The actor criticises the filmmaking industry's demanding work culture, calling for better working conditions and reasonable shift lengths for production crew.
Actor Jimmy Shergill has publicly questioned the sustainability of the film industry's demanding work culture, specifically criticising the practice of imposing 18-hour shifts on crew members. Shergill's remarks highlight a persistent issue within Indian cinema that has long been overlooked, bringing renewed attention to the labour conditions faced by those working behind the scenes in film and television production.
The actor's intervention represents a rare moment of high-profile advocacy on behalf of production crew, a workforce that historically lacks the visibility and bargaining power of on-screen talent. His questioning of "what kind of life" crew members are leading under such punishing schedules reflects growing unease within sections of the industry about unsustainable work practices that prioritise production schedules over worker welfare.
The Reality of Crew Working Conditions
Eighteen-hour working days are not uncommon in Indian film production, particularly in large-budget projects operating on compressed timelines. These extended shifts typically encompass setup, shooting, technical adjustments, and breakdown of equipment—often without adequate breaks or proper meal provisions. For camera operators, electricians, sound technicians, production assistants, and other crew roles, such schedules are sometimes normalised as an accepted cost of working in the entertainment industry.
The physical and mental toll of such relentless work is significant. Crew members operating on minimal sleep face increased risks of accidents on set, reduced concentration during technically demanding tasks, and long-term health implications ranging from fatigue-related illnesses to chronic stress conditions. Unlike actors, who typically work defined hours before cameras roll, crew members often arrive early and depart late, effectively extending their day far beyond the scheduled shooting window.
The issue is compounded by the transient nature of film work. Most crew members operate on a project-to-project basis without formal employment contracts, health insurance, or retirement benefits. This precarity means they have little leverage to negotiate better conditions, as refusing unreasonable demands risks being labelled "difficult" and subsequently frozen out of future projects.
Industry Culture and Normalised Exploitation
The normalisation of gruelling shifts stems partly from the competitive nature of filmmaking and the perception that suffering builds credentials. There exists an unspoken hierarchy in production wherein those willing to endure the harshest conditions are seen as most dedicated and professional. Producers and directors often justify extended hours by citing creative necessity, budget constraints, or the unpredictability of on-location shoots.
However, this justification frequently masks inefficient planning and scheduling. Many industry professionals argue that better pre-production planning, realistic timelines, and adequate crew strength could substantially reduce the need for marathon shifts. The reluctance to implement such measures often reflects cost-cutting rather than genuine production necessity.
Shergill's public call-out is significant because it challenges this normalisation from within the industry itself. When established actors with considerable influence voice concerns about crew treatment, it carries weight that advocacy from crew members alone often fails to achieve. His intervention suggests a growing recognition among prominent figures that the industry's working culture requires fundamental examination and reform.
Broader Implications for Industry Standards
The question of crew working conditions extends beyond individual welfare to affect the quality and safety of productions themselves. Exhausted crew members make mistakes, miss technical details, and operate equipment sub-optimally. The false economy of pushing through with depleted teams often results in costly retakes, safety incidents, or compromised creative output that negates any time or money supposedly saved through extended shifts.
International film industries have increasingly recognised the importance of regulated working hours. Many Western productions operate under union agreements that mandate maximum shift lengths, mandatory rest periods between shoots, and penalties for overtime. These regulations exist not as restrictions on creativity but as baseline protections ensuring both worker welfare and production quality.
India's film industry lacks comparable formal protections at most production levels. While some unions exist for specific crafts and departments, enforcement is inconsistent and coverage is incomplete. The absence of standardised working-hour regulations means that conditions vary wildly depending on producer ethics, director temperament, and individual crew negotiating power.
Shergill's comments may catalyse broader conversations within industry bodies about establishing voluntary standards or guidelines. Trade associations, producers' councils, and crew unions could collaborate to develop reasonable frameworks that balance production needs with worker welfare—frameworks that would ultimately strengthen the industry by improving its reputation and attracting sustained talent.
The Path Forward
Meaningful change in crew working conditions requires multiple stakeholders to act. Producers must prioritise realistic scheduling and adequate staffing over budget compression. Directors need to plan shoots methodically rather than relying on improvisation and extended hours. Production managers should view crew welfare as integral to their role rather than incidental to scheduling.
Crew members themselves require stronger collective representation and clear mechanisms for raising concerns without fear of professional retaliation. Industry bodies could establish ombudsman services or grievance committees specifically for production-related complaints. Transparent reporting of working conditions could gradually shift market expectations, as producers and platforms become accountable for the practices underlying their productions.
High-profile endorsements from actors like Shergill are valuable in raising public and industry consciousness. When respected figures openly question exploitative practices, they legitimise concerns that might otherwise be dismissed as complaints from workers lacking status. This visibility can shift the conversation from whether crew welfare matters to how the industry implements sustainable practices.
The entertainment industry's long-term health depends on attracting and retaining skilled, motivated crews. Talented cinematographers, sound engineers, production designers, and other specialists have options—they can migrate to better-regulated industries or international productions if Indian cinema becomes known for exploitative conditions. Conversely, a reputation for professional standards and fair treatment would strengthen India's competitive position in global production markets.
Shergill's intervention represents a moment when the industry can choose to address systemic issues proactively rather than waiting for crises or regulatory intervention. Whether this moment translates into concrete policy changes or remains a notable but isolated statement depends on how seriously industry leadership takes the underlying concerns about sustainability, fairness, and the basic dignity of those whose labour makes cinema possible.
