Censorship

Censorship typically refers to deleting parts of a movie, play or written material to prevent it from reaching public eyes. Before going on to discuss if censorship in any form is justified or not, it helps to look at how the same has evolved over the last few decades.

During this period, censoring and censorship have continuously assumed new meanings. Roughly thirty years back, it was film censorship, which was predominant. There was occasionally a furor about editing or removing scenes from films. Or, sometimes the rating for the movie changed. When I think carefully, it was usually because of some sexual content that was inappropriate for the mass audience. The censor board must have felt that the material was not suited for children of certain ages. It was a straightforward case few years ago. I don't remember too many controversies about written material in papers or magazines.

In today's context, censorship is a complicated matter. It has assumed a new and more important role in print media, movies and plays and for that matter in any medium of expression. One has to admit that while globalization has brought us closer to diverse communities, it has also made us intolerant, oversensitive and critical. No community or country is isolated and hence is prone to comments and criticisms from all fronts. Having said that it is not hard to see why censorships today are not necessarily for explicit sexual content.

One cannot sufficiently emphasize the importance of the freedom of speech and expression. Any curb on this would reduce us to living corpses. I am almost tempted to say that censorship in any form, under any context and anywhere is totally unjustified. However, a second look at recent happenings over the cartoons of Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish daily makes me cautious. While this incident assumed global proportions, I know of numerous such incidents at regional and national levels. The loss of hundreds of innocent and intolerant lives over petty cartoons clearly shows that we as a society are still not mature to handle comments in a positive frame, and creative ideas in lighter vein. I do not know these people who called for processions or protested outside offices and embassies. Perhaps they were unemployed youth who had nothing worthwhile to do. They thought it was best to express their unhappiness and anger by torching lives. It's strange that something like a cartoon strip, which is meant to amuse people, becomes responsible for loss of lives.

Despite out tremendous advancements in science, education and technology, humans are still emotionally immature. We do not have the capacity to laugh at brickbats and thrusts. The lack of emotional maturity presents itself in the form of extremely volatile situations. A small group of immature rebels are able to mobilize individuals to form a gang, and fight for a completely trivial issue.

Unfortunately, censorship in some form is needed today. But only as a medium to evaluate and edit, if needed, contents that are provocative. The board should include representatives from diverse fields - writers, painters, movies, theater, and others. The board could work within a well-defined framework on how to handle contents that are provocative. This will ensure fairness because the board would be a balanced representation from all these fields and the members would be qualified enough to judge the content, while still ensuring freedom of speech and opinion.

Royal Shakespeare Company's "The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby"

It took me a while to get started on this series. Perhaps because I had never watched a stage show captured for television. I expected it to be a series of exhausting conversations in a dismal setting that seldom changed. But, I was wrong on all accounts. The ‘Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby’ is a classic and outstanding show. Every character from Nicholas and Smike to Ralph and Crummles has done tremendous justice to their roles. The display of emotions, clarity of dialogues, and intensity of expressions are astonishing. I assume there must have been thirty to thirty-five actors in the show. The number of characters in the play is definitely higher. The dexterity with which actors have played multiple roles is phenomenal. Despite the limited resources and space constraints inherent in such shows, the setting changed swiftly and fittingly. Not once did I feel the dreariness of a stagnant location. The sound effects, from the knock of doors to Newman Noggs’s snapping fingers, are very natural. This is a magnificent rendering of Dickens’s novel and a must-watch. I suggest watching one part a day, because it gives sufficient break to chew over that episode, and absorb the performances in their entirety.