Latest news with #Ravanaprabhu
Indian Express
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
Janaki v/s State of Kerala: Janaki is everywhere. But only CBFC sees a problem
Nearly a quarter of a century ago, Rajkumar Santoshi made a film called Lajja that, were it to come before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) today, would likely have the members of that body calling for smelling salts. Starring Manisha Koirala, Madhuri Dixit, Rekha and Mahima Chaudhry, Lajja (2001) took on the hypocrisy of a society that venerates goddesses but mistreats and exploits flesh-and-blood women. It was a well-intentioned if melodramatic film that couldn't resist — like so many other 'women-centric' films of the time — tempering its feminist sympathies with a hefty dose of male saviourism. It was, in other words, typically Bollywood: A little bold, a little sanctimonious, and designed to be entertaining. Could such a film, so thoroughly mainstream in 2001, be made today? One might well ask this question, considering the meltdown that the CBFC appears to have had over a Malayalam film called Janaki v/s State of Kerala, beginning with the name of the protagonist, who is a rape survivor. How, the CBFC demanded to know, could a sexual assault survivor be named after the goddess Sita? Its refusal to certify the film unless the title and character name were changed — along with several more cuts — led to the producers seeking relief in the High Court. And as if its objections had not been absurd enough, the CBFC stated in a counter-affidavit, '(the protagonist) is aided by a man belonging to a particular religious community and is cross-examined and asked harrowing questions by a person belonging to another religious community. This religious dichotomy in the treatment of the character bearing Goddess Sita's sacred name has the potential to inflame communal tensions and create divisive narratives between religious groups.' And here we come back to Lajja, in which not one, but four characters were named after Sita — Vaidehi, Maithili, Janki and Ram Dulaari. The very choice of these names was meant to drive home the film's message about the horrors that women have to endure in a deeply patriarchal society. The same year, a film named Ravanaprabhu was made in Kerala, in which a woman named Janaki falls in love with the title character — it went on to become one of the top-grossing Malayalam films of that year. If these films could be made and released without hurting sentiments or disrupting public order in 2001, one can only despair over how far Indian society has regressed in the 24 years since — at least in the CBFC's imagination. Because that, too, is among the many troubling aspects of this whole controversy: The wounds that the CBFC is seeking to salve by holding up the release of a film that was already cleared by its regional office in Thiruvananthapuram are entirely imaginary. As the Court itself noted, not one protest has erupted in the state. Not only is the CBFC going beyond its remit to decide what filmgoers in India can and cannot watch, it is hypothesising about how they might feel about a film and acting on it before the film has even been released. The CBFC has a long history of attempting to circumscribe artistic space and infantilising the audience, but in Kerala the case of Janaki v/s state of Kerala has an especially disturbing resonance given the controversy in March over L2: Empuraan, which suggests that the ground may indeed have shifted. In Empuraan's case, it was not the CBFC that posed the problem, but some social media users and members of the Sangh Parivar who took offence to its depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots. That the producers of the film and its star, Mohanlal, apologised and agreed to 'voluntary modifications' to dialogues or scenes that may have 'pained' anyone betrayed a sense of being under siege, not by the scissors of official censorship, but by 'sentiments' of the easily offended. Some in the Malayalam film industry have sought to trace the current controversy back to the capitulation seen during the L2:Empuraan episode, arguing that ceding space to the hurt sentiments brigade at that time has normalised such reactions. That may not be entirely fair; we've been seeing similar controversies and capitulations in the Hindi film industry for a while, after all. Malayalam cinema has, so far, been protected by the unselfconscious sense of religious harmony that has long characterised it and which has mostly kept artistic freedom and creativity from being hijacked by manufactured outrage. Could the furore over Janaki v/s… — whose producers have agreed to add the initial 'V' before 'Janaki' in the title, besides two more cuts — herald a narrowing of this space?
