the censor board, I remember reading, was in 2000 when a kissing scene between shilpa shetty and akshay kumar in dhadkan was cut out... they were playing a married couple. But two months later, a kissing scene between shamita shetty and uday chopra in mohabbatein was left uncut... was the board suggesting that high school kids are allowed to kiss but not married couples??? While I'm not against any of the kisses in the two movies, can someone please explain the logic behind the censor board's decision?
ReplyDelete