The Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) or the Censor Board as it is more commonly known has reared its ugly head again. The body that is known to be exceedingly prudish in some ways (but not other, more obvious ways)and to have an exceedingly low threshold for what it deems as offensive or unacceptable. The board has now trained its sights on the much awaited Udta Punjab.
Pahlaj Nihalani and Co strike again
Image Source
So Udta Punjab has fallen afoul of the censor board because of all the cuss words and the profanity it contains. CBFC chairperson Pahlaj Nihalani (who has earned himself the sobriquet of Sanskari Nihalani) and his cohorts are evidently easy to offend and the filmmakers have been asked that the expletives be edited. When the film’s promo was permitted to be released the filmmakers had expressed surprise but also relief that it was allowed to be released without any nips and cuts.
Yet now there is some justified puzzlement that if the promo was permitted without any cuts why is the film not cleared similarly? This has to be a setback for the producers at Phantom Films and Balaji Films who reportedly had hoped to be able to release the film without having to approach the tribunal for redress.
Why the film is meant to shock
Image Source
The film talks about the very serious and widespread but not much talked about subject of drug abuse in Punjab. Among others it follows the life of a rock star played by Shahid Kapoor and speaks of a certain milieu with the kind of language and the liberal lifestyle that a character such as this would be expected to have. It needs to be grim and hard hitting and yes, shocking to wrest the kind of reaction that it seeks from audiences.
It is also relevant that the filmmakers had asked for an adult certification because clearly this is a film that is meant for adults. Why not simply do that to ensure that adult content such as this is not viewed by impressionable younger audiences? Is that not a better solution than diluting the content to make it more ‘appropriate’ (whatever that may constitute in the possibly myopic view of a few)?
The fact is that Nihalani’s actions are of a piece with the nanny-state mindset that wants to decide what is ‘appropriate’, what people may watch and what they have to be ‘shielded’ from. It is of a piece with the many, many people who think that they have the right and in this case perhaps the duty to take offence at things; no matter how trivial or irrelevant or immaterial.
Meanwhile, one can hope that the current controversy surrounding the film serves to improve the fate of the film at the box office.
Author – Reena Daruwalla
