History shows us that controversies of various types have affected Indian cinema at different times and at different levels or in various
angles. We are only two months into the year 2013, and we have already seen
two controversies before us by now. Protests, dharnas and slogans were seen against those two films – Kamal’s Malayalam film “Celluloid” and Kamal Hassan’s multi-lingual “Vishwaroopam”. In this context, a look back into some landmarks in “Controversial films” will be timely. (I believe that a time has come to coin a term like this "CONTROVERSIAL FILMS" which can perhaps denote a new genre in Indian cinema !)
Gulzar’s Hindi film “Aandhi” (1975) was banned during the Emergency time
(1975-77). The film was rumoured to be loosely based on the then Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi’s life. But the heroine character Arti Devi’s
(enacted by Suchitra Sen) appearance with one hand on her Sari pleats and another
waving the people, showing white hair strands with oversized shades had too
much of resemblance to Mrs. Indira Gandhi. The character Arti Devi played by
Suchitra Sen is a politician in the film. Unhappy with the ban, the
makers of the film added a scene where Arti Devi tells her father that
Indira Gandhi is her idol and she too wants to serve the country like
her ! This was cleverly done to imply that the film does not depict
Indira Gandhi’s life. The congress party lost the 1977 elections and
the successors, Janata party cleared the ban on the film. “Aandhi”
was telecast on the National channel “Doordarshan” The story might
be apparently loosely based on Indira Gandhi’s life and Suchitra Sen’s
obvious references during the Emergency to Indira Gandhi led the film
to a ban during the period. But see, how the producer and director
solved the problem – by including a corrective statement by the
character that Indira Gandhi is her idol. !
Mani Ratnam’s box office Tamil hit “Iruvar” (1997) also encountered
similar problems . Various political parties staged demonstrations
to prevent the theatres from showing the film. The reason for the
protest was the feeling that it contained objectionable footage
denigrating the Dravidian movement founded by the political leader
“Periyar” E V Ramaswamy Naicker. The film is reported as a fictional
account of MGR - Karunanidhi tale. In the film it was Mohanlal who
played the role resembling MGR and Prakash Raj ‘s role resembling
Karunanidhi. Aishwarya’s role was compared with Jayalalitha. Mani
Ratnam could convince the political party leaders who protested
against the film and clear the objections. The film is considered as
the masterpiece of Mani Ratnam by some critics.
In 1971 “Cho” Ramaswamy’s Tamil film “Mohammed Bin Tuglaq” also faced
protests. Best known as a satirical film, it was an adaptation from the stage
play of the same title written and staged by Cho Ramaswamy. The
political satire is based on fantasy. The 14th century king of
Tughlaq dynasty coming to life from his grave !! The story pointed
fingers towards the political parties in Tamilnadu. Being critical of the political party DMK and its leading politicians, DMK
tried to get the film banned by the Information and Broadcasting
Ministry. The film encountered protests in various centres by
the DMK followers. The film was remade in Telugu in 1972 by B V
Prasad.
“Kissa Kursi Ka “ , the 1977 Hindi film directed by Amrit Nahata was a
gross political satire renowned mainly as a censorship scandal during
the Emergency in India. It is said that the original version of the
film attacking the Government rule during Emergency was apparently
destroyed by the political party leaders. The film’s story was
symbolic. The villainous politician in the film mouthing flowery
rhetoric usually addresses a character who stands for the people,
‘Janatha’. After several allusions to the Emergency the politician
rapes Janatha. In the film Utpal Dutt performed the role of the
villainous politician and Shabna Azmi the role of Janatha.
Now here is a quite different story of protest against cinema. Long
back in 1935, the Hindi film “Jawani ki Hawa” produced by Bombay
Talkies and directed by Franz Osten was the film that encountered with
the protest. Devika Rani, Najmal Hussain and Chandraprabha (real name
Manek) played the lead roles. A romantic crime thriller, here the
reason for the protest was not the story or controversial dialogues,
but the music composer of the film by name Saraswati Devi, a Parsee lady
whose real name was Khurshid Manchershah Minocher Homji.
