KOCHI: A film’s title is often the first part of its identity to reach the audience. It appears on posters, teasers and trailers months before its theatrical release and becomes central to its publicity and marketing. But a change at the certification stage could leave producers having to redo promotional material and incur additional costs after investing in building the film’s identity. This has now become a concern following a new Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) directive stating that titles submitted by producers are not final and remain subject to modification.
The directive says that a title cannot be treated approved merely because it has been registered. Rather, it remains subject to scrutiny, review and modification by the examining or revising committee under Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and Rule 25 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024. Producers have also been advised against publicising a title as final before certification.
The Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce has opposed the directive, questioning the uncertainty it could create for producers who have already built a film’s identity around its announced title. “We have sent letters to the authorities concerned, including the CBFC and the Union minister, seeking its removal. We suspect this unwanted intervention is being smuggled into a directive meant to streamline the movie certification process,” said Anil Thomas, president of the Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce.
Kerala Producers’ Association president B Rakesh said a last-minute title change could affect not just a film’s marketing but also the identity built around it through considerable investment. Beyond the financial implications, the directive has also brought the question of creative freedom in filmmaking back into focus.
Calling censorship a colonial hangover, film historian Theodore Bhaskaran said curtailing creative freedom would only encourage escapist entertainment at the expense of content-driven cinema.
“This has existed all along. But this move indicates that the screws on censorship are being tightened.
A lot of creative freedom is required for a film to blossom. When artists are forced to be non-controversial, the quality of cinema will be at stake. Creators will begin practising anticipatory censorship to avoid falling prey to the certification process. This is not a conducive environment for the growth of cinema,” Theodore Bhaskaran said.
Director Krishand said governments using different mediums as tools of control reflected insecurity within a democracy. “In ‘Sangharsha Khadana’ — a pro-palestine movie, we had to change the words ‘massacre’ and ‘genocide’ to ‘killings’. I was very sad about it, and the audience questioned it. Art is also a business and as filmmakers, we cannot always afford to give up our work to protect our voice. Having said that, categorisation helps audiences make informed choices without curtailing the cultural context of a film,” Krishand said.
Director Mahesh Narayanan, who said his films frequently go before the revising committee, said filmmakers had little option but to debate such interventions while continuing to work within the system. “There might come a time when we will have to submit the script before moving forward with the process,” Mahesh said.
On the legal aspect, Justice J B Koshy said the provisions could be challenged if they are found to go beyond the powers vested in the CBFC or interfere with the rights of filmmakers.