Censorship is a complex concept framed by a combination of legal, administrative, ethical and ideological constraints. which is mainly created to control the contents of films' - as expressed by Annette Kuhn, author of the book Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality. Brutal processes of vetting or censorship must be endured.

 Regarding Nepal, there is a practice of screening or censoring films based on the Procedures for Film Censorship-2074. Recently, it is well known that the government has started restricting many issues including the name of the movie, the contents, the costumes of the actors, the audio-visual materials used, and so on through the Censor Board.  In the matter of

censorship, representing the institutionalist side, the government agency and its representatives seem to be of the opinion that this genre should be controlled as much as possible because it is a component that can cause danger, harm or spread rumors in the society. On the contrary, many Nepali filmmakers, representing the absolute libertarian trend, are putting forward the argument that any type of government restrictions against the freedom of expression provided by the constitution in any creations including movies is not acceptable.

Even though filmmakers adopt complete freedom in terms of ideas, art and aesthetics, there is also a strong presence of the centrist trend that there should be a relative approach to the presentation of violence, rape, sexual content and groups that should be protected by law due to age and mental status.  The danger posed by

movies

movies are a powerful means of instilling critical consciousness in the public mind by presenting ideas different from those held by the establishment of any state. As soon as the thinking style of the common people is different, the rain of critical questions on the ancient powers that are sustained in the guise of religion, sexuality, caste superiority and patriarchy begins. As a result, films with a critical consciousness are presented as a medium that can cause harm to society as they can create a 'dangerous' group for the established power by creating a consensus on the alternative commentary presented by the films.

In 1915, the Supreme Court of the United States, when deciding the case between the Mutual Film Corporation and the Ohio Industrial Corporation, interpreted the public's attraction to movies and the public display characteristics of this genre as factors that could cause danger to society. Even in the Nepali context, the questions of what are the benefits and harms of movies are explained by the people who are connected to the existing power structure of the state, so the fate of every Nepali movies is determined by the views of the people towards the movies.

In Nepal, the films made during the Panchayat period also considered the Panchayat system, the crown and the royal institution as paramount, and there was no facility to convey any kind of critical awareness through the film. Even in the post-panchayat democratic era, films like Dasdhunga directed by Manoj Pandit and Gajabaaja directed by Ganeshdev Pandey had to struggle agonizingly to get exhibition permits after production.

Also, if we look at the fact that the film director Kumar Bhattarai had to express his emotional pain at the film conference a few years ago after not getting a production license for Dasdhunga-2, it seems that even in a democratic country like Nepal, the pressure and influence of the establishmentist side dominates. 

These kinds of examples have exposed the fact that even the fundamental right of freedom of expression given by the constitution of the state is being interpreted according to the wishes of certain classes and groups, so the cinema sector is being directly hit by it. Using the facilities given by the changing times, on the one hand, various types of audio-visual content are flowing easily on television, OTT and social networks, on the other hand, the fact that only the film sector is facing all kinds of restrictions is strange in itself. Now the question arises, in the era of digital pluralism, is the film the only audio-visual medium that always creates a threat by the flow of alternative and innovative trends in the society as thought by the thinkers of the establishment?

The characteristic of the institutionalist trend is that the state's resources are ruthlessly dominated by the creative work from the idea that the imagination and imagination of the common people should be guided by a strict procedure. Therefore, due to the conceptual and policy narrowing of the current censoring process, Nepali movies are suffering one after the other brutal whipping of occult and prejudiced ideas. 

Watch religion through the movie

The basic laws of many countries in the world are directly guided by the religious values ​​held by the majority of the people of that country. In the case of South Asia as well, in the case of disparaging or criticizing facts based on religious values, all countries like Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan have been strictly presenting the rules related to film screening.

Even in the neighboring country India, which is proud to be the largest democratic country in the world, many other films, including Ron Howard's director Da Vinci Code, were banned for some time because they could provoke Hindu religious sentiments. Apart from this, director Tanim Rahman Angshu's film No Dorai was also banned in Bangladesh as it was against Muslim religious values.

