Gender Issues in Popular Indian Cinema

[Amba]

Gender issues seem to be on people's minds, so I thought I'd make a catchall thread dedicated just to that. Both Bollywood and other Indian film industries are up for discussion. Feel free to talk about anything: item numbers, courtship behaviour, aesthetic standards, differences in the depiction of gender roles between different industries, etc.

Here's an observation to get the ball rolling: recently, I think Bollywood has been grafting a particular Western brand of sexism onto traditional South Asian sexism, thereby creating a new hybrid form of megasexism. I'm talking here about the crass nature of today's item numbers, which seems to be borrowed from hip-hop. Another example of this phenomenon is the new Western-style conception of the good life as one where one is a free agent, unencumbered by ties to family or community. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but that vision is only extended to young men, not women.

[Aishwarya4eva]

This is an interesting topic. I actually thing that Bollywood is targeting its sexuality to both men and women in different ways since the 80s. There are more gratuitous scenes involving women (bikinis, item songs, etc) and men are obsessed with getting buff to appeal to women sexually. Whereas if you watch older films the women, more or less, rely on their facial beauty and the heroes were more the everyman. Almost never shirtless and muscles were hardly necessary.

This might not be at all what you were talking about but I just wanted to get my thoughts down.

[Manturo]

I think A4e's point is supported by some scientific studies that men look at a woman's body when wanting a casual sexual experience versus settling down; they look for a woman's facial attractiveness more in the latter. http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/students/Confer/Confer_in%20press.pdf

So it could follow that the emphasis from facial beauty in oldies to bodily beauty and body exposure is just reflective of the underlying changing sexual mores of the society.

To Amba's point: yes, the freedom is only really extended to men for two reasons (1) they are the majority of the population because of the preference for males and skewed population control policies and (2) the underlying culture has always been that a man has more power and freedom to do what he wants because a lot of them become the patriarchs of families, organizations, etc.

So I'm in agreement with both of you.

My only problem is the fetishization of light-skin and the constant barrage of non-native Indian actors being passed off as Indian. I don't think it's necessary, number one, and two, it sends the wrong message. In a country of 1.2 billion and growing, you can't tell me that you can't find a native Indian that can play that role, e.g. http://www.bollywhat-forum.com/index.php?topic=30381.msg496927#msg496927. Sorry, I ain't gonna buy that not or take it, even if you give it for free.

That being said, I do think it's appropriate to have movies that do show interracial relationships. It's reality and what I see in Manhattan most every day.

My $2.25 

[tabula rasa]

Well, if these statistics are anything to go by, you could say that the portrayal of women in Bollywood is a reflection and release for a latent and unexplored sexuality of the Indian social psyche. If men are asking google for kissing lessons, it shows how taboo the topic of sexuality is in the cultural fabric, and therefore how skewed ideas of women and female sexuality never get redressed, and instead only get more exploited through these item numbers etc.

And on the topic of fairness - does anyone know how many fairness ads SRK has done, by any chance?

[Dil Bert]

Three issues, somewhat interrelated, which come to mind are:

1) Movies are not direct depictions of reality/mandatory re-education camps/etc. - movies are products made to make money.  Karan Johar doesn't sleep on a footpath.  As products, they have to appeal to people who will pay to see them.  Movies which lecture the ticket buyer about their sins instead of entertain them don't generate good word of mouth, repeat viewings, etc.  It's also worth recognizing that movies are not the only mass medium in India, and any message of change does not live or die by being in a movie or not.

2) Cultural/Economic differences - on this forum I think there's a tendency to hold situations in Indian movies up to a Western feminist ideal and complain about the difference without thinking about the ramifications.  As a simple example, if every woman is supposed to have a job outside the home, would there really be jobs for all the women in India?  Given what's shown in a movie isn't reality, are we asking movies to be even more disconnected from reality?

3) Physical differences - studies have shown girls are more likely to be injured in sports than boys.  As much as I enjoy watching them, asking women to do tough dance routines or demanding action scenes may not be doing them any favors.  Physical differences can play into what roles women have in films.

