Niharika Lal (BOMBAY TIMES; November 30, 2019)

Speaking at a session titled ‘Indian Cinema Inspiring Entrepreneurs’ at Film Bazaar, organised by NFDC on the sidelines of International Film Festival of India (IFFI), Vishal Bhardwaj reminisced about the first film he made and shared how the internet gave rise to opportunities that didn’t exist when he had joined the film industry. He also spoke about how the film industry has changed over time with more women occupying important positions. Vani Tripathi Tikoo, CBFC member and co-panellist in this session, advised budding filmmakers to celebrate rather than feel disheartened by rejections. Excerpts:

MY FIRST FILM TAUGHT ME MARKETING, DISTRIBUTION AND PRODUCING A FILM: VISHAL
Sharing the trouble he went through to release his first film, Vishal said, “The Children’s Films Society of India (CFSI) sponsored Makdee, my first film. They had invested around ₹ 50 lakhs. And when I showed the first cut to the committee, they rejected it. I came from a music background and there was no precedent that a music composer could become a director. When I showed the film to my friends they said that it was not a Pather Panchali, but it was not a bad film either.”

Vishal said that this gave him the courage to take the film forward. “I bought the film from CFSI, and got a loan of ₹50 lakhs, which was a huge amount for me at that time. For a whole year, I must have screened Makdee over a 100 times for distributors, and finally, I was able to con someone (laughs)! But in that one year, I had learnt marketing, distribution and every other aspect that comes after filmmaking. Those days, I used to be depressed, but later, I realised that because of that one year, I learnt how to become a producer. After this, I wrote, directed and co-produced Maqbool (2004).”

LEARN TO ACCEPT REJECTIONS WITHOUT BEING HEARTBROKEN: VANI TO BUDDING FILMMAKERS
Talking about rejections, Vani Tripathi Tikoo told budding filmmakers at the session, “You should be able to accept rejections. I tell my students not to feel bad because someone said no. The no is for the work, and not for you. You shouldn’t question your capabilities because of rejections. Instead, you should work on improving your craft. For a film, you have to work with several people, who may have a different mindset than yours. It’s almost like certifying a film.”

UNLIKE EARLIER, IT’S EASIER TO CONTACT A STUDIO NOW: VISHAL
In reply to a question on scriptwriting, Vishal said, “There was a time when it was difficult to reach a studio, but now, if you have good content, you can contact a studio. Most of the studios are now hiring writers. Junglee Pictures had developed their films’ scripts with in-house writers. Delhi Belly came to be because Kiran’s (Rao) amusement while reading the script caught Aamir’s (Khan) attention. Akshat Verma (scriptwriter of Delhi Belly) had simply sent the script to Aamir.”

Adding to it, Vani said, “Recently, I met a young filmmaker (Sanjeev Vig) who never attended any film school. But he felt very strongly about a subject and put it into a script for a short film and then sent it to Naseer bhai (Naseeruddin Shah). Naseer, who is otherwise very picky with projects, called Sanjeev and asked him to meet. The film was called Rogan Josh (2018), and it bagged several awards.”

IT’S THE BEST TIME TO BE IN THE FILM INDUSTRY: VISHAL
Vani emphasised that a young person has more opportunities to write and direct now than before. She said, “You can’t wait for eternity for someone to come and pick your script to make a film. You should make it yourself ! If no one chooses your script, use your phone camera, shoot it and post it.”

Vishal told budding filmmakers that now with the availability of multiple channels and digital platforms, it was the best time to be a filmmaker. He said, “When I came to the industry, there were two TV channels and then there were films, there was nothing in between. Today, there are so many opportunities. I think the digital boom is so good, films are doing well at the box office, so it is the best time to be in the filmmaking business. When we came to the industry, tab aisa tha jaise - film industry mein jana gunaah hai. Film mein aapka beta ja raha hai toh matlab khatam, beti ki toh baat hi chhoriye. Now, we have more female assistant directors, more female studio heads in the industry.”

