Tag: CBFC

  • No plans to regulate TV content through CBFC: MIB

    No plans to regulate TV content through CBFC: MIB

    NEW DELHI: Even as debates rage on regarding film and television content with the government admitting complaints regarding vulgar advertisements on TV are received regularly and addressed, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has said there’s no move yet to regulate TV content via an existing body.

    Dwelling on the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), its recent run-ins with films producers on alleged censorships and a proposed restructuring of the certification body, Minister of State for MIB Rajyavardhan Rathore has said government doesn’t propose to regulate TV content via CBFC.

    Rathore made these observations regarding CBFC and TV content regulation in Parliament last week

    Holding forth on CBFC, the minister admitted that a restructuring report by the Shyam Benegal Committee was “under examination”,  but added the government had not received any formal complaint/representation from the Indian film industry regarding the functioning of CBFC.

    Rathore told Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) late last week that differences in opinion relating to certification of individual films do exist between the producers and the Board. Such cases are dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1952, he added.

    The existing system under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 provides the requisite checks and balances as far as certification of films is concerned. Periodical reviews by expert committees are undertaken. Sufficient provisions for addressing grievances of film producers with regard to film certification exist in present regulations, the junior MIB minister informed fellow parliamentarians.

    A review committee under noted film-maker Shyam Benegal was constituted by MIB some time back. The committee has given its report suggesting some radical changes in the CBFC’s functioning and role.

    Complaints regarding vulgarity in TV ads

    A total of 49 complaints – four in 2016 – for vulgarity in advertisements on television channels were reported to MIB since 2013.

    In most cases, advisories were issued to TV channels concerned, but there were a few cases where the channels had to run apology scrolls or were forced to shut down for a fixed period.

    There were also two instances of advisories to all channels in these years.

    According to figures available with MIB, there were 26 complaints in 2013, nine in 2014, eleven in 2015 and four so far this year.

    Only Manoranjan TV, FTV, and NTV have figured thrice in these years for broadcast of vulgarity in advertisements.

    Under existing regulatory framework, all programmes and advertisements telecast on TV channels and transmitted/retransmitted through cable TV networks and DTH platforms are required to adhere to the Programme and Advertising Codes prescribed under the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

    Action is taken suo-motu as well as when violations are brought to the notice of the ministry.

    These codes contain a whole range of parameters to regulate programmes and advertisements, including provisions to address content of obscenity, vulgarity and violence in TV programmes and advertisements.

    Information from the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre (EMMC) and other sources like an Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) are collated on prima facie violation of the Programme and Advertising Codes for the MIB to pursue the matter.

    Government said directions to the States have been issued to set up district-level and State-level monitoring committees to monitor content telecast on cable TV channels. These are recommendatory bodies, which function to aid and assist MIB.

     

  • Box Office :Indifferent

    Box Office :Indifferent

    MUMBAI: The week had a lineup of releases, mostly irrelevant and unpublicized. Strange, how they were expected to draw audience! Raman Raghav 2.0 was the only noticeable release, thanks to its controversy with CBFC; this only gave the film better of the bad lot status. The other film to register some footfalls was Junooniyat. The rest, Rough Book, 7 Hours To Go, DilTohDeewana Hai, were poor.

    Raman Raghav 2.0 could not breach the one crore mark on day one despite grabbing media columns with its controversy with CBFC; probably, Anurag Kashyap’s own standing controversy with CBFC because of Udta Punjab eclipsed Raman Raghav 2.0.

    The film collected Rs85 lakh on day one, adding a little extra to cross the Rs One crore mark on Saturday and Sunday being static, it ended its opening weekend with Rs3.6 crore.
    Junooniyat, though on a very low side, made its presence felt at the box office by collecting Rs2.3 crore for its first weekend.

    Udta Punjab did its most in its opening weekend with collections of Rs33.75 crore but failed to sustain Monday onwards as, over the next four days, the film managed to collect barely 50 percent of its weekend figures of Rs 14.05 crore, to take its first week total to Rs47.8 crore.

    Dhanak, despite positive word of mouth, remained a low grosser. The film collectedRs1.25 crore for its first week.

    Te3n, after an indifferent first week reception at the box office, goes for a free fall in its second week. The film collectedRs2.1 crore in its second week taking its two week tally to Rs17.2 crore.

    Do Lafzon Ki Kahaniadded Rs25 lakh in its second week to take its two week total to Rs3.65 crore.

    Houseful 3 saw through its third week with Rs3.5 crore taking its three week tally to Rs106.6 crore.

  • Box Office :Indifferent

    Box Office :Indifferent

    MUMBAI: The week had a lineup of releases, mostly irrelevant and unpublicized. Strange, how they were expected to draw audience! Raman Raghav 2.0 was the only noticeable release, thanks to its controversy with CBFC; this only gave the film better of the bad lot status. The other film to register some footfalls was Junooniyat. The rest, Rough Book, 7 Hours To Go, DilTohDeewana Hai, were poor.

    Raman Raghav 2.0 could not breach the one crore mark on day one despite grabbing media columns with its controversy with CBFC; probably, Anurag Kashyap’s own standing controversy with CBFC because of Udta Punjab eclipsed Raman Raghav 2.0.

