Peddi, directed by Buchi Babu Sana, released on June 4. The Telugu sports action drama stars Ram Charan in the lead role alongside Janhvi Kapoor, with a budget of Rs 350 crore. Within 48 hours of release, the film crossed Rs 150 crore worldwide. The box office numbers were impressive. The treatment of its female lead was not.
Janhvi Kapoor plays Achiyyamma, and the character has become one of the most debated aspects of the film. Audiences and critics have raised serious, sustained objections about how she is written, filmed, and ultimately discarded by the narrative. The backlash cuts across demographics and has forced a rare public reckoning in Telugu cinema.
Also Read: Peddi OTT release date and platform: When and where to watch Ram Charan and Janhvi Kapoor-starrer after theatres
What the camera does to Achiyyamma
The problem begins the moment Achiyyamma appears on screen. Her character’s introduction alone drew immediate concern, with the camera lingering on her body for several minutes before her face is even shown to the audience. This is not an incidental creative choice. It is a declaration of how the film intends to treat her for the rest of its 189-minute running time.
A viral Instagram post described how, for the first hour, the camera is exclusively focused on Achiyyamma and reduced her to what viewers called a “literal amalgamation of waist, midriff, and backside.” Several viewers specifically criticised scenes featuring repeated close-up shots of the actress’s waist and navel, as well as dialogue they considered inappropriate.
Significant portion of criticism focused on scenes that placed unnecessary emphasis on Achiyyamma’s physical appearance. Viewers pointed to moments where dialogue describing the character is accompanied by shots of different parts of her body.
This is a textbook deployment of what Laura Mulvey called the “male gaze” in 1975. The camera does not observe Achiyyamma as a person. It consumes her as a body. The audience is positioned to look at her the way the hero looks at her. They are invited into his desire, not her subjectivity.
The courtship that normalises harassment
The romance track between Peddi and Achiyyamma has drawn the sharpest criticism of all. The hero is shown telling his friends that he intends to touch Achiyyamma as though her body is a goal to be achieved. Another sequence that drew backlash showed Ram Charan’s character kissing Achiyyamma without consent after following her home.
One scene in particular, where Charan’s character uses a power cut as cover to forcefully kiss Kapoor’s character, has drawn the sharpest criticism, with many viewers online calling the sequence “sexual assault.”
Viewers argued that what was framed as a playful and innocent romance was in practice a scene-by-scene normalisation of harassment and non-consent. The film appeared to present a woman’s objection not as a legitimate boundary to be respected but as an obstacle to be overcome by persistence. The arc then concludes with Achiyyamma kissing him, and at no point does the narrative hold anyone accountable for what has taken place.
This is the “persistence pays off” romantic template that Indian cinema has recycled for decades. The woman says no. The man persists. The woman eventually yields. The film treats this as love. Feminist critics have long argued that this template does not merely reflect a problematic reality. It actively teaches audiences to see refusal as negotiable and consent as something that can wear down over time.
A story about dignity that forgets its heroine
The irony of Peddi’s situation is particularly striking. The viral post that spread widely argued that the film attempts to tell a socially conscious story about marginalised voices and human dignity, but fails to extend the same treatment to its female lead.
Achiyyamma deserved a more substantial arc and greater influence on the narrative. Character’s limited agency weakens what could have been a more meaningful role within the film. Achiyyamma’s pain is sidelined in the narrative, while the focus shifts back to the male characters and the hero’s journey.
One assessment that circulated widely noted that nearly every scene featuring her seems designed around objectification rather than character development.
This tension sits at the heart of so much mainstream Indian filmmaking. The film may champion the rights of one marginalised group while simultaneously reducing women to decorative functions. The contradiction is rarely examined because the industry has normalised it. Peddi is not unusual in this regard. It is simply the latest film to get caught.
Janhvi Kapoor signals her own discomfort
Janhvi Kapoor sparked discussion on social media after eagle-eyed fans noticed that she appeared to have liked an Instagram post criticising the portrayal of her character Achiyyamma in the film. It was a small act, but it carried weight. An actress liking public criticism of her own character is not standard Bollywood behaviour. It suggested something closer to agreement.
This is also part of a pattern. Janhvi made her Telugu debut alongside Jr. NTR in Devara, but her character received criticism for poor writting, lacking narrative purpose, and existing largely to add glamour to the film. Many thought Peddi would be different. The same outcome arrived.
The question this raises is not simply about one actress. It is about the structural position of women within big-budget Telugu productions. Their casting announcement often comes with fanfare. Their characters are frequently afterthoughts. They are promotional material first and people on screen second.
The director’s apology and what it means
Filmmaker Buchi Babu Sana issued a public apology on Saturday, saying the team had taken audience feedback seriously and would make necessary changes. He stated that cinema should entertain, inspire, and connect with audiences and must not make anyone feel uncomfortable or disrespected.
As a filmmaker, I believe cinema should entertain, inspire, and connect with audiences. It should never make anyone feel uncomfortable or disrespected. We have heard the feedback regarding certain scenes in Peddi and have taken it seriously.
I have always had immense respect for…
— BuchiBabuSana (@BuchiBabuSana) June 6, 2026
The director confirmed that the makers have decided to alter the criticised portions after reviewing audience reactions. He added that every woman deserves respect, value, and represention with dignity.
Buchi Babu explained that the creative team’s original idea for the relationship was very different from how it was received on screen, and that his intention was to present a playful romantic track, not to make viewers uncomfortable.
The apology is welcome. The stated intention, however, raises a harder question. When the gap between intent and impact is this large, and this specific, the problem is not merely one of miscommunication. Films with budgets of Rs 350 crore have multiple writers, script supervisors, producers, editors, and preview audiences. Someone saw the rushes. Multiple people made decisions at every stage. The framing of Achiyyamma as a body rather than a character was not accidental. It was the cumulative result of choices across months of production.
A pattern that needs more than an edit
The backlash against Peddi sits within a broader, slowly shifting conversation about women in Indian cinema. Post-MeToo, audiences have grown less tolerant of harassment framed as romance. Social media has given viewers a platform to name what they see in real time.
The debate around Peddi has become one of the more substantial conversations about representation and consent in Telugu cinema in recent times. That matters. Public conversations change what gets greenlit. They change what writers put on the page and what directors think they can put on screen.
The women on screen deserve better. So do the women watching.