ITV

Tag: Shyam Benegal Committee

  • House panel goads changes in film certification, notes under-utilisation of CBFC funds

    NEW DELHI: There is an urgent need to revise the guidelines/Acts/Rules relating to Cinematograph Act 1952 and Cinematograph Certification Rules 1983 in the light of Shyam Benegal Committee Report in view of the increase in number of films, short films, advertisements, documentation being submitted for certification and consequent increase in number of court cases.

    A Parliamentary Committee has said that the Information and Broadcasting Ministry should make its stand clear and initiate the process of bringing amendments in the existing Acts and Rules through involvement of stakeholders.

    The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology which also examines issues relating to MIB said apart from the recommendations of the Shyam Benegal Committee, the Government had not taken any decision on the suggestions of the Parliamentary Committee.

    The Committee of Experts under filmmaker Shyam Benegal had been constituted in January 2016 to evolve broad guidelines/procedures for certification of films within the ambit of provision of Cinematograph Act 1952 and Cinematograph (Certificate) Rules 1983 and it had submitted its Report in June 2016.

    The Parliamentary Committee had also submitted revised guidelines and revised Rules which are being examined by the Ministry.

    The Ministry told the Committee that the recommendations of the Committee require amendments in Acts/Rules and so require further consultation.

    The Committee has been given to understand that the workload of CBFC has increased significantly. There is also a considerable increase in the number of court cases being filed in connection with film certification. The Ministry has issued administrative sanction for two legal consultants one each in Delhi and Mumbai for handling the legal cases of CBFC.

    Meanwhile, the Committee said that the Ministry spent only Rs 20.3 million on upgradation, modernisation and expansion of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and Certification Process up to 31 January 2017 out of a total revised amount of Rs 35.1 million against the budget amount of Rs 40 million.

    With regard to activities undertaken during 2016-17, the Ministry said the work of online certification has been awarded with pre-determined milestone set to be completed by March 2017 and the entire fund available was likely to be utilized by March, 2017.

  • No middlemen in film certification process anymore

    NEW DELHI: The Indian Government has said that it has obviated the role for intermediaries/ agents in the existing as well as new online certification system.

    Minister of state for information and broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore has told the Parliament that the online system is user-friendly, and will be accessible to all the applicants.

    The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certifies films in accordance with Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Rules and the Guidelines made thereunder.

    CBFC is in an advanced stage of setting up the online film certification system which is likely to be made operational very soon.

    (Meanwhile, the government is still studying the two reports on film certification submitted by the Shyam Benegal Committee, a ministry source told indiantelevision.com.)

  • Govt defends UA certificate to ‘Jungle Book’ (3D)

    Govt defends UA certificate to ‘Jungle Book’ (3D)

    NEW DELHI: Even as it is still studying the recommendations of the Shyam Benegal Committee on film certification, the Government has justified the U/A certification to the English film “Jungle Book” (3D).

    The minister of state for information and broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore said in reply to a question in the Parliament that, though it was a children’s film, the Examining Committee of the Central Board of Film Certification judged it in its entirety from the viewpoint of its overall impact and felt that being in 3D technology, some of the visuals and sound effects could be scary for children below 12 years.

    Therefore, the film was recommended for “UA” certificate – universal viewing with parental guidance for children below 12 years. Similar grading was given for this film – “Parental Guidance” – in countries such as Australia, Canada, the U.S., the U.K., New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, and the Philippines.

    CBFC certifies films for public exhibition in accordance with the Cinematograph Act 1952, Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 and guidelines issued thereunder.The Board issues certificates under the categories ‘U’, ‘UA’, ‘A’ or ‘S’ as applicable in accordance with Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act.

  • Govt defends UA certificate to ‘Jungle Book’ (3D)

    Govt defends UA certificate to ‘Jungle Book’ (3D)

    NEW DELHI: Even as it is still studying the recommendations of the Shyam Benegal Committee on film certification, the Government has justified the U/A certification to the English film “Jungle Book” (3D).

    The minister of state for information and broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore said in reply to a question in the Parliament that, though it was a children’s film, the Examining Committee of the Central Board of Film Certification judged it in its entirety from the viewpoint of its overall impact and felt that being in 3D technology, some of the visuals and sound effects could be scary for children below 12 years.

    Therefore, the film was recommended for “UA” certificate – universal viewing with parental guidance for children below 12 years. Similar grading was given for this film – “Parental Guidance” – in countries such as Australia, Canada, the U.S., the U.K., New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, and the Philippines.

