Still no big big exciting stories, but some interesting things today, worthy of discussion. Some more than others, but all worth reporting.
#MeToo in the Indian Context
Well, this is fascinating! And a little depressing, but actually I find it more optimistic making than depressing. Anurag Kashyap and Phantom Films are struggling with sexual harassment allegations and handling them perfectly. This is from two stories, here and here. Nana Patekar is also getting an accusation, or rather a renewed accusation, and it makes me go “yeah, that seems fair”.
I somehow missed the original story that back in April of 2017, news broke of sexual misconduct allegations against Vikas Bahl at Phantom Films. A woman, an employee, accused him of molesting her during a work trip to Goa. Vikas Behl, Anurag Kashyap, and Madhu Mantena had founded Phantom Films together in 2011. They were all talented artists and worked in partnership together, producing their own films or the films of others in a happy artistically fulfilling environment.
(Vikas Bahl. Queen, Shaandar, currently working on Super 30 with Hrithik)
Phantom is one of the biggest of the new banners, but it is still just a banner. The funding came from Reliance Entertainment, they had a skeleton staff and worked project to project. Everything was directly supervised by the founders.
Now, this allows for a lot of abuse (in theory) but it also is a protection against abuse in other ways. The problem with the larger studios in America, The Weinstein Company and CBS for instance, is that there is an attitude of “too big to fail”. The internal investigations, the board of directors, they would all rather cover things up and let things slide than risk damaging this massive company. As complaints go further up the food chain, they get weaker and weaker, the complainant becomes faceless and it is easy to put the company first and sweep her under the rug. With a smaller company like Phantom, all you need to do is convince one person and they have complete control to make the decision as to what to do next.
Which is what happened. Anurag Kashyap was that one person, he took charge, cut Vikas Behl out of his life and the company like a tumor, insisted on an internal investigation, brought in Reliance as the co-stakeholders to lead the investigation and help force Vikas out. And found multiple other witnesses to testify to Vikas’ behavior, confirming the reports. He cut out Madhu Mantena too, because he stuck with Vikas.
(Madhu. Never directed, but produced stuff for Aamir and others, before helping to start up Phantom)
And the story today has Phantom films moving towards splitting up and officially ending, because of this. Anurag killed his little company rather than condone sexual misconduct. Which is what you want to happen, what should happen, but almost never does.
So, first, kudos to Anurag Kashyap! And apologies, I have been doubtful about his sensitivity towards woman based on what I see in his films. Bombay Velvet in particular had a terrible and unrealistic lead female character. Although, I can still see what I saw in those films fitting with his behavior. There is a particular kind of person who is not necessarily very good at imagining or understanding behavior of the other gender (male or female). But that difficulty does not necessarily bring with it disbelief when they are told flat out what is happening. Anurag could be that person, the one who believes his friend when the friend says “that woman has a crush on me” because he can’t see the evidence to the contrary. But will also believe the woman when she says flat out “I didn’t have a crush, he molested me”. Does that make sense? That’s what the quotes (clearly from Anurag) in the original Mumbai Mirror story read like to me.
“heart-broken, disillusioned, angry and pissed off” the partner said the company’s action against Bahl had not been easy. “It’s a scary place to be in because he’s my best friend. It’s not easy, right?”
“This industry is filled with instances like this aur yeh sadiyon se chalta aa raha hai. But it has to stop, and we will make sure it is done the right way. It is important to see this through. Vikas being sacked will affect everyone.”
That’s the thing with the #MeToo stories in America, it’s not just about the original act, it’s about the cover up. The major studios and massive corporations who knew exactly what was happening and fiddled and fudged and didn’t act on it. Put what the person could do for the company, and the reputation of the company, over the individual.