[tabula rasa]

2) Cultural/Economic differences - on this forum I think there's a tendency to hold situations in Indian movies up to a Western feminist ideal and complain about the difference without thinking about the ramifications.  As a simple example, if every woman is supposed to have a job outside the home, would there really be jobs for all the women in India?  Given what's shown in a movie isn't reality, are we asking movies to be even more disconnected from reality?

3) Physical differences - studies have shown girls are more likely to be injured in sports than boys.  As much as I enjoy watching them, asking women to do tough dance routines or demanding action scenes may not be doing them any favors.  Physical differences can play into what roles women have in films.

I'm not sure I understand 2), because aren't there plenty of women in the West who aren't outside the home working and being perfectly fine with that as well? Yes there is a Western feminist ideal that's being applied in some of the perspectives, but I think reducing that to the idea of a 'working woman' doesn't do the women of the West or East any favours. Nobody's saying all the women in India have to go out and work. There are plenty of women in West who don't. The 'feminist ideal' is more on a woman's social agency and autonomy of identity, among other complex things. It's the striving for a recognition of herself as a valid member of society, with attributes that aren't undermined because they aren't masculine, and without requiring attachment to a male member of society.

As for 3), evolutionary studies also say that women's physical weakness is more due to centuries of social patterns rather than biology. A girl getting more hurt in sports than a boy isn't proof of something innate, but of conditioning, especially as on Olympian levels, women are closing the gap more and more. Besides, dancing in movies comes under a completely different category, of arts and aesthetics, and what looks soft and gentle (which gets equated with being feminine) can actually be very tough and demanding to execute.

[tabula rasa]

1) Movies are not direct depictions of reality/mandatory re-education camps/etc. - movies are products made to make money.  Karan Johar doesn't sleep on a footpath.  As products, they have to appeal to people who will pay to see them.  Movies which lecture the ticket buyer about their sins instead of entertain them don't generate good word of mouth, repeat viewings, etc.  It's also worth recognizing that movies are not the only mass medium in India, and any message of change does not live or die by being in a movie or not.

Movies aren't depictions of reality, but they are also stories conveyed via a visual medium, and the intrinsic success of good storytelling relies on identification with the viewer, which necessitates a version, if you like, of reality being artificially created. There are, of course, different degrees of this version, depending on the audience being targeted. Hence those who prefer something highly realistic might go for something more arthouse, while others seek escapism because it is a space for forgetting, etc. American movies favour a version closer to a mundane, subtle kind of reality, while South Indian films favour a version that is heightened and projected. Yet these are all versions of the world as the viewer perceives it, and the maker knows he/she has to hit that nail first before anything else.

Just as the story-receiver identifies with the story/character, he/she can also immerse in it to the point of emulation, and the burst of visual media in the 20th century is such great proof of that. Audrey Hepburn overturned a whole generation's idea of feminine beauty, that had favoured the fertility-friendly shape and silhouette of buxomness. Men as far away as Malaya shaped the Elvis puff every morning in the 60s, convinced it'll help them with the ladies. Katharine Hepburn in pants caused a stir, and then women wore men's clothes because of Diane Keaton in Annie Hall. Girls went for the 'step-cut' look after Madhuri in Dil. Guys tried to walk awkwardly to seem cool like James Dean. Boys went into pretend paroxysms of angst among their friends like Dilip Kumar did in Devdas. A young girl in Malaysia ran away from home to elope with a foreign worker from Bangladesh because he looked like Shah Rukh Khan. Millions of women said "put your hands on me" after Kate Winslet said it to Leonardo Di Caprio in Titanic.

So really, while the movies do provide entertainment, you can't get away from the fact that the visual medium has a highly persuasive value. Advertisers are highly aware of it, which is why there was obvious product placement earlier, and now more subtle ones, that influence on subliminal levels. The cigarette industry thrived due to advertising despite confirmed and repeated health reports. The images also work as a manifestation of aspirations, with people 'aiming' towards what they see, especially so if its in a story they identify deeply with. So there's an element of projection that goes hand in hand with relatability.

It is these persuasive and aspirational factors, then, that have resulted in things like film classification, letting us know about violence and sex and words, and letting us make the choice as a consumer. If the films were mere entertainment this would not be necessary.

