Shabana Azmi breaks silence on disparity in remuneration

Page

Next Last

Nikki

@touch_of_pink

Sparkler

+ 8

Posted: 9 years ago

Shabana Azmi breaks silence on disparity in remuneration

Date published: Saturday, 9 January 2016 - 11:06pm IST | Agency: PTI

...asks male stars to stand up as well...

Shabana Azmi feels that gender disparity in payment exists not only in Bollywood but all over the world and male actors should take a lead to end this discrimination. The "Fire" actress said male superstars should support their female counterparts and be willing to be a part of women-oriented films.

"I feel gender disparity in payment exists all over the world, particularly in the film industry and that is simply because it's the male star who brings the bucks in the box office," she told reporters here. "Just as it is perfectly acceptable that when you have any of the big heroes then the big heroines will come along and do a second role. So, why can't male young superstars also say 'alright I will do this film in which I have a less important role because I feel it's important'? So, it's all about sensitising them in a way."

Shabana, 65, lauded Shah Rukh Khan's decision of introducing his female co-star prior to his name in the credit list and said he should go beyond that gesture. "Shah Rukh Khan made a remarkable gesture when he said that Deepika Padukone's name will come before his, that is lovely. But he needs to go beyond that," she said. The actress, who will be seen next in education drama "Chalk n Duster", said if the male stars sensitise them towards the change then equal amount of money will go into a female actress' pocket too. "If they star in female-oriented films then the money will come in and then you would be able to make an actual change."

http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report-shabana-azmi-breaks-silence-on-disparity-in-remuneration-2164021

Quote

Frequent Posters

~*sindhu*~

@~*sindhu*~

Sparkler

Posted: 9 years ago

Male actor starring in a female oriented movie brings a change how? If the male actor is still being the reason why audience goes and watches the movie then it is still his star power or work that earned it. Not the actress. It needs to be actresses picking up the right roles that interest the audience irrespective of a male actor. It needs to be her hard work and popularity for which she needs to be paid. The actor has nuthn to do with it in my opinion.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Unique

@Terenaina

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 9 years ago

I agree and disagree with her. I agree with the payment changes because it's nonsense that a flop actor gets paid more than a hit actress. Like i"m sure imran got paid more than kangs.

I disagree with the fact that a top hero has to star in a female oritented film to bring in a change. That's why I'm against srk being part of that alia movie. She's the lead actress why him being a top actor needs to be a play a supporting role.

Khans are bringing in the money. They should not be playing supporting characters at all

Quote

Illyrion

@Illyrion

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 9 years ago

I would much rather see an actor do a small well crafted part in a great film than be in every scene playing a stupid role in a crap movie. Why can't popular male actors take those supporting roles? Why does stardom have to be defined by giant roles in mindless big budget films?

I think Shabana was saying if popular male actors would be willing to take the small parts in films like Kahaani and Queen because they recognized they had the potential to be good movies, more of those movies would be made and the audience for women centric films would grow. Women's salaries would naturally increase as their audience draw increased. There are a few (western) actors and actresses whose films I will always watch even if their parts are small because I "trust" their script sense and almost always like the films they choose to be a part of.

Quote

TheekThaak

@TheekThaak

Rocker

Posted: 9 years ago

What is she trying to say?

Quote

kabeeraspeaking

@kabeeraspeaking

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 9 years ago

Originally posted by: Kaapi
What is she trying to say?

I think she's trying to say that if male BW biggies showed that they were okay with playing second fiddle to women in women-centric movies (let's just say something like what Madhavan did in TWMR even though it wasn't women-centric, just a more prominent/larger role for the female lead)...it would change people's perceptions about the value of female actresses and female characters (so basically, that men not being afraid to play supporting characters to women would result in audience perceiving female actors/characters as worth the time/value too.) When male stars/superstars agree to act in supporting roles in a film, it will still bring in their audience (and thus big money) to the theatres, while having the female in the main role in the movie that they're watching itself.

This of course demands a lot from the men, and definitely a lot more from them than they'll ever be willing to give. Majority are in the field for money/fame...not social work/revolution.

