Film censors favourite target
More censorship in the last fortnight of 2013,
two of which are of end-of-year film releases, points out GEETA SESHU
It didn’t seem like a lot could change in a fortnight, so the Free Speech Hub’s annual report for 2013 set its deadline for a release on December 15 last year. But free speech violations don’t respect such organizational constraints and the last 15 days of 2013 yielded more depressing data: five instances of censorship and a vicious police attack on journalists covering a demonstration in Assam!
The total attacks on the media or on other citizens for the year 2013 thereby goes up to 20 while the number of instances of censorship goes up to 99. The launch of the National Security Grid, again a quiet one without any fanfare, took the instances of surveillance recorded by the Free Speech Hub to 13 in all (click here for the updated report of the Free Speech Hub for 2013).
Film censorship: a favourite target
Of the five additional instances of censorship, two pertained to the arena of film – the acclaimed Indian film ‘Miss Lovely’, slated for release in 2014 and the Leonardo Di Caprio starrer ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ falling afoul of India’s censorship norms on nudity. The first faced around 157 cuts while the Indian print of the Hollywood film saw a cut of around six minutes of sexually explicit scenes.
A total of 21 commercial films released in 2013 faced some level of censorship, with delayed releases, last minute title changes, chopping off of dialogues and songs and other scenes and protests and vandalism at theatres screening films that had received a certificate but had attracted the ire of some social group or the other.
Film director Anurag Kashyap decided to add his bit to fight censorship of commercial cinema by petitioning the Bombay High Court against the terribly clumsy ‘No Smoking’ disclaimer that flashes on screen every time an actor lights up. Last year, Hollywood director Woody Allen had decided not to allow the release of his well-received film ‘Blue Jasmine’ because he didn’t want to submit to the diktat of the certification board on the disclaimer.
Kashyap was aggrieved over the directive to insert the disclaimer for his film ‘Ugly’ and has argued that the health ministry must take the responsibility to curb tobacco consumption. But how does one balance out arguments of the medical fraternity that onscreen smoking influences the impressionable, especially when stars like Rajnikant or Salman Khan light up with impossibly acrobatic gestures designed to entertain the front-benchers?
Doctors treating lung cancer are disturbed at the increase in smoking and the pernicious effects of the media on selling the glamourous lifestyle. Other groups are concerned with the portrayal of sex and sexuality or violence on screen.
The trouble is, with all the studies on media effects, the jury is still out as to whether there is any link to exposure to media content that is violent or depicts drinking, smoking or drugs or is sexually explicit or even sexist and acts that may mirror these. For every instance of young children who tragically died trying to emulate Shaktiman’s stunts, there are numerous instances of children who watched the popular serial and managed to separate fact from fantasy.
Law enforcing agencies do add to the confusion on the cause-effect issue, including in the recent instance of the gangrape of the journalist in Mumbai recently where police said the girl was forced to watch porn on the mobiles of some of the attackers.
Media studies scholars do stress that the media is but one of the many crucial socialising agencies in society. Perhaps the effect of prolonged exposure to problematic depiction is more insidious and definitely cause for concern. More than sexually explicit content, aren’t regressive values and depiction of women in servile and stereotypical roles more damaging?
If we are worried about media effects on youth, perhaps we should encourage a media literacy curriculum that actively debates a range of issues, including sexist portrayal of women, glorification of violence or racist, casteist or communal messages.
But till there is greater discussion on this, we will still suffer disclaimers or abrupt scene cuts while watching movies. And the censorship will continue.
Subscribe To The Newsletter