And that is what simply does not translate to the Indian context. Because the Indian film industry studios/banners are still mostly family companies, and small companies. It’s not lawyers shuffling things around, a board of trustees who pays you off, it’s one person sitting across the desk from you and either believing you or not. There is no massive cover up because there is no need for a massive cover up, one person makes the decisions. Anurag was a stand up guy and did what needed to be done, all by himself, following a report given personally to him. At other studios, the opposite could have happened (and probably has), one man gets a report and chooses not to act on it.
(Anurag with his 23 year old new (rumored) girlfriend, who he met when she was hired at Phantom films. His personal life always feels a little bit gross to me. But then he also did a ridiculous cameo in Happy New Year, making fun of himself and showing a willingness to work for a female director)
And then there is the other challenge, that it is rare that one man has complete power over another. In this case, Anurag was Vikas’ business partner and could take direct action. But if he had received the same report about, for instance, a director working on a film for their company, there wouldn’t be much he could do. He could fire the director and broadcast the story. But that director could simply move on to his next project at another banner. There are so many small banners, the power is so diffused, that unless you are permanently attached to a particular banner (very very rare), you can always just bounce from one to the other.
We’ve seen this before, feuds and fights between artists and producers. But it doesn’t necessarily end the artist’s career, they simply move on to a new company instead. Heck, you can even move on to a whole different language industry if you want.
And there is also the problem that too often those feuds are seen as “personal” not professional. Especially as relates to sexual issues. If Juhi Chawla stopped working with Aamir Khan because his practical jokes on set crossed the line, that was between the two of them, you wouldn’t expect Aamir to be branded as a harasser and unprofessional and no longer be hired by anyone else. Juhi doesn’t have a lawyer team or a manager or a powerful agent to make her opinion widely considered and powerful and turn Aamir into hot potato within the industry. In the same way, Anurag could have chosen to announce he didn’t want to work with Vikas any more, because he didn’t like his behavior, and it would have been seen as a personal choice made by Anurag.
(I chose Aamir-Juhi on purpose because in that case it truly was personal and had a personal resolution. Juhi didn’t like his jokes, they stopped working together, years went by, they made up. No need for either to be blacklisted from the entire industry, or even to warn their friends from working with each other, it was just personal)
Those who were friends with Anurag might agree with him and stand by him, that’s all. In fact, I am sure this same thing has happened many times over the years, there are plenty of disputes between stars and directors or producers and stars or any number of other people that are brushed off as a “personal issue” and we never learn the truth. Many of those feuds might have started with a crying extra or dancer or heroine talking directly to her trusted director/producer/star and revealing a moment of misbehavior. But there was no tribunal to take her to, no internal investigation, it was simply a matter of making a personal choice and a personal judgement as to what you felt was right, and then protecting her name and reputation by not publicly revealing details.
I’ll give a specific example. Subhash Ghai has been accused multiple times of using a “casting couch”, it’s a rumor that has been circulating with multiple names attached to it for years. And notice, he has not directed a film with a major actor in it since 2001. One of the top and most successful directors in the industry, and he cannot get a star to return his calls, or a producer to give him money. He’s still working of course, he has the money to produce his own films and so on, but he has been quietly cut out from the highest levels of the industry, stars whose careers he helped make will not return his calls. He’s given interviews complaining about how Shahrukh Khan won’t return his calls and he doesn’t know why when he did so much for Shahrukh early in his career. Well, maybe this is why. It’s not as effective or satisfying as a public investigation, an arrest, anything like that. But then, who would investigate? A court case would be almost impossible, and Subhash is an independent producer/director, there is no business partner or parent studio to go to. So this is the best the industry can do, shutting him out and shutting him down.