 Even in Hollywood, in 1922, under the leadership of a man named Will Hayes, the film industry was controlled by issuing a production code that prohibited the production of films contrary to Irish Catholic Victorian values. Supporters of the institutionalist line always think that the society which is in a moral and balanced state by following the religious values ​​approved by the government is only being polluted and unbalanced by the filmmakers by making movies. 

In a diverse society like Nepal, which lives in a multi-racial, multicultural and multi-religious ground reality, when the censor's scissors are used to determine whether the cultural activities, dialogues or behaviors shown by the movie are acceptable to the society, the question of which class of religious and cultural values ​​are used to satisfy whom these standards are determined becomes important. Films with a critical consciousness attempt to expose religious practices in different vein.

In this context, rather than the filmmakers being the ones to be thanked, the examples of having to suffer commercial losses due to government restrictions called censors are examples of undemocratic practices in democratic countries. Therefore, all kinds of institutional controls practiced in the name of censorship serve the desires of those close to the state and the establishment.  The question of sex and violence in the

movie The question of how much sexual behavior or sexual representation presented in the

movie is considered acceptable is the question of how the line of social dignity is drawn. Censor procedures have been prepared with the idea that the general public will practice sexual behaviors by watching movies and create danger in the society.

In Nepal's censorship procedure, there is a provision of not keeping deep kissing scenes longer than five seconds by increasing sexual stimulation. While setting deadlines, intimate scenes between two lovers in films like Survan Thapa's 'Sungava' about gay women were directed to be removed from the film because the representatives sitting at the censors felt uncomfortable watching it through heterosexual eyes.

Even serious films about sexual health or sexuality, if the censor's scissors are used in the same way as other entertaining films, it does not do justice to the creative work of making an issue-focused film. In 2001, the film Fat Girl, directed by Catharina Vrelat, was banned from public screening by the Ontario Board of Film Classification, arguing that public health was more important than the investment and effort of the filmmakers because of its nude depictions of teenage girls.

The film's director, Breliat, disagreed with the establishment, saying that pornographic films undermine human self-esteem and that her film serves to reawaken women's self-esteem in relation to sex. Not only about sex and rape scenes, but also about the use of violence in movies is considered to be equally sensitive.

During the 1971 director Sam Peckniph's film Straw Dogs, an official of the British Board of Film Classification, Stephen Murphy, stated that he wanted to deliberately discourage filmmakers from using excessive violence in films. 

However, if some serious filmmakers produce a sensitive film about violence, if such a film is denied to the public, then the government is deemed to have failed in its public responsibility, he advocated a middle line on the question of censorship.

In addition, in 1996, based on the opinion of archivists in the UK, the movie "Crash" by director David Cronenberg was also accused of creating a creation that thrills violence so that drivers can enjoy themselves by causing their cars to crash on purpose. Even the film classification body had to be criticized for giving public permission to screen this film.

In this regard, the British Film Board, after screening a number of groups, finally took it upon themselves to prove that the film was produced by a serious producer and that it did not create any ill health for society. Therefore, the use of sex and violence in movies for cheap entertainment and making the general public aware of the existing violence in the society are different actions, so it is not appropriate to evaluate both situations by looking at the same censor.

Movie classification and favoritism

If we look at the example of different countries of the world, it is more likely that the power exercised by the state in the name of censorship will change from autocracy to democracy as soon as the character of the film censoring organization is transformed into a film classification organization. Since the term censor itself is antiquated in the film industry, the Ontario Board of Film Censors was renamed the Board of Film Review in 1980. 

However, even in the film classification process, the thinking of the people appointed in the administrative legal structure of the state is ultimately dominated, so if the process cannot be objective, the filmmakers have to test the ethics, conduct and discipline on the basis of the political, religious, cultural and other occult biases inherent in the relevant officials.

Even in Australia in the 1970s, Paolo Pasolici's movie Salo was banned for almost two decades and was classified only in 1993. However, the film was banned again in 1998 by a vote of the majority of representatives of film and literary organizations, alleging that the film did not clearly establish the artistic aspect used to portray it as a metaphor for Italian fascism. Even though the state controls the films for the benefit of the class that needs to be protected due to age, physical and other mental conditions, even in the current situation in Nepal, there seems to be little discussion about the classification of films in the society.