Pankaj Kapur Boldly Defends Sandeep Reddy Vanga: 'Toxic Masculinity Exists, Cinema Holds a Mirror!'

Pankaj Kapur, a name synonymous with profound acting and compelling storytelling in Indian cinema, has waded into the swirling waters of the 'toxic masculinity' debate, emerging with a staunch defense for director Sandeep Reddy Vanga. In a recent interview, Kapur, father of acclaimed actor Shahid Kapoor, articulated a powerful perspective that challenges conventional criticisms leveled against Vanga's controversial films, particularly those known for their intense and often problematic male protagonists.

His argument isn't one of endorsement for the characters' actions, but rather a compelling case for cinema's role as a mirror to society.

Kapur unequivocally stated that 'toxic masculinity exists' within our society. This assertion forms the bedrock of his defense. He posits that if such elements are indeed prevalent in the real world, then why should filmmakers shy away from depicting them? According to Kapur, cinema doesn't operate in a vacuum, nor does it solely create societal ills.

Instead, it serves as a powerful medium to reflect the multifaceted and often uncomfortable truths of human existence. To demand that films only showcase 'ideal' or 'sanitized' versions of reality would be to strip art of its essential purpose.

The veteran actor elaborated on the director's perspective, emphasizing that a filmmaker's vision is to portray the world and its inhabitants as they see them.

He highlighted the responsibility of the audience to discern and interpret, rather than simply attributing societal problems solely to cinematic portrayals. Kapur's defense isn't about glorifying problematic behavior; it's about acknowledging its existence and allowing artistic expression to explore these themes without being unfairly burdened with the sole responsibility for their societal impact.

He suggested that holding films accountable for creating toxic masculinity overlooks the deeper, more complex roots of such issues within society itself.

Kapur's comments resonate with a broader debate about artistic freedom versus social responsibility. He firmly believes that restricting portrayals based on moralistic judgments can stifle creativity and limit cinema's capacity to engage with difficult subjects.

His stance suggests that true artistic courage lies in depicting reality, however grim or controversial, and trusting the audience to grapple with its implications. This bold defense from a respected industry veteran adds significant weight to the ongoing discourse, urging a more nuanced understanding of cinema's relationship with society and the complex portrayal of human nature on screen.