§  Dhurandhar Trailer: Extreme Violence Sparks Industry Controversy

§  Dhruv Rathee’s Controversial Statement: Comparing Cinema to ISIS Brutality

§  The Hypocrisy Question: Rathee’s Own Position on Film Violence Becomes Scrutinized

§  Actor Ranvir Shorey Defends Film and Director: Industry Counterargument Emerges

§  Industry Context: Ranveer Singh’s Film Violence Evolution

§  The Censor Board Debate: Inconsistent Standards Under Scrutiny

§  Social Media Reaction: Divided Public Opinion Emerges

§  Dhruv Rathee’s Evolving Role: From Political Commentator to Entertainment Critic

§  December 5 Release Approaches Amid Controversy

§  Broader Implications: Artistic Freedom Versus Social Responsibility

Mumbai, November 20, 2025: Political commentator and YouTube creator Dhruv Rathee has ignited a major controversy in the entertainment world, launching a scathing attack against filmmaker Aditya Dhar and his highly anticipated spy thriller “Dhurandhar.” The criticism centers on the trailer’s graphic depiction of violence, torture and bloodshed—content that Rathee argues represents a dangerous form of cultural poisoning targeting young audiences. His provocative stance has triggered a heated debate across social media platforms regarding artistic freedom, content responsibility and censorship standards in Indian cinema.

The controversy erupted immediately following the trailer release of “Dhurandhar,” the ambitious spy action thriller starring Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh. While mainstream entertainment critics and audiences have largely praised the trailer’s intense aesthetic and powerful performances, Rathee’s perspective starkly contradicts the prevailing enthusiasm, raising uncomfortable questions about where filmmakers should draw ethical lines in pursuit of box office success.

Dhurandhar Trailer: Extreme Violence Sparks Industry Controversy

The “Dhurandhar” trailer, released on November 17, 2025, showcases a high-octane espionage thriller directed by Aditya Dhar, known for his previous military drama “Uri: The Surgical Strike.” The film boasts an impressive ensemble cast including Ranveer Singh, Akshaye Khanna, R. Madhavan, Sanjay Dutt and Arjun Rampal. The film, reportedly inspired by true events, centers on cross-border intelligence operations and counter-terrorism missions.

However, the trailer’s opening moments immediately establish its brutally violent tone. Audiences are introduced to Arjun Rampal’s character, Major Iqbal—an ISI official nicknamed “The Angel of Death”—during a grotesque torture sequence. The scene depicts graphic violence involving skinning, blood-soaked imagery and explicit depictions of human suffering. Throughout the two-minute-forty-second trailer, action sequences alternate with scenes of extreme brutality, wounded bodies and visceral combat footage. Ranveer Singh enters as the counter-force, introducing himself as “The Wrath of God” through ominous dialogue layered over thunderous background music.

For many viewers, Ranveer Singh’s portrayal represents a stark departure from his previous work, showcasing a grittier, more menacing avatar than audiences have witnessed before. Entertainment analysts note that Singh’s character design and intense delivery have generated significant social media buzz with many praising the actor’s commitment to the demanding role.

Dhruv Rathee’s Controversial Statement: Comparing Cinema to ISIS Brutality

Rather than celebrating the trailer’s artistic ambitions, Dhruv Rathee chose to weaponize his substantial social media platform—where he commands millions of followers across YouTube, Instagram and Twitter/X—to condemn the project entirely. His public statements have escalated beyond typical critical commentary into explicit moral accusations against both the filmmaker and the film industry at large.

·       In a particularly provocative social media post, Rathee wrote: “Aditya Dhar has truly crossed every limit of cheapness in Bollywood. The extreme violence, gore and torture shown in his latest film trailer is equivalent to watching ISIS beheading videos and calling it ‘entertainment.’” This comparison directly equates mainstream cinema with terrorist propaganda materials—a claim that fundamentally reframes how audiences should perceive the movie.

Rathee’s criticism extends beyond artistic objections into accusations of deliberate moral corruption. He elaborated: “His lust for money has become so unhinged that he is willingly poisoning the minds of the young generation, desensitizing them to gore and glorifying unimaginable torture.” This framing positions the filmmaker not merely as someone making questionable creative choices but as an active malevolent force intentionally corrupting youth through commercial exploitation.

