Caste dominates the Tollywood space.

The industry strives on the power dynamics between the Kamma and Kaapi castes. While the Nandamuri, Akkineni and Daggubati families supply a majority of young actors to the screen representing the Kamma caste, the rise of Chiranjeevi symbolically upped the ante of Kaapi caste. His powerful influence though is far outweighed by the Kammas who really have had the monopoly in Movie Distribution.

That should also explain the reason behind Chiranjeevi’s strategic manoeuvre behind arranging a marital alliance between for his son. An arranged intercaste marriage in that stature is unthinkable of in the Telugu speaking world but yet has happened. It indicates a certain segment of Kaapi castes coming to terms with the hegemony of other castes.

The third caste that has dominated the early years of Telugu Cinema but whose influence has dwindled since are the Brahmins. Their stature although has been relegated to a minority with ever powering Kammas, still continues to dominate certain critical, non-logistical but heavily artistic and aesthetic aspects of the cinema. A decent number of influential actors have been Brahmins so far.

Telugu music industry, classical to cinema music crossover artistry is dominated by Brahmins by and large. So are the writers guilds. Despite this, the financial & logistical guillotine continues to be the domain of the Kammas.

The caste mandate has been so powerful beyond money's brute force that it could powerfully resist the influential and wealthy Reddy caste scions from foraying into the A-lists of the film industry. Choking the distribution could kill anybody, and none else can be better victims. Reddy’s otherwise who have dominated every other business by hook or crook have had no opportunity to project a mainstream hero onto the silver screen. None of them is a Tollywood A-lister, except for a few Reddy actors who play either comedy or supporting roles.

Women, Misogyny, Objectification and Victim Shaming

A woman has four mutually exclusive utilities in Tollywood - of an eye candy, of a sex toy, of a trophy and of a doormat - a commodity that cannot be dispensed with. The same Kamma caste that has given out so many actors has not given out a single contemporary actress.

It speaks of two underlying phenomenon :-

There is a strong gender hierarchy within the Kamma caste, what we call the glass ceiling.

Women cannot get to play the Caste Privilege Card.

The second reason also explains why all of the contemporary ‘A-lister’ actresses are those who have been imported. They do not have a linguistic background relevant for the language of the Cinema. Their voices are dubbed. That is also a reason why a twenty something actress stars opposite a sixty something old actor as his love interest.

The Telugu Film Industry reminds that we are almost where we were socially 200 years ago. The Sati era. It was the era when a teen girl could be the interest of an ageing man.

While many argue that the trend is changing, but no, I disagree. It is depreciating further and faster. The career of a Tollywood actress who made it big spans a maximum of five years. It can be further curtailed if the actress reaches the age of thirty.

So, they (actresses) end up signing for movies to pick every opportunity that comes their way. They are those who speak volumes about feminism and women’s rights outside in the interviews and talk shows, tweets, who finally end up doing movies where women are equated to trash, or damsels in distress. Any resistance from their end also means they can be replaced with another young, fair toned, tight skinned female. Simple. The can neither throw up, not gulp it down. None of their roles they do in movies, not even a scripted dialogue they utter has any bearing on the movie’s plot.

In their defence, they have crossed paedophiles, predators and rapists at several levels in their career to make it to where they stand. Things can come crashing down if they raise a voice, speak for themselves,. You can call them hypocrites, but one has to realise social systems are always designed in such a way that it is the victim that takes the first strike in a conservative backlash.

Chastity

On the screen, a woman’s moral stature is a function of her chastity. Pulling it off properly can provide the ‘Suspension of disbelief’ to the viewers the character played by the woman is chaste enough to please the galleries’ morality. The movie Arjun Reddy took this to a totally new level. The female lead's chastity (and fidelity) was what was the entire suspense of the movie was about.

Predatory Romance/No is never taken for an answer on screen

We come across ridiculously lecherous motivations of male actors played in movies (telugu in particular), aimed at ensnaring or cornering a woman with absolute disregard for the idea of the woman’s consent. It is blatant, and least controversial even amongst many educated women. Many seem to appreciate the hero’s antics, and it is thus a spectacle. An act that is otherwise sociopathic can be passed off as a trope, as something that can be justified like ‘he only did it only because he likes/loves her’. Thats some consolation. Eww.

Surprisingly, predatory romance has been the norm since colour came into the Telugu Cinema and gained more popularity since the 1980’s. The film ‘Premabhishekam’ can be considered a good starter for predatory romance in the cinema landscape. In the movie, Akkineni Nageshwar Rao’s character would keep stalking the hell out of the female lead, played by Sridevi.

