The Report of the Hema Committee to study the problems of women in Malayalam cinema has created a public record of extensive and long-running sexual abuse, exploitation and discrimination against women in the Malayalam film industry. On a closer look, though, the Report is seen to have deviated into areas beyond its mandate, taking the focus out of the core issues, and, in the process, revealing the inability to grasp the actual functioning of what is an unorganized sector, despite its ‘industry’ status. While some of the members have conflicting views which hardly got into public discussion, the aftermath of the Report’s release raises questions on whether Malayalam cinema will weather this storm or wither under the weight of the controversies.
Images courtesy: AMMA, FEFKA, WCC
The sky is full of mysteries; with twinkling stars and a beautiful moon. But scientific investigation revealed that stars do not twinkle nor does the moon look beautiful. The study, therefore, cautions: ‘Do not always trust appearances; even salt can resemble sugar!’
These were opening lines from the Report of the Expert Committee constituted by the Government of Kerala in 2017 to study various issues faced by women in Malayalam cinema and to suggest solutions. The Committee was constituted following a petition by the Women in Cinema Collective, a grouping of women artists and technicians formed after the kidnapping and sexual assault of an actress near Kochi on 17 February 2017.
The Report, which was submitted to the Kerala Government on 31 December 2019 and a redacted version of which was released to the public on 19 August 2024, prologues itself with a grim picture of the state of affairs in the Malayalam film industry:
As the study progressed into issues faced by women in the Film Industry, it started revealing that the glamour of the Industry is just an exterior glitter but, hovering over the same are, dark clouds of distress and enduring agony, kept hidden from the outer world. We could listen to various sobbing stories of despair not only of women but of men too. But, shockingly, they are silenced in the industry. Their anguish and agony die within the Industry, unable to be addressed, with no forum to seek solutions, though their problems are legion.
The Report of the Committee headed by retired Kerala High Court judge, K. Hema, and having retired IAS officer, K.B. Valsalakumari and veteran actress T. Sarada as members, literally opened a Pandora's box, days into its release.
It revealed abysmal, unsafe and discriminatory working conditions for women, including actresses, technicians and junior artists, in the film industry, rampant sexual abuses and exploitation, in the absence of credible grievance redressal mechanisms. Furthermore, it talked about a power group in the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), comprising around 15 people, controlling the affairs of the industry, including deciding and destroying the fate of actors and technicians and creating an overall toxic and inimical working environment in all aspects of film making to safeguard the vested interests of this group. The exclusionism against junior artists and their deplorable working conditions also came up for special mention.
A reactionary society reacts
As the Report hit the headlines, industry leaders in AMMA and the umbrella organization of technicians, Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA), were clueless about how to respond to the Hema Committee Report. While AMMA office-bearers were initially in denial about the contents of the Report, its allegations of ‘casting couch’ and the presence of the ‘power group’, discordant voices within the organization sought a measured and progressive response.
However, all hell broke loose as a torrent of sexual assault and exploitation allegations – mainly from artists who could not make it to the mainstream and were allegedly denied opportunities, or possibly did not get the opportunity to depose before the Justice Hema Committee – came up against many leading actors of the industry, including key AMMA office bearers like Siddique (General Secretary) and Baburaj (Joint Secretary). Allegations were made against actors Mukesh, who is also a CPI(M) legislator, Jayasuriya, Maniyanpillai Raju, and Edavela Babu, who recently gave way to Siddique as the AMMA General Secretary.
The subsequent uproar led to the AMMA Executive Committee, headed by its president and leading superstar of the industry, Mohanlal, forced to resign and disband the Committee.
Similarly, ace director and actor, Ranjith, had to quit as chairman of the Kerala Chalachitra Academy following allegations of misbehaviour by a Bengali actress. This was followed by another complaint of abuse against Ranjith by an aspirant actor at a Bangalore hotel. Similarly, a leading actress of yesteryears revealed to a television channel an attempted gang-rape by a producer and his friends at a film set and a suspected solicitation for sexual favours by a veteran director.
The Kerala Government, subjected to intense criticism for delaying the release of the Report for four years – allegedly to protect some prominent people in the industry – constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT), days after the Report was made public, with the mandate to investigate all complaints and take legal action. The fortnight after the release of the Hema Committee Report saw many actresses, junior artists as well as technicians coming forward with public revelations against specific actors or technicians, or on the inimical experiences they had in the industry.