(Here he is congratulating him on his birthday and kissing his cheek. Nice nice in public, but no films coming out together)
Now, here’s another example that just came out. Or rather, came out again. A minor item dancer, Tanushree Dutta, has repeated her allegations from years ago that Nana Patekar molested her. And says that he is a habitual harasser on sets and no one speaks out about him, or does anything. (story here)
I believe her mostly because my gut says “yes”. Which is a terrible way to judge things, but when I try on “Nana Patekar is a molester” in my head, it feels okay, like a good fit. I can’t remember seeing him in a friendly casual joking like equals candid moment with an actress, and I can’t remember seeing him in a role that felt like he was adding on an extra understanding of woman. Doesn’t mean he is a molester, he could just be shy in public and not the kind of actor that adds on additional touches to a performance, but it also doesn’t mean he isn’t. Anyone can be an attacker of course, but when an accusation is against someone like Ali Zafar I have a bit more of a “no, really? That’s shocking” because of how he has always acted with woman in public, and the way his performances are in films. Nana Patekar, there’s no surprise necessarily.
The other reason my gut says “yes” is his filmography. Until 2008 (when the first allegations by Tanushree Dutta were made) he was making 2-3 films a year in the Hindi industry in leading roles. He had one release in 2009 and a few in 2010 (including Raajneeti). And then his career took a dive. Guest appearances, third or 4th or 5th lead roles, lots of work in industries outside of Hindi.
Tanushree in her renewed accusations calls out Akshay Kumar and Rajinikanth for continuing to work with Nana. Which made me look at who actually is working with him. Since 2010 (when the last few films signed before the initial accusation would have come out), who has given him a leading role? He was in The Attacks of 26/11 by Ram Gopal Verma. A political hot potato movie, with no budget (Nana was the biggest name) and RGV is someone like Subhash Ghai, rumors of misbehavior with actress have been swirling for years. He was in Ab Tak Chappan 2, also produced by RGV. He was in Welcome Back co-starring with Shiney Ahuja, so clearly that producer wasn’t too discriminating. And that’s it. Those are the only Hindi films where he had anything close to a leading role in the past 8 years. And only in Welcome Back did he have any big name co-stars willing to work with him.
I’m not saying Indian film is perfect, but I am pointing out that you can’t expect an American solution to an Indian problem. There are no court cases to be filed, no HR department to report to, no supervisor to fire them. It is all a matter of personal conscious. And I don’t know if that is better or worse, more or less effective, but it is certainly different.
And then there’s the other part of it, how do you figure out the collaborators. In America, there is a clear line of who was told what when, and what their professional role and responsibilities were. But can you blame Anil Kapoor for working with Nana Patekar in a movie he wasn’t producing? Can you blame Shahrukh for still making nice with Subhash in public even if he isn’t working with him? Sometimes it’s obvious, Anees Bazmee hiring Shiney Ahuja is disgusting. But there is a lot of grey area when everything is up to personal responsibility rather than professional corporate structure.
Nawazuddin Siddiqui Hikes His Fees
Now, here is a semi-related story. Supposedly Nawazuddin raised his rates for the second season of Sacred Games. Nawazuddin also has sexual misconduct rumors swirling around him. Nothing that necessarily crossed an uncrossable line yet, he is just known to kiss and tell. (story here)
I’ll be watching Nawazuddin’s career with interest, but also keeping those sexual allegations against him in mind. His pay raise for Sacred Games is a sign of him maneuvering up to a higher level in the industry. Is he going to stay at that level is his behavior going to drop him off of it? The allegations broke last year and his 2018 wasn’t nearly as good as his 2017. But then, that could just be a coincidence.
Shahrukh/Red Chillies Announces Partnership with Aanand L. Rai/Color Yellow
The headline really tells the story, Shahrukh announces an official partnership with Aanand L. Rai’s company. Which is hardly a surprise, Shahrukh’s working with him on Zero was obviously a try out of their partnership, and Shahrukh has been tweeting and doing interviews and so on that hint at their closeness. This is an obvious next step, and a smart business move combining Aanand’s nose for a good film (something Red Chillies has struggled with) with Shahrukh’s connections and funding. (story here)
I’m not saying Aanand L. Rai or Shahrukh has anything to do with #MeToo directly, but more that this is how the business partnerships work right now in the Indian film industry. You aren’t going to leap in with someone you don’t know, you are going to spend months testing out the relationship and in the end it will be a personal decision between two people, Aanand L. Rai and Shahrukh. And if one ever learns something terrible about the other, it will also be a personal decision to part, and perhaps quietly spread the word and use your influence to make them toxic to the rest of the industry.
