A while ago, actor Deepika Padukone spoke about the need for eight-hour workdays in Bollywood, sparking conversations about the unregulated state of affairs behind the screen. Her comments are symptomatic of a chronic issue that plagues any sector struggling to get organised. Except that Hindi cinema was granted industry status in 2001—almost a quarter of a century ago. The film industry’s reluctance to fully embrace its organised industry status reflects in the less-than-satisfactory working conditions and remuneration for lakhs of artists. Padukone’s call for eight-hour workdays is the norm in most professional industries. The “creativity cannot follow a clock” reasoning does not quite hold up. Hollywood’s regulated hours produce creative work, too. Rules and regulations that are conducive to the industry’s functioning can definitely be framed. Things do need to change.
If there is one framework that can guide this change, it is diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Yes, DEI is under unfortunate attack in several parts of the world, but that is all the more reason to earnestly engage with this progressive framework. The Hindi film industry needs to change, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because its future may well depend on it. An unrepresentative and exclusivist creative industry will struggle to sustain itself in the long run.
What used to be a fairly diverse industry, producing films across different budgets and sensibilities, has increasingly become dominated by a handful of massive tent-pole productions. These tent-pole films, mounted at enormous costs, need extensive release windows and maximum number of screens to make a profit. The most obvious problem is the shrinking space for medium and small films. A debut director’s thoughtful drama or an experimental genre production struggles to get even limited theatrical release, let alone the time to find an audience.
This concentration of resources creates a self-reinforcing pattern. As a lot of money rides on tent-pole projects, they become increasingly star-centric. These productions demand big, established names who can provide some insurance against box office unpredictability. The logic becomes somewhat circular: tent-pole films need stars to justify their scale, and stars command premium fees. Everyone knows these projects are “too big to fail”, and that results in frantic efforts to contain cost overruns, forcing everyone to do more work for less.
Projects driven by innovation, compelling stories or distinctive voices rather than star power get pushed to the margins. As a result, young writers and directors find fewer opportunities. Mid-budget cinema has largely disappeared. You either make a Rs100-crore plus spectacle or scramble for whatever is left. It is a crisis that affects the entire production ecosystem.
So what can be done? Reform needs coordinated discussions and action on multiple fronts.
Producer bodies should ideally take the lead in ensuring diversity in scale, themes and genres. This means a deliberate effort to support mid- and small-budget productions, genre experiments and new voices. The current model, where a handful of massive bets crowds out everything else, does not serve creative health or economic stability. A diverse portfolio approach makes both artistic and financial sense.
Nicole Kidman | AFP
The star system is complicated. It may seem unjust that individual performers command such disproportionate resources. Yet you could argue that stars embody what is essential about cinema’s magic—the charisma, screen presence, and emotional connect that make movies more than just stories. Rather than trying to dismantle star power, which probably is not possible anyway, the solution might be to redirect it. Established stars could use their influence to support varied projects. When a major star like Nicole Kidman, who has resolved to work with women directors once every 18 months, publicly backs diverse talent and emerging filmmakers, she sets an example for others. Stars’ advocacy could also pressure exhibitors and distributors to treat smaller films more fairly.
Cinema halls are, somewhat ironically, constraining cinema. The growth of premium multiplexes with enhanced amenities sounds good, but it comes at a price. Tickets at these venues often cost more than what even a middle-class family can afford for a regular outing. Producers and exhibitors need to seriously think about programming diversity, pricing and accessibility. The aim should be to make people go to cinema halls several times a year, and not just for occasional blockbusters.
OTT platforms, despite their current limitations, offer genuine possibilities. Many of the platforms are sponsoring research studies, talent development programmes and providing platforms for diverse voices. They could do more, though. A family wanting access to varied content today might need subscriptions to four or five platforms. It is an expense many cannot afford. Other than bundling access with voice and data plans, smarter simplified payment systems, and region and demographic specific affordability initiatives could dramatically increase access.
Better working conditions produce better work. An exhausted, exploited crew cannot deliver their best. Industry associations should demand, establish, and enforce basic standards around hours, pay, safety and dignity. We need union negotiations establishing clear boundaries about AI use, worker compensation and consent. In Hollywood, when studios tried to short-change writers and actors over streaming revenues and AI, the Writers Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA (the American labour union for performers and media professionals) won significant protections through collective negotiation. Recent court cases around personality rights show that individual battles can succeed, but they are expensive and exhausting. Collective bargaining through unions distributes this burden and creates industry-wide standards. This is particularly urgent with AI; as studios experiment with AI-generated scripts and digital doubles, individual contracts will not suffice. Associations like the Screenwriters Association are already taking it up in a substantial manner.
The Hindi film industry’s problems are real but fixable. The current trajectory does not serve most filmmakers or viewers. It does not even serve the industry’s long-term commercial interests. Change requires acknowledging this and acting collectively. The magic of cinema depends not just on stars and spectacle, but on diversity, equity and inclusivity, and the idea that cinema can speak to and for everyone. Getting back to that is what reforms should aim for.
Faiz Ullah is associate professor at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi Paromita Ghosh is a Mumbai-based media professional