Censor woes

ON the issue of creative freedom, the debate usually centres around who’s in favour and who’s against, and on what grounds. Freedom of expression is seldom looked at in isolation — political considerations are always at play, only the degree of engagement varies. The film Emergency has been mired in controversy ever since its trailer dropped into public view. Indira Gandhi’s perceived negative depiction is a cause of concern for some. That BJP MP Kangana Ranaut, who has a questionable sense of history, is playing her role is bothersome for others. Sikh organisations have also raised objections to the manner in which the community has been portrayed. Ranaut, also the film’s co-producer, has been spitting fire over the delay. This presents the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) with certain challenges, but should it be concerned about the noise outside?

The entire premise of certification rests on careful viewing and arriving at an informed decision based on consensus. Films on sensitive topics are bound to raise hackles. That’s the purpose of art — to trigger debate, ask difficult questions and weigh in on the laudatory or critical reactions. Tinkering with cinema over whimsical demands — and being unnecessarily guarded — runs contrary to the very essence of cinema. Go for a review by a distinguished jury, if need be, and stop at that.

It’s encouraging to see the Bombay High Court assert that creative freedom cannot be curtailed and the board cannot refuse to certify a film just because there exists the possible fear of a possible law and order problem. The board now says that Emergency will get a theatrical release if certain cuts are made. The makers have other plans. The last word has not been heard. Why doubt the intelligence of audiences? Trust them to form their own opinions.