Quote

TheekThaak

@TheekThaak

Rocker

Posted: 9 years ago

Originally posted by: kabeeraspeaking

I think she's trying to say that if male BW biggies showed that they were okay with playing second fiddle to women in women-centric movies (let's just say something like what Madhavan did in TWMR even though it wasn't women-centric, just a more prominent/larger role for the female lead)...it would change people's perceptions about the value of female actresses and female characters (so basically, that men not being afraid to play supporting characters to women would result in audience perceiving female actors/characters as worth the time/value too.) When male stars/superstars agree to act in supporting roles in a film, it will still bring in their audience (and thus big money) to the theatres, while having the female in the main role in the movie that they're watching itself.

This of course demands a lot from the men, and definitely a lot more from them than they'll ever be willing to give. Majority are in the field for money/fame...not social work/revolution.

But that way the actresses will never be able to put their stamp on box office. I know that a movie's performance is not the measure for every thing, but the way this industry functions, it has become important for the female actresses to prove their mettle at the box office individually. Atleast for that sake, I feel that these women oriented films better not have a super popular face whose presence would overshadow the rest of the things in an otherwise small movie. Also presence of popular bw biggies will shoot up the costs and the chances of it doing really well at the box office despite it trending well, will be low. I feel the best thing to do at this stage(where women oriented movies are a rarity) is to keep the budget low, keep them slightly low profile and let them work on the basis of emit and performances of the entire cast. Later, when such movies become common, the presence of biggies wouldn't take anything away from the actresses or rest of the cast. But before that we need a lot of successful female oriented movies, that would strengthen the credibility of actresses at the box office.

Quote

PAcino

@PAcino

Voyager

Posted: 9 years ago

But wouldn't it be patronizing for a male star to make an appearance in a female oriented movie to reign in the big bucks?? Won't it end up reinforcing that the female lead despite headlining the film needs to depend on a male actor to bring in the bucks?

Isn't the onus instead on directors & writers to write strong parts for women so that can can bring their talent to the fore & on production houses to back such films & promote them sufficiently?

Sorry I disagree w/ Shabana!!!

Quote

kabeeraspeaking

@kabeeraspeaking

Sparkler

+ 2

Posted: 9 years ago

Originally posted by: Kaapi

But that way the actresses will never be able to put their stamp on box office. I know that a movie's performance is not the measure for every thing, but the way this industry functions, it has become important for the female actresses to prove their mettle at the box office individually. Atleast for that sake, I feel that these women oriented films better not have a super popular face whose presence would overshadow the rest of the things in an otherwise small movie. Also presence of popular bw biggies will shoot up the costs and the chances of it doing really well at the box office despite it trending well, will be low. I feel the best thing to do at this stage(where women oriented movies are a rarity) is to keep the budget low, keep them slightly low profile and let them work on the basis of emit and performances of the entire cast. Later, when such movies become common, the presence of biggies wouldn't take anything away from the actresses or rest of the cast. But before that we need a lot of successful female oriented movies, that would strengthen the credibility of actresses at the box office.

I think the idea is (1) change in mindset induced by male stars' initiative = (2) people believing women are worth the money (because women-centric films perhaps must imply good films only?) = (3) people will eventually be paying as much money to watch women in main roles as men = (4) women get paid more. Therefore the claim is perhaps that a change in mindset induced by approach of those in a privilege role may bring about any possibility of actresses eventually being able to put their stamp on the box office. Agree with you that it's flawed at the very first step because of stuff like budget or presence considerations...these things are why men won't even consider accepting supporting roles. And the approach you've suggested is best, yeah.

Edited by kabeeraspeaking - 9 years ago

Quote

mayumi

@mayumi

Voyager

Posted: 9 years ago

#10

I have to wonder back in the early 90s when Sridevi was pretty much ruled, if she got paid less than the male actors like Anil Kapoor, Rishi Kapoor etc. It would be really pathetic if she didn't command the same amount of money as them. At that time Khans were still newbies so they likely got close to her amount.

But since the 2000s it looked like bollywood changed a lot in terms of disparity in payment mostly cause of those 100 crore tags and super masala type movies.

Edited by mayumi - 9 years ago

Quote

1 2

Shabana Azmi

Shabana Azmi breaks silence on disparity in remuneration

Shabana Azmi breaks silence on disparity in remuneration

Related Topics

Explore Topics