In the movie he is seen violating her personal space, including landing in her house uninvited, trying to reach out to her cheeks to pinch her - creepy but justifiable because he has a heart of gold.

This goes on until the female lead gives in to his machinations at some point.

The narrative for the hero is built in away that the audience would feel bad for his position - after all he is the only good guy in the last.

The male character’s advances are always balanced by his superior moral standing, usually coming from kindness, or poverty, or oneupmanship. The layering helps prevent building up of bias against his character and normalises predatory behavior for the audience. Coding at best.

Male needs trump everything else, on and off screen

The male leads in movies are generally needy, emotionally codependent, requiring their emotional (and physical) needs to be taken care of by someone else, usually the female lead. In the event of her refusal to play by the male’s tunes, she is expected to take the blame for all his failings. That of course is to be repaid by her guilt and everything in between.

The situation is no better off screen as well.

Tollywood has a real problem with how it handles women.

But it also begs the following questions :-

Is it the movie producers to blame?

Is it the writers to blame?

Is it the actors to blame?

Are the galleries' audience to blame?

There is not just one person to blame.

Reason is that however deeply we romanticise with the brand of ‘Indian Culture’, women are respected mainly because they are trophies for social status or even worse honour, egg farms for breeding children and not necessarily because there is a penchant for equal rights. That is very deeply ingrained into our genes. Preposterous as it may sound, but we secretly agree with a lot of sexist ideals that we, particularly men, do not consider safe to say it out loud.

Why shouldn’t a movie be watched as a movie and left alone?

This counter argument usually comes with injured writers (people with bruised egos), justifying everything is fair in entertainment, that movies are exclusively for entertainment and are to be seen as they are. That people in real world would react otherwise if push comes to shove. This was a also precisely the argument of a self proclaimed intellectual writer in an ego-fueled response to a girl's video back in 2015.

I disagree with him on several counts.

When the controversial gang rape of 2012 happened in Delhi, people just passed by staring at the victim lying on the road bleeding and dying for hours. By the word people, it included both men and women. The problem is that people tend to overestimate their moral fibre and underestimate their culpability when faced with real life situations.

Where all these status quo pundits fail, or deliberately avoid going there and divert the narrative is the fact that movies in Telugu do not really condemn gender issues, just in case the scene requires that a woman is shown in a poor light. In a stark contrast, movies are written with a keen objective to conform to the ‘a woman is a step below’ stereotype. We also tend to take refuge in those notions because we see the movies, and we feel reassured about it.

So what is the harm?

Movies are mass media. People know about Indian Police Service (IPS) better than Indian Revenue Service (IRS) for a reason. So, whatever you see in a movie, you will take it at face value, expecting you could recreate the scene in real life, and it is actually done so. The movie Tagore put the blame on doctors for hospitals mismanaging the healthcare sector. Almost every hour and day, there is now violence on doctors if some patient dies due to a medical emergency.

Take a look at this scene, from the movie Attarintiki Daaredhi.

Samantha is seen touching the feet of Pawan Kalyan.

Samantha’s role is traditionally repulsed by the role of Pawan Kalyan’s in the movie. He starts pursuing her after his sister rejects him for another man. But it takes an injury to Samantha’s head, falling off the roof into his passing car, followed by some rewiring her lost memory when she wakes up with a lie, followed by she being told to wear a saree given by the guy in the right which leads to this scene.

Yet, for us audience, it is just a normal scene, because we are wired the exact same way. We find it normal and nowhere derogatory or ever what if something similar happens to us. The movie makes no effort to at least satirise, leave alone provide some visual or audio cues to condemn the act. By this time in the scene, the rom-com vocals in the background have already started and the scene cuts into the hero pouring a fat stack of cash into waiter’s hands, compelling him to take it, symbolising that the man’s mission is complete.

This is exactly what the writers and movie makers take advantage of. They can simply claim it is not reprehensible because you have been okay with it. This is precisely where the argument ‘movies are a reflection of real life’ comes from. They have no moral compass, but are first to cry out loud for not allowing creative freedom, even when the message they're really peddling is glorification of a certain predatory lifestyle.

Remember this movie’s release was also at a time she (Samantha) was fighting the rat race to make it big in South Indian Cinema. Her stature is different now. If she would be asked to re enact the scene today, she would rather call off the movie. Because she does have the backing of a powerful family behind her who would break the sets if necessary.

Without a surname, an individual is worth nothing in the media and cinema landscape.

You need a solution, but, I know for sure nothing can be changed. If you don’t want to watch a movie, don’t watch it. Simple.

Not me. It's what the filmmakers say.

After all, personal accountability is a hot potato. No one wants it in one’s hands.