    The film collected Rs85 lakh on day one, adding a little extra to cross the Rs One crore mark on Saturday and Sunday being static, it ended its opening weekend with Rs3.6 crore.
    Junooniyat, though on a very low side, made its presence felt at the box office by collecting Rs2.3 crore for its first weekend.

    Udta Punjab did its most in its opening weekend with collections of Rs33.75 crore but failed to sustain Monday onwards as, over the next four days, the film managed to collect barely 50 percent of its weekend figures of Rs 14.05 crore, to take its first week total to Rs47.8 crore.

    Dhanak, despite positive word of mouth, remained a low grosser. The film collectedRs1.25 crore for its first week.

    Te3n, after an indifferent first week reception at the box office, goes for a free fall in its second week. The film collectedRs2.1 crore in its second week taking its two week tally to Rs17.2 crore.

    Do Lafzon Ki Kahaniadded Rs25 lakh in its second week to take its two week total to Rs3.65 crore.

    Houseful 3 saw through its third week with Rs3.5 crore taking its three week tally to Rs106.6 crore.

  • Shyam Benegal Committee: CBFC can only certify films, not recommend cuts

    Shyam Benegal Committee: CBFC can only certify films, not recommend cuts

    NEW DELHI: In recommendations that are bound to stir a major debate among moralists and others, a government-appointed committee has said that no alterations or changes in any film can be made by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) only with the consent of the rights holder.

    The members of the Shyam Benegal Committee were of the ‘unanimous view that the rights owner has complete rights over his/her film.’

    In its report submitted to the Information and Broadcasting ministry on 26 April 2016 but placed on the ministry’s website now, the Committee has said that there should be no system of imposing excisions (as is practiced at present) and the CBFC must transition into solely becoming a film certification body, as indeed the name of the institution suggests.

    The Committee is of the view that it is not for the CBFC to act as a moral compass by deciding what constitutes glorification or promotion of an issue or otherwise. The scope of the CBFC should largely only be to decide who and what category of audiences can watch the depiction of a particular theme, story, scene etc., unless the film in question violates the provisions of Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act 1952 or exceeds the limitations defined in the highest category of certification recommended by this committee.

    In both such cases, the CBFC would be within its rights to reject certification to a film, but not authorized to dictate excisions, modifications and amendments. The CBFC categorization should be a sort of statutory warning to audiences of what to expect if they were to watch a particular film once the CBFC has issued this statutory warning. ‘Film viewing is a consensual act and up to the viewers of that category,’ the Committee felt.

    The Committee had been constituted by the government on New Year’s Day this year to suggest a paradigm that ensures that artistic creativity and freedom do not get stifled /curtailed even as films are certified. Noting that “in most countries of the world there is a mechanism/process of certifying feature films and documentaries”, an official release had said that the attempt should also be that “the people tasked with the work of certification understand these nuances”.

    The Committee had been asked to recommend broad guidelines / procedures under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1952 / Rules for the benefit of the chairperson and other members of the Screening Committee. The staffing pattern of CBFC was also to be looked into in an effort to recommend a framework which would provide efficient / transparent user friendly services.

    The other members of the Committee include filmmakers Goutam Ghose, Kamal Haasan and Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra, creative director Piyush Pandey, media veteran Bhawana Somayya, Nina Lath Gupta who is managing director of the National Film Development Corporation, and Joint Secretary (Films) Sanjay Murthy as Member Convenor.

    This is not the first time that such a committee has been set up. After earlier attempts, the last committee that examined similar issues was headed by the eminent Mukul Mudgal. However, no action has been taken on that report submitted in 2013.

    The present Guidelines issued in 1991 are general in categorization and therefore prone to ambiguity in interpretation. The committee recommended that Guidelines need to be drafted for each category of certification. While doing so, the Committee has taken into consideration all the issues of concern listed in the 1991 Guidelines and included them in the recommended Guidelines as well.

    The committee said the principle objectives of guidelines should be to ensure that the content viewed by potentially vulnerable audiences (including children) is suitable for their viewing, and by making such categorizations, empower consumers to make informed viewing choices.

    Simultaneously, the guidelines are also aimed at ensuring that the artistic expression and creative freedom of filmmakers are protected through objectively laid down parameters for certification that do not attempt to act as a moral compass on what should or should not be shown to audiences, but endeavour to specify the category of audiences that are deemed fit to watch a film, given its content.

    The Committee therefore said that at least two of the objectives of censorship listed in the Guidelines – ‘clean and healthy entertainment’ and ‘of aesthetic value’ – are not within the ambit of the CBFC – as a film certification body, it is not responsible for ensuring the aesthetic composition of a film or for “clean and healthy entertainment”.

    The Committee believes that the objective that a film should be responsible and sensitive to the realms of society is a subjective clause and should be avoided, as there is no definition of what constitutes the values and standards of society at a given point of time. The insertion of clauses that are open to varying interpretations would only render the process of certification more difficult and open to controversy. As an alternative to this clause, an attempt has therefore been made by the committee to lay down a ceiling for the highest category of certification, beyond which the CBFC can refuse certification.