Indian Express
11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
Janaki is everywhere. But only CBFC sees a problem
Nearly a quarter of a century ago, Rajkumar Santoshi made a film called Lajja that, were it to come before the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) today, would likely have the members of that body calling for smelling salts. Starring Manisha Koirala, Madhuri Dixit, Rekha and Mahima Chaudhry, Lajja (2001) took on the hypocrisy of a society that venerates goddesses but mistreats and exploits flesh-and-blood women. It was a well-intentioned if melodramatic film that couldn't resist — like so many other 'women-centric' films of the time — tempering its feminist sympathies with a hefty dose of male saviourism. It was, in other words, typically Bollywood: A little bold, a little sanctimonious, and designed to be entertaining. Could such a film, so thoroughly mainstream in 2001, be made today? One might well ask this question, considering the meltdown that the CBFC appears to have had over a Malayalam film called Janaki v/s State of Kerala, beginning with the name of the protagonist, who is a rape survivor. How, the CBFC demanded to know, could a sexual assault survivor be named after the goddess Sita? Its refusal to certify the film unless the title and character name were changed — along with several more cuts — led to the producers seeking relief in the High Court. And as if its objections had not been absurd enough, the CBFC stated in a counter-affidavit, '(the protagonist) is aided by a man belonging to a particular religious community and is cross-examined and asked harrowing questions by a person belonging to another religious community. This religious dichotomy in the treatment of the character bearing Goddess Sita's sacred name has the potential to inflame communal tensions and create divisive narratives between religious groups.' And here we come back to Lajja, in which not one, but four characters were named after Sita — Vaidehi, Maithili, Janki and Ram Dulaari. The very choice of these names was meant to drive home the film's message about the horrors that women have to endure in a deeply patriarchal society. The same year, a film named Ravanaprabhu was made in Kerala, in which a woman named Janaki falls in love with the title character — it went on to become one of the top-grossing Malayalam films of that year. If these films could be made and released without hurting sentiments or disrupting public order in 2001, one can only despair over how far Indian society has regressed in the 24 years since — at least in the CBFC's imagination. Because that, too, is among the many troubling aspects of this whole controversy: The wounds that the CBFC is seeking to salve by holding up the release of a film that was already cleared by its regional office in Thiruvananthapuram are entirely imaginary. As the Court itself noted, not one protest has erupted in the state. Not only is the CBFC going beyond its remit to decide what filmgoers in India can and cannot watch, it is hypothesising about how they might feel about a film and acting on it before the film has even been released. The CBFC has a long history of attempting to circumscribe artistic space and infantilising the audience, but in Kerala the case of Janaki v/s state of Kerala has an especially disturbing resonance given the controversy in March over L2: Empuraan, which suggests that the ground may indeed have shifted. In Empuraan's case, it was not the CBFC that posed the problem, but some social media users and members of the Sangh Parivar who took offence to its depiction of the 2002 Gujarat riots. That the producers of the film and its star, Mohanlal, apologised and agreed to 'voluntary modifications' to dialogues or scenes that may have 'pained' anyone betrayed a sense of being under siege, not by the scissors of official censorship, but by 'sentiments' of the easily offended. Some in the Malayalam film industry have sought to trace the current controversy back to the capitulation seen during the L2:Empuraan episode, arguing that ceding space to the hurt sentiments brigade at that time has normalised such reactions. That may not be entirely fair; we've been seeing similar controversies and capitulations in the Hindi film industry for a while, after all. Malayalam cinema has, so far, been protected by the unselfconscious sense of religious harmony that has long characterised it and which has mostly kept artistic freedom and creativity from being hijacked by manufactured outrage. Could the furore over Janaki v/s… — whose producers have agreed to add the initial 'V' before 'Janaki' in the title, besides two more cuts — herald a narrowing of this space?
Time of India
10-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
'Ravanaprabhu' re-release: Mohanlal's iconic double role returns to theatres after 24 years
Re-release of the Malayalam blockbuster 'Ravanaprabhu', starring Mohanlal . The film is getting a new version with 4K visuals and Dolby Atmos sound after almost 24 years. It will be released again in theatres in early 2026. Grand re-release of 'Ravanaprabhu' after nearly 24 years According to the reports of Onmanorama, the Malayalam film 'Ravanaprabhu', starring superstar Mohanlal, is all set for a grand re-release after nearly 24 years. 'Ravanaprabhu' is a very special film in Malayalam cinema . It is the sequel to the classic film 'Devasuram' and was written and directed by Ranjith. The film was released during the Onam season in 2001 and became one of the biggest hits of that year. Mohanlal played a double role in the film as both Mangalassery Neelakandan (the father) and Karthikeyan (the son). This classic film, first released in 2001, is being restored and enhanced for the new generation. It is being remastered to 4K resolution with Dolby Atmos audio, which translates to viewers being able to see much more precise images and improved sound quality. The restoration process is being carried out by Matinee Now, and the movie will be re-released in cinemas in early 2026, probably in January or March, although the exact date has not yet been officially declared. Recent trend in Malayalam cinema This re-run is part of a new trend in Malayalam cinema where some of Mohanlal's older films have been re-released to cinemas. Films like 'Spadikam', 'Chotta Mumbai', and 'Devadoothan' were recently re-released and received great responses from fans, with packed shows and strong box office collections. Seeing that success, many fans had been requesting the return of 'Ravanaprabhu' as well. Cast of the film The film also had a powerful supporting cast, including actors like Vasundhara Das, Revathi, Innocent, Napoleon, Vijayaraghavan, N. F. Varghese, Sai Kumar, Siddique, Manoj K. Jayan, Jagathy Sreekumar, Jagadish, Sukumari, and Manju Pillai. The upcoming re-release of 'Ravanaprabhu' is expected to be more than just a nostalgic treat, it will be a celebration of Mohanlal's legacy, a showcase of timeless storytelling, and a chance for a new generation of viewers to witness a milestone film in Malayalam cinema history, now presented with the best of modern technology.