Chandraprabha was her sister. The film caused a major scandal by
employing two sisters from the highly conservative Parsee community,
the composer Saraswati Devi and sister Chandraprabha. The Parsee
Federal Council tried to ban the film and organized demonstrations at
the Imperial Cinema where the film was released. Eventually the
predominantly Parsee Board of Bombay Talkies ‘s trustees mediated with
the leaders of the Parsee community and got the problem solved. An
instance that can be compared with the protest against
“Vigathakumaran” (Silent – J C Daniel).
In Vigathakumarn, it was
the heroine Rosy belonging to the Dalit community who was targeted by
the religious fundamentalists. In Jawani ki Hawa, the music composer and her sister
belonging to the Parsee community was the issue that ignited the religious feelings
of the fundamentalists that resulted in the move to ban the film.
A classic Tamil film “Balayogini” (1936) produced and directed by the
legendary K Subrahmaniam was opposed by the Brahmin community in
Tamilnadu. A reformist social film with an original script, this
film tells the story of a young Brahmin widow (V R Chellam) and her
daughter (Baby Saroja) who are outcast by their wealthy relatives.
The widow is given shelter by a Dalit servant. The enraged Brahmins
of the village set fire to the Dalit servant’s house. The producer K
Subrahmaniam who was a Brahmin, cast an actual Brahmin widow in the
lead role. And the daughter, Baby Saroja was his brother’s daughter.
A group of Brahmins met in Thanjavur and declared K Subrahmaniam an
outcast. But this could not stop K Subrahmaniam, with his reformist
concepts and ideas, from producing films. He replied to this protest
from his own community by producing the Tamil film “Bhakta Chetha”
(1940) glorifying a Dali Saint.
Bhakta Chetha was a huge hit at the box office. Carnatic music legend
Papanasam Sivan acted in “Bhakta Chetha”. Periyar E V Ramaswamy
Naicker’s anti–Brahmin thoughts during that period was strident,
whereas K Subrahmaniam’s humanist attack on the irrationality of cast
prejudices was very moderate. It is said that the actress V R Chellam
who performed the role of young widow in the film “Balayogini” also
had to face with protests from the Brahmin community. It was a time
when the conservative Brahmin community’s strident rules did not
permit the widows even to come out of their chambers in the house
freely and appear before others. And here a Brahmin making a film
casting a Brahmin widow as the central character in his film !! How
the Brahmins will tolerate this !!! And see how the bold producer and
director replied to the protests from the religious fundamentalists.
p
K Subrahmaniam’s classic Tamil film “Thyagabhoomi” (1939) was banned
by the British Government. A film with reformist ideals and freedom
thoughts, it took a bold, if not a revolutionary, step to
propagate Gandhian philosophy. The emancipation of women, upliftment
of Dalits, and getting freedom for India were the causes that the film
projected. Orthodoxy in Hindu families, especially Brahmin families ,
demanded that a wife should undergo any sacrifice to live with her
husband and should not separate at any cost. In “Thyagabhoomi”, the
heroine Savithri (S D Subbalakshmi) , ironically the character that is
associated with utmost sacrifice to her husband in Hindu legends,
takes the bold step of telling the open court that she refuses to live
with her cruel and immoral husband.! This open defiance in public
created commotion in Hindu families. The heroine even goes one step
further to offer ‘maintenance allowance’ to her husband. Normally the
wives beg for such protection from the parting husbands when they
separate.
In “Thyagabhoomi” it is quite the reverse. The film was
banned by the British Government taking serious view of the film’s
message to revolt against the oppressive regime. The Hindu bigots
might have become happy over the ban, though the real cause for the
ban was the unquenched thirst for the freedom of the nation
highlighted throughout the film through some incidents and powerful
dialogues. The film was based on the Tamil novel of the same title
written by ‘Kalki’ Krishnamoorthy.