At the same time, the torrent of allegations also raised questions about the credibility of many of these accounts. For instance, a young woman alleged gang rape in Dubai by a group of people, including some producers, and leading actor Nivin Pauly, on the pretext of acting opportunities. However, within hours of the allegation, Pauly addressed a press conference and denied the charges as baseless and has never seen the woman. Days later, noted director, actor and singer, Vineeth Sreenivasan, followed by many other co-actors, came on record to validate that Pauly was on his film set in Ernakulam on the dates alleged by the woman. The complainant had to soon retract her statement and accept errors in the dates given by her in the complaint.
Similarly, questions are raised on the veracity of the accounts by some of the complainants who came out openly following the release of the Hema Committee Report and on whose statements the SIT instantly moved to register FIRs. In the case of the complaint against Siddique, the complainant seemed incoherent in her accounts of the sexual assault given to the media even while questions were raised on why she never approached the police or forums like WCC.
In fact, most actors against whom allegations came up, including Siddique, Mukesh and Edavela Babu, have approached the police seeking a comprehensive investigation and alleging blackmail and extortion behind these complaints. Director Ranjith, for his part, produced evidence before the court to prove that the said hotel in Bangalore where the abuse was alleged to have happened was not even operational at the time alleged by the aspirant actor.
At least some of these allegations are being seen as either fake or exaggerated, and done with certain motives. Such a turn of events, in fact, has the potential to deflect attention from the serious matters handled by the Justice Hema Committee, fears a young director based out of Kochi, who spoke to The Polity but did not want to be identified.
In fact, most industry insiders, and some outliers, who spoke to The Polity preferred to be anonymous stating that the issue is very sensitive right now. Most of them, though, were insistent that the real meat of the Hema Committee Report was not just the study it conducted on women’s condition in the industry but also the testimonies it had gathered as evidence, which revealed the real stories of the adverse experiences women, and some men, faced in the industry.
Jolly Chirayath and Divya Gopinath, both members of WCC, pointed out in an interview that the public’s attention is more focused on titillating aspects, akin to collective voyeurism. “And, there seems to be a tendency to blame the women. The public and the media should shift their focus to the broader issues highlighted in the report,” the duo remarked.
The release of the full Report, including the testimonies that reportedly account for supposedly 31 odd paragraphs, is keenly awaited in all quarters even as the Kerala High Court, which was expected to take a call on full release following the Report’s submission on 9 September 2024, instead, instructed its handover to the SIT and seeking an action-taken report within two weeks.
The improbability of a conclusive action-taken report in such a short time notwithstanding, there are notable gaps and considerable thematic digressions in the Hema Committee Report which have, however, not been much in public discussion. The Polity team examined the 235-page report and wondered whether it could realistically resolve the problems for which the Committee was constituted, whether it could realistically appreciate the situation in the Malayalam film industry and whether the prescribed solutions are indeed workable in realistic terms.
A magna carta or mere wishful thinking?
It is worthwhile to mention that as the Chairperson of the Committee, Justice Hema had authored a considerable section of the Report, often referring to comments as her first-person account. While the veteran actress T. Sarada has given a brief set of comments and suggestions, largely contrasting with those of Justice Hema, the third member, V.B. Valsalakumari has given a detailed set of proposals, including supportive and contrasting opinions. As a result, it will be contingent on the government to examine the report in its entirety, examine all three viewpoints and explore the workable suggestions, rather than allow the Report to be an instrument for arousing public curiosity, slugfests and creating instability in the film industry.
The Report released on 19th August is numbered at 290 pages with only 235 pages in the volume. A total of 55 pages are missing in this volume besides the exhibits or annexures that are not part of the 290 pages. It is assumed that the missing pages will have accounts of the sexual harassment instances against female artists, technicians and junior artists, and possibly expose the role of some stars, directors, technicians and producers. However, negating such expectations is the section on “Meetings held in absolute privacy, ‘in camera’,” which has a different take on this matter.
While maintaining absolute privacy and confidentiality of the proceedings, the Committee states thus in Paragraph 37:
We avoided recording the names and other details of the witnesses in their statements. The task given to the Committee is to study and report the problems faced by women in cinema for which, it is not necessary to mention the names of the persons who confided with us, various facts from their own experiences. Meetings with different persons in cinemas were held “in camera” in absolute privacy. While statements… were recorded, care was taken to ensure that their statements will not reveal their identity.