    CBFC certifies films for public exhibition in accordance with the Cinematograph Act 1952, Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 and guidelines issued thereunder.The Board issues certificates under the categories ‘U’, ‘UA’, ‘A’ or ‘S’ as applicable in accordance with Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act.

  • Actors shown in smoking scenes in films or TV should promote anti-smoking

    Actors shown in smoking scenes in films or TV should promote anti-smoking

    NEW DELHI: The Shyam Benegal Committee on Film Certification, which earlier recommended that alterations or changes in any film can be made by the Central Board of Film Certification only with the consent of the rights holder, has now said that a “meaningful static disclaimer in the beginning of the film with standard visual background approved by the Ministry of Health may be shown for a minimum time period along with an audio backing it.”

    SMOKING SCENES

    In a supplementary report dealing only with smoking scenes and depiction of animals in films, it has said the disclaimer should be made in all Indian languages and made applicable to all Media Platforms.
    However, the periodicity of scenes depicting smoking should be avoided keeping in view the legislations in this regard.  
    The Committee also suggested that as an option, producers of that film can make a short film conveying an anti-smoking message ‘by the same actor who is depicted as smoking in the film’.  
    It also said the Film Industry should produce small films on anti-tobacco/smoking with popular actors on their own for screening in cinemas halls and on TV Channels. These may replace the present films in the Theatres and TV Channels shown after obtaining clearance from the Health & Family Welfare Ministry.

    SCENES SHOWING ANIMALS

    Referring to animal welfare and in response to the views of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), the Committee was of the view that there is a need to bring about further clarity and  simplification of the process to allow film producers the operational flexibility that is critically required in any film project. Besides, a better and comprehensive definition of “performing animals” is needed.

    The Committee said there should be “licensed suppliers” of Performing Animals (PA) who are qualified in handling various animals and taking care of them as per requirement of the law, whose services can be hired by the Producers.

    Such a mechanism would be of great benefit to all stakeholders who need to engage such services. This type of facilitation is available internationally and could be supported by AWBI for adoption, it added.
    As an interim measure to cut down the time consumed, the Committee said that a directory of “certified (approved) personnel” of AWBI including veterinary personnel on the list of AWBI in different parts of the country may be published, enabling producers to intimate them the time of their shooting and, who would then be present at the time of shooting the performing animal scenes.

    Based on the report of such certified (approved) personnel, AWBI could issue the NOC. An appropriate fee for the services rendered by such AWBI empanelled experts could also be finalised by AWBI enabling the applicant / producers to remit the same directly to AWBI while availing the services of such empanelled persons.
    The Committee said often notices were issued by AWBI with regard to numerous instances where animals in normal settings during the course of shooting are interpreted as “performing animals”.

    In order to have some clarity on this, Committee said a “performing animal” in case of films may be defined as an animal which is written into the script of the movie, and is required to perform an act which it would not normally do. Such a clarification will allow automatic clearance for scenes of cows, goats, etc. apart from birds which often appear when picturising scenes in villages, small towns etc.

    However, it cautioned that it had to be kept in mind whether it is a genuine natural shot or staged for filming which would involve the hiring, transportation, etc. of the animal/s.

    The Committee suggests that in such situations, a self-declaration by the producers to this effect be submitted at the time of application to CBFC in lieu of an NOC from the AWBI.

    The Committee made its recommendations in the light of the current practice in both smoking scenes and those with animal depiction.  

    At present, the shorts on smoking are prepared by the Health Ministry under the Cigarettes and other Tobacco, Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Amendment Rules 2012.

    These rules say that all new Indian or foreign films and television programmes displaying tobacco products or their use shall have a strong editorial justification explaining the necessity of the display of the tobacco products or their use in the film, to the CBFC; and anti-tobacco spots of minimum 30 seconds duration each at the beginning and middle of the films and television programmes; apart from anti-tobacco health warning as a prominent static message at the bottom of the screen during the period of display of the tobacco products or their use in the film and television programme. It is also stated that an audio-visual disclaimer on the ill-effects of tobacco use of minimum twenty seconds duration each in the beginning and middle of the film and television programme.

    The present rules with regard to use of animals flow from the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Performing Animals (Registration) Rules 2001 and also the Bombay High Court Judgment on 22 August 2005 in the PETA case.  
    These require a Pre-shooting Permission and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and then it is left to AWBI to accept or deny permission.

    In its first report submitted to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on 26 April 2016 but placed on the Ministry’s website in late June, the Committee 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.