This is what irritated me about Shahrukh being asked about the casting couch and allegations against the Indian film industry in his Hard Talk interview. He was being asked as though he might have been a bystander, a witness. But the Indian film industry does not have a rigid power structure, Shahrukh isn’t a witness to misbehavior, he is the judge and jury, the one who can punish it. As much as anyone can punish it. The answer he finally landed on was that on his sets, no woman is ever in danger. Which I believe. I don’t believe it was always true, because there were times in his career when he was powerless, when he was trapped by a contract and couldn’t even walk out. But for the past 20 years at least, that has not been the case. And if there was misbehavior, he was the one who could react to it. He hasn’t worked with Subhash Ghai since 1998, Nana Patekar since 2002, Shakti Kapoor (another frequent accused) since 2000. And he’s never worked with Ram Gopal Verma.
I’m not picking Shahrukh out as anything special, I think this is probably what most people in the industry do. Quietly cut someone out, that’s the punishment. It’s everyone’s individual responsibility as much as they can, and there is no court of public opinion that needs to know the truth. So when anyone, a producer or a director or a star, is ambushed in an interview and asked “what do you think about these accusations?” the only possible response is either “here is a list of every director and producer and actor and spotboy and everyone else that I have shut out for some form of misbehavior and how I have shut them out and the specific personal circumstances of it and the accusers” or a stuttering silence as you try to prove your innocence without getting into personal stories that may not be yours to tell.
dontcallitbollywood 
I’m not sure if you know this story but when SRK was filming Pardes with Subhash Ghai in the US, Gauri had a miscarriage back home in India. When SRK asked for time off to go back home, Ghai refused. Of course SRK is not the type to listen to anyone so he left anyway. He also gave an angry interview vowing never to work with Ghai again. I think he also suspected there was something not quite right about Ghai’s relationship with Mahima and he hinted at it though he did not come right out and say it. He did give other interviews showing his displeasure about what an awful set it was and how he felt like a “glorified extra” there. I think Ghai is lying through his teeth that he doesn’t know why SRK won’t return his calls or speak to him.
SRK generally cuts off people quietly as you said. When Bharat Shah, the producer of Devdas, was found to have mob ties, SRK broke away quickly. His family gave interviews blaming SRK for being ungrateful and unkind and not giving support to Shah in their tough times.
My guess is he has also cut off Karim Morani now, of Cineyug. A young woman filed a rape case against him in 2017 and Morani was taken to jail. He was very powerful in the industry and almost every star worked with him through Cineyug because they put together stage shows. They turned producers and produced some movies with SRK. His daughter Zoa even starred in a teen movie Red Chillies made. SRK also go a lot bad press because all the articles were written like “SRK’s friend, Karim Morani, booked for rape.” He had earlier been arrested in 2011 for the 2G scam but in that case, SRK had clearly continued to work with him.
I wonder how people work in BW to be honest where almost every other person is stained with some type of crime. Is it even possible to cut off everyone? Do they decide sexual crimes are worth cutting off for and financial crimes aren’t? How does it work?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting point about the financial versus sexual crimes. It seems like in the American industry, everything is forgiven so long as you are still making money for the company. But in India, it might be the reverse, financial shenanigans can be forgiven but not personal.
Another way the film industry is still very small, Shahrukh risks the safety of the woman who work for him and his own family if he allows interaction with predators. Something I don’t think the board members of The Weinstein Company or CBS were worried about in America. And the same goes for everyone else in the industry, I have to wonder if Anil Kapoor was willing to work with Nana Patekar himself but perhaps not let him work with his daughters. It’s not just a mental experiment to ask “would you trust him with your daughter?” in Indian film, you really do have to trust your co-stars with your kids.
