“The sky is full of mysteries, with the twinkling stars and the beautiful moon,” begins the report of a committee constituted by the Kerala government to examine the issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. “But, scientific investigations revealed that stars do not twinkle nor does the moon look beautiful. The study cautions: ‘Do not trust what you see, even salt looks like sugar.’”
From this attempt at poetry, the report goes on to detail the rampant sexual abuse, deplorable working conditions and cabalistic practices prevalent in Malayalam cinema.
The committee that wrote the report was formed by the Kerala government in 2017 after an actress was allegedly sexually assaulted at the instigation of the actor Dileep. Following pressure from a group called Women in Cinema Collective, the state goverment commissioned a fact-finding study of what women endure to work in film productions.
The committee was headed by former judge of the High Court of Kerala K Hema. The two other members were actor T Sarada and retired Principal Secretary of the Kerala government KB Valsalakumari.
The 296-page study was completed in 2019 after recording the anonymous testimonies of at least 80 women, from well-known actresses to junior artists. However, the Justice Hema Committee report, as it is known, was released only on August 19 after several legal challenges against its publication – and promptly opened a barrel of worms.
“Incident by incident, as the narration progressed, many icons started crumbling,” Valsalakumari says in her comments.
While the report has not named any predators or enablers, its release has led to accusations of sexual misconduct against filmmakers and actors, including Ranjith, Siddique, Baburaj and Saajin Babu. On Sunday, Pinarayi Vijayan’s government formed a seven-member panel of senior police officers to investigate the allegations.
Among the people contacted were members of Association of Malayalam Movie Artists, Film Employees Federation of Kerala, Women in Cinema Collective, and unions representing various filmmaking departments. “Our function is only to study the issues relating to women in cinema and report; not name or shame anybody or expose the guilty,” the committee members state.
As the situation has developed quickly since, the Kerala Police on Monday registered a non-bailable case against filmmaker Ranjith after a Bengali actress accused him of sexual misconduct during the production of a film in 2009.
Here are some of the key findings. The committee members examined a swathe of problems, from poor working conditions to the constant threat of sexual assault.
One of the first hurdles encountered by the members was silence. Many women denied ill-treatment, most likely because they feared reprisal or strictures from their unions.
The members gave the example of the background dancers they contacted: “We collected contact details of dancers from their trade union and formed WhatsApp group for initiating discussion with them. But, when a message was posted by the Committee in the WhatsApp group expressing our intention to convene meetings with them and hold discussion on the various issues faced by them, to our utter surprise, instead of responding to the message, they started leaving the group, one after the other.”
The report highlighted the lack of basic facilities for women at shooting locations such as toilets and changing rooms. Women avoid drinking water for as long as possible, harming their health.
A junior artist told the committee that “she was not allowed to go to the toilet by the production unit since it takes 10 minutes by walk to reach a convenient place…” Some of the respondents stated that the women were so habituated to the situation that they were “pushing on, without any complaints” and “somehow or other adjusting”.
The lengthy section on sexual harassment and assault has the caveat, “All men are not responsible for the bad reputation for the film industry.” That said, the report highlights horrific instances of abuse.
It begins with women who wish to enter the film industry, the report states: “she is told that she has to make ‘adjustments’ and ‘compromise’”.
The women are expected to make themselves available for “sex on demand”. An enabling atmosphere is created by attacking the reputation of women from the outset: “Many in the industry are made to believe that all women in the industry get into the industry or are retained only because they have sex with men in the industry.”
Actors who willingly appear in intimate or explicit scenes are branded as available. Some of the witnesses shared video clips, audio clips as well as screenshots of WhatsApp messages to prove that the predators included well-known figures in Malayalam cinema.
Shoots can be unsafe: the report mentions chilling night-time knocks on the door while at outdoor locations: “That knocking will not be polite or decent but, they repeatedly bang at the door, by force. On many occasions, they felt that the door would collapse and men would make an entry into the room by force. So unless women take somebody from the family when they go for work, they fear that they will not be safe at the workplace.”
The committee found that the aggrieved women are unwilling to speak out or file police complaints not only because of perceived shame or the status of the perpetrators. Women who have dared to go public with instances of assault have faced virulent, sexualised attacks from social media users or members of fan groups.
The women are “publicly threatened and defamed” on social media. The trolling includes threats of rape and extends to their family members.
Among the open secrets unearthed by the report is the prevalence of a “powerful lobby” that acts like a “mafia”, banning or penalising actors at will. This phenomenon applies more to the men than women, the committee members found.
The cabal comprises 10-15 men, including actors, producers, distributors and directors, who are in “full control of the whole Malayalam film industry”. Because of this lobby, “No man nor woman dare to utter any word which may offend anyone belonging to the power group, because such person will be wiped off the industry by the powerful lobby”.
The reasons for the unlawful bans included perceived personal insults. “Even a silly thing can offend such people. For example, if a light boy fails to get up, on seeing a particular person who controls the industry, that would be is sufficient for him to be thrown out of the industry, certain witnesses pointed out.”
Therefore, internal complaint committees remain toothless, the report states: “Powerful persons in cinema can even coerce and threaten the individuals who constitute ICC to deal with the complaint, in a manner they demand.”
The lobby has also ganged up against women who became members of the Women in Cinema Collective in 2017, working behind the scenes to deny them roles or get them dropped from projects on false pretexts, the report states.
The unions and other trade bodies follow coersive practices too, banning or punishing members who are seen to have gotten out of line. Hair-stylists and make-up artists told the committee about being denied membership to unions on specious ground such as advanced age.
Junior artists are not accepted as members of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists or recognised as technicians by the Film Employees Federation of Kerala. Since these artists are sourced by individual agents, they are highly vulnerable to exploitation or abuse, the report points out.
In one instance, a junior artist with a heart condition who sat on a chair because she was exhausted was asked to get up and was subsequently sacked from the production.
Wages are paid irregularly. The junior artists are not given travel allowances and sometimes denied food and water on the sets, according to the testimonies.
“Till the year 2000, there was no written contract in the film industry,” the report states. Where there are contracts, they exist between the producers and the main actors, not the rest of the cast and crew. This means that there is no legal way to resolve disputes about payment, the nature of work and scripting or scheduling changes.
The report gives the example of a leading actress who was asked to enact intimate scenes beyond those that had been previously discussed. After learning that she would have to appear in scenes involving semi-nudity and kissing, the actress walked out of the production.
She waived her remuneration, but was informed by the director that until she met him personally again, he would not delete the intimate scenes he had already shot with her – a form of blackmail.
“Had there been a written contract, such a crisis could have been avoided,” the report points out. “If written contracts are mandatory there will be more transparency in the dealings of such people and those ulterior motives will be exposed.”