    The Committee examined the need for a separate rating for films with explicit scenes of sex, violence etc. While internationally there is no separate rating for such films, and they invariably get an R or 17+ rating, such films carry a line to the effect that the film has extreme nudity or violence, as the case may be.

    But since a similar approach would not be effective in India, the Committee was of the view that the categories need to be extended. This would release the current ‘pressure cooker situation’ of filmmakers needing to cater to the demands of a certain section of the audience for financial gain through insertion of such sequences but having no avenues to showcase the same except through suggestive sequences in films.

    The committee also agreed that in the present context, unlike in the past, there are no specific timings during which a certain kind of cinema would enjoy playtime. Thus, in contrast to previous times when adult-rated films with explicit scenes were normally showcased as late night shows, in the digital era nothing stops anyone from viewing any content at any time

    In this scenario, having an A-c rating (A with Caution) would help audiences to make distinct choices, prevent the insertion of suggestive sequences in films that would otherwise be classified as Universal viewing and also facilitate the business of film by being available for viewing at all times but restricted strictly to adult audiences.

    Under new guidelines framed by the Committee, a filmmaker would have to specify the category in which he feels the film would go.

    The objective of the guidelines framed by the Committee would be to ensure that:
    a. Children and adults are protected from potentially harmful or otherwise unsuitable content:
    b. Audiences, particularly parents and those with responsibility for children are empowered to make informed viewing decisions;
    c. Artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed in the process of classification of films;
    d. The process of certification by CBFC is responsive, at all times, to social change.

    In view of this, the Committee felt that the categories UA and A need to further sub-divided.

    The UA category should be divided into sub-categories of UA 12+ and UA 15+ under the CBFC Rules. The Committee recommended this in light of the sociological changes that have occurred since the introduction of the Cinematograph Act in 1952. While UA l2+ caters to young teenagers who are yet to be exposed to the adult world and can therefore be exposed to adult issues in only a minimal manner, UA 15+ seeks to keep in mind that young adolescents are at an age when they are being introduced to the adult world, and are ready to be exposed to various concerns and issues of the adult world, albeit in a moderate manner.

    It has also been recommended that the Adult category be further divided into A and A-C (Adult with Caution) sub-categories. The objective of this sub-categorization is to enable adults to make informed choices about the kind of film they would like to watch. Not all adults prefer to watch films that have explicit portrayals of various issues such as violence, sex, discrimination, use of language etc. The purpose of the A-C category is to warn audiences of the explicit depiction of various issues, thus enabling them to make a considered choice.

    Films that violate the provisions of Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 will not be considered for certification.

    Films submitted for telecast on television or for any other purpose should be re-certified.

    The committee has made it clear that any complaints received by the central government should be referred to the CBFC whose chairperson may, if he considers it necessary to do so, refer the film to a revising committee for examination once again in view of alleged violation of Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

    In order to preserve Indian Cinema, the committee recommends that every applicant should deposit the Director’s Cut in the National Film Archives of India for preservation. At present, only the certified version is submitted but the committee felt that the original will ‘truly reflect the cinematic history of Indian cinema.

  • Shyam Benegal Committee: CBFC can only certify films, not recommend cuts

    Shyam Benegal Committee: CBFC can only certify films, not recommend cuts

    NEW DELHI: In recommendations that are bound to stir a major debate among moralists and others, a government-appointed committee has said that no alterations or changes in any film can be made by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) only with the consent of the rights holder.

    The members of the Shyam Benegal Committee were of the ‘unanimous view that the rights owner has complete rights over his/her film.’

    In its report submitted to the Information and Broadcasting ministry on 26 April 2016 but placed on the ministry’s website now, the Committee has said that there should be no system of imposing excisions (as is practiced at present) and the CBFC must transition into solely becoming a film certification body, as indeed the name of the institution suggests.

    The Committee is of the view that it is not for the CBFC to act as a moral compass by deciding what constitutes glorification or promotion of an issue or otherwise. The scope of the CBFC should largely only be to decide who and what category of audiences can watch the depiction of a particular theme, story, scene etc., unless the film in question violates the provisions of Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act 1952 or exceeds the limitations defined in the highest category of certification recommended by this committee.

    In both such cases, the CBFC would be within its rights to reject certification to a film, but not authorized to dictate excisions, modifications and amendments. The CBFC categorization should be a sort of statutory warning to audiences of what to expect if they were to watch a particular film once the CBFC has issued this statutory warning. ‘Film viewing is a consensual act and up to the viewers of that category,’ the Committee felt.

    The Committee had been constituted by the government on New Year’s Day this year to suggest a paradigm that ensures that artistic creativity and freedom do not get stifled /curtailed even as films are certified. Noting that “in most countries of the world there is a mechanism/process of certifying feature films and documentaries”, an official release had said that the attempt should also be that “the people tasked with the work of certification understand these nuances”.

    The Committee had been asked to recommend broad guidelines / procedures under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1952 / Rules for the benefit of the chairperson and other members of the Screening Committee. The staffing pattern of CBFC was also to be looked into in an effort to recommend a framework which would provide efficient / transparent user friendly services.