LikeLike
Very good observations, I can relate to. Indeed, I think, conduct on an interacting level is more important then financial misconduct that has nothing to do with the personal level (like Amitji + the Panama papers and Karim + the 2G Scam).
I like the kind of ‘silent’ boycott (or just not engaging anymore in working with a specific person). I think it’s alike in other closed work-fields in (Indian) subcontinent and/or Asian culture.
LikeLike
Tanushree was not exactly “a minor item dancer”, she was the lead in a couple of movies with Emraan Hashmi like Aashiq Banaaya Apne and Chocolate.
LikeLike
Thanks! I didn’t recognize the name, so I wasn’t sure.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 8:32 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Tanushree Dutta was not an item dancer, she acted in a few movies and was a former Miss India as well. For #MeToo to be successful others need to support and rally around the actresses. There needs to be unity, but Indian movie industry can’t be bothered to stand together. I say Indian movies because things are worse in other industries. Maybe this is a start, but Vikas Bahl was called out by none other than Anurag Kashyap, and even then nothing changed. In fact both Akshay Kumar and Hrithik Roshan chased Vikas Bahl wanting to do his next even after the allegations.
LikeLike
Super 30 is now plagued with troubles, so maybe there is a cosmic judgement at play.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:40 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
SRK has sexual harassment rumors and allegations against him from his theater days. It’s interesting to think how that parallels the Bret Kavanaugh situation in the USA now. Should your behavior as a young man impact your career or branding as a middle aged man, especially if the behavior wasn’t repeated after your young years, thus giving the appearance that you’ve matured and learned from your mistakes, even if you have never apologised, never acknowledged, or even denied the accusations?
Also there were recent rumours about Reema Kagti inappropriately touching her lead on the sets of Gold. I think it was a blind item on one of the rumour websites.
LikeLike
*lead actress, not actor
LikeLike
I am sure it would be – if ever it had been – the ‘other way round’ and ShahRukh was the one who had to deal with sexual interest from the side of others…especially after his theatre days…
I don’t give a damn to rumours but I’m also sure that women would play the power game to satisfy their sexual desires. Power ‘plays’ already starts with kids (adults being their role models) and there, too, sexuality already plays its role.
LikeLike
Exactly, it’s about power. which is why it is more often male to female because men are more likely to be in power. But that doesn’t mean a woman couldn’t have the power and then abuse it.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 2:26 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
What are the Shahrukh theater rumors? I’ve never run across them, but then I have been in the Shahrukh-fan media world where I wouldn’t find those things. And I always want more Shahrukh details!!!!
For Reema Kagti, that makes me nervous, because the “predatory lesbian” trope is so easy to fall into and so dangerous. If it was a person coming forward and giving details I would feel differently, but with just a blind item it could so easily be prejudiced rumors.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:10 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Seems like a “make anything up on the internet” situation TBH. I’ve never heard of any such rumors either. In fact, here’s an article that had an interview with Rituraj, an actor who worked for many years with SRK in Delhi theater. He knew him intimately – hung out at his house with SRK’s mom, etc.
He talks about SRK being very beloved among the group even then – not having a mean bone in his body. He even says he was so devoted to Gauri that people used to make fun of him. For example, SRK would not even give rides home to other girls in his car.
It reminds me of how Preity Zinta once said in an interview that when they did their concerts, she would have to be his bodyguard. SRK would call her to come sit in his hotel room if any woman was visiting him – journalists, fans, etc – so that he would not have to be alone in the room with them.
LikeLike
Sorry, forgot the Rituraj link: https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/shah-rukh-khan-was-very-intelligent-and-super-smart-recollects-old-theatre-friend-rituraj-singh/
LikeLike
It surprises me a little because my understanding was that back then Shahrukh was so obsessed with Gauri that he couldn’t even see another woman. The rumors I were expecting were stories about him hitting her or emotionally manipulating her or something, not misbehaving with other women. That’s the criminal sexual behavior I kind of assumed from his past, that he was a very very bad boyfriend who grew into a decent husband. I mean, we already know that from the stories of their courtship and just the fact that they got together when he was 19 and she was 14.
