Shibu Thomas (THE TIMES OF INDIA; June 11, 2016)
The Bombay high court on Friday reminded the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) that it was empowered to primarily certify films, even as the producers of Udta Punjab agreed to cut a scene and add a disclaimer. “Do you find the word 'censor' anywhere in the law?“ asked Justices Satyaranjan Dharmadhikari and Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, pointing out that the term 'censor board' was coined by the media. “Your power is to certify films for screening. The public does not require censoring and let them decide if a movie is good or bad. If you do not want to see something on TV one uses the remote. That remote you sho uld give to the public so that they can decide whether to switch off or not watch something, on TV or films.“ The judges added, “Has the CBFC dis charged its functions from 1952 with utmost care? The board and the public must share the blame (for the kind of movies that are made).“ The court has reserved its order on the challenge to the cuts ordered by the CBFC and is likely to deliver its verdict on June 13.
The HC told the CBFC the film industry was not made of glass that one needs to “handle with care“ and remarked that all this had benefited the film.“The film has received weightage and undue publicity. The filmmakers have saved all promotional expenses as this has (ensured) enough publicity.“
Anurag Kashyap's Phantom Films, one of the producers of the movie, agreed to cut out a scene in which the lead actor Shahid Kapoor urinates into the audience during a rock concert after the HC insisted that the entire scene had to go.
Senior advocate Ravi Kadam, counsel for the filmmakers, also agreed to add the disclaimer that “neither the film maker, nor the actors support the use of expletives and abusive language by any section of the society“. The producers said they were not agreeable to any more cuts in scenes or the abusive words as they were integral to the film about the drug menace in Punjab. Advocate Advait Sethna, nsel for CBFC, said the bo counsel for CBFC, said the board would press for all the 13 cuts to be maintained. “The film is defamatory to Punjab and its people. The use of abusive language is harmful to the society. Even little children are singing the song which has the words chitaave (white powder) and h*##mi,“ said Sethna. At this, advocate Kadam pointed out that the CBFC had cleared the song without any cuts and a U/A certification.
The CBFC's revising committee had recommended cuts in 13 categories, including abusive words in songs and dialogue, scene of Kapoor urinating, a scene of a man scratching his side, scenes of people injecting drugs and changing the name of a dog, Jackie Chain. The CBFC had also wanted all references to Punjab and other cities deleted from the movie as well as references to `MLA ', 'Party' worker, 'Parliament' and 'election' removed.
The court questioned the CBFC on the cuts. “No one likes an abusive person to sit next to them. Similarly, if a film is full of only abuses, will the audience sit through it? Creative minds will realise their folly that films do not run because of abusive language. They think in the multiplexes everything will work. They will learn from their mistakes. Why are you (CBFC) worried?“ It added that the post-80s generation was different from the older generations. “This attitude is not going to work. The generations to come are not going to be impressed. We want creative people and the film industry to survive. Ultimately it is content, not the volume of films that is produced that is important and lasting.“
The HC also asked the CBFC to not take words even if they are abusive out of context or in isolation. “The words used may not be according to the liking of some persons, but you have to be aware of the setting. A truck driver or a rustic may not use the refined language.“
The HC told the CBFC the film industry was not made of glass that one needs to “handle with care“ and remarked that all this had benefited the film.“The film has received weightage and undue publicity. The filmmakers have saved all promotional expenses as this has (ensured) enough publicity.“
Anurag Kashyap's Phantom Films, one of the producers of the movie, agreed to cut out a scene in which the lead actor Shahid Kapoor urinates into the audience during a rock concert after the HC insisted that the entire scene had to go.
Senior advocate Ravi Kadam, counsel for the filmmakers, also agreed to add the disclaimer that “neither the film maker, nor the actors support the use of expletives and abusive language by any section of the society“. The producers said they were not agreeable to any more cuts in scenes or the abusive words as they were integral to the film about the drug menace in Punjab. Advocate Advait Sethna, nsel for CBFC, said the bo counsel for CBFC, said the board would press for all the 13 cuts to be maintained. “The film is defamatory to Punjab and its people. The use of abusive language is harmful to the society. Even little children are singing the song which has the words chitaave (white powder) and h*##mi,“ said Sethna. At this, advocate Kadam pointed out that the CBFC had cleared the song without any cuts and a U/A certification.
The CBFC's revising committee had recommended cuts in 13 categories, including abusive words in songs and dialogue, scene of Kapoor urinating, a scene of a man scratching his side, scenes of people injecting drugs and changing the name of a dog, Jackie Chain. The CBFC had also wanted all references to Punjab and other cities deleted from the movie as well as references to `MLA ', 'Party' worker, 'Parliament' and 'election' removed.
The court questioned the CBFC on the cuts. “No one likes an abusive person to sit next to them. Similarly, if a film is full of only abuses, will the audience sit through it? Creative minds will realise their folly that films do not run because of abusive language. They think in the multiplexes everything will work. They will learn from their mistakes. Why are you (CBFC) worried?“ It added that the post-80s generation was different from the older generations. “This attitude is not going to work. The generations to come are not going to be impressed. We want creative people and the film industry to survive. Ultimately it is content, not the volume of films that is produced that is important and lasting.“
The HC also asked the CBFC to not take words even if they are abusive out of context or in isolation. “The words used may not be according to the liking of some persons, but you have to be aware of the setting. A truck driver or a rustic may not use the refined language.“