Though emphasizing that the names of the men and women who were examined are not hidden from the main records, the Report states that “we struck off the names and other details of the women who gave answers to the Questionnaire so that their identity will not be disclosed.” This, according to the Committee, was done to protect their interests and also because the Committee’s function was only to study the issues related to women in cinema, “not to name or shame anybody or expose the guilty.”
Having said that the objective was not to ‘expose the guilty’ and merely stick to studying the issues, it is worth speculating on how much progress can be made by the SIT in terms of identifying the victims and the offenders on the basis of this report. The same question also applies to the extent to which the provided proposals can be fructified and whether the mandate of the Committee, as mentioned in its terms of reference, has been addressed comprehensively.
The Committee was mandated to study and prepare the report on 7 identified areas:
A saga of sexual abuse, exploitation and misogyny: Based on an extensive quantum of inputs, including documentation, testimonies by witnesses, answers to questionaries and materials collected from the Internet, the Report narrates a perennial, unchallenged and extensive culture of sexual abuse, exploitation and discriminative actions that lowers the dignity of women, assign them an inferior status in the Malayalam film industry and subject them to blackmail, compromise and adverse conditions that leave them with fewer choices other than to either submit to the ‘system’ perpetuated up by the ‘powerful’ men and their cohorts or leave the scene without a protest.
In Paragraph 53 of the Report, the Committee summarizes these trends into 17 points which include: Sexual demands made to women for the very entry into cinema and for chances to work in cinema; sexual harassment, abuse, assault against women at workplace, transportation, places of accommodation, and so on; torture of women, if they express their resentment and unwillingness to sexual demands; violation of human rights of women in cinema by not providing basic facilities like toilets and changing room on movie sets; lack of safety, security in cinema; authorized and illegal banning of individuals; silencing of women under threat of ban from work in cinema; male domination in industry, gender bias and discrimination; consumption of alcohol, drugs and disorderly conduct and misbehaviour; demeaning and vulgar comments at workplace and over phone; non-execution of contract in writing between employers and employees; failure to pay even consented remuneration; disparity and gender discrimination in remuneration; resistance to allow women into cinema’s technical side; online harassment and cyberattacks; lack of rights awareness among women; and absence of any legally constituted authority to redress the grievances, etc.
Subsequently, from Paragraphs 55 to 164, the Report delves deeper into issues like no toilets and changing room for women, which the Committee sees as a ‘denial of human rights’, sexual harassment, assault, abuse, forced compromise and adjustments and casting couch, along with a detailed reporting of incidents as confided to the Committee by the witnesses.
There is considerable discussion on sexual demands made to an aspirant actress from various quarters, including production controllers, producers, directors and actors. The Committee also counters the assertion by some male witnesses who claimed that such demands are there in other fields as well and insists that this is a syndrome that has solely afflicted the film industry. The Report also considerably reflects upon why women in cinema hesitate to approach the police after an incident of harassment or assault and enumerates a number of reasons why women quite often suppress the incident within themselves. Similarly, the incidents of online harassment against women who resist advances, attempt to seek justice or disclose their experiences to the public, have also been detailed in the Report.
Thereafter, paragraphs 165-196 are omitted from the Report, which is likely to be the detailed accounts given by the witnesses on the sexual harassment, assault and exploitation episodes.
The Report covering Paragraphs 197 to 341, the section authored by Justice Hema, thereafter, looks at critical issues like the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), the ban culture in cinema, working conditions of technicians and junior artists, and so on.
Justice Hema rejects scope for a credible ICC in the industry: The discussion on ICC throws open the complexities of having internal complaints or grievance redressal mechanisms in the film industry. The Report notes that while the WCC sought an ICC in every production unit as well as in AMMA, the latter claimed to have a ‘Woman Cell Grievance Forum’, but accepted its limitation as an actor’s forum that cannot have leverage or jurisdiction over all sections of people working in cinema. AMMA also stated that its activities do not come under the definition of ‘workplace’, and that it is only an association and not an employer.
The Kerala Government, for its part, had contended that there should be an employer-employee relationship existing in the film industry in order to set up ICCs in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Vishakha versus State of Rajasthan case as well as theSexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). As per this act, the Government pointed out that Local Complaints Committee under the district collectors have been constituted in all 14 districts in the state.