Anshul Chaturvedi (BOMBAY TIMES; November 3, 2018)

The news space for the past few months has been lacking the almost default quota of stories about censorship vs free expression, and the theatrics of leaked stories, inexplicable cuts, appeals and tribunals. In that rare noncombative space, the CBFC and its chairperson Prasoon Joshi have been doing other things, such as a recent workshop that was attended by both the CBFC’s board members and representatives of Hindi and regional film associations. Prasoon explains why such dialogue is both unprecedented and essential, and why, while very few films are facing restrictions, collective viewing through the medium of cinema cannot yet be treated on the even more liberal benchmarks as individual viewing experiences. Excerpts:

How effective have been the recent efforts of the CBFC to engage with the cinematic community? You have held a meeting and workshop with industry representatives recently.
Filmmakers talk of sensitising the panel’s members. And we, the panel, need to get filmmakers on board, so we can both understand how people are looking at cinema with changing times. So, activities like that workshop was very important. They had their own queries in their head. It was a kind of a Q&A which I had with them to make them sort of familiar with what we are trying to do. I keep telling them it’s not about censoring, the spelling has to change to sensor. You know, if it comes from sensitivity and sensorial, then it should be sensor, not censor.

The idea is to keep talking to the film industry, taking feedback, and making sure that the staff and the people who work every day are sensitised to that feedback. That sensitisation has reflected in the kinds of films that are coming through, where people sometimes wonder how they came out without any cuts — films like Mukkabaaz or a Raazi or Padmaavat or a Mulk or recently, the documentary The Argumentative Indian, where I personally sat with the filmmaker. Or Manto.

Also, there’s more to it than clearing movies. We have digitised the entire process. We are going back to as much as our old record is, to digitise every certificate, so that if people want to get their certificate — if people have lost it and if the third generation of people want to obtain the certificate, you know — they can get it. Lakhs of them have already been done, and the process is on. We are also introducing a more contemporary design of film certificates which will also have a QR code.

Do digital processes translate into quicker turnaround time for movies?
Some filmmakers want their movies sorted very urgently. Sometimes I feel a filmmaker also needs to understand that no matter how digitised we’ve made the process, still, a film reviewing process is a human process — people have to sit, watch a three-hour film, discuss it, go through the Cinematograph Act, and offer their advice. That’s a human process. That cannot be shortened, that cannot be digitised. No computer can certify your film. It has to be understood ki yeh nahi hai ki aap aaj apply kar rahe ho aur kal aapko certificate dega... they have to give a minimum of three weeks. The process gives us many much more time — 68 days — but we don’t take that much of time, we usually take much less time, try to do it as fast as possible. But sometimes people don’t understand the volumes being handled. This year we have issued 20,000 certificates already.

By that benchmark, in 2018, the ‘CBFC vs filmmaker’ headlines haven’t been frequent.
See, those stories, when I consider them even as a marketing person, I feel it’s a very dirty way of marketing. People trying to portray as if they are resisting pressure and saying that CBFC has done this, has done that. That doesn’t do justice to the people. If you come and see the people who are working in the CBFC, they are working day and night. On Saturdays also they are working, trying to clear the backlog of films because staffing has not gone up so much as the number of films over the years. The amount of films we are producing every year has been increasing, and so has the workload.

As far as sensibility is concerned, I have worked really hard in terms of communicating that. You can talk to the CBFC people and they can tell you that films don’t face unnecessary deletions. Most of the times, in fact, people are going for voluntary cuts and voluntary changes.

Like Manmarziyaan? We’ve often had headlines saying that the CBFC buckled under a community’s pressure — this time they did not, but the filmmakers still opted to take cuts.
Yes. So, I have said that we are trying to do as much — as sensibly as possible towards the filmmaker. And being an artist I understand that, but there is also what needs to be understood is that the job of CBFC is to strike a balance. A fine balance between cinematic sensibilities and social sensitivities. It’s a tough job. And I think the industry has appreciated that.