    The other members of the Committee include filmmakers Goutam Ghose, Kamal Haasan and Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra, creative director Piyush Pandey, media veteran Bhawana Somayya, Nina Lath Gupta who is managing director of the National Film Development Corporation, and Joint Secretary (Films) Sanjay Murthy as Member Convenor.

    This is not the first time that such a committee has been set up. After earlier attempts, the last committee that examined similar issues was headed by the eminent Mukul Mudgal. However, no action has been taken on that report submitted in 2013.

    The present Guidelines issued in 1991 are general in categorization and therefore prone to ambiguity in interpretation. The committee recommended that Guidelines need to be drafted for each category of certification. While doing so, the Committee has taken into consideration all the issues of concern listed in the 1991 Guidelines and included them in the recommended Guidelines as well.

    The committee said the principle objectives of guidelines should be to ensure that the content viewed by potentially vulnerable audiences (including children) is suitable for their viewing, and by making such categorizations, empower consumers to make informed viewing choices.

    Simultaneously, the guidelines are also aimed at ensuring that the artistic expression and creative freedom of filmmakers are protected through objectively laid down parameters for certification that do not attempt to act as a moral compass on what should or should not be shown to audiences, but endeavour to specify the category of audiences that are deemed fit to watch a film, given its content.

    The Committee therefore said that at least two of the objectives of censorship listed in the Guidelines – ‘clean and healthy entertainment’ and ‘of aesthetic value’ – are not within the ambit of the CBFC – as a film certification body, it is not responsible for ensuring the aesthetic composition of a film or for “clean and healthy entertainment”.

    The Committee believes that the objective that a film should be responsible and sensitive to the realms of society is a subjective clause and should be avoided, as there is no definition of what constitutes the values and standards of society at a given point of time. The insertion of clauses that are open to varying interpretations would only render the process of certification more difficult and open to controversy. As an alternative to this clause, an attempt has therefore been made by the committee to lay down a ceiling for the highest category of certification, beyond which the CBFC can refuse certification.

    The Committee examined the need for a separate rating for films with explicit scenes of sex, violence etc. While internationally there is no separate rating for such films, and they invariably get an R or 17+ rating, such films carry a line to the effect that the film has extreme nudity or violence, as the case may be.

    But since a similar approach would not be effective in India, the Committee was of the view that the categories need to be extended. This would release the current ‘pressure cooker situation’ of filmmakers needing to cater to the demands of a certain section of the audience for financial gain through insertion of such sequences but having no avenues to showcase the same except through suggestive sequences in films.

    The committee also agreed that in the present context, unlike in the past, there are no specific timings during which a certain kind of cinema would enjoy playtime. Thus, in contrast to previous times when adult-rated films with explicit scenes were normally showcased as late night shows, in the digital era nothing stops anyone from viewing any content at any time

    In this scenario, having an A-c rating (A with Caution) would help audiences to make distinct choices, prevent the insertion of suggestive sequences in films that would otherwise be classified as Universal viewing and also facilitate the business of film by being available for viewing at all times but restricted strictly to adult audiences.

    Under new guidelines framed by the Committee, a filmmaker would have to specify the category in which he feels the film would go.

    The objective of the guidelines framed by the Committee would be to ensure that:
    a. Children and adults are protected from potentially harmful or otherwise unsuitable content:
    b. Audiences, particularly parents and those with responsibility for children are empowered to make informed viewing decisions;
    c. Artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed in the process of classification of films;
    d. The process of certification by CBFC is responsive, at all times, to social change.

    In view of this, the Committee felt that the categories UA and A need to further sub-divided.

    The UA category should be divided into sub-categories of UA 12+ and UA 15+ under the CBFC Rules. The Committee recommended this in light of the sociological changes that have occurred since the introduction of the Cinematograph Act in 1952. While UA l2+ caters to young teenagers who are yet to be exposed to the adult world and can therefore be exposed to adult issues in only a minimal manner, UA 15+ seeks to keep in mind that young adolescents are at an age when they are being introduced to the adult world, and are ready to be exposed to various concerns and issues of the adult world, albeit in a moderate manner.

    It has also been recommended that the Adult category be further divided into A and A-C (Adult with Caution) sub-categories. The objective of this sub-categorization is to enable adults to make informed choices about the kind of film they would like to watch. Not all adults prefer to watch films that have explicit portrayals of various issues such as violence, sex, discrimination, use of language etc. The purpose of the A-C category is to warn audiences of the explicit depiction of various issues, thus enabling them to make a considered choice.

    Films that violate the provisions of Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 will not be considered for certification.

    Films submitted for telecast on television or for any other purpose should be re-certified.

    The committee has made it clear that any complaints received by the central government should be referred to the CBFC whose chairperson may, if he considers it necessary to do so, refer the film to a revising committee for examination once again in view of alleged violation of Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

    In order to preserve Indian Cinema, the committee recommends that every applicant should deposit the Director’s Cut in the National Film Archives of India for preservation. At present, only the certified version is submitted but the committee felt that the original will ‘truly reflect the cinematic history of Indian cinema.

  • Films for telecast should be re-certified: Shyam Benegal Committee

    Films for telecast should be re-certified: Shyam Benegal Committee

    NEW DELHI: Films submitted for telecast on television or for any other purpose should be re-certified.

