 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
The Indian Cinematograph Committee was established by British Raj in 1927 to "investigate the adequacy of censorship and the supposedly immoral effect of cinematograph films", and subsequently the Indian Cinematograph Committee Evidence and Report 1927-1928 was published in the following year. [1] [2]
In the 1920s, just as the early twilight of the British Empire was approaching, a slightly familiar battle was fought, in a slightly unusual terrain, Cinema. The American film industry had by the twenties already started to dominate the global film market, with American films eclipsing English films in most parts of the British Empire. In response to a number of demands being made by the British film industry for the setting up of quotas in favour of Empire films in the colonies, and as a result of increasing anxiety about the spread of the new technology of cinema in the colonies, the colonial government put together the Indian Cinematograph Committee (“ICC”) to enquire into the working of cinema and censorship in India. The report, and the evidence of the ICC was compiled into five volumes, and contains many oral and written testimonies. However, these documents have been ignored in most debates on film censorship.
At the British Imperial conference held in England in 1926, a number of the delegates raised questions about the adequacy of film censorship to deal with the problems posed by the exhibition of American films. They were, in part, responding to the complaints registered by the Federation of British Industries to the board of trade about what they considered to be a virtual monopoly enjoyed by American films within the empire. This trade organization had represented their case not merely as a matter of protecting British business interests, but also because American films were "detrimental to British prestige and prejudicial to the interests of the empire, especially in the dominions which contains large colored populations". In connection to these concerns, the imperial conference passed a resolution recommending that appropriate action be taken to combat the dominance of Hollywood's films by encouraging their production within the empire. In a very significant report prior to the ICC, it was advocated that “Great Britain owes a duty to the dominions; the dominions to Great Britain and to each other; and India owes a duty first to herself....The film can as well display the ancient dignity of the Mahabharata as teach the Indian peasant the elements of hygiene and sanitation"
It is important to remember that the nationalist movement which was on the rise, spurred on by a series of events including the formation of the Home Rule League, agitations against the Jalianwala Bagh massacre, etc. helped to create the conditions under which the British empire found itself in a slightly precarious and vulnerable phase, needing ways to retain the symbolic fiction of the might of empire. It is in this context, that claims were made of American films tarnishing the prestige of the Empire by portraying scenes of immorality, vice and violence. More particularly, because of the inability of the native to distinguish between different classes of white people, they tended to think of all of the portrayal as endemic to life in the west, and this degraded the image of white women in the eyes of the lustful native men. This is also a period marked by the uncertainty of the effect of cinema, and according to the British social Hygiene delegation that visited India between 1926-27 (just prior to the setting up of the ICC), cinema was the root cause of a large number of evils in India, They said that “in every province that we visited the evil influence of cinema was cited by educationists and representative citizens as one of the major factors in lowering the standards of sex conduct and thereby tending to increase the dissemination of disease"
An article published in The Westminster Gazette in 1921 was widely circulated amongst the provincial governments, and the article claimed that "one of the reasons for the hardly veiled contempt of the native Indian for us maybe found in the introduction and development of moving pictures in India ...imagine the effect of such films on the oriental mind. Like us, the Indian goes to see the movies, but he is not only impressed by the story of the film, but by the difference in dress, in customs and in morals. He sees our woman in the films in scanty garb. He marvels at our heavy infantile humour - his own is on a higher and more intellectual level; he forms his own opinions of our morals during the mighty unrolled dramas of unfaithful wives and unmoral husbands, our lightly broken promises, our dishonored laws. It is soaking into him all the time, and we cannot be surprised at the outwards expression of this absorption. It is difficult for the Britisher in India to keep up his dignity, and to extol, or to enforce moral laws which the natives sees lightly disregarded by the Britons themselves in the picture palace" Similarly, a 1920 report in Bioscope claimed that the main motivation of these regulations was "the fact that there have been numerous complaints that the films were being imported into India which hold up Europeans to ridicule and lowered the native estimation of the white woman" Similarly, Sir Hasketh Bell, a former colonial governor warned that “The success of our government of subject races depends almost entirely on the degree of respect that we can inspire”
The demands for the establishment of a Committee that would look into the ways in which censorship, and other protective measures that could be taken up to prevent the tarnishing of the might of the empire. The economic context, namely the trade rivalry that the British film industry was engaged through 1920s in a competitive film market, with film producers from the United States was always understated. The argument of the cultural invasion and corrosion by Hollywood, was linked centrally to the attempt by the British film industry to bolster what they saw as their national markets including the colonies. Priya Jaikumar terms this as the “imagined audience” of Empire films, a project of both economic consolidation, as well as cultural hegemony.
