Mumbai: In a recent development, notable actor and filmmaker Kangana Ranaut has voiced her dissatisfaction with the Central Board for Film Certification’s (CBFC) recommendations for her directorial venture, “Emergency.” The film, which promises to offer a vivid portrayal of a turbulent period in Indian history, has been issued a mandate for 13 cuts by the censor board. However, Ranaut has asserted that her team is committed to preserving the film’s integrity and believes the suggested cuts are unwarranted.
In a statement addressing the media reports on the CBFC’s decision, Ranaut elaborated on the team’s resolution to maintain the authenticity of “Emergency.” The actor and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament has not only directed and co-produced the film but also stars in the leading role as the late Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This subject, being inherently controversial, has added layers of complexity to the film’s certification process. Ranaut had previously alleged that the certification was being delayed intentionally by the censor board to hinder the movie’s release, which was initially set for September 6.
The film’s complications do not end at the CBFC’s door; the movie has also faced backlash from several Sikh organizations, including the Shiromani Akali Dal, which have accused the film of misrepresenting their community and historical inaccuracies. These allegations have further fueled the controversy surrounding “Emergency.”
Media reports highlighting the CBFC’s revisions committee’s decision reveal the extent of the suggested cuts. These includes adding disclaimers, deleting certain dialogues and scenes, and backing historical references with facts. Despite these recommended alterations, Ranaut remains unyielding and described the suggestions as “quite unreasonable.” She emphasized that while constructive feedback is always appreciated, some of the proposed changes risk undermining the film’s narrative and historical significance.
“We’ve received requests for cuts, but while feedback is always welcome, some of the suggestions seem quite unreasonable… On the brighter side, most historians and members of the review committee who’ve seen it have praised it as the most faithful depiction of a leader,” Ranaut said.
. She added that the film’s faithful representation of historical events had received commendations from scholars and critics alike, which reinforced their commitment to the story they set out to tell.
Adding to the legal quagmire, the film’s co-producer, Zee Entertainment Enterprises, has sought intervention from the Bombay High Court to expedite the certification process. Zee Entertainment has argued that the delay in certification is politically motivated, allegedly linked to the impending elections in Haryana, further complicating the film’s release strategy.
On Thursday, the CBFC conveyed to the Bombay High Court that a certificate for the film could be issued, provided certain cuts were made as recommended by its revising committee. “The committee has suggested some cuts before the certificate can be issued and the movie can be released,” informed CBFC counsel Abhinav Chandrachud.
The film’s team has requested additional time to decide whether they will comply with the requested cuts. The Bombay High Court has scheduled the next hearing for September 30, offering the filmmakers a narrow time window to assess their options. Last week, Zee Entertainment made fresh allegations that political maneuvering, coinciding with the upcoming Haryana elections, was behind the delays in obtaining the certification.
In a reiteration of their stance, Ranaut remarked that the film’s commitment to truth would not be compromised. “They [the review committee and historians] have especially appreciated our unwavering commitment to the truth, without compromising even the smallest detail. Their endorsement is encouraging, affirming that we’ve honored the story as it deserves. Nevertheless, we are ready to stand our ground and protect the film’s integrity, ensuring its essence remains intact,” she stated.
As the controversy surrounding “Emergency” unfolds, the film’s team remains steadfast in its resolve. They continue to engage with legal avenues to challenge the suggested cuts and strive to maintain the artistic and historical essence of the film. The outcome of their efforts will be closely watched by industry peers, historians, and audiences awaiting a cinematic representation of a pivotal period in India’s history.
This situation, however, is also a testament to the ongoing struggle between creative expression and regulatory oversight in the film industry, a dynamic that often finds itself at the heart of broader societal debates surrounding freedom of speech and historical interpretation.
