Films, Television and Women

Sex and violence are the two usual targets for anyone to take on the film industry. With every controversial film, whether it is ‘Girlfriend’ or ‘fire’, the debate once again comes to the fore as to where to draw a line between ‘freedom’ and ‘licence’. ‘Liberals’ and ‘nationalists’ take positions for their ‘ideological’ war with no solution in sight. Ultimately, the ire will be directed against the toothless Censor Board and the matter ends there. Until another controversial film hits the screen. Now, the focus is shifting. It is no longer the excessive sex or vulgarity in films, but how the women are portrayed in films and other mass media. Of course, obscenity is the issue and its scope and definition have been extended to examine the portrayal of women itself in the media.

The censor guidelines say that artistic expression and creative freedom should not be unduly curbed while also making it clear that the medium of film should provide clean and healthy entertainment. But the question is where does the freedom end and licence begin or vice versa. If the ‘Girlfriend’ is allowed on account of ‘creative freedom’, how do you ensure ‘healthy entertainment’? It is an endless debate. Even the author of “Kama Sutra” comes before us,he can’t define what is vulgarity or obscenity. And interestingly, the focus is also shifting to other areas of mass media. Films and those who pass those films are no longer the usual suspects.

Women’s organizations are up in arms against the exploitation of women in films,no doubt. They don’t approve of women being shown either on stereotyped roles of a pious mother, obedient wife or obliging sister etc, or as a sex symbol. Then,you have the clichéd argument of the directors and producers that they dish out what the people want. All this are just hackneyed expressions without any sincere attempt to provide constructive suggestions and guidelines for the emergence of a healthy film industry.

True, films do have an overdose of sex. But is it the only medium that is commodifying women? Scores of television channels that intrude into the privacy of your drawing rooms or bed-rooms are much worse when it comes to purveying unhealthy sex scenes, midnight masalas, crime shows and whatever that appeals to the baser instincts of human beings. Amoral relationships, incest, crude mythology with tonnes of superstitious beliefs, horror are the themes around which serials are produced and run for years together. A young viewer had, in jest, expressed a ‘desire’ in the letters column that she wanted to see the end of a serial before her ‘death’. Pat came the reply: “You may die, but the serial will not end”.

Are newspapers and magazines an exception when it comes to commercial exploitation of women. Print medium may have gender pages and it may highlight success stories of women like Kiran Mazumdar. But the contradiction on p3 does not go unnoticed. One can understand, but not condone, when small-time newspapers tend to indulge in such proclivities to boost circulation. How do you explain when most powerful and influential newspapers with a turnover of hundreds of crores give liberal space on glossy print for obscene pictures of women, partying women, fashion parades etc. You need some excuse to show women in micro-mini, thanks to the international photo agencies. Some unknown actress either in Hollywood or in remotest corner of Europe participates in some obscure show and you have her in semi-nude in our newspapers. The criterion to print such rubbish is not its relevance to our readers or newsworthiness, but there must be an element in such pictures to titillate the readers. Unfortunately, this trend is not confined to the English press which always apes the West, but is getting extended to the regional press.

Then, you have irrepressible internet unloading on your PCs horrendous pictures of nudity and pornography. The right expression during this flood season is that you are inundated with such pictures. Women are crass commercial objects and nothing more. But, thank God for small mercies. You have the choice not to see. And it is the liberty of perverted minds that is protected when it comes to internet. No harm. But, when it comes to television and cinema, is there any liberty for those who want to see and those who do not want to see.

This was the question raised by the Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting Mr Jaipal Reddy in a seminar on “Portrayal of Women in Media”. “How do we protect the liberty of those who don’t want to see”. As a minister he did not have anything to offer except for a grand statement that “Society should prevail over polity” meaning perhaps that it is for the society to evolve itself for decent behaviour. As a ‘libertarian’, he was of the view that people should not trust the government beyond a point. Does it mean “Self-Regulation” is the only course left to ensure decent portrayal of women in media? That seems to be the attitude of the present government, though the minister claimed that he was not washing his hands off.

What about the advertising industry. Is it above board? All India Democratic Women’s Association formed a Media Monitoring Group to study the depiction of women in advertisements and TV serials. The group feels that portrayal of women in media has a bearing on ‘shaping the social approaches and attitudes towards women’. Advertisements of Fair & Lovely which discriminates against the skin tone of women, ICICI advt which linked women’s protection to her marital status alone, LIC advt which talks about education for sons and marriage for daughters as if daughters don’t need education, etc were cited as warped portrayal of women.

When we talk of self-regulation we should also take note of the monitoring agencies in operation either by statute or otherwise. The Central Board of Film Certification(CBFC) constituted under the provision of the Cinematograph Act of 1952 is responsible for certifying films in different languages in the country. It has nine regional offices and on an average 900 films are pre-censored for public viewing. CBFC has limitations as it can only pass the film, but can’t shape the mindset of the producers and directors. Press Council of India,however ineffective it is, is supposed to monitor the trend among the newspapers and admonish them for any unethical behaviour. If it has not invoked the provisions of Indecent Representation of Women(Prohibition)Act of l986 to rein in the errant newspapers,however powerful they are, it is a sad commentary on the effectiveness of the Council. Advertisers have their own outfit – Advertising Standards Council of India which monitors the advertisements.

There are atleast one hundred channels that bombard millions of households twenty-four hours a day and 365 days in a year. Is there a semblance of regulatory mechanism except for the fact that while issuing licences, the I & B ministry lays down certain inane conditions.Television professionals confess that there are no norms nor codes in the television industry, whether it is infotainment channel or news channels. There is mindless competition to catch the eyeballs of the viewers. The name of the game is TRP and sharing the advertising pie. The competition has taken these channels to such a level that they reconstruct even the rape scenes to score a point over their competitors. If the CBFC certifies a film for ‘adult’ viewing only, it does not take much time for the same film to be on the small screen for all your children to see. Scenes that are censored in the film are shown as promos. Re-mix music videos are yet another menace on the idiot box. Will self-regulation work in such a competitive atmosphere?

Talk of Television Regulatory Authority has been on the air for quite some time during the previous regime. One does not know the mind of the present government except for the fact that we have a ‘libertrian’ as our I & B Minister. In fact, PC Joshi Committee recommended certain steps for the positive portrayal of women on television in 1982. Obviously, it was intended for Doordarshan.. One of the recommendations was that women must not be portrayed in stereotyped images that emphasise and eulogise the passive, dismissive qualities of women and encourage them to play subordinate role in the family and society. Both men and women should be portrayed as equals. The Committee also suggested sensitization of television policy makers ,programming and production staff to issues related to women and their implications on the society.

As late as 1995, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act talks of ‘advertising code’ and ‘programme code’. Programme code prohibits coverage of attack on religions or communities, anything obscene, defamatory, false, deliberate and suggestive innuendos, denigrates women through the depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent or derogatory to women, etc,etc. The Act also gives powers to prohibit transmission of certain programmes in public interest.

The only medium that has been left out without any regulatory mechanism or self-imposed code is the satellite television and in the absence of any self-regulation these television channels are running amok guided by consumerism and market forces. We have CBFC for 900 films. The soaps,serials, crime shows, horror shows,’A’ certificate films,night clubs captured on camera shown on these television channels might be equivalent to 9000 films. Don’t we need a regulatory authority to monitor the content shown on these channels or do we leave it to the good sense of the promoters and producers of the channels just because the policy makers and power brokers make their appearance on prime time everyday on the idiot box? Is this what making the powers-that-be to look the other way as the channels continue to be accountable to TRPs alone and none else.