On an interview on Raj Shamani’s Figuring Out podcast released in April, actor Jahnvi Kapoor spoke about the difference between choosing to perform a sexualised role on-screen or to dress as she pleases, and the violation of being shot provocatively by the paparazzi. “At any stage, it is important to ask yourself: what did I consent to?” she said. Now, a controversy has occurred over her appearance in the new Telugu film Peddi, in which she seems to have been especially objectified, and even kissed non-consensually. The director, Buchi Babu Sana, has since apologised and has said that the relevant scenes will be removed.
The controversy has been multi-pronged. Some squarely blame the actor, who has dynastic privileges and a thriving career of her own, for accepting the role or not pushing back. The contention is that she had the agency to decline without financial setback and that as a role model she set better examples. (On Shamani’s show, she said she feels she is not in a position to choose otherwise, and must “compromise”). An older interview in which actor Ratna Pathak Shah, generally and not specifically, spoke on empowered choices has made the rounds again. Others point fingers only towards the director, who ultimately held most control in this situation. Unconfirmed leaked chats that claim Kapoor had been deeply uncomfortable during the shoot consolidate this take, as does the fact that her co-star Jagapathi Babu has publicly stated that she should not be targeted.
It is true that choice feminism — a diluted, individual-forward strand of feminism in which actions are depoliticised — is problematic when a bird’s eye, collective and structural view is taken on those choices. It is also true that Kapoor’s clear and publicly-established distinction between what she chooses to do, and what she does not consent to, is convincing enough as feminism-informed practice. At this point in time, she has neither confirmed the leaked chats nor released a statement about the Peddi controversy. We can give Kapoor some benefit of the doubt without taking away from the hope that a more conscious wielding of her personal power will be observed in her future roles.
Objectively speaking: when it comes to coercion, people often think that they would do different things under pressure, but there is no way to test this. The fact is that when a toxic ecosystem, contractual obligations, and internal pressures collude, any consent can be manufactured, and anyone can make a decision that their best self wouldn’t make. While Kapoor is in ranks where this applies much less, this is the reality for the vast majority of working women.
That there has been public backlash to Kapoor’s portrayal in the film is healthy. It shows that even though mass demand for exploitative content may exist, more and more people have begun to name it as degrading or sexist. That this is an industry-wide phenomenon has also been clearly identified in the discourse; some argue that Tollywood is being unfairly singled out when Bollywood is much the same, but the point stands regardless. The audience wants better, and intelligent filmmakers will pay attention to the turning of the tide.