Editorial: Nation of teetotallers

Four years ago, the Oscar for the Best Foreign Language film went to a Danish feature titled Another Round. The black comedy-drama follows four high school teachers who embark on a ‘scientific’ experiment to maintain a constant level of intoxication throughout the workday. Their objective is to prove the theory of psychiatrist Finn Skarderud — that humans are born with a blood alcohol content (BAC) deficiency of 0.05%, and that being at 0.05% makes one more creative and relaxed. Had the film received a widespread release in India, audiences would have been subjected to the statutory warning watermark for the better part of two hours.

In recent weeks, the Central Board of Film Certification has started requiring an increasing number of foreign and Hindi films to display such watermarks for films featuring sequences of alcohol consumption. A review of cut lists of new films issued by the censor board revealed this information. For instance, a new British film, All of us Strangers, that features several scenes where the actors consume intoxicants, has this warning being featured on screen for a significant duration of the film.

Tobacco warnings have become a part and parcel of all theatrically exhibited films that feature the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco products. This was introduced by the Health and Family Welfare Ministry through the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products Amendment Rules, 2012, which requires watermark warnings on scenes depicting nicotine consumption. Concurrently, some States passed legislation requiring locally made films to display anti-liquor warnings.

In Tamil Nadu, films display such disclaimers in boldface in the lower quadrant of the screen. In Kerala, the Abkari act prescribes a jail penalty for films that do not display this warning. As a thumb rule, brand labels of liquor bottles are blurred across all languages by the CBFC, unless of course, the brands are make-believe. The liberals may decry such high-handedness, but it’s something our revered I&B Ministry notified in 1991, as a matter of principle that the censor board is to ensure that scenes which have the effect of justifying or glorifying drinking are not shown.

To play the devil’s advocate, apart from distracting viewers from the onscreen action, such disclaimers have only gone on to infantilise the audience with such ‘in your face’ messaging. Granted, there might be a section of the viewers who might be impressionable to such inputs, when delivered by their onscreen idols. However, this headmasterly attitude is unbecoming of India’s film regulators.

It might also be pertinent to ask our policymakers as to how effective such campaigns have been in deterring viewers from engaging in ‘vices’ like smoking and drinking. It’s a question that has a significance in Tamil Nadu, considering Tasmac generated upwards of Rs 44,000 crore as sales and excise duty for the state government. Never mind that just three years ago, the Madras High Court came down heavily on political parties for adopting a freebie culture of wooing voters in Tamil Nadu by employing the unholy trifecta of cash, quarter and biryani. It doesn’t seem like a stretch as the state had once mulled selling liquor in tetra packs, a suggestion that invited considerable backlash. The cinematic disclaimers are just that – window dressing. The vices are cash cows that see dry days only in the run-up to elections.