Hema Committee report reveals power abuse, harassment, manipulation in Malayalam cinema

“Sexual harassment is the worst evil that women face in the film industry,” declares the Justice Hema Committee Report on the working conditions of women in Malayalam cinema.

The report — a redacted version of which was released to the public on Monday, August 19 — acknowledges that most women in cinema were reluctant to divulge their traumatic experiences, particularly of sexual harassment, fearing consequences including getting banned from the industry and being subjected to “other harassments.”

According to the Committee, the evidence suggests that well-known, well-reputed men in the industry “have shocked certain women in cinema by sexual harassment, and physical advances made towards them.”

The reasons for the harassment are structural and have existed since the beginning, says the report.

The informal nature of work — which includes a lack of legal contracts or grievance redressal mechanism, and an inbuilt culture that emboldens powerful men who control the fate of many within the industry — has led to rampant sexual harassment across the profession.

The report reveals that every aspiring female actor is made to believe that the violence is par for the course and that she cannot succeed and much less, sustain in Malayalam cinema, if she doesn’t give in to demands of sex.

This ‘quid pro quo’ arrangement is widely accepted as one of the ways in which sexual harassment in the workplace plays out across the world — and yet, until the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) was formed in 2017, women in the industry wouldn’t even confide in each other about the horrors they faced, the report reveals.

Many sections detailing specific instances of sexual harassment were removed from the version of the report released to RTI applicants to protect the privacy of those involved. But the Committee asserted that all of its findings were based on “direct evidence,” and not hearsay.

‘Adjustments and ‘compromise’

The women who came forth explained to the Committee that harassment begins right from the stage of soliciting work.

Usually, a woman makes her entry into cinema when a production controller or someone from within the industry offers her a role. If a woman seeks a chance in a movie, she is accepted on the condition that she is willing to make “adjustments” and “compromise.”

These two words, which women are familiar with, essentially mean that any aspiring female actor is “asked to make herself available for sex on demand,” the report says.

One of the survivors who testified before the Committee said that this “demand for sex” can be made by anybody within the industry — actor, producer, director, production controller, or anyone else. The report refers to this survivor as a “girl,” unlike in other instances where it uses the term “woman,” which could likely be a hint that she is a minor.

The “girl” was also told that if she wanted to get an opportunity, she too would have “to make certain ‘adjustments’ and ‘compromises.”

The report also explains that aspiring women are sexually exploited after being told that other successful female actors managed to sustain themselves within the industry only because they agreed to sleep with male colleagues.

The report notes that there have been occasions where this manipulation succeeded, and by the time the woman realised she was trapped, “it is far too late.”

Structural silence 

”Cinema is a male-dominated industry. It is an exclusive Boys’ Club where men sit and chat over long hours at night discussing the script of a movie or other aspects of the project at hand or future projects,” reads the Committee’s report. In many cases, these discussions take place over alcohol. “After drinking, the conversation does not always stay focused on just movies. In such digressions they may crack vulgar jokes with sexual innuendos,” the report says.

On the other hand, many women, even those considered “bold”, said they were hesitant to divulge their experiences of harassment.

Their fear was two-phased.

One was that they believed that if they spoke up, they might get banned from working in the industry and be “subjected to other harassments,” since such persons are powerful in cinema and all the men in the industry would stand by them.

Two, they were worried that the powerful men might use their fans and fan clubs to subject them to online harassment. The Committee noted that very vulgar language, and even pornographic pictures, are used to attack these women online and demoralise them.

Many women testified that they could also face threats to life, not only to themselves but also to their close family members.

The report explains that “there is a culture of silence that shrouds Malayalam movie (industry), which is partly a fear psychosis engendered by the working of the power nexus that controls” the industry.

Witnesses told the Committee that nobody would speak out because the powerful men “feel if a woman is a ‘problem maker,’ then nobody will call her again.” Many people suffer silently due to this, a witness said.

The report also notes that the industry seems to have an “unwritten understanding” that those who complain against negative behaviour and fight for their rights “need not be called again for a movie.”

Thus, they were being silenced, says the report.

The silence is also structural.

The Committee says that based on their interaction with men and women from both older and younger generations of the industry, they found that ever since the industry originated, women have faced such issues. However, there has been no grievance redressal mechanism.

On the rare occasion that a woman does complain to a producer about an actor or director, “the producer will not avoid him from his cinema” if this actor or director “has good market value.” This is mostly because of “financial reasons,” the report says.

A witness explained to the Committee that if a woman tells her colleagues about being harassed by the director, “the normal reaction of the crowd around her will be to silence her and they will ask her to compromise and adjust; let the cinema run.”

