The digital streaming boom has transformed the way audiences consume content, offering filmmakers more creative freedom than traditional television or cinema. However, Shekhar Kapur’s recent criticism of an OTT platform for allegedly editing ‘Bandit Queen‘ without his consent has reignited the debate on creative control and censorship. Kapur questioned whether similar treatment would be given to a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan, sparking discussions about whether Indian filmmakers face greater interference than their Hollywood counterparts.
Shekhar Kapur’s Allegations: A Violation of Creative Rights?
Kapur took to social media to express his frustration over the edited version of ‘Bandit Queen’ being streamed without his permission. The film, originally released in 1994, is a hard-hitting portrayal of Phoolan Devi’s life and has been widely recognized for its unflinching narrative. Kapur’s concern raises an important question: Do OTT platforms have the right to modify a filmmaker’s work without their approval?
Reacting to Shekhar’s post on X, Hansal Mehta wrote, ‘It is sad to know that a film that should always be India’s pride gets treated this way. But then what’s new? We’ve become so used to being treated as slaves of the west. No protest. No pushback. Total submission. Because they are doing us a favour. Our integrity as artistes is neither protected by us or by a guild that could potentially protect us. The so-called ‘association’ is busy behaving like a political party or stoking divisive propaganda. In the meanwhile directors are rendered powerless and bereft of any support system. Maybe your status as one of the countries foremost artistic spokesperson to the world and as a government decorated Padmabhushan will help bring about change. Until then back to our submissive selves? Members of the new content driven colony that creates cattle feed to drive subscriptions while fulfilling the artistic ambitions of its western masters.’
Actor-director Tigmanshu Dhulia shared, “The way the platform has edited the film—I’ll have to watch the entire movie to fully understand what has been cut. I’m not sure what all has been removed, but I noticed that the certification is for the UAE. For that certification, cuts are mandatory, right? If you want a UAE certification for satellite and digital release, all abusive language must be removed. But what is the reasoning behind making it UAE-certified? Either don’t sell it in the first place, or accept the required edits. The film was originally meant for an adult audience, wasn’t it?”
He further added, “Shekhar Kapur never claimed that the director wasn’t consulted, but it is undeniably unethical. However, from a legal standpoint, nothing can be done because the rights belong to the platform. It’s a matter of intellectual property rights (IPR), and we have no legal recourse. But ethically, I completely agree—it is wrong.”
What Amazon Prime had to say:
Prime Video Spokesperson told ETimes, “Prime Video has not made any edits to the version of the film Bandit Queen currently streaming on the service. The version available on Prime Video is the version provided by the film’s distributor, NH Studioz.”
A History of Post-Release Edits in Bollywood and Hollywood:
This is not the first instance where films have been altered post-release. Several filmmakers, both in India and internationally, have faced similar challenges:
Hollywood Cases:
‘Brazil’ (1985)
Director Terry Gilliam had to fight against Universal Pictures, which attempted to re-edit his dystopian film to include a more optimistic ending, completely altering the narrative.
‘Once Upon a Time in America’ (1984)
Sergio Leone’s original 269-minute cut was slashed to 139 minutes for the American release, affecting its storytelling and character development.
3.’Dune’ (1984)
David Lynch disowned the heavily edited theatrical version of his film, which was cut down from his intended three-hour runtime.
‘Back to the Future Part II’ (1989)
Netflix edited out a scene from the film without informing the filmmakers, later restoring the original cut after backlash.
‘Splash’ (1984)
Disney+ altered a scene using CGI to extend a character’s hair to cover nudity, leading to criticism for its unnecessary censorship.
Bollywood Cases:
Udta Punjab’ (2016)
The film faced heavy censorship from the CBFC, with several scenes being removed despite the filmmakers’ objections.
‘Lipstick Under My Burkha’ (2017)
Initially denied certification for being “lady-oriented,” the film was eventually released with edits.
‘V’ (2020)
The Bombay High Court directed Amazon Prime to take down the Telugu film after a model’s image was used without consent in a derogatory manner.
Tigmanshu also shared a similar ordeal that he faced with his show, ‘The Great Indian Murder’. He shared, “My show on Disney+ Hotstar was edited without my knowledge. They rebranded it as ‘Kaatil Kaun’ and aired it in 20-minute episodes without informing us. I felt terrible about it. These platforms do whatever they want without consulting the director.”
Meanwhile, Mukesh Bhatt added, “This is the first time I am hearing of such a case. None of my past projects have experienced this. However, Bandit Queen was an A-rated film and an extremely bold one. It contained significant cultural nudity, which is problematic under today’s censorship norms. OTT platforms like Netflix may be responding to government sensitivities regarding such content. While this may not be surprising, some argue that Indian filmmakers are treated differently from Hollywood directors.”
