Actors' body reacts to non-cooperation directive against Ranveer Singh in Don 3 row

Actors' body CINTAA has raised concerns over how the dispute involving Ranveer Singh and FWICE was handled, saying it was not taken into confidence before the situation escalated publicly. Members also stressed the need for dialogue and a proper dispute-resolution system to handle such conflicts in the film industry.

In Short

• FWICE issues non-cooperation directive against Ranveer Singh over Don 3 exit
• CINTAA president Poonam Dhillon disappointed over lack of actor body consultation
• Vindu Dara Singh calls dispute heartbreaking, urges dialogue over public conflict

The standoff between actor Ranveer Singh and the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) continues to snowball, with the film body recently issuing a non-cooperation directive against the actor over his reported exit from Don 3. FWICE has maintained that the matter raises larger questions about professional accountability within the industry and is expected to address the issue further at another press conference on Wednesday.

As the controversy sparks debate across the film fraternity, India Today reached out to members of the actors' community (Cine and TV Artistes' Association) to understand how they view the dispute, the role of industry bodies in such conflicts, and whether there is a need for a more structured mechanism to resolve disagreements between actors and producers.

The Ranveer-Farhan issue has also reopened a larger conversation about the authority of industry bodies and the lack of a formal, legally recognised dispute-resolution mechanism in Bollywood.

CINTAA questions how the dispute was handled

President Poonam Dhillon expressed disappointment over how the issue was handled, saying she was surprised that the actor's body was not taken into confidence before the matter escalated publicly.

She stressed that trade bodies exist to ensure representation for all stakeholders, and CINTAA would have been willing to hear Ranveer Singh's side and assist through its dispute resolution mechanisms had the actor approached them.

However, Dhillon maintained that she would refrain from taking sides as she did not have access to first-hand information from either party.

"I am uninformed, so I cannot give an opinion because I do not know his [Ranveer] point of view. I do not know their point of view other than what has come out into the media," she said, adding that any responsible intervention must be based on proper investigation and facts rather than media reports.

It's heartbreaking for the industry

Actor Vindu Dara Singh, who is also the executive committee member of CINTAA, described the controversy as 'heartbreaking', saying disputes of this nature are unfortunate for an industry that functions like a family. While reiterating that the association stands with actors, he said both Ranveer and Farhan are respected figures, and the matter should have been resolved through dialogue rather than public confrontation.

He also noted that a film such as Don 3 involves significant planning and investment, and any delay or disruption affects a large number of people associated with the project.

At the same time, Singh said he found it difficult to believe that Ranveer would walk away from a major franchise without a compelling reason, suggesting that there were likely perspectives from both sides that needed to be heard.

Reacting to reports that Ranveer had questioned FWICE's authority, Singh said the actor could have attended a meeting and presented his version of events.

He added that there must be reasons behind Ranveer's position and that all sides deserve a fair hearing. "We have to listen to that guy's side of it also," he said.

A one-size-fits-all solution doesn't work in this industry

Addressing FWICE's call for a framework to deal with actors exiting projects, Dhillon argued that there could never be a 'one-size-fits-all' solution, as every dispute comes with its own circumstances.

While acknowledging that both producers and actors have legitimate concerns, she questioned the manner in which the matter was handled. "The way it was handled wasn't quite correct," she said.

The actor also raised concerns about non-cooperation directives, pointing out that such measures could have a cascading impact on hundreds of workers who depend on daily shoots for their livelihood.

According to Dhillon, many actors and technicians are already struggling financially, and disruptions to productions only worsen their situation. Instead, she called for greater communication between industry bodies and more ethical practices, particularly when it comes to timely payments and fair treatment of workers.

Vindu Dara Singh, on the other hand, mentioned how the government needs to recognise the industry. He also mentioned how there should be limited associations and bodies that have legal authority to take charge in such situations.

"We are the biggest industry and are pumping in so much money into the economy. What has happened was sad, but we need to have a proper and legal setup where one can salvage such situations. We are a family, and a loving one. And everyone here wants to work, and should be allowed to work," Singh added.

What is the FWICE non-cooperation directive?

The controversy stems from a recent press conference by FWICE, where the body announced a non-cooperation directive against Ranveer Singh over his reported exit from Don 3.

During the interaction, it was alleged that the actor did not respond to three communications sent by the film body and only reached out after learning that FWICE was planning to address the issue publicly.

It was further stated that the matter remains unresolved and expressed concern that such incidents could set a wrong precedent within the industry.

During the conference, it was also suggested that there remains scope for negotiations over the reported Rs 45 crore compensation that filmmaker Farhan Akhtar is seeking as damages. For now, the demand was that Ranveer meets the federation across the table.

Later, the federation also wrote to IMPPA (Indian Motion Picture Producers' Association) and PGI (Producers Guild of India) to draw a framework to safeguard producers in similar situations in future.

- Ends