    In recommendations that are bound to stir a major debate among moralists and others, the Government-appointed Committee was of the “unanimous view that the rights owner has complete rights over his/her film.”

     

  • Actors shown in smoking scenes in films or TV should promote anti-smoking

    Actors shown in smoking scenes in films or TV should promote anti-smoking

    NEW DELHI: The Shyam Benegal Committee on Film Certification, which earlier recommended that alterations or changes in any film can be made by the Central Board of Film Certification only with the consent of the rights holder, has now said that a “meaningful static disclaimer in the beginning of the film with standard visual background approved by the Ministry of Health may be shown for a minimum time period along with an audio backing it.”

    SMOKING SCENES

    In a supplementary report dealing only with smoking scenes and depiction of animals in films, it has said the disclaimer should be made in all Indian languages and made applicable to all Media Platforms.
    However, the periodicity of scenes depicting smoking should be avoided keeping in view the legislations in this regard.  
    The Committee also suggested that as an option, producers of that film can make a short film conveying an anti-smoking message ‘by the same actor who is depicted as smoking in the film’.  
    It also said the Film Industry should produce small films on anti-tobacco/smoking with popular actors on their own for screening in cinemas halls and on TV Channels. These may replace the present films in the Theatres and TV Channels shown after obtaining clearance from the Health & Family Welfare Ministry.

    SCENES SHOWING ANIMALS

    Referring to animal welfare and in response to the views of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), the Committee was of the view that there is a need to bring about further clarity and  simplification of the process to allow film producers the operational flexibility that is critically required in any film project. Besides, a better and comprehensive definition of “performing animals” is needed.

    The Committee said there should be “licensed suppliers” of Performing Animals (PA) who are qualified in handling various animals and taking care of them as per requirement of the law, whose services can be hired by the Producers.

    Such a mechanism would be of great benefit to all stakeholders who need to engage such services. This type of facilitation is available internationally and could be supported by AWBI for adoption, it added.
    As an interim measure to cut down the time consumed, the Committee said that a directory of “certified (approved) personnel” of AWBI including veterinary personnel on the list of AWBI in different parts of the country may be published, enabling producers to intimate them the time of their shooting and, who would then be present at the time of shooting the performing animal scenes.

    Based on the report of such certified (approved) personnel, AWBI could issue the NOC. An appropriate fee for the services rendered by such AWBI empanelled experts could also be finalised by AWBI enabling the applicant / producers to remit the same directly to AWBI while availing the services of such empanelled persons.
    The Committee said often notices were issued by AWBI with regard to numerous instances where animals in normal settings during the course of shooting are interpreted as “performing animals”.

    In order to have some clarity on this, Committee said a “performing animal” in case of films may be defined as an animal which is written into the script of the movie, and is required to perform an act which it would not normally do. Such a clarification will allow automatic clearance for scenes of cows, goats, etc. apart from birds which often appear when picturising scenes in villages, small towns etc.

    However, it cautioned that it had to be kept in mind whether it is a genuine natural shot or staged for filming which would involve the hiring, transportation, etc. of the animal/s.

    The Committee suggests that in such situations, a self-declaration by the producers to this effect be submitted at the time of application to CBFC in lieu of an NOC from the AWBI.

    The Committee made its recommendations in the light of the current practice in both smoking scenes and those with animal depiction.  

    At present, the shorts on smoking are prepared by the Health Ministry under the Cigarettes and other Tobacco, Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Amendment Rules 2012.

    These rules say that all new Indian or foreign films and television programmes displaying tobacco products or their use shall have a strong editorial justification explaining the necessity of the display of the tobacco products or their use in the film, to the CBFC; and anti-tobacco spots of minimum 30 seconds duration each at the beginning and middle of the films and television programmes; apart from anti-tobacco health warning as a prominent static message at the bottom of the screen during the period of display of the tobacco products or their use in the film and television programme. It is also stated that an audio-visual disclaimer on the ill-effects of tobacco use of minimum twenty seconds duration each in the beginning and middle of the film and television programme.

    The present rules with regard to use of animals flow from the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Performing Animals (Registration) Rules 2001 and also the Bombay High Court Judgment on 22 August 2005 in the PETA case.  
    These require a Pre-shooting Permission and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and then it is left to AWBI to accept or deny permission.

    In its first report submitted to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on 26 April 2016 but placed on the Ministry’s website in late June, the Committee 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.

    In recommendations that are bound to stir a major debate among moralists and others, the Government-appointed Committee was of the “unanimous view that the rights owner has complete rights over his/her film.”

     

  • 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.