Bollywood in gender dilemma, TISS out with a new study

Representation in cinema. (Photos via Unsplash)

There’s many a slip ’twixt the cup and the lip. Bollywood has a reputation which it needs to course-correct. However, the revelations of a new study could extend, in effect, to all the industries churning together what is called Indian cinema. In how it chooses to present and represent (or not!) the ever-widening spectrum of gender, with all its intersectionality, cutting across class, caste, persons with disability and what have you.

Also Read: Pride Month | Two queer actors on the need for more LGBTQIA+ voices in the Indian film industry

In that context, the School of Media and Cultural Studies of Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai (SMCS-TISS), with a grant from the US Consulate in Mumbai, has carried out a new study, the interim findings of which TISS had earlier shared at marquee film festivals like the International Film Festival of India, Goa; Pune International Film Festival; International Association of Women in Radio and Television Film Festival, New Delhi; and the India Film Project, Mumbai.

At the TISS report launch in Mumbai this week, (from left) Nitin Tej Ahuja, Shilpa Phadke, Sucharita Tyagi, Prof. Lakshmi Lingam, Guneet Monga Kapoor, Vidya Balan, Prof. Shalini Bharat, consul general Mike Hankey, Nandita Das, BN Tew.

The full study, titled “Lights, Camera, and Time for Action: Recasting Gender Equality Compliant Hindi Cinema”, was released by take-no-prisoners Vidya Balan (actor) and Nandita Das (actor-filmmaker), bringer-of-Academy-Award producer Guneet Monga, Producers Guild of India president Shibasish Sarkar, TISS director Prof. Shalini Bharat and Mike Hankey of the US Consul General, Mumbai, on June 28 in Mumbai at Estella, Juhu. Researchers analysed 15 crucial parameters, such as intersectional representation, occupation, degree of sexual stereotyping, consent and intimacy, harassment. Though not a first, self-inspecting studies are crucial for every industry, and, thus, this is a much-delayed, much-needed step in the right direction. The implementation, however, will be the real game-changer.

The timing of the study couldn't have been better as not just all forms of media but the whole country and its laws are going through a churn.

We have had one Margarita with a Straw (2014), where are other representation of persons with disability as the lead, going about their life, their fights and fears, falling in love and singing in a garden? We still show triggering trans characters on screen (Laxmii Bomb, 2020) and mute lamb for female characters who fall for toxic men (Kabir Singh/Arjun Reddy/Adithya Varma). Are we still in the 1980s?

If there’s one film, in recent times, that should become a mandatory study on how to equitably depict gender on screen, it is not an Indian film. Pakistan’s Joyland wrote history last year, not just for Pakistan — the first Pakistani film to compete in Cannes Film Festival’s Un Certain Regard and win the jury prize and Queer Palm award — but for the whole of South Asia, in giving equal import to a man, woman and trans character as three protagonists, three breathing beings, with their respective struggles and desires, “the story is about three people, with a transwoman as one of the leads, but the film is not about her transness,” director Saim Sadiq has maintained. He has shown the world that tweaking the way screenwriters write characters and narratives do make a gargantuan difference. Bengali cinema hasn't been able to fill a Rituparno Ghosh-named hole. Onir is a lone fighter for the cause within the Hindi film industry, which produces an Aligarh (2015) once in a blue moon.

We go to the cinemas to see what is; but also, what may be.

Monga, founder, Sikhya Entertainment, rues, “I absolutely miss a group of producers who are doing independent films. I have seen a lot of them give up after producing one or two. Having produced more than 40 independent films, I think there is a need to have more female producers.  I think women are incredible at multitasking and are generally able to run the world better. We are beginning to have conversations and create awareness with Mumbai Film Festival and researchers, I think this decade looks good for women.”

The study touches upon the need for adequate infrastructure, mentoring, sponsoring, hiring practices, collectivising, and female-forward storytelling to build a gender-equitable film industry. Das says, “This is a very important report that tells us where we are in terms of representation in Hindi films, both, in front and behind the camera. Anecdotally we may feel we are far better than where we were, but the research and statistics show us that we have a rather long way to go. It is a detailed and thought through report that needs to be seen by anyone who cares to be part of the change that we want  to see in the film industry. That’s why it’s rightfully called — Lights, Camera and time for action.”

The study claims to have done an “in-depth, shot-by-shot analysis covering 25 high revenue-grossing Hindi films of the year 2019, as well as 10 films made by women/gender-fluid individuals and/or with a focus on women (between 2012-19)”. The study seems to have enumerated 1,930 speaking and named characters and the key findings that emerge include “72 per cent of characters in films are played by cis-males, 26 per cent by cis-females and 2 per cent by queer characters”.