The YouTube creator then pivoted his argument toward institutional critique, directly challenging India’s censorship framework. “This is the chance for the Central Board of Film Certification to demonstrate whether they have a bigger problem with people kissing on screen or watching someone get skinned alive,” Rathee posted, sarcastically highlighting what he views as the hypocrisy of Indian film censorship—which has historically been more strict regarding intimate scenes than violent content.

The Hypocrisy Question: Rathee’s Own Position on Film Violence Becomes Scrutinized

Rathee’s aggressive condemnation of “Dhurandhar’s” violence created an unexpected vulnerability in his argument. Social media users rapidly reminded the influential creator that he had previously celebrated “Gangs of Wasseypur”—a landmark Indian crime film notorious for its own extreme depictions of violence, brutality and gore. The critically acclaimed 2012-2015 film series, directed by Anurag Kashyap, contains comparable graphic content to what Rathee is now condemning in “Dhurandhar.”

Confronted with this contradiction, Rathee acknowledged the logical inconsistency, posting: “I was wrong to have celebrated Gangs of Wasseypur in the same way I am criticizing Dhurandhar.” This admission, while demonstrating intellectual honesty, simultaneously undermined the absolutist moral position he had taken against the Aditya Dhar film. The retraction became itself trending across social media as observers questioned whether Rathee’s objection stemmed from principled ethical concerns or alternatively from personal animosity toward specific filmmakers.

Actor Ranvir Shorey Defends Film and Director: Industry Counterargument Emerges

Rathee’s controversial stance triggered immediate counterarguments from within the entertainment industry. Actor Ranvir Shorey, recognizing the broader implications of Rathee’s attack on directorial freedom, defended both the film and filmmaker Aditya Dhar. Shorey argued that extreme violence in cinema has become normative within international filmmaking standards, particularly in Hollywood productions where graphic depictions consistently receive mainstream distribution and critical acclaim.

Shorey emphasized that American action cinema routinely depicts violence at comparable or exceeding intensity levels to what “Dhurandhar” showcases. He questioned the selective application of moral outrage—why condemn an Indian filmmaker for techniques standardized throughout global cinema.? The actor’s response reframed the debate from “Should filmmakers depict violence.?” to “Why apply different standards to Indian cinema than international productions.?”

The Twitter/X exchange between Rathee and Shorey escalated into a broader industry discussion with various entertainment personalities weighing in across social media platforms. The discourse expanded beyond “Dhurandhar” to encompass fundamental questions regarding artistic expression, cultural standards, market competition and the filmmaker’s right to pursue creative visions regardless of intensity level.

Industry Context: Ranveer Singh’s Film Violence Evolution

Context strengthens the controversy. Ranveer Singh has previously portrayed morally complex, violent characters without generating comparable levels of outrage. His Oscar-nominated performance as Alauddin Khilji in “Padmaavat” (2018) involved the character committing atrocities, sexual violence and brutal conquest scenes. Yet Rathee’s criticism of “Dhurandhar” reached unprecedented intensity, suggesting either genuine escalation in content boundaries or alternatively a shift in Rathee’s perspective following his earlier “Gangs of Wasseypur” position.

The “Dhurandhar” trailer’s violence appears primarily action-focused rather than psychologically exploitative. Torture scenes function as plot devices establishing antagonist menace rather than lingering depictions designed for graphic gratification. This distinction matters contextually—filmmakers can argue they employ violence for narrative purpose rather than sensationalism. Yet Rathee’s position dismisses such distinctions, treating all extreme violence as inherently corrupting regardless of narrative context.

The Censor Board Debate: Inconsistent Standards Under Scrutiny

Rathee’s challenge to India’s Central Board of Film Certification highlights legitimate inconsistencies within Indian film censorship frameworks. Historically, the CBFC has maintained strict standards regarding intimate physical contact between unmarried characters while simultaneously permitting extensive violence. This paradox reflects cultural attitudes embedded within regulatory institutions—cultural conservatism regarding sexuality coexists with apparent tolerance for brutal physical violence.

Rathee’s sarcastic observation points toward this contradiction: if authorities scrutinize consensual intimate scenes more rigorously than graphic torture sequences, what does this reveal about institutional values.? The question transcends “Dhurandhar” specifically, raising broader considerations regarding what society chooses to restrict versus permit through entertainment media.

However, the censor board’s response remains pending. Whether regulatory authorities will demand “Dhurandhar” cuts or modifications in response to Rathee’s public pressure campaign remains uncertain as of publication. Historically, moral outcry campaigns have occasionally resulted in censorship adjustments, though industry pushback against censorship decisions has intensified in recent years.

