The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has approved the release of the Malayalam film ‘Janaki V. v/s State of Kerala’ after the filmmakers submitted a re-edited version. Initially, the CBFC had denied certification due to concerns over the protagonist's name, Janaki, which is also a name for Goddess Sita. The board argued that depicting a character with such a name as a victim of sexual violence was inappropriate.

In response to these concerns, changes were made to the film, including adjustments in dialogue during a court scene and altering the title slightly from ‘Janaki v/s State of Kerala’ to ‘Janaki V. v/s State of Kerala’. The director, Pravin Narayanan, announced that the film is expected to be released in cinemas on July 17.

The Kerala High Court had intervened when Cosmos Entertainments, the production company behind the film, petitioned for CBFC certification. A judge from the court viewed the movie and previously described CBFC's demands regarding changes to Janaki's character as an infringement on creative expression.

The CBFC expressed its opposition to showing Janaki being subjected to rape and facing aggressive questioning by a lawyer from another religion during her cross-examination as reasons for their initial refusal.

Original article (cbfc) (janaki)

This article doesn't give you a clear action to take, like a step-by-step guide or a plan. It's more like a story about a movie and some problems it had. It tells you about how the movie's makers had to change some things to make it okay for people to watch. It doesn't teach you something super important or give you new knowledge that you can use every day. It's not like a lesson or a rule that helps you understand a big idea. The story is about a movie and some rules, and it might be interesting, but it doesn't really help you do something or make a big change in your life. It's not like a secret code or a map that shows you a hidden treasure. It's just a story about a movie and some rules, and it doesn't have a big impact on your daily life or how you feel. It's not trying to trick you or make you click on ads, but it's more like a fun story than a helpful guide.

The text shows a bias towards protecting religious sensitivities. It focuses on the CBFC's concern about depicting a character named Janaki, associated with Goddess Sita, as a victim of sexual violence. This implies that showing such a character in a vulnerable position is inappropriate and offensive to religious beliefs.

"The board argued that depicting a character with such a name as a victim of sexual violence was inappropriate."

This sentence suggests that the CBFC's decision was based on religious grounds, prioritizing religious sentiments over artistic expression.

The text conveys a range of emotions, primarily centered around the theme of creative freedom and the impact of censorship.

One emotion that stands out is frustration, which is evident in the filmmakers' response to the CBFC's initial denial of certification. The board's concerns over the protagonist's name and the depiction of sexual violence led to adjustments in the film, which likely caused frustration for the director and production company. This frustration is implied through the actions taken by the filmmakers, such as petitioning the Kerala High Court and re-editing the film to meet the CBFC's demands. The strength of this emotion is moderate, as it is not explicitly stated but can be inferred from the filmmakers' actions and the need to make changes to their creative work.

Another emotion that appears is relief, which is felt by the filmmakers and likely shared by the audience when the CBFC finally approved the release of the film. This relief is a result of the successful resolution of the certification issue, allowing the film to be shown in cinemas as planned. The emotion is stronger than the frustration, as it signifies a positive outcome and the overcoming of a significant hurdle.

The text also hints at anger, particularly from the Kerala High Court judge who described the CBFC's demands as an infringement on creative expression. This anger is directed at the board's perceived overreach and their attempt to control the creative process. The judge's description of the CBFC's actions as an infringement suggests a strong emotional reaction to what is seen as an unjust limitation on artistic freedom.

These emotions guide the reader's reaction by creating a sense of empathy for the filmmakers and their creative struggle. The frustration and relief experienced by the filmmakers are likely to resonate with readers, especially those who value artistic expression and the freedom to tell stories without external constraints. The anger expressed by the judge adds a layer of support for the filmmakers' cause, positioning the CBFC as an oppressive force that must be challenged.

To persuade the reader, the writer employs a strategic use of language. For instance, the description of the CBFC's initial refusal as an "infringement on creative expression" is a powerful statement that evokes a strong emotional response. By using this phrase, the writer positions the CBFC as an antagonist, infringing on the fundamental right of creative freedom. This emotional language is further reinforced by the judge's description, which adds weight to the argument against the board's actions.

Additionally, the writer uses specific details to emphasize the emotional impact of the situation. For example, the mention of the protagonist's name, Janaki, and its connection to Goddess Sita, adds a layer of cultural and religious significance to the story. This detail enhances the emotional weight of the film's subject matter and the potential impact of the CBFC's censorship.

Overall, the text skillfully employs emotional language and strategic storytelling to guide the reader's reaction, creating a narrative that supports the filmmakers' struggle for creative freedom and positions the CBFC's actions as an unjust limitation on artistic expression.