CBFC proposes 30 cuts for ‘Manushi': Madras HC Judge to decide justifiability

United News of India

a day ago

Chennai, Aug 19 (UNI) With the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) firm on 30 cuts for certifying the theatrical release of the movie 'Manushi', directed by noted filmmaker Gopi Nainar, the makers have knocked on the doors of the Judiciary for the second time.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh today decided to watch the movie for himself to ascertain whether the censor board was justified in its decision.
The Judge will have a private screening of the Andrea Jeremaiah-starrer on Sunday and decide whether the CBFC's stand, mandating 37 cuts for release in theatres, is tenable and based on sound reasoning or arbitrary.
When the petition filed by Vetrimaran, challenging the 37 cuts suggested by the CBFC came up for hearing, the Judge took the decision to watch the movie.
Produced under the banner of Grassroot Film Company of Vetrimaran, 'Manushi' is directed by Gopi Nainar, who rose to fame with his Nayanthara-starrer 'Aramm'. As shown in the trailer, released by popular actor Vijay Sethupathi, the film is about custodial torture of a woman suspected by the police to be a terrorist.
Both the examining committee and screening committee of the CBFC, which had watched the movie in September last, had refused to issue the censor certificate claiming that the film had painted the State in black besides confusing Left Extremism with mainstream Communism.
Director Gopi Nainar has said that 'Manushi' initiates a conversation, one which people have avoided thus far, on the rationale behind every crime and to redeem society from crimes engulfing it.
According to him, Manushi narrates the harrowing story of a woman tortured in the name of inquiry, how she is not even allowed to sleep and relieve herself and how her family is defamed. Besides being a filmmaker, he is a prominent Dalit activist and a senior office-bearer of the Viduthalai Chiuthaigal Katchi (VCK) of Thol. Thirumavalavan.
Aggrieved over the blanket rejection, Vetrimaran approached the High Court in June this year with his first writ petition. In his petition, the filmmaker-producer submitted that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the CBFC denied the certification. Also, he was not informed of the individual views of the committee members, it was pointed out.
Further, it was submitted that a representation was made before the CBFC in March this year to constitute an expert panel, comprised human rights activists, to examine the movie afresh. As such, he sought a direction to the Censor Board to consider his representation and issue a speaking order consequent to the re-examination.
Hearing the plea, Justice Anand Venkatesh wondered how there could be a blanket rejection by the Censor Board for an entire movie even without listing what were objectionable in the visuals or dialogues.
The Judge directed the CBFC to review the film and on June 17, disposed of it after the censor board submitted that it had reviewed the film and listed out the portions that required to be edited for issuance of the certificate. However, the Court also permitted Vetrimaran to proceed further in accordance with law.
The present petition, the second one, was filed by Vetrimaran, contending that the CBFC had failed to view the movie in the light of the well-established guidelines and was adamant upon guillotining everyday usages such as 'saniyan' (to scold someone as akin to Saturn, bringing misfortune).
When it came up for hearing, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that he had no choice but to see the movie for himself along with the committee members to ascertain the facts about the need for 37 cuts as mandated by the CBFC. Then, he directed that arrangements be made for the screening of the movie at a private theatre in the city. UNI XC SSP