Initial reactions for trailer of Peddi were overwhelmingly critical, which was not surprising considering the contemporary climate. Most viewers commented that the character of Janhvi Kapoor was being viewed through an objectifying gaze and that the promotional material highlighted beauty rather than character narrative.
A familiar pattern developed shortly after the movie was released. The focus of the discussion shifted from the film itself to Janhvi Kapoor as an individual. Was she being objectified? Did she legitimately add to the commercial formula, which audiences seemed to be pushing back against? Was the response from the producers a legitimate change of course or merely damage control?
The focus of the debate transitioned from the system as a whole to the individual as an object.
The most interesting part of the overall Peddi controversy was the transition of the previous discussion regarding objectification in Cinema in India. For many years, objectification in Bollywood was discussed in the same manner. Critics highlighted the view of the camera, the construction of female characters, the productions that marketed actresses solely based on talents such as looks, and the overall commercial “nature” of Bollywood film production.
Today, audiences are more conscious of these mechanisms than ever before. Social media users are no longer simply reacting to a glamorous still or a promotional teaser. They are analyzing the framing of the shot, costume choices, how they are introduced to the audience, and any marketing decisions in real time.
In spite of the fact that public opinion has started to develop a level of sophistication about these issues, most discussions continue to revert back to focusing solely on the actress appearing on-screen. The Peddi backlash has been divided into three main schools of thought.
The first group perceives that Kapoor is a participant in a system that defines the aesthetic as being more important than character development. They believe that criticism should be directed at the filmmakers, producers, and the creative choices made versus the actress occupying those roles.
The second group believes that agency cannot be discounted. Actors, and especially established stars, choose to perform the roles. If the audience feels uncomfortable about how a character is portrayed, they feel it is fair to question whether that was a good decision.
The third group are sceptical of all entities involved in the production of the film. They see the backlash itself as part of the promotional cycle. Apologies, clarifications and promises of change are viewed through the lens of modern film marketing, where backlash and publicity often exist side by side.
The three camps all ultimately talk about Janhvi Kapoor more than about Peddi, what they are expressing is larger anxieties related to the film industry and it has been demonstrated throughout the Indian film industry anytime objectification comes into play. Conversations about cinematography, screenwriting, or commercial formulas often become a public determination regarding who the woman in front of the camera is and what she has to do with this way of thinking.
The reason for this tendency is likely practical; it might be hard for audiences to wrestle over the entire film making system or structure, but they can discuss a recognizable face. A star represents the majority of decisions made by numerous people behind the scenes. That said, being visible or having visibility should not be confused with having responsibility for an industry.
The basic problem in reducing these conversations to one actress’ choices is that it will miss the collaborative processes that go into making films. Character creation, placement of the camera, decisions on costumes, promotional materials, and editing, all of these things are collaborative processes that develop and demonstrate assumptions about film productions that go beyond one individual.
In addition, when actresses are treated only as passive participants, there is no longer any agency left for the women involved. In fact, the situation itself is not as clear cut as one might believe; it’s much more complicated than that. The result of this complexity has been the continued resonance of the Peddi scandal.
It has come at a time when the public no longer accepts the same formulas for determining accountability and now has other models of accountability they are trying to learn about, given the star-based industry we have. Therefore, there is a constant oscillation back and forth between systems and individuals, between structures and personal choice when discussing the Peddi case.
It is that audiences are increasingly capable of identifying the mechanics of objectification, but public discourse still struggles to keep the spotlight on those mechanics. Instead, the spotlight almost inevitably returns to the actress standing at the centre of the frame. And in the case of Peddi, that actress happens to be Janhvi Kapoor.
