Intolerant scissors

Continued from page 17

“If the board doesn’t co-operate, then we will have to think about protest measures, including blockading the Censor Board office,” says director B. Unnikrishnan. He adds, “Recently a filmmaker, who made a film on sexual atrocities against a nun, was asked by the board to remove a shot of the nun’s torn dress, used to symbolise violence, because the board decided they were not ready to get caught in any hassles for the scene. This is despite there being no revealing shots in the film. The very creative right of filmmakers is put to question. At this rate, we will soon have to get our scripts approved from the Censor Board before the shoot!”

The directors claim that the rules put forward by the Board are becoming more absurd by the day. “We had a rule against sequences of animal torture and had to give a message of no animals being harmed during the shoot in the film. But now new rules state that we must include a watermark in all animated animal visuals that states the scene to be CGI! This is a measure that would completely take away the magic of films, which depends on its ability to make the viewer believe in its originality.

We are not ready to accept such measures that will hamper the aesthetic experience of films. In another instance, we were told that white doves cannot be shown. One of Mammootty’s projects has been denied censorship because it contains six shots of white doves. Producer Aroma Mohan’s film is stuck because the authorities claim they cannot give a certificate for using elephants in films. A director who got a clean U Certification from the board recently was asked to return the next morning for the certificate despite the entire process being complete. The explanation? ‘If we give the certificate to you that quickly, you’ll think that this is an easy process’! Such arrogant behaviour cannot be tolerated,” says director Sibi Malayil.

Director Kamal adds, “These rules are not even mentioned in the Censor Board rules that we are provided with. They never inform us of new rules and claim they had put it up on their office board. They expect us to go and check their office board every day!”

However, State Animal Welfare Board member M.N. Jayachandran argues these rules have been in place for years. “The performing animals act was brought into effect in 2001 and the subsequent rules regarding use of such animals in films and the use of watermark in graphics generated animal visuals were also brought in soon after. Films must get a prior certification of ownership from the authorities, including from the wildlife department if necessary, for using animals. This is to have clarity regarding where the crew have procured these animals from and whether all animal rights rules were followed. Regarding the graphic generated animals, for one, the Censor Board members themselves must be able to understand which scenes are computer generated. Secondly, the public, especially children, get an impression that what they see on screen is real and take the message home that treating an animal in that particular way is justifiable. It is as a precaution against this, that such rules have been put in place.”