CHENNAI: Aditya Srikrishna, film critic
As a film critic, I think there should be space for all kinds of films. We must be able to make films about misogynists, sexists, serial killers and all kinds of characters. What is important in cinema is its gaze and by extension the filmmaker’s. In the case of Kabir Singh/Arjun Reddy, the gaze was that of a glorified misogynist character and Vanga’s interview only confirmed that. It’s not a shock that the film is a hit. Like Pa Ranjith said in a recent interview, society is reflected in films and from films, it gets reinforced in society — a feedback loop. 

Anu Sathya, assistant director
As a director, you ought to have some social responsibility as there are hundreds of people who get influenced by your movies. Men who already have this kind of attitude will be encouraged by such movies and start normalising such behaviour. When asked how the hero can claim ‘ownership’ of a complete stranger in the classroom without even talking to her once, he replied saying we call 2,000 people to the wedding and tie the knot. Similarly, in a classroom, there are 100 people. But, does he understand that marriage happens with the consent of the girl? Also talking about objectification where the hero calls a woman, ‘fat and chubby’, he said one must understand the difference between description and objectification, which is unacceptable. If the same behaviour is shown of the villain, then it would have enraged the audience, right? 

Karthik, short film director
If you can’t slap, touch your women wherever you want, I don’t see emotion” was what the director said. With increasing cases of rape and abuse in the country, one cannot expect the audience to take this in a positive way. These kinds of statement will only promote adamant nature among the public. The director might have had a different perception, but what people perceive of this cannot be controlled. When women are trying to fight for their rights, glorifying male chauvinistic behaviour, especially in a medium like cinema, can promote a wrong notion.

Anupama Kumar, actress
While the question of how much the audience actually gets influenced by what’s shown on screen is debatable, one cannot deny the fact that characters like Arjun Reddy do exist in real life. Personally, I feel responsible film-making is a delicate balance between showing what’s real and also gently stating that not everything that’s real is desirable and is rewarded. It’s true that intimacy may mean different things to different couples, but in this day and age, where violence against women is an issue to be addressed and has finally gained momentum, why do we need to make films showing our heroes justifying even the thought of such an action?

Sarang Thiagu, filmmaker
The love and emotion between Kabir Singh and his girlfriend, Kabir slapping his girlfriend, Kabir touching his woman wherever he wants to, it’s okay, because it’s fictional. It’s not real. They’re his (the director’s) own characters that he has created. He can get them to do whatever he wants them to in the arc of the story he has written. But in real life, for him to make, such a statement is awful and pathetic. Love is not about slapping and touching the woman wherever he wants to. I feel sorry for his girlfriend (if he has one). Wishing him all the luck to realise it soon.

Surrya M Narayanan, filmmaker
If one thinks that this toxic society is built only over 100 years of Indian cinema then it cannot be enlightened in a flash just watching by three hours of ‘Moral’ Arjun Reddy. India is India not just because of films, we have other reasons to be ill. Let’s address that first. No moral policing on films. It is sick to force restrictions on any fiction. Let it be rubbish or gold, it has all rights to exist. Stopping Arjun Reddys, will allow a sector to stop Black Fridays and Sexy Durgas. This loop will only serve more damage to fictional liberties. Regarding Sandeep’s interview, there have always been creators who made sick statements but still create great art.

Kavipriya Moorthy, author 
The cinema industry is by itself chauvinistic. All the directors are from a cultural background and they pick stories based on shades of their lives. I would never agree that the movie is just a movie. It’s a part of our lives and a reflection of our thoughts. Movies influence us. I believe these directors are not thinking out of their chauvinistic and misogynistic minds. It is important that we voice out and let them know that we as an audience are definitely not happy with such movies to force to them to be inclusive, to understand privilege and gender inequality. There are people who’ve tried acid attacks based on a movie. There are people who’ve tried to commit murder after what they saw in a movie. Younger generations that are stuck to their mobile screens can easily be influenced by Kabir Singh kind of movies. 

Krupe Ge, writer and editor
In a country like ours, which constantly produces politicians from the movie world, with armies of young men who form the bulk of fan clubs and are seen as future karyakartas of parties and the cause of these ‘heroes’, you cannot be oblivious to the fact that there are fans who go over and beyond in hero-worship. If you say something bad about a ‘hero’, today, you have to be prepared for an onslaught of trolling, god forbid if you are a woman, then the trolling can turn even more vicious. In the case of the film Arjun Reddy, as a woman, when I see this guy on screen, I can feel that something is off. If the maker is not on the guy’s side, I can get it — he is depicting this character, it’s fiction. But when there’s heroic music just because he stops short of what can only be construed as rape, what is the message? All artists take critique personally even though we are asked not to, I understand this, but to lash out everyone who finds a fictitious character problematic is just immature and in bad faith.

Hemalatha Venkataraman, art illustrator-blogger 
Sandeep Reddy seems to think that the age-old misogynistic trope of Indian cinema packaged in shiny new gift-paper somehow warrants him immunity from being ‘needlessly attacked’. In a country where women are touched every day without their consent, slapped, thrown acid at, cussed and wolf-whistled at, Reddy’s comments are nothing but reinforcement for people already entrenched in these behaviours and don’t register women’s trauma or minimisation of their agency at all. In particular, his comments about knowing all about rape culture because he worked with rape victims is misinformed and seems willfully ignorant.

Inputs by Dia Rekhi, Kannalmozhi Kabilan, 
KV Navya, Rochana Mohan and Vaishali Vijaykumar