This is of course an ancillary effect to the business of moviemaking and entertainment, but given that movies are so pervasive in society, it also makes sense that the ancillary effects have gained larger and deeper proportions in society, and has been this way for a couple of generations, and is something we now take for granted. Hence when someone picks up on this, with regards to effects that might damage individual health (like what happened to cigarette advertising) and voices this element, it might help create more voices, which may then, in reverse, persuade the filmmaker to consider these aspects when the movies get made. It's not gonna change the movies, it's not gonna annihilate them. At best, it might create a little ripple among the powers that be. But it's better than nothing.

As for Bollywood - it's the biggest thing in India after cricket. TZP has helped remove stigma on learning disabilities. Hell, Dostana, a film terribly misinformative of homosexuality, has helped actual gay people to come out. RDB helped reopen the Jessica Lal case. Bollywood is terribly influential in India.

[Parallel_Worlds]

The 'feminist ideal' is more on a woman's social agency and autonomy of identity, among other complex things. It's the striving for a recognition of herself as a valid member of society, with attributes that aren't undermined because they aren't masculine, and without requiring attachment to a male member of society.

And how would you translate this in a movie character without her needing to have an outside job?

The reason why i ask is because it seems difficult to have an identity other than x's wife and such and so's mother if you are a stay at home wife (which im guessing a large number of indian women are?)

[odadune]

Actually, I think this forum is overall fairly open-minded about the fact that desi films don't necessarily conform to western ideals.  By contrast, I've seen bollywood bloggers where you could summarize a fair number of their movie reviews as " yay, old-fashioned musicals with cute guys who are in touch with their feelings...boo, whyyyyy are these films so sexist?"  I just wanted to get in the blogger's face and yell "BECAUSE THEY WERE MADE THIRTY TO FORTY YEARS AGO IN ANOTHER CULTURE, HUN.  HAVE YOU SEEN THE KIND OF SEXIST CRAP WE WERE MAKING IN AMERICA IN THAT TIMEFRAME?  HAVE YOU?"  Fortunately, I restrained myself.

The tone I've seen here, and with other bloggers, is generally more pragmatic: the poster/blogger is watching these films for escapism, and is made uncomfortable by the values dissonance.  I can understand that.  I don't feel like I know enough about Indian culture to comment on the real  hot-button issues, like the one Amba raises at the top of the thread.  I do get the impression that people sometimes project more "girl-power" themes onto certain films than are actually intended by the makers, but I don't generally have a problem with it.  Death of the Author and all that.

I will also say that I find a lot of female Bollywood characters, especially in the romances that are so popular, to be kind of boring placeholders labelled "insert your mental image of yourself here" for the female audience's benefit.  But I could say the same about a lot of the male characters.  

I also find people remarkably naive in assuming that the suffering martyr stereotype didn't or doesn't speak to women.  Doesn't speak to the kind of woman who posts here, of course, but plenty of western fanfic writers come up with tormented, passive Mary Sue characters who die sacrificially.  TV tropes page here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SympatheticSue

They're the heirs to any number of 19th c. writers, both male and female, who portrayed their heroines this way.

[prahajess]

Personally, I find Indian movies to cover a HUGE range in terms of gender roles, and I like that. I don't have a problem watching a more "conservative" film every now and then, with the characters conforming to stereotypes. What bothers me more is when the writers do it more out of lack of imagination. I adore Southie films, but I have to admit: many of the female roles are, as odadune put it below, basically place-holders. It doesn't offend me, it just bores me.

ETA: Obviously this is a topic that deserves more attention, but alas, the bell rang: I have recess duty. lmao

[Sanyogita]

Here's an observation to get the ball rolling: recently, I think Bollywood has been grafting a particular Western brand of sexism onto traditional South Asian sexism, thereby creating a new hybrid form of megasexism. I'm talking here about the crass nature of today's item numbers, which seems to be borrowed from hip-hop. Another example of this phenomenon is the new Western-style conception of the good life as one where one is a free agent, unencumbered by ties to family or community. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily, but that vision is only extended to young men, not women.

