MxMIndia

Tag: The Dirty Picture

  • Sony is asked by the I&B Ministry to push Dirty Picture airing to after 11.30pm

    Despite 59 cuts, Sony asked to push Dirty Picture airing to after 11pm

    By Kshama Rao

     

    Until late on Saturday, Multi Screen Media channels Sony Entertainment Ltd and Sony Max showed several promos of the award winning Vidya Balan starrer, The Dirty Picture, which was to be screened on the channel on Sunday at noon and 8 pm.

     

    However, at the appointed time, the channel was running a repeat telecast of its crime shows. Minutes stretched and soon a scroller ran across the channel citing “unavoidable reasons” for not showing the film.

     

    The unavoidable reasons, as we learnt later, was a directive issued to the channel by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry for deferring the telecast of the film. The ministry was in consultation with the Central Board of Film Certification which had given the film a U/A after “59 cuts”.

     

    Pankaja Thakur, CEO, CBFC said: “We didn’t ask Sony to not show the film. We only advised them to ensure there was Parental Guidance. We, at CBFC, have nothing to do with the telecast timings, it’s the prerogative of the broadcasters. Our job ends with certifying the film. As it is made out to be, it’s not an overnight decision the ministry or CBFC took. We have been in talks with the channel for a long time now regarding the timings, we were not happy that they were showing the film at 12 and 8 pm. We had already received complaints and four days back, a case was filed against the film’s telecast and the Nagpur Bench of the High Court passed an order asking the I &B Ministry to look into the matter.”

     

    “According to the Programme Code of the I & B Ministry, a U/A film means you need to have parental guidance, otherwise where is the difference between a U and a U/A film? All that the channel needed to ensure was tell its viewers that the film needed parental supervision. But I guess the decision of just doing away with the telecast was taken by them,” she added.

     

    To the channel’s credit, they had begun showing the promos, accompanied by the U/A symbol. But we guess, the common man is not aware enough to understand its implications. “Yes, it’s true, most viewers are not aware enough about what U, A or U/A means.”

     

    Ms Thakur added that the television industry runs on “self-regulation: “They follow certain Standards and Practices which their body of broadcasters have framed. There have been so many cases where despite a U/A certificate, channels have aired films without ensuring there is parental guidance. Films like Murder 2, Ragini MMS, Haunted, which are not conducive viewing for children have been shown on TV. Is that ethical? It’s high time channels and the film industry stop thinking about the losses they will incur or the money they will make. The common man has to be adequately represented in the bodies governing censorship. A dialogue has begun in that direction. And by the way, 59 cuts amounted to just six minutes. It’s time the film and TV industry stopped thinking only about the losses incurred.”

    Tanuj Garg, CEO, Balaji Motion Pictures, the producer of the film, messaged: “It is unfortunate that even after a valid U/A certificate from the CBFC and all the cuts being in place, the telecast was stopped. We have not seen this happen to any other film with this certificate and are pained by the victimization given that this is among the most celebrated and loved films in recent times. I’m not sure how Vidya (Balan), Niharika (Khan for best costumes) and Vikram (Gaikwad for best make up) would feel about collecting their National Awards!”

     

    A leading industry person who has brokered many deals for channels and film-makers said: “Why should the government pre-empt as it did in this case? Once you give a certificate, let the audience decide if they want to watch it or switch off their TV sets. The minute these films don’t generated adequate ratings, the channels would stop buying these films! What happened with The Dirty Picture is unfair.”

     

    An adult film on a General Entertainment Channel also means losses in sponsorship deals and viewership. An industry insider said: “Sony had already caused problems with the consummation scene in Bade Achche Lagte Hain, they got a rap from viewers as the show ratings have dipped badly in the recent weeks and now with this, they were pushing the envelope too far. As it is, all channels have been forced to run a scroller that says viewers who find any objectionable content, could alert the Broadcasting Content Complaint Council or IBF.”

     

    Meanwhile, the Twitterati is abuzz with voices of protest coming from the film industry. Filmmaker Karan Johar tweeted: “A national-award winning film cannot have a national telecast? This is not an irony but simple and plain hypocrisy! If the censorship is not a final authority, then what is? Complicated and blurred lines defeat the core of democracy.”

     

    Actor-producer-director, Farhan Akhtar tweeted: “Has the telecast of The Dirty Picture actually been stopped? I’ll believe it when I don’t see it…shame!”

     

    Producer-director Kushan Nandy tweeted: “In this country, a minister can watch porn in the Parliament, but won’t allow us to watch a 56-cut censored film at home!”

     

    Meanwhile, the film was sold to Sony by Balaji as part of a bouquet deal for Rs 9 crore…and with sponsorship losses and a dent to its image in the competitive GEC market, Sony would need to do a lot to build a pretty picture.

