Over the past month, two patriotic films arrived at the box office and received sharply different responses. The contrast between Dhurandhar and 120 Bahadur has sparked intense debate about what Indian audiences truly want from patriotic cinema.
120 Bahadur released on 21st November and earned less than 20 crores during its theatrical run. Dhurandhar, released last week, collected 28 crores on its opening day and has earned around 250 crores so far. The gap in numbers is striking.
Farhan Akhtar’s 120 Bahadur is based on the 1962 Battle of Rezang La. It portrays Indian soldiers facing overwhelming Chinese forces. The film asks viewers to confront a painful military defeat and engage with history on an emotional and intellectual level.
The film highlights that bravery and sacrifice do not always lead to victory. It presents a form of low-engagement patriotism that requires emotional restraint and historical understanding. Many feel audiences are not ready to spend 300 rupees on this kind of reflective pain.
In contrast, Dhurandhar offers emotional release. It presents Pakistan, the ISI, and Islamic terrorism as clear enemies. The film works as a revenge fantasy linked to 26/11, the Parliament attacks, and years of cross-border violence.
The narrative is largely fictional, built on scattered facts and imagined characters. It is not history but storytelling. The message is simple. We are good, they are evil, and we win. This high-octane patriotism appears to resonate strongly with audiences.
120 Bahadur also faced protests from the Ahir community, who demanded changes to the title. Roads were blocked in several states, but the protests remained localised. There was no national polarisation or mass emotional mobilisation.
Dhurandhar, however, triggered a wider cultural storm. Negative reviews led to backlash, while critics accused the film of propaganda and toxic violence. Yet the controversy only amplified its reach and visibility.
The debate split audiences into two camps. Supporting the film was equated with supporting the nation, while criticism was branded anti-national. This polarisation strengthened the film’s appeal rather than weakening it.
The contrasting fate of these films suggests a clear pattern. Audiences are not rewarding nuanced patriotic storytelling. They are drawn to loud, aggressive nationalism driven by anger. At the box office, that is what sells.