I totally agree with this Amba. It's unfortunate that Bollywood seems to be so easily influenced by misogynistic practices and tropes from different cultures.

Dilbert- I think that you are setting up total strawman arguments.

1) No one is saying that movies have to lecture the audience on empowerment or issues, or that they are the sole medium of change. But the fact that the content of movies does influence society is pretty undeniable, especially in a country as movie obsessed as India. Filmmakers do not have to produce documentaries about female empowerment issues starring big actors and give em a wide release. What they can do, without harming their commercial prospects is stop including unnecessarily misogynistic elements in their movies, like the 'slap the heroine' plot device or the needless whori goris. Films like Rascals and Thank You that featured top stars and an overload of whori gori soft porn were washouts at the box office, while several films that did not feature scantily clad white back-up
dancers have done amazingly well.

A successful, well choreographed item number does add to the commercial value of a film and it can often have artistic value as well. But having a series of up the skirt shots of a group of white women in bikinis set to music does not enhance the commercial value of a film particularly, nor does it really add to the film in any way. This is the sort of sexist thing that can be avoided, without taking away from the commercial prospects of a film or lecturing the audience in anyway.

2) So feminism= every single woman in every single movie must have a job= further disconnect from reality? Wow.

And most of the women in Bollywood movies belong to an elite socioeconomic class, whether or not India is able to provide jobs for all it's women, the average female protagonist in a BW movie will certainly not have too much trouble finding a job. This is not to say that every single female (or male) character in every single movie needs to be employed.  But a few more female BW characters who are career-minded or passionate about a social cause or have any kind of a life outside of being the 'obligatory love interest' will certainly be welcome. I don't think there is anything particularly 'western feminist' about this. The idea that a woman should be more than just arm candy is hardly a uniquely western one. And this year's spate of successful female-centric films shows that there is an audience for movies where the woman has more to do than just be a sex object.

[Manturo]

I totally agree with this Amba. It's unfortunate that Bollywood seems to be so easily influenced by misogynistic practices and tropes from different cultures.

As an act of protest against these mysogynistic tropes, I propose that the Bw and/or SI fangirls collaborate on a screenplay that depicts a dark-skinned actress kicking goonda tuckus armed only with a sugar cane and a machete wearing jeans and cool Indian shirts while she starts a boarding school for low-caste girls and takes care of her ailing maternal grandmother who is her only living family while trying to decide if she will embark on a relationship with a nice but somewhat backward guy that went from stalking her to actually admiring her progressive values after being disciplined by her in a fight symbolic of her struggle against the patriarchy and becomes her side-kick.

Who's with me? 

I only jest.

[filmcrazy]

Three issues, somewhat interrelated, which come to mind are:


2) Cultural/Economic differences - on this forum I think there's a tendency to hold situations in Indian movies up to a Western feminist ideal and complain about the difference without thinking about the ramifications.  As a simple example, if every woman is supposed to have a job outside the home, would there really be jobs for all the women in India?  Given what's shown in a movie isn't reality, are we asking movies to be even more disconnected from reality?

Chauvinistic  arguments don't deserve respectful or well thought out response.

[quote authorManturo link=topic=34131.msg497037#msg497037 date=1325781385]

As an act of protest against these mysogynistic tropes, I propose that the Bw and/or SI fangirls collaborate on a screenplay that depicts a dark-skinned actress kicking goonda tuckus armed only with a sugar cane and a machete wearing jeans and cool Indian shirts while she starts a boarding school for low-caste girls and takes care of her ailing maternal grandmother who is her only living family while trying to decide if she will embark on a relationship with a nice but somewhat backward guy that went from stalking her to actually admiring her progressive values after being disciplined by her in a fight symbolic of her struggle against the patriarchy and becomes her side-kick.
[/quote]

I am on board!  

[Manturo]

Chauvinistic  arguments don't deserve respectful or well thought out response.