    This has been recommended by the committee on Film Certification headed by renowned filmmaker Shyam Benegal set up in January following the controversy relating to film certification in December last year.

    The committee has made it clear that any complaints received by the central government should be  referred to the Central Board of Film Certification whose chairperson may, if he considers it necessary to do so, refer the film to a revising committee for examination once again in view of alleged violation of Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

    Regarding the categorisation of films, the committee recommends that it should be more specific and apart from U category, the UA Category can be broken up into further sub-categories – UA12+ & UA15+. The A category should also be sub-divided into A and AC (Adult with Caution) categories.

    The committee has said that online submission of applications as well as simplification of forms and accompanying documentation should be permitted.

    In order to preserve Indian Cinema, the committee recommends that every applicant should deposit the Director’s Cut in the National Film Archives of India for preservation. At present, only the certified version is submitted but the committee felt that the original will ‘truly reflect the cinematic history of Indian cinema’.

    Out-of-turn certification may be permitted on condition that the applicant pays five times the fee that would have to be paid if the certification were done in the normal course.

    Meanwhile, the committee was given time by Information and Broadcasting minister Arun Jaitley to give recommendations on the certification of films regarding issues relating to clearances to be obtained from the Animal Welfare Board under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act; depiction of smoking in films wherein films are required to show a disclaimer in every scene that involves smoking, according to a directive from the Health and Family Welfare ministry.

    Following the request by the committee, it has been asked to give its recommendations on these issues by 20 June 2016.

    An official note said the committee had been set up on 1 January 2016 in sync with the overarching vision of the prime minister Narendra Modi and Arun Jaitley to lay down a holistic framework for certification of films.

    The committee was asked to lay down norms for film certification that take note of best practices in various parts of the world and give sufficient and adequate space for artistic and creative expression,  lay down procedures and guidelines for the benefit of the CBFC Board to follow and examine staffing patterns with a view to recommending a framework that would provide efficient and transparent user friendly services. 

    Other members of the committee are actor and filmmaker Kamal Hassan, filmmakers Rakeysh Om Prakash Mehra and Goutam Ghose, ad guru Piyush Pandey, critic Bhawana Somaaya, and National Film Development Corporation MD Nina Lath Gupta. I and B Joint Secretary (Films)   K Sanjay Murthy is Member-Convenor.

    The committee also said the  CBFC should only be a film certification body whose scope should be restricted to categorizing the suitability of the film to audience groups on the basis of age and maturity.

    However, it could make recommendations to refuse certification if a film contains anything that contravenes the provisions of Section 5B (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952; and when content in a film crosses the ceiling laid down in the highest category of certification.

    The applicant must specify the category of certification being sought and the target audience.

    The committee said that the objective of these guidelines would be to ensure that children and adults are protected from potentially harmful or unsuitable content; audiences, particularly parents are empowered to make informed viewing decisions; artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed in the process of classification of films; the process of certification is responsive, at all times, to social change; and the certification keeps within the rights and obligations as laid down in the Indian constitution.

    The highlights of the recommendations of the committee broadly cover the areas related to Film Certification Process and its simplification, Restructuring staffing pattern of central and regional censor advisory panels and re-certification of films for purposes of telecast on television and measures to preserve the identity of Indian Cinema.

    The certification of films will be carried out in accordance with the guidelines proposed for certification that have been split into three sections, with each section required to be read with the other two – General Guidelines, Issue Related Guidelines and Category Specific Guidelines.

    The committee has also made certain recommendations regarding the functioning of the board and has stated that the board, including chairman, should only play the role of a guiding mechanism for the CBFC, and not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of certification of films.

    The functions of the board shall be confined to the duties defined in the existing CBFC rules, which include an annual review of CBFC work, submission of annual report to the government, review of public reactions to films, and periodic recommendations for revision of guidelines.

    Given these limited functions, the size of the board should be compact with one member representing each regional office. Therefore, the total composition of the board should not be more than nine members and one chairman.

    Regarding the Regional Advisory Panel the committee has laid down the criteria for appointment. All nine regions will have advisory panels comprising persons who are acquainted with the languages being certified by that regional office.

    The panels should have 25 per cent members from all walks of life, recommended by the National Film Development Corporation to the central government; 25 per cent members of the general public recommended by the Federation of Film Societies of India; 25 per cent members recommended by the National Council for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and National Commission of Women (NCW); and 25 per cent representatives of the local film industry as recommended by FFI (Film Federation of India).

    Women should have a 50 per cent representation on each panel, the committee said.

  • Films for telecast should be re-certified: Shyam Benegal Committee

    Films for telecast should be re-certified: Shyam Benegal Committee

    NEW DELHI: Films submitted for telecast on television or for any other purpose should be re-certified.

    This has been recommended by the committee on Film Certification headed by renowned filmmaker Shyam Benegal set up in January following the controversy relating to film certification in December last year.

    The committee has made it clear that any complaints received by the central government should be  referred to the Central Board of Film Certification whose chairperson may, if he considers it necessary to do so, refer the film to a revising committee for examination once again in view of alleged violation of Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

    Regarding the categorisation of films, the committee recommends that it should be more specific and apart from U category, the UA Category can be broken up into further sub-categories – UA12+ & UA15+. The A category should also be sub-divided into A and AC (Adult with Caution) categories.

