Home » Bollywood, Culture, Desi Ishtyle, DesiPundit, Entertainment, It Happens Only in India, Opinion

The absurdities of censorship

From Santosh On 7 January 2009 View Comments

A Mumbai based professor has filed a P.I.L demanding that Aamir Khan’s latest movie Ghajini be recertified as “A” – adults only for Indian movies. [DNA]

Her reasoning? Too much violence.

Naitthani has said in her petition that she saw Ghajini on December 28. The overdose of violence and blood spill made her cringe. “It was more shocking to see that children, right from the age of three to 15 years, in the theatre, watching the film,” she has stated.

Now I’ve not had the opportunity to watch this movie yet, so I’ll go with the details from the DNA story.

The film opens with Aamir Khan killing a man with a pipe attached to a tap. Blood drips down the nozzle, jutting out from the man’s stomach.
The heroine is stabbed in the back, then has her head smashed with an iron rod fitted with an iron plank, which the villain swings like a golf club.
Aamir kills a bad guy by breaking his neck. The man is shown lying on the ground, with his head twisted grotesquely.

Strictly based on this, I would agree with the professor. The film needs to be certified as “for adults”. Don’t get me wrong, I’m for certification of the movie, not for censorship. Regardless of the label, it is up to the parents to decide if their children should watch it or not.

The movie’s director was quoted as saying:

“I would take a child from my family to watch Ghajini. Kids today are much more exposed to violence through WWF and Discovery Channel.

I can understand the director’s hesitation with certifying the movie as “adults only” resulting in loss of revenue from a large demographic. But the “kids are exposed to other violence” arguments comes across as – “everyone else is selling drugs to kids, so why can’t I?” – intellectually dishonest variety.

He goes on to state:

In fact, we have cut out some violent scenes from the original version in the Hindi remake. Also, one needs to note that there are no sex scenes, or women unnecessarily exposing, in the film.”

This brings an interesting aspect of movie certification in India. Untold amounts of violence and gore gets certified as universally acceptable but women in skimpy clothing and words like “condom” earn the movie an “adults only” certification or even worse, get censored. Priorities, I tell you.

Looks like you are one of our regular visitors. Here is our RSS feed, just another way to keep up with the new posts.

  • kancheong spider
    I guess her private tuition class is not doing very well so she decided to start her own morality classes.

    In India you find lot vigilantes against bollywood movies but there are no vigilantes against crime or corruption.

    Shame on the Prof.
  • Really? Condom? Wow.
  • Sonny
    FYI to the director, the WWF has been known as WWE for a few years now
  • :)

    assuming that the MPAA's sensibilities are shared by the parent in question. :p
  • Runa
    , it’s up to the parent to decide what is/isn’t suitable for their child.

    Yes and what I would like is a system that helps me decide :-)
  • While the Indian system isn't as compartmentalised as the US system, what they do (I think) is club G and PG as 'U', PG-13 and 'soft Rs' as U/A, and R/NC-17 as A. Of course, the Film Censor Board also reigns over cinema - that's prob the main difference; where the US system only certifies (and makes suggestions for cuts to conform to a particular certification), the Censor Board demands cuts before allowing a film to be screened. As seen with documentaries like those of Anand Patwardhan, political censorship is alive and healthy, apart from what is considered 'suitable'.

    Ultimately, I think it's more problematic when people stop taking the judgment call as to what is suitable for them/their kids themselves, rather allowing the MPAA to dictate what is or isn't appropriate, when it is only (other than NC-17 which bars under-17 year olds) a guideline. If a film like Slumdog Millionaire is rated R (though to me at least, it's perfectly suitable other than for very sensitive kids - the torture scene at the beginning), it's up to the parent to decide what is/isn't suitable for their child.
  • Runa
    woenvu,
    You totally have a point about arbitrary standards,but as a parent I find a tiered system more useful than a U/A binary system !
  • Based on the quotes here, the director seems hopeless to claim that there's more violence on the Discovery Channel (!!) than in a film with such scenes. Though, sure, if you're going to classify a lion hunting down prey and snacking on its innards as gory violence, he may have a point. It's left to some edgy director to one-up DC and film Aamir Khan chomping into innards next.

    Actually, I don't think the movie certification absurdity is with India alone - the most egregious offender is probably the MPAA in the United States, which apart from having seemingly wholly arbitrary standards for what amount of violence qualifies for the dreaded R rating (as under-17 year olds can't walk in without being chaperoned) and what falls under PG-13, has completely different standards for the amount of nudity that's allowed in a PG-13 film and the amount of violence.

    Basically, it would appear, going by their certification record, that it's ok for children to be exposed to copious amounts of violence, but sex/frontal nudity is a no-no. As you said.. priorities?
  • Runa
    I saw the movie and while its pretty good I concur with the A rating. The Director is nutty for saying that he's ok exposing his kids to the movie. The issue in India is that there is only a U or an A rating. What is needed is a graded rating like in the USA : PG -13, NC -17 etc etc
blog comments powered by Disqus