It does not take a great deal of thought to understand that severe gender discrimination is a part of the film industries all over the world–both on and off screen.
The Bechdel Test is now quite well known, it is a measure of the representation of women in films (and other media). The questions the Test asks to determine this is: does a film have at least two women talking to each other, about something other than a man. Most films would fail this test!
On screen, there may have been a small change in the portrayal of female characters, reflecting– though not strongly enough– the progress women have made in society, however, the doors of power in movie industries are still not fully open to women. The number of female producers, directors, writers and technicians still remains abysmally low (barely touching 10 percent). And till these numbers rise, the male gaze will remain. Which is not to say that women in power would necessarily support other women, since most of them have slogged to reach where they are and would not want to upset the male applecart, but change has to start somewhere. It does not mean that male directors have not told women’s stories with sensitivity, but again till the same story is told with a woman’s perspective, there is no way of comparing.
In Hollywood, after some rumbles over gender equality and inclusivity of non-white races and sexual minorities, there have been some efforts to right the balance, the process has only recently started, and it will take a while for the industry to be fully integrated. With all the uncontrollable social media trolling, women and minorities are being given space and credit, but then if change is forced, there is also the risk of tokenism.
In India, the volume of women-led films is still low in the mainstream, though OTT has started a revolution. The stakes are lower, home-viewing audiences are mixed, so that financial risk can be taken. But in commercial cinema, since the audience in moviehalls– particularly in small towns– is predominantly male, films are tailored to appeal to them, so male stars get priority and way more remuneration than a popular female star. The recent films from the South that have succeeded all over India, have had deplorable portrayal of women.
Till a few years back, films were not even considered a suitable career for women; very few female students enrolled in film courses, and even fewer were given an opportunity to work behind the scenes, in a safe and comfortable environment–lack of lack of adequate toilets, for instance, or transport at late hours. Creches do not exist and Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) committees are practically unheard of outside of major production companies.
Keeping the obvious obstacles in mind, it was interesting to see that the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) has, with the support of the US consulate, compiled a report, Lights, Camera and Time for Action: Recasting a Gender Equality Compliant Hindi Cinema, released in the presence of three power women, Vidya Balan, Guneet Monga Kapoor and Nandita Das.
Even though insiders and serious observers are aware of how the wheels of the movie industry turn, it did good to minutely research and publish the findings. The study concentrates on Hindi cinema, made during a very narrow span of time, but it is thorough.
According to the report:
⇒ 72% of characters in films are played by cis-males, 26% by cis-females and 2% by queer characters.
⇒ 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.
⇒ 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% of characters are shown with disabilities. Characters with disabilities are used to generate sympathy or to make the character a target for comedy. People with disabilities are not shown to perform any characters of significance as teachers, bankers, software engineers, doctors, artists, etc.
⇒ Women in employment and in public domain work are shown in films, however, the work roles they play are gendered, with a greater presence of women in health care, education, entertainment and journalism.
⇒ The most prevalent skin tone for women characters is fair skin and body type is thin for lead characters and medium for all other supporting characters.
⇒ Expression of romance and intimacy is restricted in the box office and women-centric films, but most often it is male characters who initiate intimacy. The idea of consent is still fraught with ambiguity, specifically because there is a greater emphasis on women remaining demure and expressing consent through non-verbal and symbolic gestures.
⇒ 100% of women-centric films passed the Bechdel test as opposed to Only 36% 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 organized crime.
Some the On Screen changes suggested by the study are having at least “50 percent women, trans, non-binary, and queer characters in films; Make space for exploring women’s lives beyond their role as a romantic interest; Show women as initiating sexual relations or actively verbally consenting to a physical relationship; Show women’s pushback against violence, sexualization and toxic relationships; Have more women in professions that are not traditionally ‘feminine,’ as well as in positions of authority; Show men participating in domestic work, being caring and sharing parenting; Refrain from using sexist language that explicitly or implicitly targets women’s bodies and evokes a sense of shame; Rethink dialogues that locate family honour in women’s sexuality and sexual freedom. If such dialogues are seen as a necessity to the script, follow it up with a pushback by the women characters to resist the normalization of demeaning and humiliating dialogues.”
These can be implemented more easily than the Behind The Screen recommendations that include more representation of “women and people belonging to various marginalised communities in decision-making roles. This must extend to every department in filmmaking – especially the core departments such as cinematography, sound, editing and screenwriting. Concerted attempts have to be made by all the stakeholders – the Central and State Ministries of Information and Broadcasting, the National Films Development Corporation, the Producers Guild, the Unions and Associations of all film trades, Film, Media and Journalism institutes to pursue gender equality, diversity and inclusion as their goals in the industry.”
The filmmaking community–whether independent, corporate of government—would do well to read the report. Movies are a business, so the modifications that do not jeopardise the box-office might even be incorporated by production houses. However, this kind of ideal scenario would take time to fructify. Ultimately, it all rests on the progressive outlook of a society and a whole, and the maturity of an audience. If people demand change, the industry will have to deliver it.
(This piece first appeared in the Free Press Journal dated June 30, 2023)