    The committee has said that online submission of applications as well as simplification of forms and accompanying documentation should be permitted.

    In order to preserve Indian Cinema, the committee recommends that every applicant should deposit the Director’s Cut in the National Film Archives of India for preservation. At present, only the certified version is submitted but the committee felt that the original will ‘truly reflect the cinematic history of Indian cinema’.

    Out-of-turn certification may be permitted on condition that the applicant pays five times the fee that would have to be paid if the certification were done in the normal course.

    Meanwhile, the committee was given time by Information and Broadcasting minister Arun Jaitley to give recommendations on the certification of films regarding issues relating to clearances to be obtained from the Animal Welfare Board under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act; depiction of smoking in films wherein films are required to show a disclaimer in every scene that involves smoking, according to a directive from the Health and Family Welfare ministry.

    Following the request by the committee, it has been asked to give its recommendations on these issues by 20 June 2016.

    An official note said the committee had been set up on 1 January 2016 in sync with the overarching vision of the prime minister Narendra Modi and Arun Jaitley to lay down a holistic framework for certification of films.

    The committee was asked to lay down norms for film certification that take note of best practices in various parts of the world and give sufficient and adequate space for artistic and creative expression,  lay down procedures and guidelines for the benefit of the CBFC Board to follow and examine staffing patterns with a view to recommending a framework that would provide efficient and transparent user friendly services. 

    Other members of the committee are actor and filmmaker Kamal Hassan, filmmakers Rakeysh Om Prakash Mehra and Goutam Ghose, ad guru Piyush Pandey, critic Bhawana Somaaya, and National Film Development Corporation MD Nina Lath Gupta. I and B Joint Secretary (Films)   K Sanjay Murthy is Member-Convenor.

    The committee also said the  CBFC should only be a film certification body whose scope should be restricted to categorizing the suitability of the film to audience groups on the basis of age and maturity.

    However, it could make recommendations to refuse certification if a film contains anything that contravenes the provisions of Section 5B (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952; and when content in a film crosses the ceiling laid down in the highest category of certification.

    The applicant must specify the category of certification being sought and the target audience.

    The committee said that the objective of these guidelines would be to ensure that children and adults are protected from potentially harmful or unsuitable content; audiences, particularly parents are empowered to make informed viewing decisions; artistic expression and creative freedom are not unduly curbed in the process of classification of films; the process of certification is responsive, at all times, to social change; and the certification keeps within the rights and obligations as laid down in the Indian constitution.

    The highlights of the recommendations of the committee broadly cover the areas related to Film Certification Process and its simplification, Restructuring staffing pattern of central and regional censor advisory panels and re-certification of films for purposes of telecast on television and measures to preserve the identity of Indian Cinema.

    The certification of films will be carried out in accordance with the guidelines proposed for certification that have been split into three sections, with each section required to be read with the other two – General Guidelines, Issue Related Guidelines and Category Specific Guidelines.

    The committee has also made certain recommendations regarding the functioning of the board and has stated that the board, including chairman, should only play the role of a guiding mechanism for the CBFC, and not be involved in the day-to-day affairs of certification of films.

    The functions of the board shall be confined to the duties defined in the existing CBFC rules, which include an annual review of CBFC work, submission of annual report to the government, review of public reactions to films, and periodic recommendations for revision of guidelines.

    Given these limited functions, the size of the board should be compact with one member representing each regional office. Therefore, the total composition of the board should not be more than nine members and one chairman.

    Regarding the Regional Advisory Panel the committee has laid down the criteria for appointment. All nine regions will have advisory panels comprising persons who are acquainted with the languages being certified by that regional office.

    The panels should have 25 per cent members from all walks of life, recommended by the National Film Development Corporation to the central government; 25 per cent members of the general public recommended by the Federation of Film Societies of India; 25 per cent members recommended by the National Council for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and National Commission of Women (NCW); and 25 per cent representatives of the local film industry as recommended by FFI (Film Federation of India).

    Women should have a 50 per cent representation on each panel, the committee said.

  • No stay, but CBFC asked to hear Sikh community leaders on Bollywood film “Santa Banta Pvt. Ltd.’

    No stay, but CBFC asked to hear Sikh community leaders on Bollywood film “Santa Banta Pvt. Ltd.’

    NEW DELHI: Even as the The Bombay High Court refused the stay the screening of the Bollywood film “Santa Banta Pvt. Ltd.”, the Delhi High Court has asked the the Central Board of Film Certification to give a hearing to the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee.

    The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government, the CBFC and the producers to given their affidavits in reply to a petition filed against the film which the Punjab Cultural Heritage Board president Charan Singh Sapra and others claimed depicts the Sikh community in poor light and it could pose a threat to public order.

    A division bench of Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari and Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi  listed the matter for 27 April. Advocate B.A. Desai said the film was a mockery of the high principles of the Sikh faith and portrays a community member as “a dumb, unreasonable person who is an obvious idiot”.

    (It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had earlier in another case issued an order banning websites that carry jokes about the Sikh community.)