The Committee, hence, did not seek to ruminate upon matters like whether a production unit is a workplace and whether the producer and others have an employer-employee relationship and so on, as these issues are sub judice and under consideration of the Kerala HC. Yet, Justice Hema strongly vouched against an ICC in cinema owing to influential sections and powerful lobbies, led by men, inhibiting the possibility of an unbiased and credible ICC functioning in the Malayalam film industry. It is in this context that Justice Hema referred to the “power group” consisting of around 15 men, and goes on to describe various instances to conclude on its existence and negative influence in Malayalam cinema.
Paragraphs 206 and 208 explicate this position thus:
…we are satisfied that the constitution of ICC may not be a solution at all to the problems of women in the Malayalam Industry in the present scenario. If an ICC has to be constituted as per the relevant provisions of the POSH Act, individuals working in cinema itself have to be president and members. The employer is the person who has to decide whom to be chosen for different posts in the ICC… producers can be easily influenced by many various other individuals in cinema against whom sexual harassment allegations may be made. We are fully satisfied that as long as the power structure exists Malayalam film industry, they will take the full control of it and the Constitution of ICC comprising of persons in cinema will be of no use at all to protect any woman in the Malayalam film industry from sexual harassment/assault/abuse in cinema.
Justice Hema, however, concludes by lamenting the need for a new Statute and a Tribunal to address the issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry, as existing legal frameworks like the POSH Act have limitations for the simple fact that exploitation starts in the film industry even before women are employed. In fact, one of the significant aspects of this Report is the draft of the proposed statute, described in Paragraph 348, which Justice Hema drafted and has titled “The Kerala Cine Employers and Employees (Regulation) Act 2020.”
Where does the Report go astray?
The highlight of the Committee’s Report, particularly the sections authored by Justice Hema herself, is the extensive revelation of sexual abuse, exploitation and discrimination in the Malayalam film industry, which was already public knowledge, but on which the society and the government were largely indifferent to. Justice Hema also extensively describes the deplorable working conditions of junior artists as well as the discrimination and denial of work opportunities to women technicians.
Citing the case of female hair stylists, Justice Hema talks about unions denying work to them using illogical age restrictions and also points to the discrimination in remuneration. Referring to the extensive exploitation and abuse faced by junior artists at the hands of agents and production controllers, Justice Hema mentions how junior artists, including dancers, were difficult to reach and were reluctant to talk as they were threatened by powerful lobbies of losing opportunities and warned against talking to the Committee or revealing their situation.
Yet, despite providing such intricate details and making significant contributions like the statute draft, the Committee did not seem to have done justice to all the core issues mentioned in the terms of reference. The extent of sexual abuse and exploitation has been brought out in considerable terms; nonetheless, the Report, while assessing issues like remuneration, ICC and ban, substantially digressed into the functioning of the film industry, beyond the realm of women's issues, and in the process, failing to accurately appreciate the reasons why the industry functions the way it does. This was most evident in the observations of Justice Hema and Vimalakumari.
Cinema remains an unorganized sector: Despite being classified as an industry, the cinema sector hardly displays any characteristics of an organized commercial/corporate sector. The functional structure of a film production unit could be seen to be similar to the workforce in the construction sector with the producer acting as the contractor and others on wages or fixed remuneration. That the stars (including actors and directors) call the shots could be the striking difference, though. Wealth and fan base are invariably the defining factors in cinema with the market value of stars and the financial base of the producers or production houses determining the rules of the game.
Bollywood star, Amir Khan is seen telling in an interview that stars who sell will naturally determine remuneration and there is no scope for parity in this field. Consequently, any contract prepared will be on the terms of the producer or the leading stars. There are hundreds of stories of exploitation and discrimination against women, as told by the Hema Committee; there are also thousands of stories of aspirant film-makers and wannabe actors, mainly men, who have been striving to make their own movies or act in one, for years or decades, before breaking through.
Due to this unorganized character, the scope for any statutes or legislation to control the essential functioning of the film industry remains limited, notwithstanding the imperative of legislation and interventions to check and act against sexual abuse and exploitation. On the other hand, the government could constitute wage boards to frame minimum remuneration standards for junior artists, spot boys and other sections of the workforce who are not the creative professionals of a film unit. The Hema Committee, despite detailed expositions on contracts and remuneration, did not seem to have explored such possibilities but for some reference to minimum wages.