The ICC was established by an order of the Home department and it was directed to examine the following issues:
1. to examine the organization and principles of methods of the censorship of Cinematograph films in India 2. to survey the organization of Cinematograph films in the film producing industry in India 3. to consider whether it is desirable that steps should be taken to encourage the exhibition of films produced within the British empire generally and the production and exhibition of Indian films in particular and to make recommendations
The Colonial authorities strategically ensured that there was adequate local representation, and made B.T. Rangachariah, a highly respected lawyer from Madras, the chairman of the Committee. They prepared a meticulous set of questions (which we shall consider in a bit), and sent 4325 copies of the questionnaire to a wide range of people, from the film industry, from government, education officials, various police officials, health officials, members of the censor boards, electricity officials and prominent public personalities including Mahatma Gandhi, Lala Lajpat Rai, Dadasaheb Phalke etc. In other words, the colonial governmental machinery was put into motion to ensure that the study was comprehensive and thorough, covering all parts of the then British India from Lahore to Rangoon to Chennai to Delhi. They received 320 written testimonies and interviewed 353 witnessed, and of course with colonial anthropological precision the witnesses are divided into the communities that they represent (114 Europeans, 239 natives, 157 Hindus, 38 Muslims, 25 Parsis, 16 Burmese, 2 Sikhs, and 1 Christian). This question of the representation of communities is a very significant one, which we shall return to in the end, via Madhava Prasad’s work on the ICC report.
In many ways, the ICC report was the first of its kind anywhere in the world, and certainly the most comprehensive study of the material conditions under which early cinema existed in India. The importance of the study, apart from its historical value in documenting cinema up to and during the twenties in India lies in the fact that this was an attempt by the state apparatus to actually create cinema as an object of colonial knowledge, to understand the way it worked, to classify its audience, to name the publicness of the institution, and finally to attempt to render it intelligible within a log of regulation. Priya Jaikumar states that “Perhaps more than any other event in the 1920s the ICC helped to establish persistent themes in ways that the cinema and its audiences in India have been understood , evaluated , criticized and described ever since” . An estimate of the success of the ICC report in setting the terms of the public and regulatory discourse around cinema is the fact that the definition of the cinematic effect that is relied on in K.A.Abbas’s case relies heavily on the account provided in the ICC report. The ICC report, along with another significant study of the era, Film in National Life also contributed towards the making of institutions like the British Film Institute.
Ironically, in purely instrumental terms, the ICC report could be considered a failure since nothing came out of the recommendations of the study, and it ended up as yet another colonial report (apparently doomed for a nondescript existence in dusty shelves). Priya Jaikumar however argues that “the fact that the ICC interviews and final report ended up on a dusty government shelf might be a testimony to the ICC’s success. Its proposals went against the state’s initial intentions, thus forcing the state to consign the document to its filing system. While the interviews deal with the specific conditions of India’s film industry in the 1920s, they have a larger import that has not been realized in their limited analysis so far. Regulatory documents are an invaluable archival source because they give us insight into the dynamic nature of cultural change and power relations. Instead of limiting ourselves to a study of policy effects, a study of the debates and discourses surrounding policy allows us to reconceptualize it as a process of communication and contest, where representatives of a state and film industry arbitrate over their positions”
Her argument is that in our reading of policy, we cannot treat policy processes as reactive to social context but as an intrinsic part of it, and “thus consider regulatory discourses to be open to the kinds of analysis that postcolonial cultural critics have brought to bear on cinematic narratives and images”. One of the reasons for the instrumental failure of the ICC was the fact that its dual agenda of staging a moral panic around the bodies of white women, to set in place a system that would ensure economic quotas for Empire films etc. just did not work out as planned. This plan was dependent on the construction of an idea of native audiences, and their vulnerability to the new technology of cinema, but the committee constantly encountered an intelligibility problem of another sort while collecting their data. The resistance offered by the nascent film industry in India, the nationalist contempt for the crude contrivance of the colonial state, and an emerging confident claim by the colonial subjects upon the experience of modernity constantly frustrated the official plans of the ICC.