I don’t blame him for it really because it was a first relationship and they worked things out before they got married and they were teenagers when it started, but if I were looking for skeletons in his closet that’s where I would look and it wouldn’t be hard to find something. I’d love it if some day he gives an interview about intimate partner abuse or rape and acknowledges his own history as an abusive partner and how they worked through it and he grew out of it, but he now knows what he did to Gauri was wrong. Even without him doing anything worse than the stories we already know, forbidding her from wearing certain clothes and following her to another city and all of that are just not good behaviors.
LikeLike
I actually know a couple of people who were in theater productions with srk when he was 18-19 years old. Neither like him because of some specific incidents involving SRK and some female cast mates, two harassments and one worse, that they are privy to (i don’t think they were eyewitnesses to anything). They didn’t want to share specifics of the incidents nor the people involved because there was a group of us in the conversation, and they didn’t want to taint our impressions of SRK or affect our movie going experience, or arouse any ire from us.
Since I’m not in the fandom, I just assumed this was common knowledge.
In response, I actually argued that if srk behaved improperly at 18-19, especially in an era and a country when people genuinely had mixed opinions about where behavior boundaries lay, but he has subsequently led an exemplary life, then he’s neither a threat to society nor an improper influence on others, so now it is just between him and his accusers/victims, and the courts should they wish to come forward. Hopefully SRK has discussed with and, if appropriate, acknowledged and apologized to his accusers/victims in private so they can heal. So I do not hold it against him, the way I might Nana, Shiny, Ali, or others who didn’t reform and continued well into adulthood.
That’s the way I feel about Bret K as well, though in his case I would say that his clear vitriol and prejudice against his female victims from today’s testimony suggests he might be too biased to sit on the USA supreme court.
To Claudius comment, he was new to theater at this point, cocky but not a power player yet, so any power differential between him and his accusers was only due to gender (social and physical).
LikeLike
Thank you for the clarification! It is definitely not common knowledge, in the fandom or anywhere else, but from the few additional details you added on, it becomes a lot less surprising. I hope you don’t feel like myself or the other commentators were doubting you, it was just surprise because truly there had never been any discussion of anything like that in the public arena.
What is common knowledge is that Shahrukh was aggressive and obsessive and just plain strange about Gauri. And what he himself says is that he had never interacted with woman (girls really, he was talking about his teen years), never had another girlfriend, and so on. From the very early interviews, before he was important enough for anyone to lie, the impression that comes across is a manic talkative young man who is awkward with woman and obsessed with his girlfriend. The idea of him being some kind of egotistical aggressor, or date raping ladies man, just comes across as weird based on everything everyone says about him back then and even said at the time. However, the idea of him being a young man obsessed with sex and not sure where the lines where, scared of woman and more dangerous because of it, that matches with how he was with Gauri. I hope that doesn’t come across as excusing behavior, a scared young man blundering where he shouldn’t is just as culpable as a confident young man breaking the rules because he wanted to. It’s just that the first example fits much more closely with the descriptions of him from back then.
I don’t know if you read the link anonymous gave, setting aside the “he was a great guy!” stuff from the interview which, as you rightly point out, is fairly meaningless, there were a couple of factual details which kind of fit with what you say in a negative way. He said that Shahrukh was one of the few people with a car and would give rides home, but never wanted to be alone with one of the female cast members in the car, seemed shy/scared about it. And said that he talked all the time about Gauri. So, yeah, I can picture a young man who crossed lines and knew he was wrong over-correcting and never wanting to be alone with a woman again and talking a lot about his girlfriend.
