One of the biggest talking points surrounding Peddi after its release is the romantic track between Ram Charan and Janhvi Kapoor, which has come under severe backlash both on and off social media. Many viewers felt that the romance was portrayed in a manner that appeared vulgar and crass rather than playful or endearing.
The romantic portions actually contribute very little to the overall narrative and many believe the film would have remained unaffected even if the track had been removed altogether.
Director Buchi Babu Sana, who comes from Sukumar’s school of cinema, has found himself at the center of the controversy. Many have accused the filmmaker of reducing Janhvi Kapoor’s character to a vehicle for glamour and sexual appeal rather than giving her meaningful narrative importance. The backlash has been significant enough that Buchi Babu has acknowledged the negative response, expressed regret over certain portions, and promised to make adjustments to some scenes in theatrical prints soon to ensure audiences are not offended.
Interestingly, the controversy has also led to fresh appreciation for Sukumar’s handling of female characters. While Sukumar’s films have occasionally attracted some brickbats for some heroine characters, he generally understands where to draw the line between glamour and objectification.
The comparison has become particularly evident through discussions about Pushpa and Rangasthalam.
Several social media users recalled that some audiences described the car sequence involving Allu Arjun and Rashmika Mandanna in Pushpa 1 as awkward or cringe when the film was released. Allu Arjun being willing to pay money to Rashmika for a touch and a kiss was also scrutinized. However, Sukumar ultimately transformed Srivalli into one of the most memorable female characters. Rashmika became almost synonymous with the Srivalli character, and many consider it a milestone role in her filmography.
Similarly, Samantha Ruth Prabhu’s character in Rangasthalam was not deeply connected to the film’s central conflict. The role featured considerable romance and glamour elements, yet Sukumar ensured that the character received proper emotional closure in the climax and remained relevant within the larger story. As a result, the portrayal did not attract any negativity despite its somewhat sexualized packaging.
Glamour and romance are not necessarily the problem. Audiences are often willing to accept such elements when they serve a clear narrative purpose and contribute meaningfully to character development.
When the purpose is clear and the writing is effective, the portrayal naturally feels right. When that purpose is missing, audiences quickly begin trolling the creative choices behind it. It seems Buchi Babu Sana has not yet found the same balance between glamour and narrative purpose that his guru Sukumar often achieves.
