Censors have the final word

THE BATTLE began almost three decades ago. The year was 1969. Film-maker K. A. Abbas had just completed his controversial film, ``Tale of Four Cities'', a documentary on the night life and profiling street walkers. The film faced stiff opposition from the Censors and Abbas in his characteristic rage, went to court challenging the validity of censorship, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the Government gave an undertaking that it will set up an Apellate Tribunal to hear cases against Censor decisions. However, the Government failed to keep up its promise of setting up the Tribunal and continued to use its powers under Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act.

This Section was struck down by the Bombay High Court and around 1969 the problem flared up over Devendra Goel's ``Ek Phool Do Maali'', a revolutionary subject about an unwed mother and the conflict over the custody of the child between the biological (Sanjay Khan) and surrogate (Balraj Sahani) fathers. The film was an important milestone in Censor guidelines, but because Goel decided not to fight it at the Supreme Court, despite strong resentment from the film fraternity, Section 6 persisted. It was almost a decade later, after repeated protests from the film folk, that the section was amended to the extent that the Government would not review any film under consideration of the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal despite an undertaking from the Supreme Court, was set up only as late as in 1982-1983. And again, despite clarifications that the Government would cease to perform moral functions, continued to retain with it such powers because it was discovered that often the public resented a film and it became a law and order situation.

T. Rama Rao's ``Andhaa Kanoon'' released in 1983, defying the legal system, was the first victim. The protagonist fed up of being denied justice, takes the law into his own hands and murders the villain inside the court! The Censors cleared the film but the Government banned it. After seven days of screening, the film was suspended and after huge losses, the director fought to get the film back to the cinema halls and succeeded.

Over the years, the ban came in different forms. R. K. Nayyar's ``Pati Parmeshwar'' was opposed by women activists for glorifying spouse worship. Feminists condemned movie buffs particularly women for lending patronage to such regressive subjects. The reasons for the attacks varied each time. If it was a gender issue in ``Fire'', it was a communal issue in ``Bombay'', ``Zakhm'' and ``Maachis''. That these films made it back to the cinema halls and proved successful was a victory of democracy. A victory of the audiences' faith in their judgment.

In a recent judgment while dismissing an appeal filed by the Central Government to retain with it the powers to make such orders as it thought fit, the Supreme Court has declared as unconstitutional a provision of the Cinematograph Act, 1981, by which the Government reviews the decision of the Censor Board or the Appellate Tribunal regarding the clearance of a film. Thus, Section 6(1) of the Act is a travesty of the rule of law, which is one of the basic structures of the Constitution, stated a division bench. The court has said that once an expert body has cleared the film, there are no excuses. If the Government senses a law and order problem, it must take adequate precautions to prevent the problem. This sure is a feather in the cap of the CBFC and a cause for celebration for the film folk.

Settling scores

At a recently organised seminar during the ``Crime Prevention Week'', Police Commissioner, M. N. Singh denounced the portrayal of the police force in Hindi cinema as corrupt and depraved. ``For all those who have ridiculed us it's time to be ridiculed now,'' he said referring to the recent arrest involving the underworld.

There is something ominous about the challenge, for the intention is not to expose but to humiliate. Film-maker Mahesh Bhatt had said, ``Let us hope we can resolve the crisis without witch- hunting.'' There was wisdom in Bhatt's prophecy. This isn't the time for settling scores. Not now, when too much and precious lives are at stake.

When the unit of ``Kuch Na Kaho'' packed up shooting at 1 a.m. the previous night they hadn't imagined that they wouldn't be returning to the sets in the morning. Sometime during midnight a vicious fire broke out at Mehboob Studio, Bandra destroying two out of the five buildings. It took three hours, 13 fire brigades and six tankers to finally extinguish the fire. It is difficult to believe that the studio that lent aura and nostalgia to five generations of movie stars, is now partially in ashes. For quite some time now Mehboob Studio was among the few studios that survived the onslaught of new architecture.

While other studios were converted into commercial complexes, Mehboob Studio with the sole exception of R. K. Studio, Chembur, resisted change, clinging to tradition. Film makers Mehboob Khan and Raj Kapoor began their careers almost around the same time. From strugglers they rose to become leading players, floated their own banners and finally built their own studios.

Today, sadly, the romance of shooting on exotic, glorious sets has been diffused, but the memories of ``Mother India'', ``Son Of India'', ``Shri 420'' and ``Barsaat'' will continue to haunt generations to come.

BHAWANA SOMAAYA

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Entertainment
Previous : Film Review: Nageswari
Next     : Flavour of the fairy tale