02/23/2009
Is India Censoring Milk from Oscar Broadcasts?
A reader writes:
"My openly gay friend Matthew G. is working in Bangalore, India for 3 months and watched the Oscars from there last night (breakfast his time). He said after the live telecast there was celebration in the streets for Slumdog, people leaving work; apparently it's a huge deal in India. He's watching the encore presentation and just told me that all references to Milk so far have been cut - including Dustin Lance Black's win and acceptance. The scenes of Milk in any of the montages are out as well. Thought you would like to know; may not be enough to warrant a post, but I thought it was significant, since Slumdog was such a huge winner and this is its home country."
Homosexuality is illegal in India and has been since 1860 under an archaic section of the penal code put in place by the British. The government, the courts, and activists continues to grapple with the issue.
Posted 2:16 PM EST by Andy Towle in Censorship, Film, Harvey Milk, India |
Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Post a comment
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
India seems to be such a conundrum on so many levels. Color me not surprised.
Posted by: www.gaygregator.com | Feb 23, 2009 2:28:34 PM
So much for India being the world's largest Democracy.
Sounds more like China.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 23, 2009 2:30:21 PM
First of all it isn't the government doing it. It's a cable TV channel, Star Movies, which belongs to Rupert Murdoch. Homophobia sure does travel fast.
Posted by: Vikram | Feb 23, 2009 3:11:40 PM
It's not the only country. I saw Tweets (Twitter msgs) from people in several Asian countries that the primetime repeats in their countries censored several parts, even though the Live broadcasts were intact.
We can't change all minds. What's important is to get things moving on our homeground first before expecting other countries, especially the culturally conservative Asian ones, to follow.
Posted by: Marcus | Feb 23, 2009 3:20:12 PM
Whats the issue here? What about all the other countries that are censoring this movie?
Posted by: Shan | Feb 23, 2009 3:22:45 PM
And to think they gave the fuckin' best picture to them.. totally undeserving.
What's so great about the movie anyways? I really don't understand why they swept most of the top awards. And a splendidly done piece like Benjamin Button was only appreciated for best make-up and other relatively trivial awards. Geesh!
Here's my 2-cent on Slumdogs;
Amateur-ish acting
Child exploitation
Mediocre script
Wimpy/whiny lead actor
Emotionally-dead lead actress
Want me to go on??
Posted by: gayalltheway | Feb 23, 2009 3:43:51 PM
Yes, at least one person on Twitter reported that Malaysia bleeped out all mentions of "gay and lesbian" in Dustin Lance Black's acceptance speech
Posted by: Patrick M | Feb 23, 2009 3:53:05 PM
Totally agree with Gayalltheway; that is why I haven't watched the AA since before the boat sunk and won a slew of nondeserved Oscars.
Posted by: Nick | Feb 23, 2009 3:54:35 PM
The more things change....
Six years ago, the TV service in Singapore edited out scenes of [then] gay couple Reichen & Chip even kissing on the cheek when broadcasting "The Amazing Race," edited out a discussion about coming out, and even changed the translation in subtitles to obscure their relationship, e.g., "Where's my boy?" became "Where's my friend?"
And two years ago, apparently the same network edited "my incredible wife" out of Melissa Etheridge's Best Song Oscar speech.
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Feb 23, 2009 4:59:19 PM
It is not just in Asia. I live in the south and Milk was not shown anywhere near here, not even in New Orleans, for months after it was released. It finally opened for a week, shown at 6p & 10p only, only because of the Oscar nominations.
Homophobia needs to be addressed and resolved at home. We cannot change the world's mind until we change our own.
Posted by: Renee Pouvreau | Feb 23, 2009 5:03:00 PM
The Russians were also wondering how it will be cut... but at the same time Komsomolskaya Pravda wrote that Penn absolutely deserved the Oscar for playing the "legendary gay activist" Harvey Milk.
Amazing to see those words in Russian in such a paper!
