Nushrratt Bharuccha is never one to be afraid of speaking her mind, and her latest statements on ambition vs. opportunism are no exception, proving once again why she is one of the most honest voices in the industry. In a refreshingly candid conversation at a recent event, Nushrratt responded to the commonly maligned charge of being called an ‘opportunist’.

Instead of disowning the word, Nushrratt chose to embrace it. She wondered how come ambition is always eyed with suspicion, especially when it is from a woman. Nushrratt shared, “When I look back at my journey, I don’t think wanting opportunities is something to be embarrassed about. If it fits my creative intention and my interest, I don’t see why I should say no to it.” She believes that everyone is waiting in a line because they want something, and wanting more in life is not a bad thing.

Nevertheless, Nushrratt has been very careful in making a distinction between ambition and immorality. Nushrratt believes that “the problem doesn’t exist in wanting opportunities, but how one chooses to go about while taking them.” She says that “being an opportunist is not a bad thing, but how one chooses to go about when they are an opportunist” is what needs to be attended to, because only the individual can define what is “accountable.”

The actress also spoke of her growing understanding of ambition, which has happened over time, in a way that is not learned but experienced. She said that when one’s values, perceptions, and thoughts are in order, when they feel right, they are the right ones for the person. This is particularly significant in an industry where people are always comparing themselves with others.

Her words speak loudly in a setting where ambition is sometimes encouraged in men but doubted in women. By taking this bold step to reclaim space for ambition, growth, and belief in oneself, Nushrratt has been able to redefine success, which stems from clarity, not apology.

This is evident in her entire body of work. Be it Pyaar Ka Punchnama, Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety, Dream Girl, which are commercially successful, and/or movies such as Chhorii, Janhit Mein Jaari, which are performance-oriented, Nushrratt has managed to strike a balance. Instead, she has opted for assignments that are challenging to her, assist her in growing as an actress, and enable her to reach out to people of diverse age groups and mindsets. Thus, Nushrratt Bharuccha is continuing her journey, which defines her, not by a tag, but by her choice, beliefs, and conviction.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Nushrratt Bharuccha (@nushrrattbharuccha)

A re-release in the theatres once again cemented the fact that this is, indeed, the stuff of legends-today’s new generation getting introduced to the iconic film and the older generation getting nostalgic all over again. As the film enters its 50th year, director Ramesh Sippy looks back at its eventful journey-from being written off as a failure to emerging as one of Indian cinema’s biggest blockbusters.

Talking to Siddharth Kannan in a podcast, Sippy remembered how the ambitious budget of Sholay was the biggest talking point in the days leading up to its release. Made on an unprecedented budget of ₹3 crore then, the film was perceived as a big financial gamble in 1975. Trade pundits and industry insiders were confident that such profligacy would bring ruin to the industry, and many proclaimed that the makers would never get their money back.

Sippy confided that Sholay had gone from an initial estimate of ₹1 crore to a final threefold increase in cost. Were ₹1 crore at the time to be adjusted for inflation, he explained, it would be the equivalent of close to ₹100 crore today. And when the film began sluggishly, newspapers reported it as a flop, ratifying the conventional wisdom that big-budget films were the surest way to imperil Bollywood’s future.

But, within weeks, the discourse flipped. As days went by and nearly five weeks into the film’s theatrical run, the barometer started climbing. The same critics who trashed it redacted their statements. What was once touted as an industry-threatening gamble had suddenly ballooned into a record-shattering phenomenon, changing perceptions of scale and ambition for all time to come in Indian filmmaking.

Sippy also spoke about the film’s censor troubles, especially its climax. During the Emergency, the censor board had objected to Sanjeev Kumar’s character Thakur Baldev Singh killing Gabbar Singh on the ground that a police officer could not take the law into his hands. On grounds of this, Sippy was compelled to reshoot the climax, sending Gabbar to jail instead of killing him.

“I had no choice,” Sippy said, recalling how censorship rules left filmmakers powerless at the time. Despite his disappointment, the altered ending became the version audiences saw for decades.

Now, with the original ending, Sholay will make it to the cinema halls after fifty years. Renamed as Sholay: The Final Cut, the film will get released on December 12 and finally give the audience a glimpse of what Sippy wanted as its climax. Starring Amitabh Bachchan, Dharmendra, Amjad Khan, Hema Malini, Jaya Bachchan, and Sanjeev Kumar, Sholay has remained an eternal milestone in filmmaking—evidence that not even the biggest risks can rewrite history.

A recent interview with Hollywood Reporter India has sparked a heated debate after Radhika Apte openly criticised films that glorify brutality and demean women. Her comments, which questioned the responsibility of cinema in shaping social values, quickly went viral — but not without controversy.

Soon after the interview was published, social media users began pointing out the apparent contradiction between her remarks and her past filmography. Many referenced her roles in the gore-heavy Rakta Charitra, the explicit anthology Lust Stories, and intense thrillers such as Badlapur and Ghoul. Critics argued that her earlier performances were part of the very cinematic landscape she was now condemning, accusing her of selective outrage and convenient moral positioning.

The discussion gained further momentum as her comments coincided with growing buzz around Dhurandhar, an upcoming gritty spy thriller directed by Aditya Dhar and starring Ranveer Singh. Inspired by real-life events, including the IC-814 hijacking, the film has been praised for its realism and intensity. Some questioned whether the actress’ statements were poorly timed, especially as the film’s hard-hitting tone has already been receiving a strong response.

However, supporters were quick to defend her stance, calling it an honest and evolved perspective rather than hypocrisy. Many argued that artists are allowed to grow, reflect and reassess their choices over time. As a parent, they said, her concerns stem from a more personal place — one shaped by responsibility, awareness and lived experience.

Defenders also pointed out that portraying dark or uncomfortable stories is not the same as endorsing them. According to this view, her past roles explored complex, often disturbing realities, whereas her recent comments were directed at films that sensationalise violence without accountability or nuance. They argued that speaking out against such portrayals is a legitimate critique of the industry’s current trends.

I feel quite disturbed & I have to say this openly… I’m deeply disturbed by the violence at the moment that is selling as entertainment, I don’t want to be bringing up a child in a world where that’s entertainment , I just cannot deal with it – #RadhikaApte on being disturbed by… pic.twitter.com/TK7cQAWAwn

— Kolly Censor (@KollyCensor) December 12, 2025

The debate highlights a larger conversation within Indian cinema about where to draw the line between realism and exploitation. As filmmakers increasingly turn to gritty narratives and true-crime inspirations, questions around ethics, representation and impact have become unavoidable.

Whether seen as hypocrisy or honest introspection, the actress’ remarks have undeniably reignited discussions about creative responsibility and personal growth. As the industry evolves, so too do its artists — and the friction between past choices and present convictions continues to shape public discourse.