It’s been a proud year for Indian cinema on the global stage, foremost among which is Payal Kapadia’s historic moment at the 77th Cannes Festival. She became the first Indian director to win the Grand Prix for her directorial feature debut ‘All We Imagine As Light’. The film and the buzz surrounding her win have raised several pertinent questions around support for independent cinema and especially women filmmakers.
Payal has stated the need for equal access to public education and government support for independent filmmakers. She also speaks of her privilege to choose to pursue filmmaking as a career, noting the same isn’t possible for many women as well as the difficulty of getting funding. In conversation with the AFP she says, ‘if you want to make a smaller film that’s not so narrative-focused or doesn’t work with the industry set-up, it’s difficult to find funds.” When even recognised filmmakers like Kapadia struggle to this extent, it indicates a deeper problem. Rahul Rawat, director of Sunpat has shed light on how the hurdles don’t end after funding in an interview with The Economic Times. “We are able to write the story, shoot it, edit it, and get the award also. Now what? Where do you go with the film? Where’s the platform?
These issues are exacerbated for women filmmakers. The label of a ‘female-oriented film’ comes with a plethora of stereotypes. These include that women can only make a certain type of film, their work intrinsically carries less value and ‘serious’ roles like directing and producing are beyond them. Nevertheless, director Tanuja Chandra has spoken about how she is proud to be classified as a woman director. “It’s important to state that you are a woman working in an institution run by men. When I started out, there were probably only as many as you’d count on your fingers. Today, there are many more women, but in comparison to the male heads, the number is miniscule.”
The label of a ‘female-oriented film’ comes with a plethora of stereotypes. These include that women can only make a certain type of film, their work intrinsically carries less value and ‘serious’ roles like directing and producing are beyond them.
Funding is a major stumbling block for women across the board. From mainstream Hollywood to indie directors in South Asia the thread of lack of access to already limited resources runs common. Studies have shown that women are less likely to be granted funding for their own projects, and be paid less when working on others. Independent films, which strive to spark important discussions and push boundaries strengthen the refrain of women’s stories ‘not selling’. In her statement, Payal Kapadia says ‘People at Cannes asked me why it is taking 30 years for a film to be selected. While I did ask the selection committee this question, we should also ask ourselves this. Why can we not support more independent filmmakers?” She calls for an ‘autonomous system’ representing those who don’t already have connections in the film industry adding that “For a democracy to thrive, voices need to remain independent from big studios that are run by rich industrialists.”
Women have to fight to have their voices heard in a society which burdens them with constant contrary constraints. Those who work in film face the usual hurdles when defending their choice to work, compounded by the lack of job and income security. At its core, filmmaking is pursued out of passion and sidelining women’s passions in a core tenant of the patriarchy. Filmmaking is a job with erratic long hours, outside of traditional workspaces. Factors such as lack of safety regulations and proper facilities deter women from pursuing these careers and their families from supporting them. Mukund Narayan, director, has mentioned how he had to change his protagonist from a girl to a boy due to parents’ safety concerns. Kani Kusruti, actress in ‘All We Imagine As Light’ has pointed out how the lack of toilet and security facilities affects women on sets. Ashwiny Iyer Tiwari provided insight into these double standards to Times of India saying, “We’re always being scrutinised — right from our homes. We’re conditioned to overthink. Sometimes, it helps to think like a man. They don’t feel guilty if they are late.”
At its core, filmmaking is pursued out of passion and sidelining women’s passions in a core tenant of the patriarchy. Filmmaking is a job with erratic long hours, outside of traditional workspaces. Factors such as lack of safety regulations and proper facilities deter women from pursuing these careers and their families from supporting them.
This extends beyond domestic labour. Men are given far more grace when it comes to devoting themselves to their role. Natalie Portman touched upon this when discussing method acting, saying it’s only available to those “whose job as an actor is seen as more important than the other roles they hold in life” and “luxury that women can’t afford”.
Payal’s statement resonates with this sentiment. She has said that the resources required are not just material but also aspects like cultural capital, education, and access to the arts. Women are severely disadvantaged here due to the lack of representation in curricula, on boards and selection committees and the extent to which they are allowed to pursue their dreams. This is also precisely why it is essential to invest in women-directed indie films. They tell stories and give platforms that mainstream films won’t. Success stories such as Payal’s are catalysts for increased exposure and investment. It is not that the double standards aren’t acknowledged but only whenever women finally beat the odds and come out on top. There is a certain hypocrisy attached when the same institutions that enforce such challenges celebrate women for breaking the said boundaries.
May ‘All We Imagine As Light’ be a testament to how much women can do with so little. Think of what they could do if they were given their dues.
Featured image source: Forbes