OTT Censorship: A Double Standard?
Kapur’s comparison to Christopher Nolan raises a key issue: Would Hollywood auteurs like Nolan or Martin Scorsese face similar edits without consent? The general perception is that Hollywood filmmakers have greater control over their work, whereas Indian filmmakers often face interventions, whether from censor boards, distributors, or OTT platforms.
Mukesh Bhatt weighed in, “No, I don’t believe Hollywood and Indian filmmakers are treated differently. It depends on how a producer handles the situation. Each case is unique. Shekhar Kapur’s outrage over the edits is understandable, but at the end of the day, the film’s fate lies with the producer, not the director.”
Producer and Former chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification, Pahlaj Nihalani shared, “Certain scenes may have been edited due to voluntary censorship rules. The latest guidelines prohibit the display of obscenity, and films depicting rape or similar sensitive content might be altered accordingly. However, the primary factor remains the agreement between the producer and the distributor. If the contract includes a clause allowing modifications, then the producer has full control over edits, leaving the director with no say in the matter.”
He added, “Once the producer sells the content, the buyer—whether an OTT platform or a satellite network—gains the rights to modify and present the film as they see fit. They can showcase selected scenes, dub the content into different languages, or even restructure it. In a new movie, the producer retains control during the theatrical release. But for an older film, once its rights are resold for digital or television distribution, the producer’s involvement is minimal.”
Talking about Shekhar Kapur’s film, he said, “Regarding Bandit Queen, the film originally faced legal scrutiny due to its bold and controversial content. It was taken to court, and after a legal battle, it was passed for release. However, after the court’s decision, the film’s momentum slowed compared to its initial reception. Ultimately, the fate of any film is determined by demand, supply, and contractual agreements.”
He added, “Shekhar Kapur claimed he was unaware of the changes made to Bandit Queen. But legally, the key question is: Who signed the agreement? If the producer authorized these changes in the contract, then they had the right to do so. In most cases, OTT and satellite platforms have the power to make adjustments because they are investing money in the distribution. This includes dubbing rights, subtitle additions, and content modifications for different markets.”
“As for creativity, it holds significance during the film’s initial release. However, once the rights are sold, the terms of the agreement between the producer and the distributor become paramount. If the producer has authorized modifications, then the new rights holder has the final say,” he concluded.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The practice of modifying films post-release raises legal and ethical concerns. Filmmakers hold creative rights to their work, and unauthorized edits may violate copyright laws. Streaming platforms should be transparent about any intended modifications and seek approval from filmmakers. Altering films without acknowledgment misleads audiences and compromises the director’s original vision.
Producer Mukesh Bhatt told ETimes, “Shekhar Kapur was not the owner or producer of Bandit Queen—he was only the director. The producer must have sold the OTT rights to Amazon Prime. This raises a moral, not legal, obligation. If Amazon Prime wants to make cuts to appease political sentiments, that decision should be agreed upon between the producer and the director. However, legally, the producer is not required to do so.”
He further added, “A director is a paid professional with no ownership rights over the intellectual property (IPR) of the film. Once the director is paid their fee, the responsibility is transferred to the producer, who retains complete control over how the film is handled. If an OTT platform requests cuts, it is ultimately the producer’s decision to approve or reject them. If the producer refuses, the platform may deny streaming rights. If they agree, then the changes are implemented. The director’s input depends entirely on the producer’s discretion, which, in this case, was not sought. This is common, but if the relationship between the producer and director is strong, discussions may take place.”
The Filmmaker’s Perspective: Seeking a Solution
Several Indian filmmakers have expressed concerns about creative control in cinema. Anurag Kashyap has consistently opposed interference in his films, advocating for unfiltered storytelling. Vishal Bhardwaj has emphasized the need for clear censorship guidelines, especially for digital platforms. Similarly, Rakesh Omprakash Mehra has stressed the importance of respecting artistic integrity.
The Future of Creative Freedom in the Streaming Era
To prevent further conflicts, OTT contracts should include a Director’s Approval Clause, ensuring that no edits are made without the filmmaker’s consent. Additionally, platforms must establish Transparent Content Guidelines, clearly outlining modification policies and informing audiences about any changes. Furthermore, Industry Regulations should be strengthened, with filmmaker associations and industry bodies advocating for legal safeguards against unauthorized edits.
Conclusion
To safeguard creative integrity in the streaming era, it is crucial for filmmakers, producers, and OTT platforms to establish clear guidelines on post-release modifications. A Director’s Approval Clause could help prevent unauthorized edits while ensuring transparency. Ultimately, the debate underscores the need for a balanced approach—respecting artistic vision while accommodating distribution requirements.
