There was a time when mainstream cinema could get away with treating female characters as little more than decorative additions to a hero’s journey. A song here, a romantic track there, a few glamour shots in between, and the job was considered done. Audiences accepted it, filmmakers repeated it, and an entire generation of commercial cinema turned it into an unquestioned formula.
That formula is finally being challenged. The recent debate surrounding the portrayal of Janhvi Kapoor‘s character in Peddi is not really about one film, one actress, or one director. It is about a question that audiences are increasingly asking every time they walk into a theatre: Why is this character even here?
It is a simple question, but one that exposes a much larger problem. If a character can be removed from a story without affecting the plot, the emotional stakes, or the thematic core, then that character does not truly belong to the narrative. More often than not, it is the female lead who finds herself trapped in this position.
For decades, commercial cinema has operated under the assumption that every hero needs a heroine, regardless of whether the story requires one. The result is a familiar pattern. The male protagonist drives the action, makes the decisions, faces the conflicts, and undergoes the transformation. The female lead appears as a romantic reward, a source of visual appeal, or a reason to insert songs into the screenplay. She exists around the story rather than within it.
The problem is not romance. Great cinema has produced some of the most memorable love stories ever told. The problem is when romance becomes a substitute for characterisation. A love interest who has no agency, no ambitions, no influence on the story, and no existence beyond the hero’s gaze is not a character. She is a narrative accessory.
What makes this conversation particularly important is that audiences have changed. Viewers today are more media literate than ever before. They consume films and shows from across the world. They are exposed to stories where women are written as complex human beings rather than props. As a result, they are less willing to accept outdated storytelling shortcuts.
This is also why certain scenes that were once dismissed as harmless now face scrutiny. Behaviours previously packaged as romance are increasingly recognised for what they are. Camera choices that repeatedly reduce women to body parts are no longer seen as artistic decisions but as reflections of deeper attitudes. The audience is not becoming overly sensitive. It is becoming more aware.
Some filmmakers argue that these are conventions inherited from earlier eras of cinema. That may be true. But tradition alone is not a defence. Cinema has evolved in countless ways over the decades. Its treatment of women must evolve as well.
What is interesting about the backlash surrounding Peddi is not that audiences criticised the film. Audiences have always criticised films. What is notable is the nature of the criticism. The conversation was not centred on visual effects, pacing, or box office numbers. It was about representation, consent, and narrative purpose. That shift signals a broader cultural change.
The irony is that stronger female characters do not weaken commercial cinema. They strengthen it. Some of the most beloved films in recent years have featured women who challenge protagonists, influence outcomes, and shape narratives in meaningful ways. Such characters enrich stories because they feel like people rather than obligations.
Filmmakers often insist that cinema reflects society. The truth is that cinema also shapes society. It influences how generations understand relationships, power, and gender. With that influence comes responsibility. Not a responsibility to be politically correct, but a responsibility to be thoughtful.
The audience is no longer asking for perfection. It is asking for effort. It is asking filmmakers to move beyond formulas that belong to another era. It is asking them to write women who matter.
That should not be considered a radical demand. It should be considered the minimum requirement of good storytelling.
This version is written as a broader cultural commentary rather than a direct attack on Peddi, which generally gives an op-ed longer shelf life and wider appeal.