Boxed in stereotypes? How women have been depicted on the screen

I have been thinking about the depiction of women in mainstream Hindi cinema over the decades and a few typical patterns have emerged.
There is a rich spoilt brat, she wears western clothes and speaks English. She is usually ill-mannered, especially with people from the lower social strata. She meets our hero and becomes sanskari (wears sarees and bindi) -
There is an innocent and naïve belle who falls in love with a ‘shahri babu’ and loses herself in love, never in passion. She is punished by the society for this lapse, she either dies or reforms or lives as a "mother" -
A bold and attractive woman and aware of her allure, she is defiant, smokes and drinks and is surrounded by the villain and his men. She normally has a backstory and is only pretending to be the bold woman she is (often to take revenge). Remember the vivacious Helen in many such roles?
A poor woman who is very beautiful but is not "layak" for the hero as her father is a crook and the rich hero’s family (often the mother) will not accept her as the bahu -
Then there is the "other" woman, who wants nothing except what little bit of time the man can throw at her, often when he is disturbed -
There is also a sex worker who transforms and gives up her ways to become pati-vratta -
None of these oft-repeated patterns has any reference to the woman as an individual, her dreams, her desires or her aspirations. In fact, she, as a person, is often "missing". There is another archetype in most progressive films — a heroine who "wakes" up, metaphorically speaking, and realises that the world that she had created and was proud of is a trap and escapes it in the end.
Over the years, the storytelling and context have changed, but the "dayra" of the heroine in most popular films remains the same or some variation of it. What could be the reason that popular culture seeks to define a woman only through the lens of morality and virtue?
Could it be that the creators of popular cinema were mostly men and made films for men? Admittedly, as more women enter the field as scriptwriters and directors in recent times, one has started seeing heroines differently.
The debate on depiction of women in advertising has been on for some time too. The stereotypes here are even more limited (as an operating norm). There is the dutiful wife, the disciplinarian mother, the superwoman who can do it all and still seeks validation from a male member. Then, there is the daughter who is "as good as a son". There used to be the "objectified woman" who still prevails but is no longer as stark because we are gender-sensitive now.
Contrast this to the "nayika bhed" prescribed in the texts that define the characteristics of the heroine in Indian performing arts. It doesn’t view the heroine from the lens of morality at all. The lens is her "desire" in the context of her social status and life stage. Being a woman, I find it so unshackling, so real, so feminist so liberated. She, her desires, her sensuality, her beauty and preoccupation with that and her agency are at the centre of this classification.
She could be — the exclusive woman in someone’s life, the other woman or one who belongs to many, she could be someone who has just discovered her sexuality, someone who is experienced or someone who is confident. She could be independent or submissive, she could be arrogant or humble, she could be born rich or poor.
Each of these classifications is further divided. It gives the performer texture and the text to create the body language and expressions. It also indicates the kind of stories that can be told around a heroine.
It makes commercial sense if not merely moral, ethical and political for advertising and cinema to depict real women. To liberate them from the pedestal and the web of patriarchy (which they themselves begin to reinforce) and allow them the follies of being human. Women, after all, constitute 50% of the consuming base and a significant percentage of the buying and influencing audience.