“They often work together on several projects in a row and naturally everyone tries to align themselves with them in order to secure opportunities. However, these alliances are based on commercial interests,” he said.
He also said that such alliances were not limited to Malaysian Cinema alone and were present in film industries around the world.
At the same time, he said there cannot be a secret lobby of different film-related organisations that meet periodically to decide who should be banned from films.
“The industry cannot function like this,” he said in response to questions about whether there is a “power group” in the film sector.
On whether the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA)’s response to the committee’s report was delayed, Unnikrishnan said it was not late but what they said was criticised by the general public. “They (AMMA) should be willing to accept such criticism and learn from it,” he said. He also said the current crisis in AMMA was due to the fact that it was not an organisation like a trade union and has a loose structure.
They lack “experience and flexibility” to address the issues raised in the Hema Committee report, he added.
“If they had a structure or a system like a union, all this would not have happened,” he added.
The Justice K Hema Committee was constituted by the Kerala government after the 2017 assault case on the actress, and its report revealed instances of harassment and exploitation of women in the Malayalam film industry.
Regarding director Vinayan’s complaint to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to remove him (Unnikrishnan) from the film policy formulation committee, the FEFKA general secretary said there was no need to keep him away from the panel.
“I am on the committee as the general secretary of FEFKA and not as an individual, but as a representative of 21 trade unions. What I say there will be the opinion of those 21 unions, so I see no need to expel me from the committee,” he said.
Vinayan has sought Unnikrishnan’s removal from the panel alleging that the Competition Commission of India had penalised him for unfair trade practices.
The CCI order came following Vinayan’s complaint.
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.