    Earlier on 29 March, a bench led by Delhi High Court Chief Justice G Rohini had advised the CBFC to reconsider a U/A certificate to the film.

    Justice J R Midha was later informed that by the government that the DSGMC’s member could have a meeting at the CBFC chairman’s office in Mumbai regarding the film scheduled to be released on 22 April.

    The issue was also brought up before the Supreme Court, which said the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) counsel could file a petition and challenge whichever aspect his client felt aggrieved by.

    The Delhi High Court hearing was on a plea filed by the DSGMC and two others against CBFC chairman Pahlaj Nihalani and its CEO Anurag Shrivastava in which it was alleged that they had not complied with the 29 March directions given by the court.

    In the plea which came up for hearing yesterday, the DSGMC alleged that CBFC had “clandestinely” passed an order on 7 April without hearing them on the issue about certification of the movie despite the court’s direction.But the government’s standing counsel Anil Soni told the court that proper messages were sent to them but they did not appear before the CBFC for a discussion.

  • No stay, but CBFC asked to hear Sikh community leaders on Bollywood film “Santa Banta Pvt. Ltd.’

    No stay, but CBFC asked to hear Sikh community leaders on Bollywood film “Santa Banta Pvt. Ltd.’

    NEW DELHI: Even as the The Bombay High Court refused the stay the screening of the Bollywood film “Santa Banta Pvt. Ltd.”, the Delhi High Court has asked the the Central Board of Film Certification to give a hearing to the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee.

    The Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra government, the CBFC and the producers to given their affidavits in reply to a petition filed against the film which the Punjab Cultural Heritage Board president Charan Singh Sapra and others claimed depicts the Sikh community in poor light and it could pose a threat to public order.

    A division bench of Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari and Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi  listed the matter for 27 April. Advocate B.A. Desai said the film was a mockery of the high principles of the Sikh faith and portrays a community member as “a dumb, unreasonable person who is an obvious idiot”.

    (It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had earlier in another case issued an order banning websites that carry jokes about the Sikh community.)

    Earlier on 29 March, a bench led by Delhi High Court Chief Justice G Rohini had advised the CBFC to reconsider a U/A certificate to the film.

    Justice J R Midha was later informed that by the government that the DSGMC’s member could have a meeting at the CBFC chairman’s office in Mumbai regarding the film scheduled to be released on 22 April.

    The issue was also brought up before the Supreme Court, which said the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) counsel could file a petition and challenge whichever aspect his client felt aggrieved by.

    The Delhi High Court hearing was on a plea filed by the DSGMC and two others against CBFC chairman Pahlaj Nihalani and its CEO Anurag Shrivastava in which it was alleged that they had not complied with the 29 March directions given by the court.

    In the plea which came up for hearing yesterday, the DSGMC alleged that CBFC had “clandestinely” passed an order on 7 April without hearing them on the issue about certification of the movie despite the court’s direction.But the government’s standing counsel Anil Soni told the court that proper messages were sent to them but they did not appear before the CBFC for a discussion.

  • ‘Guddu Ki Gun:’ Toy Story

    ‘Guddu Ki Gun:’ Toy Story

    MUMBAI: The Indian Censor Board was much in news ever since its new chairman, Pahlaj NIhalani took over. All that mainly for blocking films for use of bad words. A week or so back, one watched a film called Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2 with hundreds of blips suppressing words like ch***ya. So, what do we have this week was found suitable by the very same Censor Board conveniently named Central Board Of Film Certification aka CBFC?

    We have a rewritten modern fairytale, Guddu Ki Gun. In original fairytales, one read of a man turning to stone or a frog or gold. Here, in this contemporary fairytale, we have a story of a young man whose vital part, his claim to manhood, turning to gold! Filmmaking can’t get any more irrelevant! 

    Kunal Khemu, a Bihari migrant in Kolkata, is a door-to-door salesman and the predictable product he vends is a powerful detergent. While his detergent may or may not work on clothes, his charm certainly works on his female clientele. He seduces them all; so much so that he even maintains a diary noting his conquests.

    One among his victims is a young nubile girl to whom Khemu professes his love and takes advantage of her innocence. The girl’s grandpa happens to be a big time Kali bhakt and to get even, puts a hex on Khemu because of which his manhood turns into gold! He has all feelings in his now perpetually intruding vital part. Khemu can’t figure out what causes his discomfort when his friend, Sumeet Vyas, suggests that it has to be one of his women who put a curse on him. 

    Khemu follows the list on his diary ticking off each of his ‘clients’ who could have done this until he finally remembers the innocent girl he betrayed. After much pleading, the girl’s grandpa withdraws his curse conditionally: Khemu has to find true love and stay loyal to her come whatever. That is when he would be normal again.

    Meanwhile, a local don and an antique dealer are after Khemu to rid him of the very cause of his problem, the golden tool. They feel it is worth lakhs in the international market! Then Khemu comes across a girl, Payel Sarkar, in whose presence he feels normal again. Thinking she is the solution to his problem, Khemu asks for her hand in marriage. He has two problems: the girl is ugly with pockmarks on her face and her father wants Rs 10 lakh from Khemu. He has a one week deadline.