[quote authorManturo link=topic=34131.msg497037#msg497037 date=1325781385]

As an act of protest against these mysogynistic tropes, I propose that the Bw and/or SI fangirls collaborate on a screenplay that depicts a dark-skinned actress kicking goonda tuckus armed only with a sugar cane and a machete wearing jeans and cool Indian shirts while she starts a boarding school for low-caste girls and takes care of her ailing maternal grandmother who is her only living family while trying to decide if she will embark on a relationship with a nice but somewhat backward guy that went from stalking her to actually admiring her progressive values after being disciplined by her in a fight symbolic of her struggle against the patriarchy and becomes her side-kick.
 

I am on board!  

Vah! Our quest begins! 

[Parallel_Worlds]

Im a little surprised at the hostility of some posters with regards to dil bert comments. If everyone is to agree and think simlarly on the topic what would be the fun of discussions on this forum.

I think there is some scope for growth in the industry in the development of female roles, especially the leading role.
On the other hand i feel that we only like to see a certain type of ( likeable) woman on screen instead of all types of women.
A jealous clingy type of character gets confused with gender inequality while i just see it as a personality fit for a story.
This is just an example ofcourse.

I also feel that making women wear revealing clothes is taken as some form of feminism by the hindi industry. I find this grating when it's totally out of sync with the character or the situation the character  finds herself in (shopping, college etc). It are however the actresses agreeing to these wardrobes.They probably encourage it too, because it helps create their star/goddess status. Do they rather wnt to put down a solid character and performance or do they want to maintain their stardom.
Actresses can put pressure on better character development for women especially when they have clout. They are the ones agreeing to the movie afterall. For example, why did priyanka and sign up for don 2?

What im tying to say is that women make up the industry too and are equally responsible for gender issues in the industry

[prahajess]

Agreed, PW. The concept of feminism is complex, and the choices women in the industry make will always reflect both that complexity as well as their own personal tastes/inclinations and specific situations.

...
I think there is some scope for growth in the industry in the development of female roles, especially the leading role.
On the other hand i feel that we only like to see a certain type of ( likeable) woman on screen instead of all types of women.
A jealous clingy type of character gets confused with gender inequality while i just see it as a personality fit for a story.
This is just an example ofcourse.
...
What im tying to say is that women make up the industry too and are equally responsible for gender issues in the industry

Perhaps having just seen Dhobi Ghat, I'm feeling pretty positive about women in the Indian film industry.  Yes, there's always room for growth, and men still hold most of the power, but that's true worldwide, isn't it. And I am still loving Bollywood, personally.

[filmcrazy]

Agreed, PW. The concept of feminism is complex, and the choices women in the industry make will always reflect both that complexity as well as their own personal tastes/inclinations and specific situations.

Perhaps having just seen Dhobi Ghat, I'm feeling pretty positive about women in the Indian film industry.   Yes, there's always room for growth, and men still hold most of the power, but that's true worldwide, isn't it. And I am still loving Bollywood, personally.

Dhobi Ghat is an anomaly in the industry. The only reason the film got made, got such attention and was marketed and released like this is because it had a famous male star's name attached to it. Otherwise, the film would have been heard of only in festival circuit. Kiran has probably made a brilliant film but people would have paid scant attention to her work or given her anything more than some grudging respect. That is why a Zoya Akhtar had to wait for so many years to carve a niche whereas a Farah Khan had SRK backing her project that got her instant success. People speak about these films as some kind of an achievement or progress but they are so few and far between.

I think the change can be brought about by heroines. The mainstream actresses don't care though. They are always sucking up to the biggest male star and doing item numbers to really care about how their choices will pave way for other women. The likes of Vidya, Tabu, Konkona and Rani are few and far between.

[Manturo]

I think the change can be brought about by heroines. The mainstream actresses don't care though. They are always sucking up to the biggest male star and doing item numbers to really care about how their choices will pave way for other women. The likes of Vidya, Tabu, Konkona and Rani are few and far between.

Do members here think that the actresses feel they have no choice but to do so in order to remain visible and have an active career? Actors are beggars I heard Rani once say and I think there's a lot of truth to that statement. The "bad" thing about making serious movies that don't have mass appeal is that you may not have much of a career.

I also think that some actresses may not feel that it's their responsibility to change the industry.

I think also that screenwriters must garner more respect in perfecting their craft.

[tabula rasa]

Wa-hey, I turn in for the night and see what on earth happens.

