Smarting from the Animal attack

Smita Vats Sharma and Ravinder Bhakar

In September, Tamil actor Vishal alleged that he had to pay the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) a bribe of R6.5 lakh to obtain a clearance for the Hindi version of his film, Mark Antony. Almost two-and-a-half months on, there seems to be a shake-up of sorts at the CBFC. Last week, Ravinder Bhakar was asked to step down as the CEO, with Smita Vats Sharma taking his position. Sharma is the Additional Director General (M&C), Press Information Bureau, Bombay, and was the regional officer of the CBFC between 2004 and 2011.

The Mark Antony episode wasn't the only reason behind Bhakar's ouster. Sources say that multiple instances of corruption have resulted in it. A source reveals, "After Vishal's allegation, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting [MIB] sent officers to Mumbai for an investigation into the matter. What came out was the rampant corruption in the system. It turned out some CBFC members were doubling up as middlemen pocketing heavy amounts in exchange for censor certificates. Bhakar's tenure has been marred with several instances of this nature."

The recent furore over Animal was also a reason behind the change of order. It may be recalled that the Ranbir Kapoor-starrer, which has been widely criticised for its violence and misogyny, was cleared with five changes and an ‘A' certificate. The source notes, "In contrast, OMG 2 was handed 27 cuts. There is a lopsided approach in certification, and an investigation was overdue. As part of the ongoing inquiry, there will be a further overhaul of sorts."

When deciding Bhakar's exit last week, it was widely agreed by the committee that a woman must be appointed in his place, in the wake of the Animal episode. Another source from the CBFC says, "The British Board of Film Classification [BBFC] had classified Sandeep Reddy Vanga's movie as an 18-years-and-above watch, since many scenes were deemed violent. They included a man pointing a gun at a pregnant woman, a young boy taking a gun to school to scare off bullies, and the protagonist using metal cleavers in killings. The CBFC asked for no cuts on said scenes. In the ongoing investigation, the Examining Committee that certified Animal could be summoned to understand why the film was passed with these scenes."

Why the tribunal was an important building block

The Animal incident highlights the need for the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal [FCAT] that was dissolved in 2021. One of the members, who was on the film's Examining Committee, asserts that many expletives and some intimate scenes were cut. The member, on condition of anonymity, says, "The line about women changing sanitary pads four times a month was tweaked. But everything else objected to was suggested and not shown. There was no ground to make cuts." Earlier, filmmakers could approach the FCAT to address objections and cuts imposed by the Examining and Revising Committee. Over the years, the FCAT consistently offered timely resolution at minimal costs. Now, with the Tribunal gone, the makers have to take the matter to court. Anticipating the High Courts to match the speed and efficiency of FCAT is impractical. The member adds, "[Handing out multiple cuts to Animal and the filmmaker taking the legal route] could have resulted in a delay in release, which most of us agreed shouldn't happen to a film. Animal was projected to make money, and that would help the sustenance of the industry after the lull of the pandemic."