Rhea Kapoor Questions Term 'Women-Centric' Films; Let's Move Past Tokenism

The audience's tastes and inclinations are governed by the socio-cultural framework, power structures, and religious beliefs of the people as well as the impact of myths and epics on popular culture. The directors' preference is determined by both of these elements.

Filmmakers and producers must create works that cater to audience preferences while also making a profit. Because they are a part of that societal value system, audiences are happy to watch movies that uphold and comply with those values. Although some revolutionary directors have attempted to break this cycle, it has been proven unconvincing overall.

Tokenism In Women-Centric Films

Indian film producer Rhea Kapoor rightly pointed out, "What is a 'woman-centric' film? Can someone announce a 'man-centric' one soon? Or is that just a given?" Her question takes us back to 2016 with the release of Dangal - a film with extensive marketing that touts the empowerment of women. However, the film wasn't at all women-centric despite the elated bluster about Bollywood beginning to invest in women-centric themes.

With Rhea further adding, "I'm not interested in making 'women-centric' films. My films just happen to have women in them," it is important to distinguish between a woman-centric movie and films which are feminist or uphold feminist values. The central theme of Dangal was a cishet man, his wounded ego, and his aspirations. His daughters were only a tool for his atonement.

This plot's recurring theme of a man leading a narrative ostensibly about women's agency is widely established. Consider the movie Chak De India from 2007, in which Shah Rukh Khan's character leads the women's hockey team to victory. In this instance as well, the women help Khan's character regain the respect he had previously lost.

In another example, with the success of PadMan in 2018, Akshay Kumar sought to solidify his reputation as a militant "feminist." News outlets were praising the movie for introducing a "bold" subject and reinforcing the vital connection between healthy menstruation practices and women's health. The enthusiasm surrounding the message was new, even though it was an old (and crucial) one.

Radhika Apte portrayed the part of Lakshmikant Chauhan's wife, Gayatri Chauhan, and Sonam Kapoor played the part of Pari Walia, an MBA student who aids Kumar's character in selling his pads. Akshay Kumar played the role of Lakshmikant Chauhan. Lakshmikant is exalted in PadMan, which presents him as a decent, honourable husband who would sacrifice anything for his wife. Since he was the one who wanted to produce sanitary pads for his wife, Gayatri stays outside the house during her periods in order to not "pollute" the house, and he is extremely vocal about his anger with this.

However, PadMan still perpetuates the stigma it so proudly claimed to eliminate by depicting menstruation as "aurato wali batein." It doesn't start a discussion about taboos and misconceptions surrounding menstruation; all it does is profit handsomely at the box office by portraying itself as the model for societal transformation.

There are many "Indian women's rescuer" aspirants in Hindi films, which supports the stereotype that women are helpless damsels in need of saving. Additionally, the whole goal of a film emphasising women's freedom and the agency is thwarted when it revolves around a man's journey. As with all of Akshay Kumar's characters or Aamir Khan in Dangal, giving male actors greater screen time and more developed roles ultimately detracts from the stories of the same women they are meant to be uplifting. This portrayal seems, at best, performative and, at worst, like a scheme to profit from the difficulties of underprivileged communities.

In contrast, Deepa Mehta, a Canadian-Indian filmmaker, was the subject of public outrage when her films Water (2005) and Fire 1996 were first released because the former depicted the negative aspects of the Hindu religion and the atrocities committed against Hindu widows in the 1940s while the latter made a politically incorrect statement. Both movies inflamed religious organisations and sparked riots across North India.

Riots broke out in opposition to the showing of this movie. When Deepa Mehta visited India to shoot Water, she was given police security because she was already a contentious figure in India following the release of Fire in 1996. When she was finally unable to film there, she was forced to travel to Sri Lanka. Why did these two movies generate such a stir? Is religious and political propaganda more prevalent in Indian society or is it the insidious patriarchal propaganda?

Suggested Reading: Dangal: True Story Of Champion Wrestlers Is A Must-Watch

A woman is the main character in a women-centric film, but as we see in a moment, that doesn't necessarily mean the film is feminist. Women-focused films frequently wind up exposing stereotypes and essentialising members of various gender communities. A feminist film is one in which, with few justifiable exclusions, no character is portrayed as being stereotyped into predetermined gender roles and performativity. Perhaps the golden rule for Bollywood filmmakers would be to delve a little bit into feminist discourse and give oppressed people a lot of power over stories that are based on their communities.

The views expressed are the author's own.