While in one sense the ICC can be seen as yet another component of the colonial logic of governmentality, where it exercised power through a complex mode of rendering it into a process of knowledge by means of data collection, historiography, documentation, certification, and representation. Priya Jaikumar says that “It is tempting to see the ICC interviews as part of a process where an industry was studied with the intention of transforming it into a field of state regulation. However, the attempt to collect information on the Indian film industry was disrupted by an internally discordant state agency and a resistant film industry. My account traces these challenges to the imperial state as a series of fractures between the British Indian state and the Indian film industry. Each disruption resulted in a reformulation of the state’s agenda as the government attempted to reauthorize the state’s role in relation to the Indian film industry on the grounds of morality”
It would however be a terrible mistake, both historically and in terms of its relevance to the present for us to see the ICC report merely in terms of a prohibition. As argued in the introduction, the prohibition model yields little in terms of unraveling the complex dynamics of power. Instead we need to understand the ways in which the ICC set in place a system of regulation, which exists in different register, though inter connected. On the one hand, it looked at the question of the regulation of content, and this is the most straight forward censorship question, where the state determines what can or cannot be seen. This of course depends on a second order justification based on the alleged harm caused by certain images. In the case of the ICC, it was the tarnishing of the prestige of the empire. The content of what could or not be seen is also supplemented by the conditions under which acts of public spectatorship are rendered possible. This is made possible through detailed regulations about the spatial conditions of cinema, safety guidelines, electricity norms to be followed etc. Secondly it sets into place a system of regulating the entire industry itself as a whole, through taxation norms, through reformist agendas and policies to improve cinema etc., and finally through the staging of the pedagogic function of censorship, where censorship is not merely about prohibiting a particular view, but since the native actually does not know how to see, or what to see, censorship is also tied to the task of teaching the natives to see properly. This reformist agenda is described by Ashish Rajadhyaksha as the process of “creating a better cinema and worthy of incarnating the citizen as the filmgoing subject”
The interlinked ideas of regulation, reform and education establishes the normative function of cinema and of censorship, and one of the challenges lies in ways in which we can read them not as they traditionally have been in isolated modes, but in a way that renders them a part of a larger project of mobilizing (to borrow from Saeed Mirza) a certain kind of cinema for a certain kind of state.
Devika Rani Choudhuri, usually known as Devika Rani, was an Indian actress who was active in Hindi films during the 1930s and 1940s. She was the first recipient of the Dadasaheb Phalke award. Widely acknowledged as the first lady of Indian cinema, Devika Rani had a successful film career that spanned 10 years.
The cinema of Taiwan or Taiwan cinema is deeply rooted in the island's unique history. Since its introduction to Taiwan in 1901 under Japanese rule, cinema has developed in Taiwan under ROC rule through several distinct stages, including taiyu pian of the 1950s and 1960s, genre films of the 1960s and 1970s, including jiankang xieshi pian, wuxia pian, aiqing wenyi pian, zhengxuan pian, and shehui xieshi pian, Taiwan New Cinema of the 1980s, and the new wave of the 1990s and afterwards. Starting in the second decade of the new millenium, documentary films also became a representative part of Taiwan cinema.
Half-caste is a term used for individuals of multiracial descent. It is derived from the term caste, which comes from the Latin castus, meaning pure, and the derivative Portuguese and Spanish word casta, meaning race. Terms such as half-caste, caste, quarter-caste and mix-breed were used by colonial officials in the British Empire during their classification of indigenous populations, and in Australia used during the Australian government's pursuit of a policy of assimilation. In Latin America, the equivalent term for half-castes was Cholo and Zambo.
The film industry or motion picture industry comprises the technological and commercial institutions of filmmaking, i.e., film production companies, film studios, cinematography, animation, film production, screenwriting, pre-production, post-production, film festivals, distribution, and actors. Though the expense involved in making films almost immediately led film production to concentrate under the auspices of standing production companies, advances in affordable filmmaking equipment, as well as an expansion of opportunities to acquire investment capital from outside the film industry itself, have allowed independent film production to evolve.
The Government of India Act 1935 was an Act passed by the British Parliament that originally received royal assent in August 1935. It was the longest Act that the British Parliament ever enacted until the Greater London Authority Act 1999 surpassed it. Because of its length, the Act was retroactively split by the Government of India Act, 1935 into two separate Acts:
Ruby Myers, better known by her stage name Sulochana, was an Indian silent film actress of Jewish ancestry, from the community of Baghdadi Jews in India.
Film censorship is carried out by various countries to differing degrees, sometimes as a result of powerful or relentless lobbying by organizations or individuals. Films that are banned in a particular country change over time.
