Vetrimaaran Makes Subtle Criticism of ‘Dhurandhar 2’

In a recent public appearance, acclaimed Tamil filmmaker Vetrimaaran has sparked controversy with comments widely interpreted as criticism of the blockbuster spy thriller “Dhurandhar 2.” Without explicitly naming the film, Vetrimaaran made several pointed remarks about propaganda in cinema during the trailer launch of “Neelira,” a film about the Sri Lankan civil war.

“This film doesn’t talk about hate or advocate violence. It is not a propaganda film,” Vetrimaaran said of “Neelira,” which has been directed by Someetharan and is co-produced by prominent actor Rana Daggubati. The statement immediately drew attention in film circles as an apparent reference to “Dhurandhar 2.”

Elaborating on his position, Vetrimaaran emphasized that “Neelira” presents a truthful narrative without caricaturing any community or religious group. “This film is not made to promote an ideology with crores of rupees. It does not aim to monetize hatred or violence to earn ₹100 crore,” he was quoted as saying by Indian Express.

The filmmaker’s comments appear to challenge “Dhurandhar 2,” which has faced criticism from some quarters for its portrayal of the 2016 demonetization policy in India. The Aditya Dhar-directed thriller, starring Ranveer Singh, has been accused by critics of reframing the controversial economic measure as a national security operation.

Vetrimaaran seemed to specifically address this aspect in his remarks: “We all know how demonetization affected us. We are aware of the number of people who died while standing in queues to exchange money. But it is very easy to alter its impact through cinema.”

The Tamil director, known for socially conscious films like “Visaranai” and “Asuran,” went on to discuss the role of cinema in preserving historical truth. “So what can we do against hate propaganda? We make films like this. We must use memory in the right way to spark meaningful conversations,” he stated.

His comments reflect growing concerns among some filmmakers about the potential for cinema to reshape public memory of historical events. “Telling stories from historical moments is one way of passing history to the next generation, because history is often written by those in authority, not by art,” Vetrimaaran observed.

The filmmaker’s most pointed critique came when he addressed how propaganda can distort collective memory: “By telling such stories, we can protect the truth, because over time, everything risks becoming propaganda, and propaganda has the power to manipulate memory. Our memory is very fickle.”

This debate highlights the increasing polarization in Indian cinema regarding political narratives. While “Dhurandhar 2” has performed exceptionally well at the box office and garnered significant audience appreciation, it has simultaneously faced accusations of historical revisionism and promoting certain political viewpoints.

The film’s portrayal of demonetization, a policy that eliminated 86% of India’s currency overnight in 2016 and created widespread economic disruption, has become particularly contentious. Critics argue the film presents a sanitized version of events that overlooks the hardships faced by ordinary citizens during its implementation.

Meanwhile, “Neelira,” focusing on the Sri Lankan civil war, represents a different approach to addressing difficult historical subjects, according to Vetrimaaran. The film aims to present complex historical events without overtly promoting any specific ideology.

As both films navigate the intersection of entertainment, history, and politics, Vetrimaaran’s comments have opened up a broader conversation about cinema’s responsibility in portraying significant historical events and the line between artistic interpretation and propaganda.