Monday, June 14, 2010
I have a bone to pick with the censor board. I admit it may not be their fault alone that it often does not look like they know what they are doing... but they DO get to take a call and often, seem to take the wrong ones!
Looking at fairly recent releases where the censor board's failed me big time (by me, I mean the common man -- um, ok, the commonwoman)...
Sura for example, has a few scenes dedicated to the topic of suicide. Worse, it has a scene that is explicit on the different ways of committing suicide. This film, with an 'U' certification! Are they MAD? ( a little voice inside my head suggests the BAD word C-word: Corruption!Hmmm. Could it be?)
Once, when I asked the booking guy at the cinemas whether I could bring a child in to one of actor Vijay's films, he almost chortled and said: "M'am, for Vijay-movies, you don't even have to ask. Kids are always there." Sounds finer than it is.
How DARE the censor board allow this to happen? This suicide thing was supposed to be comedy -- romance as well as Vadivelu's comical bits, which we all know, draws far more attention than even mere drama! Bad enough we have ONLY skimpily-dressed actresses these days...now OTHER inappropriate stuff too! Do we want our kids to know all about suicide? Or is it that our society is now warped-enough that our kids 'anyway' know all about it and so, it's better to joke about it in the open? A lose-lose situation, people.
I really like Vikram in Tamil cinema, OK? But he had given an interview prior to the release of Kandhaswamy and spoken about HOW great the film was for family-viewing and HOW much kids would enjoy watching it.
Really? The film had too much of Shriya Saran's too-little wardrobe. Too much of her pushing herself on to Vikram (in the film I mean;)), and all of it tastelessly done! It got me shuddering to think of what 'family-viewing' must mean these days!
This film had an uncertain U/A certification. Apparently the A was added just because the heroine wore a too-revealing (I mean some 2 degrees more than 'normal') blouse. Hah. BLOUSE, it seems. 'Innerwear' paraded as outwear is more appropriate. Still, in these 'If-you-have-it, flaunt-it' times, what does one expect, eh? And how abou that 30-lakh prostitute (or some other equally-ridiculous figure) on a multi-purpose van dancing to the tunes of the lecherous villain? That's a kid-ok scene is it?
Well my point here is, if the censor board is ONLY going to take note of less or more clothes and overlook much else which youngsters OUGHT to be prevented from watching, why do you need a BOARD for it? One guy can just sit up and say 'less', 'more', 'none'(!!) and do the needful...
And it's not as if the common man has common sense. For an U/A certification, he will bring his kids, his nephews and his nieces -- perhaps even some neighbours' kids for an U/A certified film. In Singam too, I noticed this boy (couldn't have been more than 6) watching a suicide scene unblinkingly, standing in the aisle.
You know what, when I started this post, I was picking a bone with the censor folk. Now, I think it's the parents I am getting to too.
Honestly, blood and gore seems a better option than too few clothes for NO good reason, tasteless coming-on of actors to actresses and vice versa, and suicide methods!
Is there a way out?
Note: Actress Shriya in this pic seems dressed for winter(!) compared to EVERY other outfit she sports in the film. Ugh.