Another Tamil film “Mathrubhoomi” (1939) directed by H M Reddy also
provoked the British Government resulting in a ban on the film. A
historical film, its story is about Minander, the Commandant of
Alexander the Great, who gains control over India after Alexander. A
scene in the film provoked both the British regime and the religious
bigots. The heroine (T V Kumudini) learns that her husband has been a
spy for the Greek and she throws her ‘Thali” (wedding chain) at him
and turns against him. How the British will tolerate this action ?
Whether it is the Greek or the British, can a woman act against her
husband who supports the Government? And the Hindu bigots, how they
can tolerate this action of a wife against her husband, whom she is
supposed to obey always? The British regime banned the film (and the
Hindu fundamentalists might have become happy). The Congress leader S
Sathyamoorthy intervened and got the ban order rescinded.
The Bengali film “Chinnamul” (1950) directed by Nemai Ghosh faced
problems even before its production. The film was about the
aftermaths of partition of India following independence. The story
pivots around the hardships of a large group of farmers from East
Bengal who had to migrate to Calcutta. Made with the support of IPTA
(Indian People’s Theatre Association) the film was made under trying
conditions including police harassment – the script was seized
following a court order. The Censor Board removed several scenes and
the film was released following the intervention of B N Sircar, owner
of the legendary “New Theatres”, Calcutta. The realistic film failed
at the box office. The producers recovered the costs when USSR bought
it on the Russian film director Pudovkin’s recommendations. The
film was dubbed to Russian language and titled “Obejdolni”. Truth and
reality when exposed always offended a group of people !!
“Shinshinaki Booblaboo” – spells strange and funny, is it not ? It is
the title of a 1952 Hindi film. Why this film in this context, you
may ask. There is a unique feature related with this fantasy film.
The film was first victim of the Central Government’s authority to
over rule the Censor Board, an action enabled by the Indian
Cinematograph Act passed during the same year, 1952. Given a
Universal certificate by the Censor Board, the Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting banned the film because of its ‘low moral tone’ and
because it “..throws the glamour of romance and heroism over criminal characters , treats sacred objects irreverently and is, in consequence, opposed to the interests of public decency and morality" (objection as it was raised by the Ministry). Directed by P L Santhoshi, this film's music composed by C Ramachandra became super hit.
Ranjan, Rehana and Sadhana Bose in the lead roles. The composer
experimented with Jazz in American rhythms successfully. The ban was
revoked later but it ruined the commercial chances of the fantasy
tale. The story was as usual – the heroine with the help of the hero
taking revenge on her father’s enemies. And how come it was objected
by the ‘fanatics’ in the society - no clue!
A censor ban was averted through the personal intervention of the
Central Minister. Yes, this is this rare incident that Pattabhirama
Reddy’s Kannada film “Samskara” (1970) tells us. Based on U R
Ananthamoorthy’s novel written in 1966, the story pivots around the
Brahminical bigotry. The corpse of a Brahmin who became notorious by
eating meat, drinking etc and marrying a Dalit woman is refused
cremation by the Brahmin community. A rebellious but charismatic
Brahmin rejects his caste’s religion and cremates the corpse. The
Censor Board objected to some incidents in the story since it was
felt that it may pave way to outbreak of protests from the Brahmin
community. It was the personal intervention of the then Information
and Broadcasting Minister , I K Gujral that averted the ban on the
film. Girish Karnard and Snehalata Reddy played the main roles. The
film dismisses religious subtleties in favour of simple humanitarian
values.
The tamil film directed by John Abraham, “Agraharathil Kazhuthai”
(1977) was another film that became target of the religious
fundamentalists. An acidic satire told in an innovative, surreal
narrative style, making excellent use of repetitions for comic effect,
on Brahminical bigotry and superstitions. The film was shot around a
Brahmin colony in Kunrathur near Chingelpet (Madras) and Loyola
College. Although Brahmin bigots tried to have the film banned, it is
more a morality fable about innocence and guilt. The film received a
national award, but the Tamil Press ignored the film. And to add insult to injury, in late 1989,
Doordarshan thought it prudent to cancel a scheduled Television
screening as well. !! The story is like this – A donkey strays into the
Brahminical enclave in a village and is adopted pet by a Professor
(M B Sreenivasan), a Brahmin.
