‘This is not a factory’: Rana Daggubati on why 8-hour shifts will never work in cinema

The debate over fixed, eight-hour workdays in Indian cinema has intensified sharply after Deepika Padukone reportedly exited two major films—Spirit and Kalki 2898 AD Part 2—because producers could not accommodate her request for structured, limited working hours.

What began as a scheduling issue has since expanded into a cross-industry discussion about whether filmmaking should adopt regulated labour practices or whether long, unpredictable workdays remain unavoidable.

How the controversy began

In early 2025, reports emerged that Deepika Padukone had sought an eight-hour cap per day while juggling demanding shoot schedules and early motherhood. Producers of Spirit and the sequel to Kalki 2898 AD were reportedly unable to integrate the condition into their production timelines, leading to her departure from both projects.

This sparked debate across Bollywood, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam industries, drawing attention to a longstanding issue: the absence of formal working-hour regulations for artists and crews in Indian cinema.

Film unions and safety boards have for years raised concerns about overwork, overnight shoots, fatigue-related risks and the toll of erratic schedules on mental health. Yet attempts to introduce standard daily limits have repeatedly stalled due to the complex nature of filmmaking, budget pressures and star availability.

Rana Daggubati’s stance: “Cinema is not a factory”

Amid the growing conversation, actor-producer Rana Daggubati offered one of the most direct responses. Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter India while promo events for new film Kaantha, he strongly questioned whether eight-hour shifts are feasible in filmmaking.

Rana said that treating cinema like a job with fixed daily hours misunderstands the nature of the work. “This is not a job; it is a lifestyle. You either choose to be in it or not,” he said, explaining that each film has unique creative demands that cannot be met through rigid time blocks.

He argued that an assembly-line approach may undermine storytelling: “It’s not a factory. It’s not like we sit for eight hours and the best scene is going to come out.”

Rana also pointed to the way budgets and star behaviour shape shooting patterns. In Telugu cinema, he said, many leading actors now run their own production companies, allowing them to enforce stricter budget control and faster schedules. He added that it is the responsibility of major stars to limit unnecessary luxury and expenses.

Dulquer Salmaan on industry differences

Dulquer Salmaan, also responding to the debate, said that Malayalam cinema traditionally works with long, continuous schedules because budgets are smaller and shoots must move quickly.

He contrasted this with his experience in Telugu filmmaking, where shoots often wrap earlier due to larger budgets and more structured planning.

Dulquer also noted that shorter, fixed workdays might not be financially practical: “Going extra hours on a day is cheaper than shooting an additional day.”

The wider implications for Indian cinema

The discussion has now moved beyond Deepika Padukone’s specific case and become one of the most significant labour debates in the Indian film industry in recent years.

Supporters of regulated hours say change is overdue and necessary for the welfare of cast and crew.

Opponents argue that filmmaking—especially on large-scale, VFX-heavy or multi-location projects—requires creative freedom and flexibility that fixed shifts cannot accommodate.

Whether the industry will eventually introduce more structured working norms remains unclear. For now, Rana Daggubati’s remarks capture one side of a deeply divided debate: a belief that cinema’s unpredictability is central to its craft, not an issue that can be resolved through clock-in, clock-out systems.