Of censor, censure and sensibility

"Controversial' as we all know, is often a euphemism for 'interesting and intelligent."
— Kevin Smith

Or is it really. In the Indian context, cinema and controversy seem to be conjoined twins. Never mind that Indian cinema is better known for star power rather than brain power. Yet despite the nonsensical tamasha which our films mostly are dubbed as, it somehow seems to have enough fire power to offend sensibilities. While the easily ruffled Indian has often locked horns with films that have got the censor board's nod more recently the board itself took umbrage.

 Perhaps, much of the en mass resignation of the Censor Board members, which led to the formation of a new one was connected to politics. But, yes, the apparent bone of contention was Messenger of God, better known by its acronym MSG now renamed MSG:The Messenger A film that supposedly eulogises the Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Raheem had the former Chairperson of the Censor Board Leela Samson see red and feeling hurt. Yes the same woman who not too long ago in connection with the hullaballoo over Aamir Khan starrer PK had said, “Every film may hurt religious sentiments of somebody or the other. We can't remove scenes unnecessarily because there is something called creative endeavour where people present things in their own way.” Later, she sulked for the appellate tribunal gave the film a go ahead.

Genuine grouse or much ado
So, why should Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan's interpretation of his own character ruffle feathers? Indeed, why should it, questions Dr Atamjit, well-known theatre-person and playwright? He argues, “Even, if for a moment we believe that the saint is not what he professes to be, but so what?  Everyone has the right to be an artist?” In fact, he states that if Gurmeet Ram Raheem is not convincing enough he stands exposed and if he is persuasive, well then perhaps more men and women will become his followers. Either way it does not hurt anyone. In the entire MSG game he believes that no one else has a greater stake than the pop guru himself who stands at the risk of becoming a laughing stock.

And yet others, including Sikh bodies and the INLD protestors, don’t think so. The Punjab Government has banned the film for it fears  law and order disturbance. Mohali-based Sikh body Kalgidhar Sewak Jatha  had even filed a petition seeking a stay on the ground  that the film's screening would pose a serious threat to the law and order situation in Punjab and Haryana. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has, however, refused to stay the screening of the film.

So, what is it about the film that has irked so many different sections? The censor board objected on the grounds that it may hurt religious sentiments and also that it projects the controversial chief as god. The film has been described as an ‘advertisement’ which also shows him  performing miracles to cure diseases. Besides, Gurmeet Ram Rahim is facing serious criminal cases for alleged rape, murder and mass castration. And then  it has been argued that the film whose trailers have garnered millions of hits defies logic.

Flight of fancy or artistic liberty
 But on this count too acclaimed Punjabi film director Anurag Singh sees no reason to take issues or pick up cudgels against the godman's film. He argues, “If our superstars can be shown as men with superheroic attributes so what is the fuss about a godman professing to be more than an ordinary mortal?” Interestingly, Gurmeet Ram Raheem too builds up his case in a similar fashion. While he was always open to cuts in his film he doesn't shy away from comparing himself to SRK and other superstars. On his flamboyant portrayal in the film which shows him doing stunts as well as performing miracles, he says, “If SRK can stop a train and Hrithik a plane…” Well, you can fill in the banks. Of course, those opposed to him and his film are likely to say that while SRK and Salman Khan play reel characters, the godman is playing himself. And there are limits to self-aggrandisement. But, yes, we would be fooling ourselves if we argue that the onscreen flight of imagination in which our stars are cast has no bearing on their real-life persona.

Yes, MSG is a one-off case of a real life character playing himself on screen in a film directed, written and produced by himself. But as a rule, should cinema be more cautious when the line between real and reel goes missing or more pertinently when it goes down the path of history or when it brings real men and women to life? Clearly all biopics be it Mary Kom or Bhaag Milkha Bhaag add spice to their tales and very few are a faithful blow by blow recreation of reality. Actor Chandan Roy Sanyal who played a key part in a film, based on a fictional account of the most wanted Dawood's extradition to India wonders as to what is historic reality or truth. And who knows and who can say what we are reading in text books is the only truth.

Freedom or transgression
Talented actor Piyush Mishra feels that democracy and freedom of speech are grossly misunderstood in India without realising the moral implications. And ludicrousnesin the name of creativity has to be filtered for there are limits to suspension of disbelief.  But having said that in connection with yet  another contentious film Desh Bhakt Nathuram Godse he does feel that all points of view should be welcomed. And indeed Hindu Mahasabha is well within its right to tell Godse’s story too. A PIL pending in the court will  decide the fate of the documentary  which Gandhi supporters fear will project the Father of the Nation in poor light. And once again Dr Atamjit reasons, “Not everyone can be or expected to be a Gandhi bhakt.”