The British Raj was the rule of the British Crown on the Indian subcontinent; it is also called Crown rule in India, or Direct rule in India, and lasted from 1858 to 1947. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 led to the British Crown assuming direct control of India from the East India Company in the form of the new British Raj through the Government of India Act 1858. The region under British control was commonly called India in contemporaneous usage and included areas directly administered by the United Kingdom, which were collectively called British India, and areas ruled by indigenous rulers, but under British paramountcy, called the princely states. The region was sometimes called the Indian Empire, though not officially.
Censorship in India has taken various forms throughout its history. Although the Constitution of India de jure guarantees freedom of expression, de facto there are various certain restrictions on content, with an official view towards "maintaining communal and religious harmony", given the history of communal tension in the nation. According to the Information Technology Rules 2011, objectionable content includes anything that "threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order".
The Cinematograph Act 1909 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was the first primary legislation in the UK which specifically regulated the film industry. It unintentionally provided the legal basis for film censorship, leading to the establishment of the British Board of Film Censors in 1912.
The English Education Act 1835 was a legislative Act of the Council of India, gave effect to a decision in 1835 by Lord William Bentinck, then Governor-General of the British East India Company, to reallocate funds it was required by the British Parliament to spend on education and literature in India. Previously, they had given limited support to traditional Muslim and Hindu education and the publication of literature in the then traditional languages of education in India ; henceforward they were to support establishments teaching a Western curriculum with English as the language of instruction. Together with other measures promoting English as the language of administration and of the higher law courts, this led eventually to English becoming one of the languages of India, rather than simply the native tongue of its foreign rulers.
Tamil cinema is a part of Indian cinema that produces motion pictures for Tamil audiences in the Tamil language. Based out of the Kodambakkam neighbourhood in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, it is nicknamed Kollywood, portmanteau of the names Kodambakkam and Hollywood. The first Tamil silent film, Keechaka Vadham, was directed by R. Nataraja Mudaliar in 1918. The first Tamil talking feature film, Kalidas, a multilingual directed by H. M. Reddy was released on 31 October 1931, less than seven months after India's first talking motion picture Alam Ara.
The British Board of Film Classification is a non-governmental organisation founded by the British film industry in 1912 and responsible for the national classification and censorship of films exhibited at cinemas and video works released on physical media within the United Kingdom. It has a statutory requirement to classify all video works released on VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, and, to a lesser extent, some video games under the Video Recordings Act 1984. The BBFC was also the designated regulator for the UK age-verification scheme which was abandoned before being implemented.
At various points in South Korea's history, the social influence of film prompted the government to place strict regulations setting out guidelines that films must follow in order to be viewed by the public. There are two major periods where film censorship strongly impacted the growth of the film industry in South Korea: the period of colonial Korea under Japanese rule and the period of military dictatorship in the mid-twentieth century, when the film industry was placed under heavily surveillance. During these two periods, filmmakers were barred from freely expressing their creativity, thoughts, and ideas, and these restrictions led to the decline of the film industry.
The Royal Commission on Opium was a British Royal Commission that investigated the opium trade in British India in 1893–1895, particularly focusing on the medical impacts of opium consumption within India. Set up by Prime Minister William Gladstone’s government in response to political pressure from the anti-opium movement to ban non-medical sales of opium in India, it ultimately defended the existing system in which opium sales to the public were legal but regulated.
The 1st National Film Awards, presented by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, India to felicitate the best of Indian Cinema released in the year 1953. Ceremony took place at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi on 10 October 1954 and awards were given by then President of India, Rajendra Prasad.
The practice of prostitution in colonial India was influenced by the policies of British rule in India. During the 19th and 20th centuries the colonial government facilitated, regulated and allowed the existence of prostitution. Not only was prostitution in India affected by the policy of the Governor General of India, it was also influenced by the moral and political beliefs of the British authorities, and conflicts and tensions between the British authorities and the Indian populace at large. The colonial government had a profound effect on prostitution in India, both legislatively and socially.
Karma is a 1933 bilingual film starring Devika Rani and Himanshu Rai. The film was directed by J.L. Freer Hunt and was a joint production between India, Germany and United Kingdom. Karma featured a four-minute kissing scene between the lead actors—Devika Rani and Rai—the longest in an Indian film. However, this has been incorrectly reported. The kissing scene features a series of kisses and is less than 2 minutes long.
Cinema of Zambia refers to the cinema and film industry of the country of Zambia.
Priya Seth is an Indian cinematographer, best known for her work in Indian feature films, advertisements, and underwater filming and photography. She is among a handful of women cinematographers currently working in the Indian mainstream cinema.