A lopsided narrative? The key contribution of the Hema Committee was that it brought to the public record for the first time the dominant culture of sexual abuse and exploitation in the Malayalam film industry. This happened largely owing to the efforts of the WCC. However, due to this catalytical role played by the WCC, the Committee seems to have instinctively absorbed the WCC’s narrative about Malayalam cinema. As a result, the voices and views of the vast section of women artists in AMMA did not seem to have found an echo in the report.
For instance, if the WCC has around 40 members, including artists and technicians, there are around 245 women members in AMMA, of which only a fraction has also joined the WCC. While there is no indication in the Report on how many woman artists from AMMA, who are not part of WCC, have been part of the witnesses or have answered the questionnaires, the Report is conspicuous with the imprint and influence of WCC.
Though the Report talks about meeting with office bearers or members of AMMA, FEFKA and many individual actors and technicians, Paragraphs 27-30 of the Report show how WCC had gained exclusive group meetings with the Committee, unlike other associations, which could be a testament to how the group could have influenced the thinking of the Committee in substantial terms. The fact that Justice Hema’s remarks in the Report considerably reiterate the comments made by the WCC members about the ‘power group’ and related incidents in Malayalam cinema could be another embodiment of such influence on the Committee’s thought process.
In fact, the parts of the Report that Justice Hema authored make numerous assertions about the ‘power group’, the ‘mafia’ remarks by veteran actor Thilakan, his face-offs with AMMA, and the incidents involving director Vinayan and Dileep’s role in breaking up MACTA and formation of FEFKA. There is little evidence in the Report that suggests that the views of the ‘other side’ or the members of the ‘power group’ have been taken on these incidents. Accordingly, despite the claims by the Committee that the Report is based on evidence and documents, these assertions clearly show the influence of ‘hearsay’ or opinions of one section as influencing the Committee in considerable terms.
Incidentally, while The Polity team was preparing this report, FEFKA also released a dossier pointing to many such gaps in the Hema Committee Report and the Committee having been influenced by the narrative framed by WCC.
Among the many perceptive comments was one in Paragraph 290 in which Justice Hema asserts without supporting evidence, thus: “The men in cinema do not want any woman to enjoy any such facilities.”
Members had conflicting views: Justice Hema, in the parts of the Report that she authored as the chairperson, had considerably digressed beyond the terms of reference and women-related issues when discussing topics like remuneration, ICC and the ban culture. However, it was surprising to see veteran actress Sarada putting on record some contrarian views and ex-IAS officer Vimalakumari considerably digressing into areas like ‘satellite rights’ and making many proposals that show their disconnect with the realities of the film industry.
While the Hema Committee was much in discussion in the Kerala and national media, very little space has been given to the views expressed by Sarada despite being the only film personality on the Committee.
Sarada, for her part, made remarks that may not suit the progressive and feminist minds. For instance, she feels that the manner in which many women in the industry are dressed today, by exposing their body parts, is not correct. Citing the influence of Western culture, Sarada feels that ‘adjustment’ and ‘compromise’ are now quite common. Sarada laments that the ‘casting couch’ existed even in earlier days though women now speak about it openly. She affirms that relationships in older days were with mutual consent and that the ‘availability’ of women was a perception then too though it has become public now.
While agreeing with Justice Hema on issues like safe accommodation, cyberattacks, gender discrimination and so on, Sarada rejects the principle of equal remuneration stating that it is contingent on audience demand. On the same footing, she underlines practical problems on the question of enhancing participation for women, which, she feels, should be left to producers. Also, Sarada is not in favour of awarding scholarships to women to enable their greater skill development in cinema’s technical areas. Furthermore, she is also not in favour of any help in case of accidents or offering assistance to women out of job during maternity period.
Interestingly, such contrarian views have not come into the media gaze despite Sarada being the only member from the film industry in the Hema Committee.
K.B. Valsalakumari, for her part, has been largely supportive of the observations and suggestions authored by Justice Hema. However, she also considerably went major digression through reams of pages on issues like ‘satellite rights.’