    Guddu Ki Gun is actually a stupid film treated in an old-fashioned way. It is loud and not funny in most parts. Song are placed at random as if its a ritual. Khemu overacts throughout. Sumeet is restrained and good. Payel Sarkar is natural despite limited footage. Flora Saini excels.

    Guddu Ki Gun, meant to be a cheap adult comedy, fails even on that count.

    Producer: Emenox Media P Ltd

    Directors: Sheershak Anand, Shantanu Ray Chhibber

    Cast: Kunal Khemu, Sumeet Vyas, Payel Sarkart, Flora Saini, Brijendra Kala

    Main Aur Charles:’ Slick & Stylish

    Not unlike the legendary ‘villain heroes’ in the West, we too have had some of them hogging newspaper headlines over the years. Charles Shobhraj was one of them who appeared on front pages through 70s and the early 80s. Born of a Sindhi father and a Vietnamese mother and christened Gurmukh Shobhraj, he was a French criminal who committed murders and other crimes across half of the universe. While in Asia, his prime targets were the hippie backpacking tourists. 

    Shobhraj built his lavish lifestyle around killing and stealing from his victims. He sort of mesmerised his victims, holding a special kind of sway over women who he came across to the extent that they stood by him even after learning of his criminal activities. It is hard to say if he committed more murders or married more women! Shobhraj also murdered people to grab their passports and forge them for his own use.

    Main Aur Charles is a 123 minute account of the criminal phase of  Shobhraj’s life, mainly the peak period of his criminal activities. Shobhraj has already been a subject of a few books and documentaries. Despite being based on the life and times of Shobhraj, the film flashes the mandatory disclaimer of being a fiction at the start.

    Randeep Hooda plays Shobhraj. While a lot of women play the parts of the glamourour ladies that came into his life periodically, as far as Hindi films go, Richa Chadda plays the female lead.  Since the film claims to be a fiction, Richa replaces the Nepali girl, NIhita Biswas. Richa, a law student, is mesmerised when she sees Shobhraj for the first time arguing his own case in a court. From that moment on, she is devoted to Shobhraj.

    The film deals with Shobhraj’s killings in Thailand in a montage, not wanting to dwell into details. For, after all, the victims did not mean anything to Shobhraj himself; they were just means to his ends. Shobhraj has a razor sharp brain which, sadly, is overpowered by his overconfidence. For all the crimes he commits, the evidence against him never goes beyond circumstantial; there is not enough proof to convict him. 

    Being the calculative criminal that he is, Shobhraj is serving a sentence in Tihar jail in Delhi. He knows that once out, he would be deported to Thailand where he is sure to face a shooting squad. He uses his knack to bribe and win over the jail staff to escape by drugging the entire jail staff. This is his ploy to get his Tihar sentence extended so as to not face a Thai shooting squad. 

    Shobhraj crisscrosses between continents and it is while he is in Goa that the police nabs him. The police as well as Shobhraj know that the proof against him in India, which can be proven is only jail break and can’t amount to more than a three year sentence.

    But, crime never pays is an adage that has more often than not passed the test of time. Shobhraj, out of jail, settles down in France but being the adventurous soul that he is, he makes the foolish decision to visit Nepal where he was wanted for murders. Nepal jail is where he is still cooling his heels.

    Main Aur Charles has been written and directed by Prawaal Raman. His background as filmmaker seems to start with Ramgopal Verma, which shows in certain aspects of his treatment of the film. He hurries through initial parts mixing flashbacks and present at random managing to create a bit of confusion in the viewers’ minds. He probably thinks his viewers know the legend of Shobhraj too well to waste time on establishing the gory crimes of the criminal whose story he intends to tell. Sadly, his story and his viewers are a few generations apart. 1970 was the last century; Main Aur Charles is 2015. 

    At interval time, Shobhraj is nabbed and one thinks this is it, what more is left to see? However, to his credit, Raman gets his grip back. This part is all about one-upmanship between the cops, Adil Hussain, being the top cop from Delhi Police handling the case. 

    To Raman’s credit, his handling technically is slick and stylish. The use of background music is effective. The use of the film’s single song is good. Dialogue carries at places. Cinematography captures this mostly outdoor film well.

    The film’s best part is its casting, well almost. Because, while Randeep Hooda fits Shobhraj to the T, Richa Chadda is a misfit. Richa hardly looks like a law student; in fact she looks much older and to add to that, her makeup and dressing make her look dowdy. To add to her woes, all the other women who play passing roles in the film are chic, glamorous and pretty. While the supporting cast does well, the three who make a mark are Adil, Tisca Chopra and Vipin Sharma. 

    Main Aur Charles is a well-executed film albeit with its appeal limited to elite multiplex audience; like with real life Shobhraj, the film too may appeal more to female audience. Having been released in dull pre-Diwali period, the film’s opening is poor. It can only count on positive critic reviews and word of mouth for some improvement over the weekend.

    Producers: Amit Kapoor, Vikram Khakhar, Raju Chadha

    Director: Prawaal Raman

    Cast: Randeep Hooda, Adil Hussain, Alexx O’nell, Richa Chadda, Tisca Chopra, Vipin Sharma