What’s in a title: Censor Board’s new directive sparks outrage in tinsel town

 Imagine a film being promoted for months with just the face of its lead star or a group of actors, but without a title to identify it. In an industry that releases at least 200 films every year, how would a film establish its identity and build an audience if it cannot even announce its name? After all, a title is often the first point of connection between a film and its prospective audience. It is what people remember, follow and look forward to as updates about the project emerge.

This could soon become a reality if the latest directive of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), barring filmmakers from treating their titles as final or promoting them before certification, is implemented. The move has triggered objections from various quarters of the film industry, including Kerala, with industry bodies warning that it could disrupt established business practices and curtail creative freedom.

The Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce, which oversees the registration of film titles in the state, has strongly objected to the directive, arguing that it could create considerable uncertainty in an industry involving multi-crore investments and complex coordination among actors, technicians, producers and distributors.

According to chamber president Anil Thomas, a film's journey begins much before it reaches the certification stage, and having a fixed title is essential for several activities during pre-production, shooting and the promotional phase. “We have been following this process in coordination with film chambers across other industries. Whenever a film is registered with us, we hold discussions with the other chambers to check whether the title has already been used or registered elsewhere. We have always ensured that titles are approved only after proper screening to rule out anything offensive, degrading or obscene,” he told Onmanorama.

Anil feels that allowing the CBFC to have the final say on film titles would amount to an unnecessary expansion of its powers. “There is already considerable intervention from the Censor Board. We cannot allow a situation where it gets ultimate control over film titles as well,” he said. As per the new advisory, titles proposed by filmmakers should not be considered final and will be subject to scrutiny, review and possible modification by the Examining Committee and the Revising Committee. Filmmakers have also been advised against committing to a title before certification.

For film producers, however, the implications go beyond the question of creative freedom. B Ragesh, president of the Film Producers Association, points out that a title is central to a film's commercial identity and that the consequences of changing it at a late stage could be considerable. “Why do we give films titles in the first place? It is because we want them to have an identity. Everything associated with a film is marketed under that name. I am currently making a film titled Mattanchery Mafia. Imagine doing all the promotions and publicity under that name, only to be told two days before its release that I have to change the title. In Kerala, at least 200 films are released every year. Imagine the situation if all of them have to be promoted without a confirmed title until shortly before release. Just like a script, a film's title is also an artistic expression. It is not right to exercise control over it,” he said.

Controversies surrounding film titles are not new to Indian cinema. One of the prominent instances was Kamal Haasan's ‘Sandiyar’, which faced opposition from Puthiya Thamizhagam founder K Krishnaswamy, who objected to the title. Such disputes have often brought the question of a filmmaker's creative choice into the public domain.
More recently, director Praveen Narayanan experienced the consequences of such intervention with ‘Janaki Vs State of Kerala’. The filmmaker had chosen the title because it directly reflected the central conflict explored in the film. “Janaki is the titular character, and we wanted to raise an important question through the film. The title reflected that very idea. If the Censor Board decides to take control of such creative spaces, it is extremely unfortunate,” he said.

Praveen had defended the title on the grounds of its creative relevance. However, the film eventually reached theatres as Janaki V, after the filmmakers agreed to the change following objections over the association of the name Janaki with Goddess Sita. “The Censor Board's attempt to interfere with a film's title was evident even then,” he said. Praveen had expected a more progressive approach following the induction of personalities such as Malayalam filmmaker Priyadarshan, musician Ricky Kej and actor Preity Zinta into the CBFC panel. The latest directive, he said, has therefore come as a surprise.

Scriptwriter Sanjay-Bobby also believes that the move could have both artistic and commercial consequences. A title, he points out, is a creative person's expression and often encapsulates the larger identity of a project. “Film marketing today begins right from the title launch. Producers organise elaborate events to announce titles, and these have become an important part of the promotional strategy. At a time when very few films manage to break even, such a directive could have serious commercial implications. It is also an infringement on the artistic freedom of filmmakers,” they said.

The writers also sought clarity on how the directive is expected to work in practice. “The Censor Board should clarify whether titles need to undergo scrutiny at the time of film registration or only after the completed film is submitted for certification. If the latter is the case, how are filmmakers expected to market their projects until then? There needs to be clarity on the procedure,” they said.

Writer S Hareesh, whose works have been adapted into films by filmmakers such as Lijo Jose Pellissery, albeit under different titles, also feels that the choice of a title should remain with the filmmaker. A title, he points out, is often the outcome of considerable thought and creative brainstorming. Over the decades, filmmakers across industries have used unconventional, intriguing and even quirky titles as an extension of their storytelling. Such creative choices could be curtailed if the CBFC begins exercising control over them. With the board already having the authority to seek changes to the textual and visual content of a film during certification, extending its scrutiny to titles raises further concerns, he feels.
Meanwhile, film bodies in Kerala are planning to meet the state Cultural Affairs Minister to raise the issue and seek a resolution. If their concerns remain unaddressed, they are also considering legal action.

For now, Anil Thomas says, film titles will continue to be registered through the existing process, and filmmakers will proceed with promotions under their registered titles. The industry, however, is seeking clarity on whether a name that has been registered, announced and marketed can eventually be questioned at the certification stage. The larger question is whether a regulatory body mandated to examine a completed film should also have the power to determine what it can be called even before audiences get to see it.