The recent High Court verdict is looked at as some sort of a battle won, not just by the Udta Punjab team but by the industry on a whole. A film that was asked for 89 odd cuts, managed to successfully get a green light for a release with just one cut.
But this hasn't been the fate of my films in the past. Pushing the artistic envelope has rarely gone down well with those waiting to stamp films with A, U/A and in some cases, U. It has taken pushing in almost the literal sense to arrive at conclusions for all of such films. Every film that says something the way it is or uses real names, or portrays sexuality boldly (among many others) has somehow found itself trapped in the pandemonium created by the deliberate misunderstanding between censorship and certification. The CBFC (Central Board of Film Certification) in all it’s liberty, is meant to certify films with a rating as opposed to proposing unending lists of cuts, blurring, muting of certain names and the like. However, this has rarely been the case. According to a number of filmmakers, the CBFC has exceeded its jurisdiction to go on and recommend such cutting and blurring of films, without which the films would not have seen the green light.
CBFC Chief, Pahlaj Nihalani has received some sort of a villainous status for his actions since his appointment. The words “Sanskari Censor Board” have found their way into tweets, blogs and on Facebook every time a film is stalled and asked to lose a word, a scene, and so on. Recently at a press conference in support of Udta Punjab, filmmaker Anurag Kashyap said, “It has become a process to delay a film further and further until it reaches a point where the filmmaker is forced to accept the cuts. This is a systematic way of telling us not to make a certain kind of cinema”. Hence it is not always that filmmakers hold their ground and fight for an uncut release. Often, due to financial repercussions that would occur if the film’s release date gets pushed forward, filmmakers accept any cuts that are proposed by the CBFC and get their films released. The CBFC are also guilty of inconsistency in their censoring procedures.
Just prior to the Oscars, The Revenant, starring Leonardo Di Caprio, released in the theatres without any cuts. The film contained the use of cuss words as well as had a large chunk of violent scenes. The film’s spokesperson was relieved that the film was cleared without any cuts and went on to say, “CBFC was particularly impressed with The Revenant as the film has won quite a few prestigious awards and is front runner at the Oscars. They also mentioned that if it was any other film they wouldn’t have been so easy.” Another film by the name of Trumbo, that also had an Academy Award nomination the same year, was heavily censored by the CBFC. Trumbo, also contained the use of cuss words throughout the film. However, this time the CBFC decided to mute them every time they were uttered.
Back to films made in India, most films have become victims of blatant censoring. Numerous scenes consisting of adult humor were removed from A-rated movies like 'Mastizaade' and 'Kya Kool Hai Hum 3'. 'Aligarh', a small independent film, that told the story of a homosexual college professor’s battle against society, received an A certificate and numerous cuts. The team of 'Angry Indian Goddesses' was asked to make cuts to scenes involving imagery of goddesses. The highly treasured character James Bond wasn’t spared either. All the kissing scenes in the film were reduced in duration. Further, we were told that Nihalani had not watched the film but stood by his cuts.
The filmmakers with a rather thicker skin, choose to approach the FCAT (Film Certification Appellate Tribunal) to reach a beneficial conclusion.
'Udta Punjab' managed to win their battle but many filmmakers in the past have given in. Whether 'Udta Punjab' has now set an example for filmmakers to boldly go out and attempt for an uncut release is a question only time will answer. But what does that say about the CBFC?
Will the CBFC attempt the same sort of treatment for other films hoping they wouldn't have the patience, financial backing or time to fight it out in the High Court? Or, will they learn from this experience and work within their jurisdiction? In an interview a few months ago, Nihalani said that the cuss list had been withdrawn. However, films with an A certificate still had muted cuss words. These are filmmakers who chose to accept this and move on.
Filmmakers in the past have also had issues with the CBFC but there has been a massive difference in the intensity with which films had been and are being cut down. To add to that, the inconsistency portrayed by the CBFC sees them treat different films differently, which makes it appear as though it’s about will as opposed to criteria. As an overview, watching filmmakers approach the High Court for a simple uncut release may begin to affect the government's reputation. Probably in the light of the same, Information and Broadcasting Minister Arun Jaitley recently announced that the CBFC would go through radical changes very soon.