     

  • Every week, Deepa Gahlot casts a critical eye over media reviews of Bollywood releases… in Reviewing the Reviews

    Reviewing the Reviews: The Dirty Picture

     

    By Deepa Gahlot

     

    The Dirty Picture

     

    Key Cast: Vidya Balan, Naseeruddin Shah, Emraan Hashmi

     

    Directed By: Milan Luthria

     

    Written By: Rajat Arora

     

    Produced By: Ekta Kapoor, Shobha Kapoor

     

    The promotions of Milan Luthria’s The Dirty Picture were such that nobody had any doubts about its content-for once the audiences get what they expect-an uninhibited Vidya Balan in a sex-on-toast film loosely based on the life of Silk Smitha, who blazed a trail as a voluptuous siren and then, shockingly, committed suicide.

     

    The film got 2 ½ to 4 star ratings and from all accounts a smashing opening. Which proves once again that sex sells and Ekta Kapoor knows that. If sleaze comes with a big banner attached, it ceases to be ‘dirty’. Everyone is unanimous in praise of Vidya Balan, however, and all awards next year will go to her-she has left the competition far behind.

     

    Shubhra Gupta of the Indian Express was one of those who was left underwhelmed by the film and gave it 2 ½ stars. “What ‘The Dirty Picture’ does is to place Vidya Balan and her heaving bosom, complete with the dirtier, orgiastic ‘ha-aaa’ sound, so much a fixture of so many oomphy ’80s tracks, at the centre of the narrative. Which is fine, and we are quite taken in by the sight for a while. But then we start looking for something more, and find it, only towards the end, only very fleetingly.”

     

    Mumbai Mirror’s Karan Anshuman is equally unimpressed: More Dirty Less Picture is the title and a 2 ½ star rating. “It just doesn’t quite come together. What gets plated is an entre overdone on the outside, and not entirely cooked from the inside. Director Milan Luthria falters. He is just in such a tearing hurry to tell us the dizzying story of the rise and fall of Silk and the hot-and-cold behaviour of her fans, detractors, and co-stars – inconsistent one-liner upon one-liner, the flashback in negative image (why?), just the lack of any buildup or lingering – that he doesn’t take a breath for the audience to appreciate and unravel Silk’s mind until much later. Because the film focuses so much on dressed-up cliches of sleaze in tinseltown and Balan’s carefully constructed look, there is precious little else to take in. Fewer incidents focusing to get the viewer involved would work better than too many repetitive ones packed in for the sake of impact.”

     

    Sukanya Varma of rediff.com gives it 3 stars, but writes, “The Dirty Picture, despite the comprehensive objectivity implied through its title, is not a full-fledged biopic. Instead of painting a layered portrait of Silk, it draws an outline of an unapologetic resident of a flesh-obsessed film industry responsible for her rise and ruin. But Vidya lends her so much transparency, aplomb and sauciness, the outcome is far more awe-inspiring than it deserves to be.”

     

    Commenting on the actors, the usually acerbic Kunal Guha of yahoo.com, gives it 3 and writes, “Vidya is scrumptious as the imperfect and unrestrained Silk, while Naseer is convincing as a superstar out to play shepherd to every newcomer. Tusshar may have dropped his surname for the credits but that hardly undermines the fact that he’s been cast in his home production, again. Emraan’s character gives itself more importance than you or anyone else does. Luckily, his presence is limited and tolerable.”

     

    From Chennai, Silk Smitha’s playground, Sudhish Kamath of The Hindu writes, “The makers (Milan Luthria and writer Rajat Arora) seem a little too afraid to get into the darker aspects of the tragic life of a star like Silk and most of the sadness is limited to showing the dark circles under her eyes. Even when her life is spiralling down, the film wants to go away from the tragedy and show you a love song. Clearly, they don’t want to depress you because depressing films don’t do well at the box office. However, The Dirty Picture makes up for lack of depth with spirit and attitude.”

     

    Rajeev Masand also gives it 3 for Vidya. “What it suffers most from, unfortunately, is lazy writing. With a plot straight out of a Madhur Bhandarkar film, and a screenplay that follows a familiar graph, The Dirty Picture offers a superficial, simplistic view of the seamy, exploitative side of the 80s film business. There is little attempt to treat this material with sensitivity and depth. No sir, this film unfolds as a series of provocative scenes strung together on the strength of their sexually loaded dialogues.”

     

    Mayank Shekhar also comes up with a reluctant 3. “The film however, even when not mimicking its subject, somewhat retains its ’80s feel: excessive dialoguebaazi, often loaded with double entendres, some loud scenes with actors always in a state of emergency, and the ‘serial kisser’ (Emraan Hashmi) who must land a Sufi song, and a girl’s lips to satisfy his core audiences. Sometimes we remain suspended too much in disbelief. It starts to match the film within the film! This irony is oddly intriguing. It won’t be lost on anyone.”