A pointless smokescreen
Blue Jasmine has only two slight scenes which feature cigarettes in them. Its not a film that condones smoking in any way. But for Woody Allen it was a matter of artistic integrity, like it was for Anurag Kashyap, who too has refused to release his film Ugly in India for the same reason.
So we are not going to get to see Woody Allens new film, Blue Jasmine, on the big screen in India. The director refused to bow down to Indian censor board guidelines, which demand that an anti-smoking warning be inserted before and after the film, as well as during any scenes that feature smoking. Its not clear what the rules say about a character holding an unlit cigarette.
As it happens, Blue Jasmine has only two slight scenes which feature cigarettes in them. Its not a film that condones smoking in any way. But for Woody Allen it was a matter of artistic integrity, like it was for Anurag Kashyap, who too has refused to release his film Ugly in India for the same reason.
This stubbornness of the Indian state, which is now being countered by the stubbornness of a handful of good directors, raises a couple of questions. Does the state have a right to meddle in art? How far should this interference go? Also, what is the state trying to achieve by doing what it is doing?
Warning
Personally, I might go as far as saying that inserting a very short warning before the film begins might be okay, but inserting one while the film is in progress is simply being philistine and overzealous; it interferes with the aesthetic of the scene. And its not just the movies that the government has its eye on. We have to suffer this even when we watch television. The other day I was watching a Walt Disney film on Romedy Now when the anti-smoking warning popped up. There was a bunch of merry men dancing at the Champs Elysees. I strained my eyes to see who was smoking in this raucous party of cartoon characters. And there he was an old moustachioed man, jiving and smoking in the corner of the screen. An eagle-eyed agent of the Indian state had spotted the errant Frenchman and promptly slapped us with a warning.
The government doesnt stop at smoking even. There is sex to deal with. Even here, theres confusion. Characters are allowed to say Lets have sex, but the accompanying subtitle blanks out the word sex. The word sex, it seems, is okay for the ears but not for our eyes. On the other hand, a more explicit line, like the one from Sex and the City 2, which goes, Oh! Hes the Lawrence of my labia is allowed to go through both aurally and visually.
Coming back to smoking, the government is on dangerous slippery slope here. Why only target cinema? Why not extend the law to depictions of smoking in all forms of art? What about a photograph that has a woman smoking? Shouldnt the photographer be forced to carry a warning in large captions at the bottom of the frame? And shouldnt there be a warning, maybe in the form of a footnote at the bottom of the page, every time a man lights up in the course of a novel? Ditto for a painting.
And what exactly is the government trying to achieve by inserting and imposing this warning? The reason on paper would be that tobacco addiction is a grave public health issue; to have a healthy citizenry is an absolute duty of the state. On the ground, the reality seems very different from this noble objective. A visit to the local cigarette vendor reveals some disturbing facts that belie the governments said goals.
Classist
While the government keeps hiking taxes (and so the price) on kingsize (84mm) cigarettes, it doesnt touch the small cigarette (64 mm) at all. The price of a kingsize Classic or a Goldflake has gone up by almost as much as three times in six months, the price of the small cigarette like a Goldflake Superstar has remained unchanged. The price of brands like Clock 100, popular amongst the working class (which is seeing a major shift from bidis to filter tip cigarettes), has not gone up for the last couple of years, remaining constant at about Rs 10 for a pack of 10.
What is the government trying to say here? Let those from lower income groups smoke cheap cigarettes till they fatally blacken their lungs? Is it only the upper middle class that needs to be protected by erecting the barrier of high prices? For if the government was serious about its intent, it would raise prices across the board. That would be a far better move then inserting health warnings in Woody Allen films.
Hypocrisy
There is similar confusion, ambiguity and hypocrisy about the Delhi governments policy on dry days. Delhi has the highest number of dry days in the country and October sees the most last week, every other day was dry. Its a meaningless move. While the liquor store is shut, the bar next to it can serve alcohol. Alcohol is also available freely in slums where bootleggers have a field day, as also and legally so in Gurgaon, Surajkund and Ghaziabad. What could be the point of such pointless dry days apart from causing unnecessary inconvenience to consumers.
The government is in desperate need of clarity on these related issues. The laws need to be rationalised on both counts. Till then well have to live with the irony of not being able to watch a Woody Allen film in the land of cheap cigarettes. All because two characters light up on screen.
The writer is the author of The Butterfly Generation