READ MORE: Winter Missing.? Early Rains Forecast for These Districts as November Heat Persists

Social Media Reaction: Divided Public Opinion Emerges

Social media engagement surrounding this controversy reveals deeply divided audience perspectives. Supporters of Rathee’s position argue that extreme violence does potentially desensitize viewers, particularly younger audiences still developing moral frameworks and emotional regulatory capacities. They contend that filmmakers have social responsibility extending beyond profit maximization—that artistic freedom includes moral accountability.

Conversely, opposing voices defend the filmmaker’s creative autonomy, arguing that audiences possess agency regarding content consumption. They reference the film’s anticipated mature rating as adequate consumer information, allowing individuals to make informed choices. Furthermore, they note that “Dhurandhar” represents entertainment within a global context where comparable violent content receives distribution without comparable moral outrage campaigns specifically targeting filmmakers as morally corrupt figures.

Dhruv Rathee’s Evolving Role: From Political Commentator to Entertainment Critic

This controversy highlights Dhruv Rathee’s expanding influence beyond political commentary into entertainment industry criticism. With 25+ million YouTube subscribers and millions of social media followers, Rathee’s statements carry substantial weight in shaping public discourse. His willingness to weaponize his platform against specific filmmakers raises questions regarding the responsibility accompanying such influence.

Rathee has established himself as a social commentator willing to challenge powerful institutions and individuals. This “Dhurandhar” criticism represents an extension of that approach into entertainment criticism. However, the admission regarding “Gangs of Wasseypur” suggests even influential critics may occasionally hold inconsistent positions—a reminder that passionate advocacy doesn’t guarantee logical consistency or comprehensive analysis.

December 5 Release Approaches Amid Controversy

“Dhurandhar” is scheduled for theatrical release on December 5, 2025—a date approaching within weeks of this controversy. The film’s production reportedly cost substantial resources with expectations for significant box office performance. Whether Rathee’s campaign influences audience attendance, triggers regulatory intervention or simply generates beneficial publicity through controversy remains uncertain.

Historically, moral objection campaigns have produced mixed results regarding box office impact. Controversial content sometimes attracts viewers curious to experience the disputed material firsthand, while simultaneously deterring those persuaded by moral arguments. The film’s ultimate commercial performance will provide data regarding real-world impact of social media moral campaigns.

Broader Implications: Artistic Freedom Versus Social Responsibility

This controversy transcends “Dhurandhar” specifically, raising fundamental questions that creative industries continually navigate. Where should society draw lines between permitted and prohibited content.? What responsibility do creators bear regarding audience psychological impact.? How should institutions balance censorship prevention with health promotion.? Should different standards apply to art forms in different cultural contexts.?

These questions lack simple answers. Reasonable people disagree regarding appropriate content boundaries. The “Dhurandhar” controversy reflects these deeper tensions—tensions that will persist regardless of this specific film’s reception or regulatory fate.

Conclusion: Controversy Continues Unfolding

Dhruv Rathee’s condemnation of “Dhurandhar” has successfully generated significant entertainment industry discussion regarding violence, creative responsibility and censorship standards. Whether this controversy ultimately influences the film’s reception, regulatory decisions or filmmaker accountability remains to be determined.

What remains clear: the release of “Dhurandhar” has evolved beyond simple movie premiere into a lightning rod for broader cultural conversations regarding artistic expression, content standards and the responsibility accompanying creative influence. As December 5 approaches, audiences will ultimately render judgment through attendance choices—voting with their entertainment dollars regarding whether extreme cinematic violence constitutes acceptable artistic expression or crosses ethical boundaries.

Stay Updated with The Daily Hints

Follow and share The Daily Hints for breaking entertainment news, Bollywood updates and analysis of industry controversies. Subscribe to our newsletter for comprehensive coverage of film releases, celebrity developments and entertainment industry insights.

Follow The Daily Hints on Social Media,

      §  Facebook

      §  Instagram

      §  Threads

      §  WhatsApp

      §  YouTube

      §  Twitter

      §  Email ID

From West Bengal District’s News to Kolkata News, Other States News to Whole India News, International News, Entertainment News to Sports News, Science News to Technology News and all other news updates, follow and Support our news portal @TheDailyHints.

-        END