Im a little surprised at the hostility of some posters with regards to dil bert comments. If everyone is to agree and think simlarly on the topic what would be the fun of discussions on this forum.

I second that. Surprise surprise, not everyone thinks exactly the same way. It's why message boards are for, to hold discussions of diverse points of view. A part of democratic behaviour is not only having opposing views, but to believe in the right of every view, even the one disagreed with, to be aired without attack.

And how would you translate this in a movie character without her needing to have an outside job?
The reason why i ask is because it seems difficult to have an identity other than x's wife and such and so's mother if you are a stay at home wife (which im guessing a large number of indian women are?)

I was just going to say earlier (before this sea of responses) that some movies already have, like Dor, Astitva, Roja, Bombay, but they are, of course, in the minority. The women here didn't work, but are portrayed as intelligent, capable, thoughtful, resourceful. They are three dimensional in a way that is beyond being seen as just wife and mother.

[Dariya]

In response to Dil Bert's first post, I actually find many depictions of career-minded women in Bollywood to be contrary to my feminist ideals.  I could name so many films where the female character is apparently "passionate" about her job but in reality she was only written as a "career woman" to make the otherwise misogynistic treatment of her more permissible.  Kareena's character in Kambakkht Ishq is a good example.  She has not only one, but TWO enviable careers, but they don't have any place in the story aside from providing a glamorous dance number and a romantic plot point.  The character's dedication to her career isn't convincing, and at the end of the movie it's not a character that I particularly admire.  The movie is only "modern" insofar as the Western-style sexuality depicted -- the fashion, the one-night stands, etc.  And that's a very shallow vision of modernity.

On the other hand, many of my favorite female characters in BW ARE the "mere" wives/daughters.  The women in Mani Ratnam's films are a good example.  Rani and Kareena in Yuva, Aishwarya in Guru, Preity in Dil Se, Manisha in Bombay, Aish in Raavan.  All of them more multi-layered, interesting and admirable than Kareena in KI.  The director actually gave some thought to their characters, and treated them with respect.  It doesn't matter to me that none of them have careers.

If there's one thing that irks me it's that only the privileged and westernized women of Indian society are even addressed in films.  I'm mostly thinking of arranged marriage -- it's still big, and yet it's rarely addressed in movies.  If I were a young girl with the knowledge that my parents would be highly involved in finding my match, I WOULD still want to see people fall in love irrespective of their parents' wishes onscreen -- but I'd also like to see some positive depictions of arranged marriages.  The tagline to Ekk Main Aur Ekk Tu especially irritates me in regards to this.

I haven't seen many of the older BW films, but I've been pleasantly surprised by them in terms of the treatment of women.  A female lawyer in Awaara and a prostitute in Pyaasa.  Are these kinds of characters typical of the black-and-white era?  

That being said I don't tend to view Indian films with a particularly feminist outlook.  But that's because I want to enjoy them.  I can't imagine enjoying them as much if I were to take note of every anti-feminist detail.  I guess that's why filmmakers are able to get away with so much -- people just want to enjoy their time at the movies, and aren't likely to take issue with anything offensive as long as they have a good time.  But I agree that the film industry is probably more influential in India than in any other place in the world, so lately (especially since I started reading the Bollywhat? forums) I find myself cringing whenever something really backwards turns up in a film.

[tabula rasa]

Do members here think that the actresses feel they have no choice but to do so in order to remain visible and have an active career? Actors are beggars I heard Rani once say and I think there's a lot of truth to that statement. The "bad" thing about making serious movies that don't have mass appeal is that you may not have much of a career.

I also think that some actresses may not feel that it's their responsibility to change the industry.

I think also that screenwriters must garner more respect in perfecting their craft.

I would agree that it is not the actress's job description to pick only socially conscious roles - if so they'd get replaced in a heartbeat. But it says something that when they do get to play a good female role they get terribly excited in their interviews, which signifies there's been a silent yearning.

Yes, I think it's up to screenwriters to know their milieu, and I also think that when it comes to films, its also having stories considered viable to have a huge investment put on it. The Indian movies today are different because the audience is changing, and suddenly non-traditional, experimental stories are viable. It's possibly in the 'experimental' situation that non-traditional roles for women can be written too.