And now we will end the discussion because you may be the only source in the entire internet for it and if, as you say, the people you spoke with did not even want to discuss it in a group conversational setting, I am sure they would not want it discussed among strangers on the entire internet.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:07 PM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Dear anonymous, with all due respect to you and to the source, asking a male friend of srk about his inappropriate behavior with women is barking up the wrong tree, since srk was not alleged to behave this way with men .
LikeLike
It seems that most people have pre-judged Nana Patekar to be guilty based on his aloof personality/kind of characters he plays. At least, you’re honest enough to admit your prejudice.
I’m myself not sure how to judge him. As much as I’m for all the #MeToo allegations to be taken seriously, I wonder, if Nana is indeed as bad as Tanushree says he is, I think we’d have heard some more stories like hers. The only negative Nana story I remember hearing in the media is that he was involved in some road rage incident a few years back..
I also don’t think there is some informal boycott of Nana going on in the industry. He has collaborated with the likes of Amitabh Bachchan and Ajay Devgn in Marathi movies over last few years, while in Hindi, he has consistently worked with Anil Kapoor, Akshay Kumar et al…
LikeLike
I had the same feeling about Tanushree and there not being other stories. But then, Nana is in an odd position where he isn’t famous enough that the media would be hunting for these rumors where ever they were, but at the same time he is respected enough that someone might hesitate to act on any stories they have heard.
I really did look at Nana’s filmography, he has not worked in 8 years. Akshay hasn’t worked with him since Welcome, Anil Kapoor worked with him in Welcome Back and that is it. His cameo in Golmaal Again was all built around him as an old-time star, someone is a fan of him out of nostalgia because he hasn’t worked recently. I thought it was because he was doing theater or something instead of films, but now I am wandering if it is a boycott.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:35 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
These are interesting observations.
Below is a journalist’s eyewitness account –
https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/celebrities/journalist-eyewitness-account-tanushree-dutta-nana-patekar-sexual-harassment-allegation
LikeLike
Thank you! Really really interesting, it wasn’t just Nana Patekar behaving badly, it was everyone else supporting him and trying to browbeat the actress. I looked up the director, this was his biggest film (and it was pretty small). It was the only film for 3 out of the 4 producers, and the 4th had previously produced Halla Bol, which is hilarious since that was a movie about a woman being attacked while everyone stood by and did nothing.
So I am getting a picture of a pretty amateur set and wouldn’t be surprised to learn there was mob money and funding behind it. From Nana’s perspective, it would be an easy situation for him to take advantage of, no one really knowing what they were doing or who was in charge, he can push to get what he wants in a way he wouldn’t on a better run set. Which also explains why Tanushree is calling out Ganesh Acharya, it sounds like he was by far the most experienced and knowledgable person on set, the one who she should have been able to trust to know better.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:29 AM dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
I strongly disagree with you on the above points.
The woman has all the power over here ,she just has to pit a allegation in public and the reputation career of guy is finished.
I have seen many cases in wprkplaces where woman blackmail the males and put wrong cases to take vengeance.
Regarding the above case ,nana patellar has anger issues but he has never disrespected a female.
He was doing a song after long so was extra excited and suggesting steps to perform etc. Which might have felt much by tanushree.
She could have easily stopped then and there .
She didn’t.
She complained to cintaa the actors body but no action came.
Now it’s unfair to blame nana and do character assassination of him just based on this 1 instance.
Also nana patekar has semi retired and is full-time into Social work .
The amount of social work he is doing for farmers in villages is unparelled.
Not everyone is hungry of fame .
I will believe nana patekar and games acharya over a starlette who says it’s insulting being replaced by rakji savant and insulting another woman.
According to me it’s just her way of trying to come. Back in limelight.
LikeLike
I don’t agree that there have been no previous rumors of Nana Patekar being badly behaved. He was infamous for this temper issues and there have been rumors of him abusing Manisha Koirala and Ayesha Jhulka back in the day. He was in a relationship with both of them at this point but that doesn’t mean the abuse can be discounted.
LikeLike