Cinema Censor & Sensitivity

Cinema as soft power is recognised since its early days in the first quarter of the 20th century. Both the World Wars saw this form of mass communication being channelised for information and propaganda. Such engagement involves politics, economy and cultural connotations. Hence it continues to be a sensitive consumer commodity that cruises a complex chart. Markets attract money as do flowers with busy bees hungering for nectar. Hollywood at times premiers its big budget fares in China even before releasing the same in the US. Often China collections for Hollywood movies account for larger box office collections than from other overseas markets. 

As the largest box office market, the much-vaunted Hollywood travels to China prepared to be extra sensitive about the local sensitivities — political and cultural. It adheres to the ancient saying: when in China, do like the Chinese want you to do.  The approach is no exception. Released this summer, Hollywood’s Barbie was banned in Vietnam and the Philippines. Cine-censors in these two South-East Asian countries, with a combined population of 210 million, rejected its screening. For the film carried a map showing the South China Sea as part of China, oblivious of the claims to it made by also several other countries in the region. Beijing claims 90 per cent of the area.

Kuwait’s Censor Board last September banned a major Hindi movie from Mumbai, Thank God. A large section of the Indian diaspora was not happy with the social comedy’s portrayal of Chitragupt, a Hindu deity who records the good and evil deeds of human beings. An Uttar Pradesh-based lawyer had moved the court with a complaint against the film makers for hurting religious sentiments. 

Movie market is usuriously dictating the content domain. Art for art’s sake is an ideal few dare adhere to in a sector confronted by highly stiff competition for viewers’ attention. The digital era has offered people relative easy access to an array of alternative avenues in terms of variety, quality and genres covering different branches of art, literature and entertainment.

Valued variety 

Most viewers in most countries most of the times flock to shows that carry big banners and big budgeted stellar cast and crew, filled with fast paced action, high drama and visual thrill-packed pleasure. But this by no means guarantees success. Records show majority of movies are losing money than they are able to register decent profits. Big budget fares and large scale production companies find their works getting tanked at the box office in the summer and autumn of 2022. 

The biggest film industries like those in the Nigeria, China and India have time and again reiterated the unpredictability of the box office whims. In terms of the number of films produced, Nepal should rank in the list of world’s top 10 cine-industries. Its total earnings are something sharply different, though. Today, fares that previously might have turned blockbusters face the uncertainty of how audiences will receive them. The language and treatment of cinema requires a high degree of nuanced skill and sensitively creative handling. 

At the same time, content choice at the click of a cell phone or a computer apart from what TV or multiplexes offer offers a range fares catering to diverse tastes. Cinema production teams face the challenge of attracting viewers in droves to the big screen. If competition is steep today, it is certain to get steeper in the days ahead. Unless they offer something of compelling interest, large sections of prospective audiences will not bother to trek to the cinema theatres. They do not fall for mediocrity, let alone triviality.

Formula film fare gets dumped as cultural junk. Just as the “sensational” tag gets dismissed as professional junk in journalism, mindless formula-ridden cinematic presentation gets cast as wasted energy and other resources. Trying to decode the call of the commerce cannot prevent an offer from being boxed and badly bruised. Commercial interests are often predominating factors that still or compromise creativity as well as free expression. 

As things stand, luring back cine audiences to the big screen is an onerous task. Viewers have been bitten too often to be convinced that things have changed for the better. Long past are the days when houseful boards would be hung for quite some time. In South Asian theatres, ticket sales in “black” used to be a familiar feature, burning pockets deep of those obsessed with watching a new movie as early on. 

Moreover, the fraternity of film buffs seen until the 1980s is nearly extinct in the new millennium. The multiple choices of entertainment that people can access to these days blunts the power big screens possessed previously.

Critical test

Whether the film industry lures audiences back to the big theatres in large numbers or bleeds itself to a shrunken portrait barely recognisable from its heydays until the 1970s depends upon the companies engaged in this genre of the entertainment business. The screen can be kept aglow with also co-productions and coordinated efforts by inter-nation companies. Pooling of diverse talents, investments and lineup of exhibition theatres for simultaneous or tiered release of films should chart a new course of action for better fares and retention of viewer interest in this once so vaunted an entertainment powerhouse. 

To be noted is the change in audience taste when new generations take to ever expanding avenues of information and entertainment. Conditions have undergone sea change on account of advanced technology on the one hand. Companies keen on bringing back cine-viewers to their offers. 

The number of screening outlets has increased in major movie producing countries like India, Nigeria, the US and China. This, however, does not reflect the overall dwindling numbers of viewers.   Cine-industry will fall short in boosting the prospects of not losing money by at least a majority of its works aimed at the screen through traditional and new outlets. And increase in censorship cases only contributes to adversely affecting creativity, free expression and the general image of the cinema. 

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)