On the contrary, the witness said, “male superstars, directors or producers or anyone in such power position can do anything.”

Another witness told the Committee about her traumatic experience with a director. She had been signed for a lead role in a project and during a discussion, she was informed that she would have to act in an intimate scene. However, she testified that the director did not disclose other details “despite her repeated requests.”

”He only stated that there is nothing to be scared of and that he will do only as she consents to,” said the report.

After three months of preparation, the director informed her that there would be nudity and a kissing scene. “She was forced to do a kissing scene and expose the back part of her body.”

The female actor walked out of the movie without even claiming her three months of remuneration.

She also sent a message to the director stating that she had lost faith in him. “But he insisted that unless she comes to Kochi personally, he will not delete the intimate scenes.”

When she realised, she was being blackmailed, she informed the producer. “Had there been a written contract such a crisis could have been avoided,” the report says, stressing on the importance of a formal redressal mechanism.

Until the formation of the WCC, the fear ensured that even among women, accounts of abuse were kept a secret. A WhatsApp group created by the WCC, which offered confidentiality, became a space for women to chat openly and state their concerns.

The women told the committee that with the WCC, they found a safe forum to discuss accounts of sexual harassment which they were not able to “disclose even to family members.” Their families were already reluctant to allow them to work in an industry where women had a “bad name.”

On and off-screen expectations

According to several women who spoke to the committee, a majority of men who work in the industry think that the women who are willing to act in intimate scenes would also be willing to do the same off-set. So men in the industry make open demands for sex with little hesitation or embarrassment.

Even if women express their resentment and objection to such demands, the report says, these men would continue to ask for sex, offering them “more chances” in films. The committee was informed that some women, especially newcomers, fall prey to such offers and are sexually exploited.

The committee also received access to audio, video clips, screenshots of WhatsApp messages, and other digital evidence that showed how certain people in the industry persuaded women to make themselves available for sex.

Cinema has been a passion, a long-awaited dream for many of these women. But this exploitation has made them reject many offers, the report says.

A few men claimed to the committee that women face these experiences only when they fall for “fake advertisements.” However, as per the report, the committee analysed the evidence and was able to confirm that women face sexual harassment even from “very well-known people in the film industry, who were named before the committee.”

Though all specific instances of such exploitation have been redacted, one woman’s experience on a film set soon after such an incident has been mentioned in the report.

“On the next day onwards (meaning, the day after she was harassed), she had to work with the same man, as husband and wife, hugging each other. That was terrible. Because of what was done to her, her resentment and hatred had reflected on her face during the shooting. Seventeen retakes had to be taken for just one shot. The director criticised her for the situation,” the report details.

Men and ‘Not all men’

The Hema Committee report also details that the evidence suggests that not all men are responsible for “the bad reputation” of the industry, and that there were several “highly respectable men” who ensured a safe environment.

A cinematographer and a director were specifically mentioned, but their names were not given in the redacted report.

But several men had “tried to impress upon the committee that sexual harassment exists not only in cinema but in other fields as well. Therefore, sexual harassment in cinema may not be blown out of proposition,” says the report.

However, according to members of the Committee, the women who spoke to them brought to their notice that “there is a striking difference between sexual harassment in cinema and other fields.”

This difference is defined by the fact that the very entry into the profession is dependent on an aspiring female actor’s willingness to give in to sexual demands.

‘Casting couch’ and lack of safe spaces 

In no other industry are women forced to take their parents to their workplace, the report says.

A teacher, clerk, engineer, or doctor “will not have to take their parents when they go for work to their office.”

Women told the Committee that due to the fear of safety at workspaces, they are compelled to take their parents or close relatives while going on set.

If the shoot location is away from their home, they do not feel safe to stay all alone in the accommodation that is arranged for them.

“In most of the hotels where they are staying, the doors are knocked by the men working in cinema who would be mostly under intoxication,” says the report.

This knocking is neither “polite or decent,” but a repeated banging of the door. “On many occasions, they felt that the door would collapse and men would make an entry into the room by force.”

The Committee stated that there is direct evidence from witnesses.

The Hema Committee report was formed by the Kerala Government in 2017 based on a petition by the Women in Cinema Collective to study the challenges faced by women in the industry. In December 2019, they had submitted the findings to the Kerala Government but the report was not made public for so long. On July 6, the State Information Commission (SIC) passed an order directing the Kerala government to issue the committee report to RTI applicants before July 2, after redacting information that could identify individuals mentioned in the report, as prohibited under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.