Leonardo DiCaprio, fast cars, mountains of cocaine, nudity that would put Italian statues to shame, and Martin Scorsese: this adequately sums up The Wolf of Wall Street. About five months ago, I watched it in India, and then saw it again back in the land of freedom (USA), definitely making a deep connection to Jordan Belfort as a human being. Yet this emotional connection to Belfort wasn’t the reason I wanted to re-see the movie: I was confused by what I saw in India because some parts were missing, and wanted to know what the Indian Government had decided was too inappropriate for my naïve and innocent mind.
The Indian Censor Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has done an exceptional job in censoring the important things: about 5 minutes of the original movie depicting the slightest hint of bare breasts or nudity had been cut. This baffles me, because the movie had things more disturbing than nudity: sex scenes, hooker parties, gay sex, adultery, orgies, public masturbation, and general debauchery. Which makes me wonder: why didn’t they censor anything more vulgar than the chest of a woman? Why isn’t 30% of the movie cut, because of the shameful acts committed by Belfort?
Yet my confusion, amusement, and outrage didn’t stop there. The CBFC printed onscreen “smoking kills” in every scene where characters light cigarettes – yet ignores warning its viewers that snorting cocaine, overdosing Quaaludes, driving high and/or drunk, and doing any of the unbelievable stunts in that movie might kill you as well.
If the CBFC wanted to uphold its high and mighty moral compass, TWOWS shouldn’t have been 2 hours 55 minutes – they should have censored it down to 2 hours or less. By the logic of preventing female nudity because it is apparently vulgar, disgusting, and inappropriate – although we see all sorts of nudity on the streets of India while passing common homeless people who cannot afford clothing, let alone food – shouldn’t they have censored every part of the movie that is more appalling than a bare breast? I’m surprised that any Martin Scorsese movies are allowed in Indian cinemas, and I wonder what children – and by children, I mean those above 18, since the movie is rated A for adults – will think when they witness a bare breast.
I decided to overlook my hasty anger and check out whether the over-censoring of TWOWS was an outlier – an exception that would let me believe in my country’s belief that freedom of speech and religion are basic tenets of society. I bought a DVD set of The Godfather Trilogy. Within the first fifteen minutes, I was baffled by a movie that is, by its very nature, supposed to involve violence, because any scene with violence was cut out – as if such censoring would have a direct impact on the people who encourage violence, rape, and honor killings. (I recall once while I was watching Everybody Loves Raymond on TV. Raymond and his wife were about to kiss. The scene goes black and the next scene is them moving their heads apart – no scene of the actual kiss).
Still mildly hopeful and wishing for some semblance of competence in the country’s government, I decided to dig on the internet about the principles the CBFC upholds. Amongst the many stories: the CBFC almost decided to ban a Hindi film called Ya Rab because it was based on religious fundamentalism and competing ideologies in Islam. In 2003, Gulabi Aaina, or Pink Mirror, a film that focused on transsexuals in India, was banned in India – yet won numerous awards across the globe. The documentary Final Solution, which covered the Gujarat riots of 2001 that left more than 1,000 dead, was banned in 2004 (these are the same Gujarat riots that newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of being involved in).
There are myriad other examples of controversial decisions regarding entertainment, but the suppression of freedom of expression and speech does not stop at what we see onscreen. In 2012, a female who criticized politicians over Facebook for the shutdown of Mumbai following the death of Bal Thackeray, a controversial politician, was arrested. This questionable adherence to the principles of free speech in government, media, and news has resulted in India being ranked a low 131st on the Press Freedom Index in 2011, where it was 80th in 2000. This is reflected in India’s most recent elections: many question why news outlets were critical of the Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party while being welcoming to the Hindu Nationalist BJP party, which was elected in a landslide victory.
India prides itself on being the worlds’ largest democracy, and has a constitution which (Article 19) clearly notes that Indians have the right to free speech, though the same article goes on to note that “[freedom of speech] should not prevent the state from making any law that imposes reasonable restrictions… in the interest of the integrity… decency or morality… of India.” While this is a clause meant to protect India from hate speech and social trouble, it seems that it is being taken advantage of – and that there is potential for abuse. Given the fact that the Supreme Court recently criminalized homosexuality and the Indian electorate just elected a Hindu nationalist party (which is against LGBT rights), there is huge potential for the suppression of art that expresses religion and sexuality – in a country where sexuality is already repressed culturally. If anything is to be done, serious steps need to be taken by the people and the government to prevent such government overreach, abuse of power, and an imposition of morals that do not fit with a changing demographic and young culture.
About the Author