Posted by: Kevinvt | Feb 23, 2009 5:29:20 PM
it amazes me how we Americans are quick to judge the rest of the world when we dont have out house in order as yet. Homophobia, and racism is rampant (even in this site from the comments posted) but we find fault with others.
Posted by: Brad | Feb 23, 2009 5:57:23 PM
ditto, brad.
Posted by: marq | Feb 23, 2009 7:26:02 PM
This is disgusting and I feel the same way - but they didn't "give" best picture to India and to not acknowledge it as a great work of film (I wish that MILK had won, notwithstanding) makes about as much sense as not giving the Oscar to LORD OF THE RINGS because the atrocities committed against hobbits.
The film was done by Danny Boyle and several British production companies.
I just can't believe that all things MILK were cut out. That's just sad.
Posted by: Chad | Feb 23, 2009 8:03:18 PM
Find your spine, brad. Comments like yours are a recipe to do nothing.
Posted by: TANK | Feb 23, 2009 8:20:30 PM
Hi Towleroad
This is what happens when you post a message too fast too quickly, without confirming with anyone else. Milk was passed by the Indian Censor Board without any cuts - we know this for a fact because an extremely progressive member of the Censor Jury (who also fought for no cuts for the release of Brokeback) told us so. The film as of now is released in theatres across Mumbai (and ra a full house in many small ones) and we are hoping with how well its done in Mumbai it will be released in other metros across India. Infact many city activists just to encourage people to go watch the movie started an internet, sms campaign called Operation Flood, which really caught on and was also written about in the papers. See http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1233152.
Vikram Doctor wrote a detailed piece in the Economic Times on the willingness of indpendent film distributors in India to take the risk with movies like MILK. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Features/The-fate-of-gay-rights-film-Milk/articleshow/4163480.cms
And finally I saw the Oscars Live at 6AM yesterday with my parents. We watched every detail when Lance and Penn won, and ofcourse SDG stole the show. Almost all the news channel I switched on to talked "OPENLY" about Milk as a "gay" movie, on the life of a "gay" leader. Sure their interest in it was marginal. I didnt see any news channel say anything on Benjamin Button. Atleast Milk was mentioned. So lets not invent homophobia in this context when there were infact more positives.
Sure we have a lot of problems in this country, just like you do (and Milk highlights that so well, Prop6 won but Prop8 lost in 2008), but in this particular context I think Milk has received a very warm welcome in urban India.
Posted by: Alok | Feb 23, 2009 8:20:49 PM
"Homosexuality is illegal in India and has been since 1860 under an archaic section of the penal code put in place by the British."
Alok, truth or false? Nuff said. If there's not the slightest trace of homophobia embedded in the society, why haven't India decriminalized homosexuality? Sure I agree that even the US has a long way up the ladder in terms of getting equal rights for the lgbt community but don't try to accused others of trying to "invent homophobia".
Sounds like all of a sudden, a gay-agenda driven movie like Milk "passed" the censorship board because of the Oscars. Everyone is probably thinking $$$$$ which explains the "very warm welcome in urban India".
btw, the "news channels" didn't say anything about Benjamin Button because they didn't win anything that worth talking about.
Posted by: gayalltheway | Feb 23, 2009 9:39:26 PM
Alok, I understand your national pride, but I don't really get your point. The post said that the Oscars had been edited when rebroadcast. Is that not true?
The posting says nothing about Milk's reception by film distributors or urban populations, which seems to be your focus.
Posted by: Paul R | Feb 23, 2009 9:46:53 PM
Is it me, or is there a seriously imperialistic tone to some of the non-Indian commentators in this thread? Give it a rest, people. India is more progressive than other nations in the region by far, and if Alok and Vikram are informed and interested enough to post, maybe they should be supported in their respective efforts to continue that progress. Shaming them in your comments seems not only unnecessary, but rude and hardly productive.