Valsalakumari observes that “woman is not a monolithic entity” and is stratified by “various axes like class, caste, race, religion, age, skills, kinship, etc.” Hence, the issues faced by one category in the film industry need not necessarily be the same as those faced by others nor universal and applicable to everyone, she opines. The retired IAS officer also feels that a written contract is a must without which rights are not guaranteed.
Thereafter, Valsalakumari stretches into a suggestion that may not sound practical – that “every entrant to a movie as cast or crew should undergo a mandatory online basic gender awareness training,” without which the person should not be given a contract. Similarly, she suggests the need to ban the use of alcoholic beverages and substance abuse in the workplace.
On the issue of remuneration, she engages in a lengthy exposition of close to 32 pages (207-239) with superfluous and irrelevant details including satellite rights, distribution and star value. She concludes this section with the suggestion that there should be parity in remuneration, and as a first step, the difference should be narrowed down. Also given are suggestions like paying remuneration for pre- and post-production work for assistant directors, treating all Assistant Directors on the same footing and so on. Also mentioned is the constructive suggestion of minimum wage for junior artists.
Besides supporting the need for a Tribunal, Vimalakumari suggests background checks on all people in order to ensure the safety of women, designating hair stylists as ‘chief technicians’, and so on. The retired bureaucrat also calls for a comprehensive film policy, gender balance in the composition of decision-making bodies in cinema, budgetary support for women filmmakers, awards for films by women, and so on. In the same vein, she has another stretched suggestion that the government should ensure that “in each taluk where there are two or more theatres, one of them will exhibit movies made by women.”
Valsalakumari, though, rightly notes the low participation of female students in film studies, including at the collegiate level, and mentions the example of low women presence at the state-run K.R. Narayanan Institute. She also suggests the need to encourage local self-help groups like Kudumbashree to start skill development training programmes in areas involving film craft. Besides suggesting a welfare fund to support women artists and technicians during the maternity period, Valsalakumari also calls for changing the portrayal of women, excessive masculinity and femininity in Malayalam cinema.
What cometh of the report?
Interestingly, while progressives and feminists see gender neutrality as the solution to the problems for women in cinema, both Justice Hema and Valsalakumari seem to be more inclined towards gender emphasis, rebalancing and pivoting in their outlook. However, what comes most glaringly from many of their views is their abject lack of understanding of the functional realities of the film industry and resorting to conventional approaches and generalized formulas to propose solutions for women in the film industry.
Needless to emphasize, many see the Hema Committee Report aftermath as a media circus with the core issues now losing the necessary focus in the public eye. In the meantime, questions are raised on why other film industries in the country, particularly Bollywood, are conspicuously silent on similar issues in their domain. While some murmurs have come up in the Tamil film industry, leading artists in the Telugu film industry have demanded the release of a sub-committee report on workplace sexual harassment in the film industry which was submitted to the Telangana government in July 2022.
Going by the deep silence and sense of denial prevailing in other film industries in the country, the Kerala government needs to be lauded for initiating such a study, howsoever effective the outcome will be. In fact, the Hema Committee notes that “it is for the first time that a Government in this country ventured upon this type of an initiative and constituted a Committee to study on the issues relating to women in cinema and suggest solutions.” The Kerala experience should necessarily prompt other governments, including the Union Government, to initiate similar studies.
However, the question is now moot on what is next for the Malayalam film industry. With the superstars and the older generation now planning to quit the scene vis-à-vis running AMMA, there is speculation on whether the organization will split or whether the younger generation will spearhead the expectant transformation in the Malayalam film industry. Even as the SIT investigations are progressing, it will be many more months before the fate of the actors and technicians accused of sexual harassment in recent weeks will be known – whether they will face the music or be seen as clean and exonerated.
Though it is difficult to conclude whether all the proposals of the Hema Committee can be realistically pursued and implemented, there is hope for a Statute and Tribunal to be instituted which will provide a sense of fairness, safety and justice to women in cinema, besides ensuring that potential and habitual violators are deterred. “While such predators should be punished, the aftermath of the Report should not be allowed to destroy and destabilize the film industry,” a young director who is on the verge of debuting in the industry, remarked to The Polity.
On the whole, a sweeping transformation is expected in the Malayalam film industry. However, only time will tell whether this will happen for good or, instead, damage the industry irreparably.
As English literary critic and writer Cyril Connolly once famously remarked, “In the sex war, thoughtlessness is the weapon of the male, vindictiveness of the female.”