Our interaction with the industry was a first of sorts. The industry has, in the recent past, no memory of interacting with the CBFC and tabling their issues. They felt that we are doing mostly certification, not censoring. There is nothing like that ‘the CBFC is trying to resist our creative work’. They were very appreciative, and at the same time I could communicate to them that how difficult the job is – and in terms of a fine line and in terms of striking the balance. Main hamesha kehta raha hoon — vivaad se zyada vichar-vimarsh se kaam hota hai. Vivaad se nahi hota hai. Vivaad, you know, makes everybody’s life difficult. There is nothing that comes out of it. By talking, by sitting across the table, you can resolve difficult questions.

Many filmmakers, when speaking about projects they have made for the online/streaming space recently, say ‘Here we don’t have to factor in about what certification we will get. We make it and we screen it.’
That’s their choice. What can I say about that?

When people in the censor system come with their questions and their clarifications, what are the areas where you find gaps that need to be addressed?
In terms of sensibility or in terms of process?

Sensibility...
What I ask them to understand is that ki intent kya hai. Don’t see things in suspension. Out of context aap koi cheez dekhenge, usske maayne apni tarah se aap nikalenge. But the intent of the storyteller is very important while holistically seeing the film. The camera’s intent could be objectification or portrayal. You can clearly see that, and you know when your intent is just to objectify. I will give you an example of a girl who is a police officer, and the camera is constantly, you know, caressing her body or portraying her body in a way which only reduces her to a body. It is gross disrespect to a woman in India —imagine, who fights so much to get education, then fights to get into a service like police, and is in a dignified uniform. If even then if you only see her as an object —that’s something which concerns me.

And these are things which are very fine. It can’t be communicated over one talk. You constantly interact with the people, this whole workshop thing which we are doing, and which we will be doing again, and we plan these workshops in various other regions —in Chennai, in Kolkata, in Hyderabad, in Trivandrum. We are planning to do this, more interaction with the board members because see, on one hand you have got regular staff of the CBFC, and on the other hand you have the board which has more of people who are from the world of art and cinema. So, it’s important that they spend time and understand each other’s point of view. Art is constantly evolving, sensibilities are also constantly evolving.

The judiciary has been on a liberal trajectory, with the verdicts on adultery, on Section 377, on Sabarimala. As a country, we have been opening up on at least some questions that we are not comfortable with earlier. On the other hand, something as simple as a WhatsApp video forward has caused much stress, sometimes violence and sometimes deaths. How do filmmakers, and certifiers, balance the line between ‘anything goes’ and the fallout of controversial content?
Society has a collective conscience. Things don’t change overnight. I feel ye kehna ki jaise hum kehte thay ki kya cinema samaaj ka darpan matr hai? Is it only a reflection of the society? Or is it also shaping the society? It’s both — it reflects the society and also shapes the society. You can’t just say it is purely reflecting the society. And also, sometimes cinema goes a step or two ahead and makes certain points. And also starts the debate in people’s head. It’s a two-way process. It’s constantly shaping. In every sphere, what is acceptable for society’s collective conscience is not easy to decide.

The thing is that you push it when you feel that your society is not ready to accept it because eventually you understand there’s commerce is related to it. When commerce is related, especially to cinema, you cannot just say that I want your share of wallet, but I don’t like your share of voice. With the share of wallet, the share of voice will come —you’ll have to respect that. Because it’s a commercial world, you are seeking the share of wallet, so you’ll have to respect the share of voice as well.

Would you say that the trust level between the CBFC and the filmmakers has increased in the past year or so?
I would say that. I would believe that. That’s for the filmmakers, for them to say, but I feel it being part of the industry as well, I feel, yes. I feel that they want to listen, and I want to listen. I feel that there was a dialogue.