But then again, even so, item numbers get added at the last minute to ensure cinema footfalls, and that's a trick so old in the Indian film book that Milan Luthria made a film on such a figure and called it 'The Dirty Picture'.  So where does that all leave us, really?

[prahajess]

Do members here think that the actresses feel they have no choice but to do so in order to remain visible and have an active career? Actors are beggars I heard Rani once say and I think there's a lot of truth to that statement. The "bad" thing about making serious movies that don't have mass appeal is that you may not have much of a career.

I also think that some actresses may not feel that it's their responsibility to change the industry.

I'm not sure there's a clear answer. I think there are too many factors and actresses achieve fame in so many different ways these days. Actors as well. Some get there on talent, some are models-to-actor, some are kids of famous actors... But I do think that most actors are there to work on their craft (or just get famous), not to change the world. Obviously there are many people in the industry who have a forward-thinking worldview, but the majority are there to make some money or entertain the masses. And I don't have a problem with that.

I guess I'm wondering if people feel strongly that the BW industry is that much more sexist than any other film industry? I really can only go off the movies I see. I don't read about the industry or watch any interviews, so I'm only seeing the finished product. Dhobi Ghat, Dor, Mr. and Mrs. Iyer... it's pointless to try and name all the movies with interesting women characters. I'm just glad there are so many. And I do consider each one an achievement.

[Dil Bert]

Im a little surprised at the hostility of some posters with regards to dil bert comments.

Yeah, not sure I want to bother formulating a response.


Discuss: are actress auditions today better or worse than they were ~60 years ago?
http://www.oldindianphotos.in/2011/04/girls-auditioning-screen-test-for-hindi.html

[Parallel_Worlds]

I would agree that it is not the actress's job description to pick only socially conscious roles - if so they'd get replaced in a heartbeat. But it says something that when they do get to play a good female role they get terribly excited in their interviews, which signifies there's been a silent yearning.


But then again, even so, item numbers get added at the last minute to ensure cinema footfalls, and that's a trick so old in the Indian film book that Milan Luthria made a film on such a figure and called it 'The Dirty Picture'.  So where does that all leave us, really?

In my perception this has more to do with the times we are living in rather than gender inequality. People like coarser forms of entertainment and easy thrills. I think the industry promotes this but is also supplying what the audience wants.
Its not limited to women, men too work out and do item numbers or walk around without shirts.

[maru7627]

Yeah, not sure I want to bother formulating a response.

But, DB I do hope you won't stop commenting - sometimes the outraged feminists (including at times moi !) need some countervailing arguments and a different perspective to tamp down our self righteous anger 

I don't know that a lot of people will disagree with me on the basic notions that 1. BW is male dominated and often women get short shrift, 2)Women are often objectified in the movies esp. in item numbers 3) none of this is likely to change anytime soon - the success of Dirty Picture notwithstanding. It seems to me that off late the board is seeing a lot of trenchant commentary on the unfair portrayal and treatment of women in BW. Yet, some of arguments that have surfaced across threads recently (not only this one) have me scratching my head. Some of the unfair portrayals and the exploitation of women have less to do with misogyny and more to do with filth lucre. To reiterate the first point that Dil Bert made earlier, the movie industry is about commerce. The failure ratio of of movies is extremely high and at the end of the day, producers and directors are acting on what they think will fly with the audience - e.g. Sex sells. Some of those success mantras are clearly wrong, I don't think the industry knows the various kinds of audience or their tastes very well.

Ekta Kapoor has been accused of making regressive TV shows and now is being heralded for her bold vision in backing "different" sexually liberating stories in her movies. So is she a scourge to feminists becuase of her TV record or a flag bearer because of her films? I'd argue that Ekta is backing projects in TV and in the films that she thinks spell box office success. Having conquererd the mass TV audience with the most obvious Sati-Savitri-Chudail tales she's backing small budget films for the multiplex audience that aren't shy about portrayals of sexuality or power. So far it's worked - I don't think it says much about her principles or her personal values, but it does point to her keen business sense.