Ridiculed by his caste fellows, he
asks a mute village girl to look after it. The girl’s still born
baby is deposited outside the temple. The donkey is blamed for this
and it gets killed. Guilt then induces the priests to start seeing miracles.
The dead donkey becomes an object of veneration and is ritually
cremated by the villagers. In a symbolic sequence, the fire spreads
and engulfs the entire village. Only the Professor and the mute girl
survive.
Mrinal Sen’s Bengali film “Calcutta 71” also faced problems due to its
realistic approach towards poverty in the country. The film’s aim was
defined as “As long as you present poverty as something
dignified, the establishment will not be disturbed. We wanted to
define history and put poverty in its right perspective
”. The film
became a major cultural rallying point for student radicals, its
screening at the Metro Theatre in Chowringhee, Calcutta being placed
constantly under police surveillance.
Despite a ‘disclaimer’ at the outset, the much talked about Hindi film
“Ye Raaste Hain Pyar Ke “(1963) produced by Sunil Dutt and directed
by R K Nayyar , was a re-play of the “Nanavati Murder case” of 1959.
But the audience could realize from the beginning of the film that the
story is developed on the case. But the producer did not face with
any serious problem or protest, may be just because of the
“disclaimer”.
As in the above case, if Kamal had attached a “disclaimer” (as it is
done now by all TV serials, films etc) to “Celluloid”, he might not
have landed in so much controversies – especially political. But
in that case he cannot claim the film as an authentic bio-pic of J C
Daniel. Intended by him and publicized as an authentic
biographical, Kamal should have gone deep into the history of Cinema
and the life of J C Daniel It is doubtful whether he met the children
and other close relatives of J C Daniel before production of the film.
Further he should have sought some documentary evidence like reports
in news papers or magazines (if any such report was there) related
with the interaction of Chelangad (Sreenivasan in the film) with the
Government Secretary (Siddique in the film) which became the root
cause for the political controversy over the film.
While producing films on the life of artists, politicians or any other
personalities, let the producers and script writers be more vigilant .
And let the people accept the truth and reality exposed through
the films. Of course, if the film deviates from truth and reality, it
should be protested against. Let us hope that Malayalam cinema will not come
across any more controversies or protests over the “biographicals” to
come in future!!
Tailpiece:
A report in Malayala Manorama (supplement) dated 3.3.2013 carries J C
Daniel’s daughter's statements implying that she does not know anything about
the Government’s indifferent attitude towards J C Daniel. Representatives of the Government visited Mrs Janet Daniel and enquired about pension etc and she refused to accept Government support.
P U Chinnappa came to J C Daniel’s house in Madurai (and not at
Pudukottai for dental treatment as shown in “Celluloid”) and it was a
friendly visit.
The film print of “Vigathakumaran” was not there when they
shifted to Agastheeswaram
The Marathi film "Harishchandrachi Factory" (2010) directed
by Paresh Mokashi was a biographical film on Dadasaheb Phalke. Nandu
Madhav who performed the role of Phalke acted in the role of Dadasaheb
Phalke in Kamal's "Celluloid" also.
If the script writer had interviewed the close relatives of J C
Daniel, the script would have been more authentic.
“Thyagabhoomi” – Following the ban on the film, the gramophone discs
of the patriotic songs sung by D K Pattammal (78rpm discs) were
released without mentioning on the records label the name of the film.
These songs propagated freedom thoughts! See how the producer
overcame the ban in releasing the songs that, to some extent, fulfilled
the aim of the film – raising voice against the British Raj.
Listen to the Bharatha Punaya Bhoomi song below:
Now, listen to the 'Desa Sevai Cheyya' song below:
|