The findings of the report gave confidence to many women cine-workers to speak openly about their experiences about their experiences and unfair work arrangements. (Representational image/AI generated file photo)
The report of the Hema Commission constituted by the Kerala government to investigate the problems faced by women in Malayalam cinema has led to a series of ripple-effects in the state’s public sphere. The report’s impact is two-fold. First, it exposes the systemic problems women face in a predominantly male-dominated work arrangement with arbitrary hiring practices and informal arrangements that allow certain individuals/caucuses to openly flaunt their power to make and break workers’ careers. Second, the findings validate the complaints raised by the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) that there were informal bans, lack of toilet facilities and changing rooms on sets, problems in wage disparity and safety-related issues that must be addressed if women are to partake in the industry as equal stakeholders.
The findings of the report gave confidence to many women cine-workers to speak openly about their their experiences and unfair work arrangements. This included junior artists, actresses, as well as male workers from below-the-line labour forces. The report mentions the difficulty faced by the committee to reach out to junior artists because of the fear of repercussion if their identities were exposed. It also stresses that there is a curtailment of women’s right to assert their rightful wages in the industry. This leads to categorisation of vocal women as uncooperative and “#MeToo types”.
It is pertinent to note here that even though the report focuses on women’s experiences including workplace harassment, some of the recommendations apply to the below-the-line labour force as well. And it is hardly the first time. The Film Enquiry Committee of 1951 and the report of the Working Group on National Film Policy, 1980 emphasised the need for a democratic space where workers’ rights are protected. The 1951 committee recommended that the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 and Factories Act, 1948 can be extended to cover cinema workers. The 1980 report also recommended the setting up of a National Film Board and suggested that trade unions be formed to support employees’ interests.
In 1956, the Indian Motion Picture Employees Union submitted a memorandum to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay detailing the grievances of cine-workers. This came up in light of the enquiry into the conditions of labour in the film industry instituted by the government of Bombay. In 1969, the Committee for Employees in Film Production Industry, appointed by the government of Maharashtra and headed by P G Kher, submitted its report. The committee’s recommendations included the formation of a “casting committee of the Employment Bureau” that could undertake the recruitment, employment and retirement of junior artistes, movie stunt artists and dancers; a wage board on an all-India basis to remove regional wage imbalances; and payment by film producers towards a production workers employment benefit fund, among others.
In line with this, the proposed act by Hema Commission — The Kerala Cine Employers and Employees (Regulation) Act, 2020 — includes the formation of a tribunal which can be treated as a civil court, with a retired district judge, preferably a woman, on the panel. This will strengthen the mechanism of delivering justice as opposed to the existing Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which if peopled with those close to the power brokers, will lead to lack of confidentiality and accountability. The petitioner could move to regular courts after the complaint is filed with the tribunal.
The issues faced by hairstylists and make-up women are also mentioned in the report as instances where the Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA) can step in to make changes to ensure that job cards are not being denied arbitrarily. Male exclusive socialising spaces can deny equal opportunities to women associates, assistant writers or scriptwriters because there are “proximate networks” created through such all-male spaces that bring in work. In Valsala Kumar’s recommendations, she also adds the need for creating gender balance by increasing the number of women involved in production.
The comprehensive Film Policy that the committee recommends calls for measures to encourage participation of women in the film sector by making it an inclusive space. Revelations have emerged from amidst women filmmakers who are supported through the Kerala State Film Development Corporation’s (KSFDC) funding schemes, that they were treated with lack of respect to the extent of having to write to the Minister of Cultural Affairs multiple times for intervention. Thus, simply providing funding is not the solution for empowering female participation in film. The vision towards gender equity needs to have clearly laid out policy structures where gestures towards support must be paired with conscientious efforts to make systemic changes. Perhaps, more than money, what these filmmakers are asking for is dignity and respect and not to be treated as merely a “female” filmmaker.
The Hema Commission report will be marked as one of the milestones in the struggles fought from within the industry to empower a climate of gender equity and safe work in the entertainment sector. The relevance of the commission’s findings is being lauded across the Indian film industry, and demands have been made in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and West Bengal on similar interventions that can instil trust and make the state accountable for ensuring women’s safety both in heavily male-dominated industrial processes, as well as in the ways film trade guilds operate. The need of the hour is to ensure that such demands for systemic changes are not forgotten with the excessive media coverage of the report and the sensationalisation of salacious details. While exposing names is crucial in delivering justice to the survivors, it is a double-edged sword, where the need for policy-level actions is sometimes lost when the media coverage and interest wither away with time.
Film trade guilds often frame welfare benefits in ways that requires the cine workers to have unconditional obedience to the organisation. In this scenario FEFKA and AMMA have a shared responsibility of addressing the concerns and recommendations of the Hema Commission report. They cannot skirt their responsibility by disengaging with the report because it is, ultimately, their work culture that is reflected in the data that the committee has compiled. The government’s role in supporting the drafting of the cinema policy is crucial in ensuring that the efforts taken by many survivors in speaking about their experiences is not wasted.
The writer is assistant professor, Department of Communication Arts, University of Wisconsin-Madison
