FilmIndia (1948)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

FILMINDIA May, It is not only necessary that the censors should cause no, or minimum, interference with production of national and progressive pictures, but the Government should openly declare its policy so that all fears and inhibitions of the producers, caused by the censors of the imperialist regime, are removed, and they feel encouraged to go ahead with such nationbuilding and inspiring subjects. PRE-CENSORSHIP— BUT BY WHOM? Much public and press controversy has been going on in film circles over the pros and cons of pre-censorship. A few producers seemed to be in favour of scenarios being scrutinized before production, while most of the others were opposed to the idea, regarding it as an unwarranted interference with their privileges and their freedom. Later, in a round table conference with the Bombay Home Minister they all unanimously voted against the proposal— even Baburao Pai who had originally favoured pre-censorship going over to the majority view. In our opinion, ?'/ there is going to be censorship, it is in the producers' own interests to have the general 0. K. of the censors before launching a production, so that later on, a whole picture is not scrapped (as happened at least in three cases last year) involving a loss of lakhs of rupees, or largescale cuts, revisions and re-shootings, involving an unnecessary expenditure of many thousands. Nirupa Roy has her first stellar role in "Gunsundari", a Gujarati picture of Ajit, having a good run at the Swastik. 4 Kamini Kaushal and Shashikala provide j| beauty and glamour in "Pugree" an All-India 5 tures Production to be released through Fal Pictures. We can understand, however, why the pfl cers are so whole-heartedly opposed to pre-censol It is because pre-censorship (however bad it ml in principle) requires pre-planning of prodw and pre-completion of scenario, dialogue and M while in most cases our producers believe in H ganised, haphazard, slipshod work, getting dim) written on the sets, depending on the directoriK tuition on the spur of the moment during J | ing rather than on a proper shooting script, hi songs changed half a dozen times, and shootinl re-shooting, cutting and adding in a crazy atteJ hit the elusive bull's-eye at the box-officeWhatever the big producers' views, we arJ a number of progressive, go-ahead producers I welcome pre-censorship if — it is a very bigH they can be convinced that the process wotB helpful to them, being conducive to better andBl planning and avoidance of unnecessary risfcfl other words, the censors' role should not be tn an authoritarian despot or a wielder of the guw but a friend and guide, who can advise the proJ as regards the ethical, aesthetic and legal aspA their pictures If a theme is inadvisable, they m patiently explain why, if a scene is to be cum must give the reasons. They must be willin* able to suggest substitute scenes. And all tl* in a dictatorial manner but in the spirit of frk, ■ co-operation. ,^ Such a service would involve a completer t hauling of the present censorship machinerj)