This story is from August 18, 2019

Wary movies play safe with ever-expanding disclaimers

They are no longer few lines, but disclaimers have now become lengthy paragraphs – there can be even five-six disclaimers – covering every possible aspect, that can “hurt sentiments”, thereby leading to protests and landing filmmakers in trouble.
Wary movies play safe with ever-expanding disclaimers
Take a look at this – ‘Use of certain expressions in this film are purely for dramatising the performances’, or ‘This film does not support the use of expletives’, or even ‘Under the Hindu Marriage Act polygamy is illegal in India’. These detailed and explanatory sentences are disclaimers that have been carried with films recently. From the standard disclaimer, ‘All the characters and events depicted are fictitious…’ to those like the ones mentioned above, disclaimers in films seem to have entered a new territory.

In the beginning of Batla House, a disclaimer states that the film is “based on events and information only available in the public domain”. And that the film is “not a documentary and is not intended to accurately reflect events”.
Article15

Be it Kalank, which had three to four frames just of disclaimers, to last year’s Padmaavat, which had a disclaimer for every aspect of the film, disclaimers seem to have become long-form writing, with detailed ones for every topic – social, political, religious – that might spark an outrage. They are no longer few lines, but disclaimers have now become lengthy paragraphs – there can be even five-six disclaimers – covering every possible aspect, that can “hurt sentiments”, thereby leading to protests and landing filmmakers in trouble.
Bajirao

‘Disclaimer’s a must for films that are based on historical incidents’
Currently, each film carries around three to four disclaimers. A Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) official tells us, “The CBFC panels do not ask the producers to add any disclaimers without watching the film. We suggest disclaimers only when a film has a historical/research-based/non-fiction premise, because sometimes filmmakers simply write ‘inspired by true events...’ which is vague. However, it differs from case to case.”

Wasseypur

Last year, when Padmaavat was banned in multiple states as protests ensued regarding the depiction of Rani Padmavati and the Rajput history in general, the filmmakers issued seven declarations and clarifications through full-page newspaper ads even before the film released. Also, the film had one of the longest disclaimers ever, including explanation of the dance forms and clothes in the film not claiming historical authenticity. Another film that was banned in several states was Ashutosh Gowariker’s Jodhaa Akbar (2008), again for allegedly depicting wrong history of the Rajputs. Ashutosh was reportedly quoted as saying, “There’s a disclaimer about the Rajput queen’s name at the beginning of the film. But to see that, the protesters have to see the film.” The said disclaimer clarifies that historians do not agree with Jodhaa’s name.
Batla

‘Depending on the subject, films can have five-six disclaimers’
Some CBFC officials complain that filmmakers put lengthy disclaimers to get away with anything and everything. A CBFC member says, “These days, lengthy three-four frame disclaimers are used frequently in films because filmmakers use them so that they don’t get into unnecessary trouble. They don’t want any ‘hurting sentiment’ arguments to halt the release of the film, which is why they add them.” Last year, before the Akshay Kumar, Rajinikanth-starrer 2.0 released, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) sent a legal notice to the film producers, alleging that the film has “obscurantist and anti-scientific attitudes towards mobile phone, towers and mobile services”.
2.0

But a disclaimer in the film was added even before the objection, stating, “The theme of this film is based on an article that appeared in various newspapers and social media platforms. The characters and events depicted in this film are purely a work of fiction.”
Depending upon the subject of the film, the number of disclaimers can go up. An Information and Broadcast Ministry (I&B) official tells us, “The number of disclaimers can go up to even five to six – it depends upon the subject of the film. There is a disclaimer for the subject being fictional, against consumption of nicotine products, for animals not being hurt etc. As per I&B’s 2016 circular to filmmakers, if a movie has rash driving scenes, filmmakers also have to add a disclaimer stating that ‘Performing such scenes by the audience may violate traffic laws/rules hence should not be emulated’.”
box1

‘Courts ask filmmakers to add disclaimer to protect their artistic freedom’
“There have been instances where the courts have asked films to include a disclaimer, so as to protect the filmmaker’s artistic liberty,” says an I&B official. In one such instance, in 2012, during the release of Chakravyuh, Bata India Ltd moved the Calcutta High Court, objecting to the lyrics of the song Mehangai. The lyrics were, “Birla Ho Ya Tata, Ambani Ho Ya Bata, Sabne Apne Chakkar Mein Des Ko Hai Kaata.” The Calcutta HC refused removal of the song, but asked the filmmakers to add a disclaimer to the song. The disclaimer, which appears in the beginning of Chakravyuh, states, “Use of the names in the song are merely as example. No injury or disrespect is intended to any particular person or brand.”
box

One movie in which a disclaimer was inserted after its release was Once Upon A Time In Mumbaai (2010). The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad HC directed the makers of the film to add a disclaimer before the start of the film, stating that the character of Rehana, played by Kangna Ranaut, has no resemblance with the ’50s actress Rehana. Anurag Kashyap’s 2016 release Udta Punjab was again in trouble with the censor board as the CBFC had asked the makers to remove Punjab references. The Bombay HC ruled in favour of the film, but asked to change the disclaimer. The modified disclaimer reads, “...Punjab has been a highway of drugs and not the end consumer”. In fact, the film had four frames of disclaimers, all revolving around the use of expletives and drugs.
Hollywood releases in India
In 2009, when Avatar was to be released in India, a religious group asked James Cameron to attach a disclaimer at the beginning and end of the film, explaining that it has no relationship with Hinduism or its concepts
In 2006, Sony Pictures had rejected a CBFC notification, which stated that a disclaimer had to be put at the beginning and end of the film The Da Vinci Code to clarify that it is a work of fiction, which eventually delayed its release.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA