Empuraan, Phule: Why Are Films Being Edited After Censor Approval? What’s Happening Behind The Scenes?
"Empuraan," directed by a visionary known for pushing boundaries, had initially received an 'A' certificate. Director Pithviraj Sukumaran had fought hard for his artistic vision, arguing that the intense action sequences and raw portrayal of conflict were crucial to the film's impact.
"Phule," helmed by Ananth Mahadevan had secured a 'U/A' certificate, balancing its powerful social message with accessibility for a broader audience. The director aimed to spark dialogue and inspire change across generations.
But both films had to face a dramatic dilemma post release.
The twist
Empuraan: A fringe group raised concerns about a particular action sequence, claiming it glorified violence and could incite aggression.
Phule: A political faction objected to certain dialogues and one scene, deeming them historically inaccurate and offensive to a particular community.
The controversy erupted, catching the filmmakers and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) off guard. The board, having already issued certificates, was now under immense pressure to address these new concerns.
Legal labyrinth
The Cinematograph Act of 1952 governs film certification in India. While it outlines the process for certification, the procedure for demanding changes after a certificate has been issued is complex and fraught with legal challenges.
"This is a very tricky situation," says a legal expert specializing in media law. "The Act allows the Central Government to revise the CBFC's decision under certain circumstances, but it's usually before the certificate is granted. Demanding changes after certification sets a dangerous precedent."
CBFC's dilemma
Mikhilesh Sinha, a relatively new CBFC member, found himself at the centre of the storm. "We followed the established guidelines during the certification process," he explained. "Now, we're facing pressure from various groups to reconsider our decision. It's a balancing act between artistic freedom and social responsibility."
The CBFC faced a tough decision:
Option 1: Demand changes: This would involve asking the filmmakers to make the required edits, potentially delaying the release and impacting the films' artistic integrity. It could also open the door for similar demands in the future, undermining the authority of the certification process.
Option 2: Maintain the certificates: This would uphold the board's decision but risk facing protests, potential legal action, and damage to the films' reputation.
Filmmakers' standpoint
As the filmmakers face heightened scrutiny and controversy, the team behind the upcoming biopic "Phule," starring Pratik Gandhi, has adopted a more conciliatory approach while navigating initial reactions to their film. Speaking about the process, Gandhi revealed that "There are certain things that were asked to be softened a little and communicated differently. With respect to the film, without changing or harming the film, whatever was possible has been done is what I'm told."
The film, which chronicles the lives of social reformers Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule who were also helped by liberal Brahmins in that era. “We did not want any prejudices or biases to affect the film. Some people jumped the guy by just watching the trailer which does not give the full picture … you cannot put the entire film in the trailer. So we decided to postpone the film so that the so-called agitated people can cool down. Let them see the film in the theatres. You are aware that Brahmins have supported Phule more than anything else by even lending their premises. There are people who are a part of an opposing team. The intention of Phule or mine is not to bring down the Brahmin community. It is not a hate film, it is a love film. Phule wanted to bring the community up without pulling down another community and that’s there in history,” says Mahadevan.
What shocked Mahadevan was the leaking of the document from CBFC. “Someone posted on their X account a document that was not to be put in public domain. It is between the filmmaker and the CBFC. It was also not fair to drag people like Vidya Balan into it because she was not part of the committee. And the leakage backfired,” adds the filmmaker.
While on “L2: Empuraan”, even as politicians stood up to defend the film, the makers decided to make the cuts voluntarily without wanting to fight it. “A lot of money was spent on the film. When you have already announced the release date, it will take a while to fight the changes and then release the film. So the makers decided to go ahead with 17 cuts themselves,” says a source.
Veteran actress Shabana Azmi, known for her outspoken views on artistic freedom, weighed in on the controversy. "This situation highlights the urgent need for a more nuanced and transparent censorship process. While we acknowledge the need for responsible filmmaking, we must also protect the right of artists to express themselves without fear of arbitrary censorship, even after certification."
A change?
For years, filmmakers like Shyam Benegal and Shekhar Kapur have spoken about the need for just certification which is the CBFC’s job and not censorship. “What they said is right. Every country, be it the UAE, UK. China, Malaysia and Singapore among others, have their own certification board and even in the US, they give out Gen, PG or R rated certificates. They do not suggest cuts. What Shyambabu and Shekhar Kapur suggested is right by requesting certification. You cannot have both. I hope this can bring a change,” says Mahadevan, fingers crossed.
Impact and aftermath
The controversy had a significant impact on both films:
Viewership: The uncertainty surrounding the films' release affected audience anticipation. Some viewers were apprehensive about watching films that were embroiled in controversy.
Earnings: The delayed release and the potential for modified versions affected the films' box office prospects. Distributors were wary of investing heavily in films facing such unpredictable circumstances.
Legal Battles: Both production houses considered legal action against the CBFC, citing breach of contract and infringement of their creative rights.
The incident sparked a national debate about the role of censorship in India, the balance between artistic freedom and social responsibility, and the need for clarity in the legal framework governing film certification.
What Does a Censor Certificate Stand For?
A censor certificate issued by the CBFC is a legal authorization for a film to be exhibited publicly in India. It classifies the film based on its content, specifying the target audience (e.g., U - unrestricted public exhibition, A - restricted to adults). The certificate is intended to:
Ensure that films comply with the guidelines set out in the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Protect viewers from potentially harmful or offensive content.
Balance artistic expression with social responsibility.
Amendments to the Cinematograph Act, 1952
The Cinematograph Act of 1952 has undergone several amendments over the years to adapt to the evolving landscape of filmmaking and societal norms. Key amendments have addressed issues such as:
Categorization of films for different age groups (U, U/A, A, S).
The establishment and powers of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
Revisional powers of the Central Government (though these have been curtailed in recent amendments to emphasize CBFC autonomy).
Anti-piracy measures.
The Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill 2023 is the most recent significant amendment, introducing stricter anti-piracy provisions and formalizing age-based certifications.
news