Truth has many faces
And if cinema can be made from the point of view of antagonist, what's wrong with Godse having his say posthumously? Right from the time Amitabh Bachchan shot into prominence as the angry young man there have been attempts to look at the world from different angles. Underworld dons in particular have always fascinated our makers ceaselessly and there have been umpteen takes on the dreaded D as well as more of his ilk. In the process, movies might have glorified crime and criminals. Part glorification is in a way a natural corollary.

When big stars revered by millions are cast in the parts of underworld dons and criminals, some sort of justification of their acts is unwarranted. But at the same time the poetic justice that Indian cinema espouses also invariably proves that crime doesn't pay. Besides, if truth can have many vantage points so can cinema. Why do we expect cinema to be fair, unbiased and objective? It too can take a stand and be subjective, singularly from one man or woman's perspective.

In peoples’ court
MK Raina, documentary filmmaker  and former Censor Board member, who is otherwise adamant that the board is the final deciding authority on contentious matters related to cinema, also avers, "Let public be the judge." But then the public in India too comes in many shapes, sizes and with mercurial sensibilities and amorphous ideas of what cinema ought to be. So a meaningful film like PK can provoke them to vandalise theatres. Critically acclaimed ones like Haider can be singled out for not defending the Army's role in Jammu and Kashmir.

The rational voices, however, are not sure whether these strident notes are being struck by the common man or political groups with vested interests. The only ground, insists Dr Atamjit, on which makers should concede is when films hurt religious sentiments. But again that is a ticklish area. After all, religious tempers run high and are frayed far too easily without suitable provocation.

Many a film has faced the wrath of religious bodies. Even regular masala films like Son of Sardar and Singh is King have rubbed communities the wrong way. And its religious bodies that are objecting to the MSG. No wonder those that actually delve into thorny issues like Quam de Heere that is believed to have glorified the killers of former Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi never see the light of the day.

Are facts sacrosanct?
Interestingly, while we allow a whole lot of poetic license and leeway to fictional stories, when facts are told on the big screen somehow we become very defensive and uppity. For this reason or that the ball of objection gains ground and momentum. Cries of 'ban this ban that' get shriller.

But, as we live in the age of Internet, as most material inflammable and volatile too, is just a click away there is little that can be achieved through the ban culture. Instead, let the winds blow free, let debate be the driving force to distinguish good from bad. And above all let people learn that cinema is just an art of storytelling and even when it tells real tales it's not the mirror image of truth or reality. Let different stories be told and from all possible perspectives.  People can take sides if they wish but not by carrying their angst on the streets. Watch or not to watch is not just a choice but a tool with which filmy and flimsy misadventures can be suitably punished.

Artists’ take

"Cinema is forever in search of new stories. Only in India we tend to analyse films far too seriously, quite forgetting that films are at best an art form and at worst means of entertainment. Hence, we should not be reading too much into them."
Chandan Roy Sanyal, actor

"Often by overreacting to a particular film or a subject we grant legitimacy to it and invariably the wrong becomes right. If we start censoring and censuring ad infinitum we would soon be creating an iron curtain. What our society truly needs is a catharsis, a manthan of divergent opinions. Only then truth would prevail."
Dr Atamjit, playwright and theatre person

"Freedom of expression has to be applied universally. On the face of it you can't stop anyone, including Gurmeet Ram Raheem from making a film. If a film on a godman is such a bad idea why not ban godmen? But, instead of treating the disease, we set out to treat the symptoms. The hallmark of a healthy society is how best it can assimilate dissent and if it can allow all kinds of films, including on what are considered taboo subjects, to be made.Rs
Anurag Singh, film director

"Censor Board is the final authority and the government must do all that it takes to strengthen it. Of course, if society so wishes its usefulness can be debated too. But politicians have no business to interfere in the creative freedom of artists. Having said that, I must also reiterate that Gandhi is above any film made on him or on his killer. Same goes for religion. Can a religion that has survived 5,000 years be affected by a film?"
MK Raina, documentary filmmaker and former censor board member

"Freedom of expression must be valued and hailed. But often in the name of creative liberty, we forget our responsibilities that come with it and allow unwanted nonsense. There are many subjects like violence, for instance, which is glorified unnecessarily in our cinema. Though I am an integral part of Anurag Kashyap's films which are about the dark underbelly of our world, if I were to make films, these would be Rajkumar Hirani kind of films that would convey a socially relevant message, while entertaining."
Piyush Mishra, actor