Well, at least fewer cases seem to be going to the FCAT in the last few months.
Yes, that’s true.

How relevant is certification/censorship for cinema at a point of time when the content you can watch online is close to completely uncensored?
If you understand human psychology — you would know that collective viewing is a very different experience, a very different experience from personal viewing. And that is the reason there are certain things you might not find that offensive individually, but in collective viewing, you start finding them offensive because the person sitting next to you is not comfortable. These are the things which need to be understood. It’s not easy to take a broad stroke and say, everything should go, this is a free world. That kind of thinking —it’s not nuanced. I think it’s layered in every country’s culture, especially India. India is a very unique country- so many languages, so many intricacies of cultures. And they all cross-fertilise, intermingle.

At a personal level, are any of your equations in the industry impacted by you having to work with the industry as an adjudicator?
I have not been brought up in the industry in any case, waise bhi main aa gaya industry mein bhatakte hue. Ab aisa nahi ki mera ki main yahin pala badha hoon. I know people and they respect my work. You know, I think the fundamental thing is that I came to the industry because of my work. They know that he has a job to do. My reputation is of that kind —I have always been very professional in my projects. I have never ever missed a deadline. I have always tried to go beyond my job description to make sure that I deliver to the best interests of the film that I was working on. Now, I am playing a role where I have to strike a balance, and I think most of the people who have experience of working with me, have respect for me, would know that I will try to do this also sincerely.


‘CBFC-film industry meeting was iconic and a constructive beginning’

Divya Kaushik (BOMBAY TIMES; November 3, 2018)

In September, a two-day meeting and workshop, held under the guidance of CBFC chairperson Prasoon Joshi, was attended by CBFC board members and representatives of Hindi and regional film associations like Indian Motion Pictures Producers’ Association, Indian Film and Television Producers Council and South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce.

It was apparently after 25 years that the CBFC chairperson had held such a meeting. CBFC member Vani Tripathi Tikoo tells us, “Apparently, the last time such a round table discussion happened was when Vijay Anand was the CBFC chief and he had met representatives of film associations. But even then, it was only Vijay Anand who had met them and not the board. This meeting was a two-day affair, we had a board meeting and we had a workshop with the panel members, the actual people who form the examining and revising committee for films, to understand their point of view and to have deliberations on what sensitivity we should keep in mind while certifying film and how the changing narrative of Indian cinema should be kept in mind. Meeting the representatives from the film industry was iconic. This is good and a very constructive beginning to bring them on board because you can’t just meet for one hour and expect them to understand what the board feels. Even when we talk about the board, there are various segments, zones involved and we all got to meet together.” She added that mainstreaming the discourse with the film industry was the biggest USP of such a meet. “We are very happy and it is a welcome decision on the part of chairperson. This is an iconic moment for the CBFC that we sat across the table and started the dialogue. It is a constructive one.”

Talking about how an initiative like this will help in strengthening the relationship between the board and the film industry, Vani said, “I think this is going to be a game changer. At the end of the day, both parties need to be on the same page. Certifying has always remained an issue and we met representatives from different film bodies to understand that there are various levels of sensitivity involved when you are making a film, whether it is socio-political or rights of various communities, including the minorities. They had a lot of observations and inputs to give us, which was of great value to us and we also had some things to say to them because there is a deeper level of understanding which needs to come. Most people don’t understand that we certify more than 18,000 films in a year. It’s not a joke, and this process is also human resource related.”

One point that Vani feels should be a part of such meetings is the objectification of women in cinema. “One thing which I always speak about is objectification of women. Filmmakers will have to realise that it is non-negotiable as far as the CBFC is concerned. There is a great responsibility on the part of the board to decide that we will not negotiate on women objectification, we never have, we never will, at least this board won’t, and that is how it is,” said Vani.

Divya Kaushik (BOMBAY TIMES; August 13, 2017)