Mediaboss Marketing

KOLKATA: From censorship problems to gender politics, from the freedom from the male gaze to patriarchy - the run-up to the release of ' Lipstick Under My Burkha ' had the entire nation debating on these issues. In a free-wheeling conversation during their Kolkata trip, directors Prakash Jha and Anlankrita Srivastava have an uncensored chat on patriarchy, power and a lot of other issues in between. Excerpts:

Why do you insist that there is a relationship between patriarchy and censorship? Alankrita: This I noticed from the time my film, 'Lipstick Under My Burkha', was refused a certificate. I realised the whole thing happened because of a patriarchal mindset.

Prakash: If you read the observations of the Central Board of Film Certification using phrases like 'lady-oriented film', 'female fantasy' and 'audio pornography' in the context of this film, you will realise that they have completely missed the whole track. What they can't tolerate is a little struggle of these women and looking at things or hearing things from their points of view. Male gaze and what Pahlaj Nihalani has done in his own films are permitted. The moment you turn and look at things from a female perspective, they can't tolerate it. But have they ever thought what are these women wanting? It's not that they are trying to be rebellious. It's not that she (Konkona Sen Sharma's character) is trying to put her husband in place. Even that isn't permissible. That's because the CBFC or the government or the people with the authority has a patriarchal attitude. In our society, we look at everything from that point of view. The moment your upset that balance, they feel everything will fall.

Is that the reason that time and again the committees formed to amend the Cinematograph Act haven't been able to achieve much success?

Prakash: Eventually, it all boils down to 'should we lose our authority over it?'

Why are the committees then formed? Is there at all any intention to change?

Prakash: There must be some intention to bring about a change. That's why the committees are formed. But the government develops cold feet when they realise what it might mean. They won't allow you to have that freedom.

There is a counter argument that states censorship might not be too bad an idea in times of intolerance and with people being touchy about many issues. Do you buy that argument?

Prakash: But there will always be touchy people in society who are stronger than the government. Here in India, even the fringe elements are strong when it comes to being touchy. Some 15 people can barge into Sanjay Leela Bhansali's sets and disrupt shooting. The government can't do anything about it. Society in India is always stronger than the government. But the sum total of the matter is that unless and until you have the freedom, it doesn't work. You can always classify films. You can create more number of grades. But let people have their choices.

CBFC members have pointed out that if someone comes up with documentary that shows footage of riots and asks for a certification, it wouldn't be wise to oblige. They insist that society also has people who can be worked up by such footage...

Prakash: But the material is available in any case. It's just that today one is seeing more of polarisation. Social media highlights activities quickly and people begin to react. But that's no reason to censor anything. How can one stop if someone makes a documentary with such footage and uploads it?

Recently, when director Suman Ghosh had uploaded the uncensored trailer of his Amartya Sen documentary, Pahlaj Nihalani had called it a 'mistake' insisting that exhibiting something online is also public exhibition and hence needs certification. Is there a norm that says one can't upload an uncertified film online?

Alankrita: There nothing governing content online. I keep on hearing new things that CBFC is doing every other day. I heard that there was a poll to decide if a certain word can be used in a trailer. Where's that written? Then, there would be so many polls. If there is a law, we should be clearly told that. I don't think India is a country where someone can just announce something and it becomes a law. Can you just turn around and say that you can't post anything online that isn't certified? Can you just tell someone that he or she can't show films at festival abroad without certification? I don't think we can just announce laws this way.

Prakash: The law has to clarify that. What if somebody uploads it to a different land? Your law doesn't apply to that land. What will you do?

Alankrita: I think, it is totally absurd and makes no sense. If we are living in a matured democracy, we shouldn't even entertain such stuff.

Prakash: Society has to accept that people will have different views, will think differently and will have choices. You can't tailor-make choices for them. You can't govern their thinking. You can't tell people to eat what, wear what or think what.

After your experience with 'Lipstick Under My Burkha', did you feel that something like what had happened in the Amartya Sen documentary was bound to happen?

Prakash: It's not just about Amartya Sen. Why don't we talk about what happened to Anand Patwardhan's documentaries?

Akankrita: The problem lies in the fact that India as a nation has always accepted censorship. That's why have had had two flowers and pigeons flying to express love. There is so much self-censorship that film-makers are in any case doing that the mind doesn't even go into certain spaces since we know that we will not be able to show so many things. We just accepted it and now these things are coming to the fore because younger film-makers want to express their stories in a certain way. That's when we are realising that we can't do so many things. Hence, we are having these conversations. Today, we are being a witness to a wakeup call but fact is as a society, we have been okay with someone telling us that this is where to draw the line.

Now, do you feel people are more aware about censorship issues than ever before?

Alankrita: What's interesting is that so many college-goers are now so aware about censorship issues. I was not aware about CBFC when I was in college. India is changing and that is good. Earlier, there used to be a custom like Sati that people accepted. Then, they realised that it needs to be stopped. It's the same with censorship. We have to realise that if we are truly free then there is no space for censorship. The problem in India is also that nothing is clearly defined. In Iran, there is a clear line that says one can't show physical contact between a man and a woman on screen. Keeping that line in mind, a new movement of cinema emerged in Iran. They have figured out a way of story telling where they show so much without any sexual content. In India, sexual content is great if it is from the male point of view and shows male fulfilment. It becomes problematic when it is shown from a woman's point of view. If there is a standard for censorship, it should apply to everybody.

Are lines deliberately kept blurred?

Prakash: Society's mindset is patriarchal. There is a genetic indoctrination that women are supposed to be good, decent, silent, sacrificing and subservient to men. Women are praised if they can produce children and manage a job simultaneously. Women are trained to be this way. But people still feel if women are allowed to speak even in an enlightened society, the whole balance changes. Even in an enlightened society if a women starts thinking or saying much, she will have to hear things like: 'aha, sochne lagi aajkal?' To take one decision, she has to think about five men. In order to change this mindset, one has to start educating people.

While society thinks in a certain way, there are many women who endorse this idea too...

Prakash: Absolutely.

Alankrita: The other day, Ratna (actor Ratna Pathak Shah) was describing patriarchy and she said that it uses women as guard dogs. Women are taught to pass on patriarchy from one generation to another.

What's your reaction to the 'Indu Sarkar' controvery?

Prakash: When protests over 'Indu Sarkar' happened, I didn't like that. I tweeted that too. But then, I thought this has always been the case. As a film-maker or writer, you can't take any names of people, caste, ideology, party... You can't show anything of that sort in movies. When MF Husain did a painting, people objected. Someone wrote a poem and there were objections. When I had made 'Aarakshan', 1000 people landed in my office and started pelting stones.

So, the censorship row over 'Lipstick Under My Burkha' shouldn't have surprised you?

Alankrita: I wasn't expecting this.

Prakash: The blanket refusal to entertain the film was something I wasn't expecting. By writing that letter the CBFC turned suicidal.

More people are now intrigued to watch the film because of the censorship row. That is navigating a lot of audience to the film...

Prakash: Such a controversy will only work if the content is good.

Alankrita: The good that came up is that so many conversations started. That includes representation of women in cinema, the male gaze versus female gaze and gender politics in popular culture. Such conversations are long overdue. We need to acknowledge the lop-sided gender representation in popular culture. So many young girls are now writing blogs. It is the purpose of all art to put out a mirror to society.

Do men and women approach art differently. If Prakash Jha was directing 'Lipstick under ', would you have done it differently because of your gender?

Read the original post:
'Censorship results from a patriarchal mindset' - Times of India