The infamous casting couch has existed in show biz practically forever. Only now are people coming out and vocalising their protests against this pernicious practice that has exploited generations of artistes. The difference in the way that the casting couch is viewed in Hollywood is different than it is in Bollywood however.
It is defined as a demand for sexual favours by a person in a position of authority, from a novice or person with little or no experience looking to break into a highly competitive world. Where on the one hand, people including top stars are speaking out against powerful men such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby for the way that they have exploited so many women over the years, in Bollywood, the reaction to the casting couch is quite different.
Recently veteran choreographer Saroj Khan came out with her views on the casting couch. According to her, it is a situation of give and take; a mutual barter of favours. Khan explained away the casting couch syndrome by saying that the Indian film industry "at least provided jobs and did not abandon women after raping them”. Those who subscribe to this view believe that since there is no physical force (at least in some cases) involved, it doesn’t amount to sexual assault or even harassment.
There are other excuses offered by those who would connive at the situation where those in power demand and receive sexual favours in return for a part in a movie or other ‘break’ in a movie or only a promise of such an 'opportunity'. The first of course is good old whataboutery – it happens in every other industry so why single out the film industry for criticism.
The other excuse offered is that only those without adequate talent would succumb to demands for sexual favours; that if one is talented enough one ought to be able to make it without giving in to such demands. “When you are an artiste, why will you sell yourself?” Saroj Khan reportedly said.
Others such as Rakhi Sawant have supported Saroj Khan and have expressed the view that there is no coercion involved in such cases, that it is an ‘exchange of favours’ where both parties stand to gain something. According to Sawant, if young girls are willing to ‘compromise’ producers are not to blame for this.
Many big and powerful names in Hollywood have come out with their own stories of being propositioned. Many powerful men have been sued and publicly denounced. The tide of anger against powerful, exploitative men has been vocal and has also translated into action. For instance, Weinstein has been stripped of his membership of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as well as his fellowship of the British Film Institute.
This was not just to punish someone who had misused his power and exploited women with impunity, but also to send out the message to others who would indulge in such behaviour. It was to send out the message that the “era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over.” Not only have people chosen to distance themselves from these reprehensible men and their actions, they have spoken out and taken action against them.
Contrast this to Bollywood, there is still a shroud of secrecy that protects the powerful people who have misled and taken advantage of newcomers with stars in their eyes. The exploitative, coercive tactics used are either unacknowledged or explained away. The crux of the problem seems to escape Bollywood: that exploitation stems from those in positions of power and authority taking advantage of those in weaker positions. In many cases, young aspirants would be made false promises of future stardom and misled by exploiter exaggerating their own power and circle of influence. Here the experienced and the powerful take direct advantage of the naïve and the powerless. How is this not exploitation? How is this not coercive? Does the absence of physical force make it all any less egregious? How is it OK for a man (or a woman) to dole out work preying on the vulnerability of the people who work for them? How is it OK to create and perpetuate such a sordid work environment?
In Hollywood, the answer to these questions seems clear: those who have misused their positions of advantage will get their comeuppance and the toxic environment created by them will no longer be protected or tolerated. This statue in ‘honour’ of the disgraced Weinstein on Hollywood Boulevard entitled “Casting Couch” is meant to make a statement and act as a warning. In Bollywood, the answer is far more equivocal. In fact, as of now, Bollywood seems to be of a mind to abet the wrongdoer, explain away their wrongdoings and instead shame those whose ambitions and insecurities have been used against them. Bollywood has a long way to go before it speaks out against sexual exploitation. Or even understands fully what it means.
Do you have something interesting you would like to share? Write to us at [email protected]