Posted by: shane | Feb 23, 2009 10:19:03 PM
Blow it out of your ass, Shane. Imperialistic? No, imperialistic would be the outdated colonial laws that make homosexuality illegal. I'm so sick of you morons getting the way and trumpeting your "cultural sensitivity" in the service of bigotry and discrimination. Useless people.
Posted by: TANK | Feb 23, 2009 10:31:53 PM
Black and Penn's speeches were censored in Singapore as well. Whatever Black said after "everyone at Groundswell and Focus for taking on the challenge of telling this life-saving story" was not shown in the repeat telecast.
Posted by: Sylvia | Feb 23, 2009 11:34:55 PM
Just a note, this is not "India" as in the official government of India, that is involved censoring anything. It was the decision of the channel to censor the broadcast. There's nothing communist about it, unlike Zeke suggested.
But yes, there *is* discrimination in India. And no, prosecuting somebody for gay acts is not commonplace in the least.
Posted by: charmsalot | Feb 24, 2009 1:43:19 AM
I visited India this past November 2008. I LOVE the country, and the people are wonderful.
Unfortunately, being gay (sex between men) is against their law. So yes, they are very homophobic (the federal government). It was sad that in both the major cities I visited, Mumbai and New Delhi, they had only one, yup only 1, gay bar open once a week only.
I met guys anyway, and f*** the government, I found a way to meet the locals.
Meanwhile, our gay guide who my friend and I hired is active in Gay Mumbai and shows gay films. Unfortunately, they are undergound.
Hello, what is this? The 1960s (pre-Stonewall) in India. I hate to say this: but yes it is that way right now. Hope the MANY young people fight this in the next few years.
Posted by: FunMe | Feb 24, 2009 5:29:56 AM
Wow, there are some seriously bitter, sleep deprived queens who read this blog. I just think that people must extend their interest in queer rights around the world, and use that magical function called google and read about gay rights in India and other countries - maybe a little more.
We have a fairly homophobic government, atleast in its stand against the anti-sodomy law that has been challenged in the High Court of Delhi - our own Lawrence v Texas in the making. But we had excellent judges who heard the case well and we await judgement anytime now - hopefully striking the law down.
I would say that a parallel between the US and India is quite apposite here. Even though the law exists - and is used in many indirect and substantial ways, its enforcement by the police force and state varies from urban metros to small towns, as would be expected. We recently concluded extremely successful, open, widely attended gay pride marches in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and Calcutta in June and August 2008. The police gave us permission, and escorted us. So yes, it is a homophobic country and that is sad, but it also has a strong and not so silent queer political voice.
And I am not blaming the west for anything, if anything the movement in India very humbly acknowledged what people like Milk did and how that has made difference beyond the shores of North America. This is why more and more people I meet (like a bunch of straight lawyers I met in court today) went for the movie and returned teary-eyed and visibly moved. And the person who made the point about money is SO WRONG, you have no idea the kind of money Bollywood movies made. Milk will never be a wildly profitable distribution even after the Oscar, but enough for Cinemas to run it for a while, the distributors to take the risk, and for people like me to have the opportunity to watch it on the big screen.
Secondly, maybe as "gayalltheway" stated the re-broadcast by Star Movies (thats the only channel with official rights to live telecast and first day re-broadcast) edited the Lance and Penn's speech - but my point was larger, that NO, we have enough evidence to suggest that homosexual content does not get censored by the television media. There is no overt or covert State policy towards censoring homosexual content. I am not saying all media is good - there are a lot of homophobic channels. But generally news on gays issues is out there.
And for those who are yet to appreciate the magic of Bollywood, please google "Dostana".
Alok
Posted by: Alok | Feb 24, 2009 1:02:22 PM
I can confirm that the 8:30pm broadcast on Star Movies edited out Lance Black's speech (though I didn't stay up late enough to catch Sean Penn's). Also, the Romance montage didn't have any trace of Milk, and in hindsight I can't remember any clips anywhere in the broadcast, though the cuts weren't evident at the time.
Posted by: J | Feb 24, 2009 2:19:20 PM