It also found that “majority of leads and co-leads in box-office-topper films are men. Women play the lead and co-lead characters in women-centric films but women generally play the role of romantic co-lead or romantic interests in the box-office-topper films.” Why do films about women or female protagonist get labelled as “woman-centric” film?

Further, it notes, “majority of characters in films are in the age group of 21-45 years and belong to Hindu dominant castes; people with disabilities are rarely seen in films, only 0.5 per cent of characters are shown with disabilities, and that too to generate sympathy or for comic ridicule; fair skin and thin bodies are preferred for women characters; the idea of consent is still fraught with ambiguity; 100 per cent of women-centric films passed the Bechdel test as opposed to only 36 per cent of box-office topper films; women-centric films have greater diversity and explore inbound subjects dealing with relationships, sexuality, motherhood and other sensitivities; box-office hits have outbound subjects like war, politics, corruption, and organised crime; men get more opportunities to contribute to filmmaking, as behind-the-screen numbers and distribution across departments have more males, women are still underrepresented in the core filmmaking professions.”

Increasing visibility of underrepresented genders in front of and behind the camera is crucial in promoting gender equality in the media. “The stories,” the study suggests, could “include at least 50 per cent women, trans, non-binary, and queer characters in films, and that need not be played by able-bodied cis-gender actors”; “show men participating in domestic work, parenting”; “have characters from diverse caste locations, age, of all skin tones and body types, etc.” are some of the actionable points the study outlines.

Among the demands are government schemes, institutional scholarships/ fellowships, producers’ guild’s mandate for “25 to 50 per cent of heads of department to have persons belonging to gender locations (women, non-binary, trans)”. And, what should have happened years ago, on every set, more so after the first #MeToo case to emerge from Bollywood in 2018 — the setting up of an “Internal Complaints Committees (according to the POSH Act) within unions, as well as production houses and film festivals, to address issues of sexual harassment.” Other demands include “professionalising the process of auditions, intimate scenes to have an intimacy coordinator present during the filming, provision of clean toilets (including gender-neutral toilets) on sets and outdoor shoot locations, creches to support young working parents, etc.”

Balan says, “When I read the report I was surprised  because the ground reality seemed different to me. I don’t think we have creche facilities yet but definitely POSH committees have been instituted on every production that I have been involved in and I can say that a lot of production houses are following that. As far as more women in cinema goes, there has to be a holistic solution to it. I don’t see why it's a bad thing if women directors are hiring women technicians & women heavy crews. Eventually that will percolate into male  led films also. I have seen that change with movies like Mission Mangal (2019).”

The respondents, claim the study, included women and queer directors and screenwriters and the perspectives of young online film critics. The latter comprise a generation for whom Hindi cinema began with Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani (2013), or Dil Chahta Hai (2001) or, at best, Roja (1992). A comprehensive study like this should have contextualised the history, and also consulted queer actors and technicians — from costume and makeup artists to light boys, among the lowest on the pecking order — and film critics from a bygone era, from the print generation before the online influencers cult flooded our screens. Even if Hindi cinema's history doesn't fall within the purview of this study, a sense of history is important to build a future. That generation has actually seen the transition, the evolution/devolution of minority representation on screen, they who witnessed the point at which, for instance, Hindi cinema stopped showing rape scenes. Or why has the problematic depiction of the queer continues. Without that perspective, of the journey of representation in the Hindi film industry, the study, to use a recent phrase made popular by a recent “woman-centric” web-series, isn’t fully cooked. But, nevertheless, the study tries to analyse a wide gap that exists.

And while mandatory diversity and inclusion is a long-awaited welcome step, it mustn’t be done for tokenism. It’s a fine line that needs to be tread carefully. If rules are set in stones, the world also runs the risk of missing out on quality work. For instance, The Academy’s Oscars 2024 new diversity rules for Best Picture — wherein, to qualify, a film needs at least one main actor from underrepresented racial or ethnic group — so, an Indian film can never get nominated for Best Picture, unless the Academy decides that all Indians are an ‘underrepresented group’. Likewise, if only queer actors play queer characters then one isn't looking beyond the person’s queerness. Imagine waking up in a world where Manoj Bajpayee’s Prof. Siras (Aligarh) doesn't exist. The beautiful pathos of Bajpayee’s acting and the melancholia of every marginalised person who has been failed by the system. What made a world of difference was also to have a screenwriter from the LGBTQIA+ community, Apurva Asrani. That is important and necessary, otherwise triggering acts like Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s in the recent Tiku Weds Sheru will continue. But not always does having a member or ally from the community guarantee fair and rightful representation, the visibly queer icon in the industry Karan Johar’s Dostana franchise tells a different story.

The key insights of the research report are available online on gendercinema.tiss.edu. To request a copy of the full report, please write to xyz@tiss.edu.