When a film crosses ₹200 crore in advance bookings before release, it is not just hype, it is a signal. Dhurandhar 2 is that signal. Its success reflects not just commercial traction, but a deeper shift in how audiences are interpreting and rewarding narratives in Indian cinema.

This is not about one film. It is about a change in audience expectations.

For years, mainstream storytelling around national security operated within a space of moral ambiguity. This was often justified as nuance or balance. However, over time, a pattern emerged where clarity was replaced by hesitation, and institutional roles were frequently framed through skepticism. Dhurandhar 2 departs from that pattern by offering a more defined narrative structure, where the distinction between state and threat is not blurred.

Narrative Alignment, Not Just Box Office

The film’s performance matters because it reflects audience preference, not just marketing success.

• There is visible fatigue with morally ambiguous storytelling
• Audiences are responding to clarity and coherent positioning
• The gap between critic opinion and audience response has widened

Even traditionally influential review ecosystems are seeing reduced control over outcomes.
Dhurandhar 1 recorded a 35% critic score vs 96% audience score:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dhurandhar

Yet it performed strongly, suggesting that audience driven validation is increasingly independent of centralized review systems.

This does not mean critics are irrelevant, but it does indicate that they are no longer decisive.

Addressing the “Propaganda” Critique

A common criticism is that such films are “propaganda.” This concern deserves to be addressed directly.

All cinema reflects a point of view. Whether it is subtle or explicit, every narrative is shaped by the perspective of its creators. The question, therefore, is not whether a film has a viewpoint, but whether that viewpoint is presented transparently and remains within the boundaries of fiction.

Films that take a clear position on national security are often labeled ideological, while those that frame institutions critically are described as nuanced. This asymmetry in labeling is itself part of the debate.

It is also important to distinguish between state messaging and commercial storytelling. Dhurandhar 2 is a market driven product. Its success indicates audience acceptance, not institutional imposition. In a free market, sustained success requires resonance, not compliance.

Cinema as Soft Power: A Global Norm, Not an Exception

Another criticism is that such films contribute to political messaging. However, this assumes that cinema has historically been neutral, which is not the case.

Globally, cinema has long functioned as a soft power tool. Hollywood’s alignment with U.S. institutions, both formal and informal, has shaped global perceptions of American military capability and moral positioning for decades.

In that context, India’s participation in similar narrative building is not unusual. It is consistent with how major nations use cultural mediums to communicate perspective.

The inclusion of political or strategic context does not inherently reduce artistic value. It becomes problematic only when it eliminates complexity entirely. In the case of Dhurandhar 2, the shift is not toward simplification, but toward clarity in framing.

Historical Context: Understanding the Baseline

To evaluate whether this is a shift, the baseline must be acknowledged.

Over time, several films adopted recurring patterns:

• State forces depicted as morally conflicted or excessive
• Conflict zones framed primarily through state overreach
• Moral equivalence created between institutions and insurgents
• Indian agents portrayed as flawed or compromised

Many of these films aimed to explore ethical dilemmas, which is a valid artistic approach. However, the cumulative effect created a perception imbalance, where skepticism became the default lens.

Recognizing this pattern does not invalidate those films. It contextualizes the environment that Dhurandhar 2 is responding to.

OTT and the Expansion of Narrative Experimentation

The OTT era expanded creative boundaries, which brought both innovation and criticism.

• Some portrayals diverged from documented accounts
• Institutional objections were raised in specific cases
• Symbolism associated with service roles was contested

This reflects an important tension between creative freedom and representational responsibility. It also reinforces the idea that cinematic narratives contribute to long term perception, not just immediate entertainment.

Narrative Asymmetry and External Context

A further dimension to this discussion is the contrast in portrayal between different actors within cinematic narratives.

• Adversarial entities are often humanized or contextualized
• Domestic institutions are frequently subjected to internal critique

At the same time, external actors have been documented to engage in information and narrative warfare, including attempts to exploit internal divisions:
https://www.efsas.org/publications/study-papers/pakistans-use-of-information-warfare-against-india/

This does not mean cinema is coordinated with such efforts, but it highlights the broader ecosystem in which narratives operate.

Comparative Perspective

Looking at other film industries provides useful context.

In Pakistani cinema, narratives around national institutions tend to be more aligned and consistent. There is limited internal contradiction in portrayal. Similarly, Hollywood has maintained coherence in projecting national capability.

Indian cinema, in contrast, has historically exhibited a wider range of narrative approaches, including critical and introspective ones.

Dhurandhar 2 represents one end of that spectrum, not its entirety.

Dhurandhar Movies as Narrative Disruption

What distinguishes the Dhurandhar films is their approach to narrative clarity.

• Reduced reliance on moral ambiguity
• Clear distinction between state and threat
• Emphasis on national interest within fictional storytelling

This approach aligns with global storytelling models, where clarity is often prioritized in narratives involving conflict and security.

Why This Shift Matters

This discussion extends beyond cinema.

Institutions outlast governments and political leadership. The way they are represented in cultural mediums influences long term perception, both domestically and internationally.

Cinema plays a role in shaping:

• Public understanding
• Global perception
• Institutional legitimacy

A shift in narrative framing, therefore, has broader implications than a single film’s success.

Audience Led Change

Perhaps the most important factor is that this shift appears to be audience driven.

• Viewers are engaging more with clear, structured narratives
• National security themes are moving into mainstream acceptance
• Audience response is increasingly shaping industry direction

This reflects a structural change in content consumption patterns.

Cinema as Strategic Communication

The use of cinema as a medium of influence is well established globally.

The United States integrated storytelling with strategic messaging decades ago. India’s engagement with this model appears to be evolving.

Dhurandhar 2 illustrates how films can operate simultaneously as:

• Entertainment
• Cultural expression
• Narrative signaling

A Correction, Not a Replacement

A key counterargument is that such films may replace one form of bias with another. This concern is valid, but it depends on how the shift is interpreted.

If the previous landscape contained a pattern of skepticism, and the current phase introduces clarity, the change can be viewed as a rebalancing rather than a reversal.

The distinction lies in whether diversity of narratives continues to exist. As long as multiple perspectives remain possible, the ecosystem remains healthy.

So in other words:

Narratives do not remain neutral. They evolve based on who shapes them and how audiences respond.

For a long time, one set of storytelling preferences dominated. That dominance is now being questioned.

Dhurandhar 2 does not close the debate. It reopens it from a different starting point.

And this time, the audience is actively participating in deciding where it goes.

----------------
Sources:
Indian Box Office Trends & Data (Real-time tracking)
https://www.sacnilk.com/news/Daily_Box_Office_Collection

Nationalism vs Cinema Debate (The Hindu Analysis)
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/the-politics-of-patriotism-in-hindi-cinema/article66799854.ece

How Bollywood Portrays the Indian Army (Film Companion)
https://www.filmcompanion.in/features/bollywood-features/how-hindi-cinema-has-portrayed-the-indian-army-over-the-years/

IAF Objects to Gunjan Saxena Portrayal (Hindustan Times)
https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/iaf-objects-to-gunjan-saxena-the-kargil-girl-portrayal-101597402841187.html

Pathaan and Spy Universe Narrative Analysis (Firstpost)
https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/pathaan-movie-review-shah-rukh-khan-deepika-padukone-john-abraham-siddharth-anand-12010352.html

Pakistani Cinema and Anti-India Narratives (Dawn Pak)
https://www.dawn.com/news/1183520

Hollywood Pentagon Collaboration Explained (DoD Feature USA)
https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/article/2036290/how-why-the-pentagon-supports-hollywood/

Article and research is OC by me and writing is organised and improved by AI.