Female movie figures have had a marginal place in this history.
They're used as commodities in songs, given less significant roles, and subjected to persistent pay disparities.
Media discourse around films continues to highlight the male stars and sidelines the contributions of female actors.
In a recent video by actress Shenaz Treasury on Instagram, she shows her viewers the location she is at—a school where the 2003 film Koi…Mil Gaya was shot. While introducing the location, she asks viewers to guess it, and then reveals that it’s the place where Hrithik Roshan’s popular movie was filmed. This association of the film solely with the male star, even when it had a major female lead like Preity Zinta alongside veteran actress Rekha, may seem like a non-issue to some. However, when considered within the broader context of how the male-dominated movie business operates, it becomes an issue that deserves deeper contemplation.
This seemingly trivial yet significantly impactful way of neglecting and dismissing women’s contributions to cinema, or any other field, is evident throughout public history. A similar situation occurred during the release of Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3, when all media reports, both before and after the film’s release, referred to the movie as Kartik Aaryan’s film. Even when the film performed well at the box office, media outlets used headlines such as “Kartik Aaryan starrer…” or “Kartik Aaryan’s horror-comedy…” attributing the film solely to him. Though the film also features veteran actress Madhuri Dixit and a senior star like Vidya Balan, their presence was repeatedly and blatantly ignored.
The film industry has historically been centered around male stars, with films often running on their stardom, at least according to popular culture. Female movie figures have had a marginal place in this history: used as commodities in songs, given less significant roles, and subjected to persistent pay disparities. Women have long struggled to assert their presence and hold their ground in the industry. Even those who have become veterans sometimes rely on younger male actors to get roles.
Neena Gupta recently shared how she landed the role in Badhaai Ho (2018). Gupta nearly lost the award-winning part because Ayushmann Khurrana felt she didn’t fit the image of a middle-aged mother for his character, remarking, “Woh hot mummy wali feeling aati hai.” The veteran actress had to dress simply in a salwar kameez to convince the makers and Khurrana that she could play the role. It was after Khurrana supported her casting that she got the role.
This is just one example. Usually, the makers and male stars make film casting decisions collectively, and the female stars are generally excluded from such participation. Some particularly controversial examples include the removal of the late Divya Bharti from Yash Raj’s Darr (1993) at Aamir Khan’s suggestion, the replacement of Aishwarya Rai in Chalte Chalte (2003) by Shah Rukh Khan due to Salman Khan’s interference, and the especially troubling case of Meenakshi Seshadri, who was initially removed from the critically acclaimed Damini (1993) by director Rajkumar Santoshi after she rejected his marriage proposal.
Recently, many actresses have come forward with their accounts of being replaced, removed, or rejected, often because the male star wanted his girlfriend in the film. Such is the dynamic of power between male and female stars. While male actors and professionals hold significant control, female stars, no matter how skilled or experienced, are often left struggling, subjected to male dominance. So, when a woman’s contribution to a film is not acknowledged, it is not just a trivial omission—it reflects the deep-rooted systemic issues of the industry. It dismisses the labour, energy, time, skill, and talent that female movie stars invest in a film.
It’s also worth considering how male stars enjoy far longer careers than their female counterparts. Years ago, when Juhi Chawla appeared on Bigg Boss and expressed her wish to work with Salman Khan, he responded by joking that they could work together, with her playing his mother. On another show, Dus Ka Dum, when Katrina Kaif appeared, Salman again quipped that Kaif would be playing his mother’s role in a few years. These moments of jest directly reflect the male star’s internal awareness of women’s careers in cinema—and the all-too-likely probability of them being phased out as leading ladies after only a brief span. So, it becomes particularly damaging to the history of women in cinema when—from the most prominent platforms to fleeting moments in a random Instagram video—the contributions of female stars are ignored.
Remember the year 2000 when Kaho Naa…Pyaar Hai was released? It was labelled Hrithik Roshan’s film. And now, when Saiyaara has released 25 years later, it’s circulating in the media as Ahaan Panday’s film. There have been many cases where even when the female star had a more prominent role, the film was still named after the male figure, like Mr. India (1987), Beta (1992), or Raja Hindustani (1996). In all these films, the female lead had a more significant role. What’s more telling is that after these films were released, magazines and newspapers ran features suggesting the titles should have been reversed: Miss India, Beti, or Rani Hindustani. Whether the film is centered on a male figure or a female one, female stars have rarely received the credit they deserve.
More often than not, 온라인카지노 audiences show an overwhelming fascination with male stars only. Their presence in a film is regarded as the main reason audiences flock to theatres. Female movie stars, in contrast, are often dismissed as secondary or less significant to a film’s success. Can one say that things have changed? Not necessarily. There have been some shifts—the industry and society are slowly progressing towards recognising the importance of female stars—but the struggle continues.
Recently, Deepika Padukone, who had just become a mother, requested an 8-hour shift for Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Spirit. Eventually, she left the production because of the dispute over her terms from the makers. The incident sparked many opinions, with several stars, including Ajay Devgn, supporting her, saying that honest filmmakers have no issue with 8-9 hour shifts and that such requests are increasingly becoming the norm. However, filmmaker Suneel Darshan took a different stance. He called the demand “unreal,” adding that there was a time when Padukone wasn’t even a part of the industry, and new talent could easily replace her.
This controversy reveals how even a superstar’s basic needs can be rejected and how the power ultimately lies with male figures, who can choose to accept, reject, or replace female stars at will. The history of female movie stars continues to be marked by underrepresentation, negligence, anonymity, and a lack of acknowledgment. So, after all the social struggles and barriers, when a female star finally appears on screen and contributes to a film, it is only fair, to say the very least, that she is acknowledged because it is not just a male star’s film.
Akishe L. Jakha is a Film and Media scholar from Nagaland, specializing in popular cinema and regional cinematic culture.
