“From storytelling to subtle influence—unpacking whether Dhurandhar crosses the line into propaganda, with insights from film history.”

When Cinema Influences Belief: The Dhurandhar Debate

In today’s world, films do more than just entertain.
They influence how we think, what we feel, and sometimes even what we believe is true.

So the real question isn’t whether movies carry an agenda anymore—
it’s how subtly they shape our perception.

And that’s exactly why Dhurandhar has sparked such an intense debate.

Is it just a gripping spy thriller?
Or is it quietly guiding the audience toward a certain way of thinking?

To answer that honestly, we need to step back—into the history of propaganda cinema.

---

What is Propaganda Cinema? (And Why It Still Matters Today)

Propaganda cinema isn’t just about “biased films.”
It’s about storytelling with a purpose—films designed to influence public opinion.

And this didn’t start in India. It goes back nearly a century.

As soon as governments realized that films could move emotions at scale,
cinema became more than art—it became a tool.

---

The Origins of Propaganda Films: When Cinema Became Power

Nazi Germany: Creating Belief Through Visual Power

One of the most famous examples is Triumph of the Will, directed by Leni Riefenstahl.

This film didn’t argue or explain. It simply showed massive rallies, powerful imagery, and a larger-than-life portrayal of Adolf Hitler.

Another striking example from the same era is Olympia, also directed by Riefenstahl, which used the 1936 Berlin Olympics to subtly promote the idea of physical superiority and national pride.

Both films worked not by forcing ideas—but by making them feel natural, even inspiring.

That’s what made them so powerful—and so dangerous.

Why it was called propaganda:

• • It presented only one narrative—no criticism, no opposition

• • It glorified leadership and power

• • It created emotional awe instead of encouraging thought

It didn’t ask viewers to think. It made them believe.

---

Soviet Union: Storytelling for Revolution

In the USSR, filmmakers like Sergei Eisenstein used cinema not just to tell stories, but to actively promote communist ideology.

His film Battleship Potemkin is often considered a landmark—it portrayed a naval mutiny as a symbol of people rising against oppression, turning revolution into something emotionally heroic.

Another powerful example is October: Ten Days That Shook the World, where Eisenstein dramatized the Bolshevik Revolution. The film didn’t just recreate history—it reshaped it to highlight the strength of collective action and the inevitability of revolution.

Even beyond Eisenstein, Soviet cinema consistently followed this pattern. Films were state-supported and expected to reflect the ideals of communism—workers as heroes, elites as villains, and revolution as both necessary and justified.

Why it was propaganda:

• • It promoted revolution as necessary and heroic

• • It simplified reality into oppressors vs victims

• • It emotionally pushed viewers toward a political belief

It didn’t just show events—it made you feel injustice deeply.

---

United States: Explaining War to the Public

During World War II, the U.S. created films like Why We Fight, led by Frank Capra.

These films answered a crucial question:
“Why should we go to war?”

But they didn’t just inform—they carefully shaped perception.

Another important example is The Battle of Midway, directed by John Ford. It used real combat footage to bring the war closer to home, making the threat feel immediate and personal.

Similarly, Prelude to War (part of the Why We Fight series) framed the conflict as a battle between freedom and tyranny—clearly defining who was “right” and who was “wrong.”

Why they were propaganda:

• • They justified military action

• • They framed the enemy in a specific way

• • They simplified global politics for mass understanding

They didn’t show the full picture—only the necessary one.

---

Cold War Era: Entertainment with a Hidden Message

As time passed, propaganda became less obvious.

Films like Rocky IV subtly portrayed ideological conflict—America vs the Soviet Union—through entertainment.

This was a turning point.

Propaganda no longer looked like instruction.
It started looking like pure entertainment with a message underneath.

---

Modern Cinema: The Rise of “Soft Propaganda”

Today, propaganda is rarely loud or direct.

It’s woven into storytelling.

Films like:

• • American Sniper

• • Zero Dark Thirty

• • The Kashmir Files

• • Uri: The Surgical Strike

have all sparked debates.

Why?

Because they:

• • Draw from real events

• • Take a clear narrative stance

• • Trigger strong emotional reactions

They don’t feel like propaganda.
And that’s exactly why they’re powerful.

---

So, What Actually Makes a Film Propaganda?

Across history, the pattern is clear.

A film tends to be called propaganda when it:

• • Pushes a clear agenda

• • Simplifies complex realities into “us vs them”

• • Relies heavily on emotion over critical thinking

• • Selects facts that support one narrative

• • Leaves little room for questioning

Important point:
Propaganda doesn’t always mean false.
It means purpose-driven storytelling.

---

Understanding Dhurandhar: Storytelling or Influence?

Now let’s come back to Dhurandhar.

On the surface, it’s a slick, high-energy spy thriller set against an India–Pakistan backdrop.

It delivers:

• • Strong performances

• • Intense action

• • Emotional storytelling

But if you look closer, you start noticing layers.

---

Why Dhurandhar Feels Like Propaganda to Some

1. Framing of real events

The film touches on real-world decisions like demonetisation and presents them in a specific, often positive light.

That raises a valid question:
Is it storytelling—or narrative shaping?

---

2. Emotional nationalism

Certain scenes are designed to evoke pride, anger, and unity.

This isn’t accidental.
It’s storytelling that aligns emotions with a perspective.

---

3. Portrayal of the “other side”

At times, the depiction of Pakistan feels simplified.

Real-world conflicts are complex.
When films reduce them to binaries, it starts resembling classic propaganda patterns.

---

4. Controversy and censorship

The film has faced backlash, edits, and bans in certain regions(Gulf nations)

That usually indicates it’s touching politically sensitive ground—not neutral territory.

---

Why Dhurandhar Is Not Pure Propaganda

Now here’s where the discussion becomes more honest.

1. It allows emotional depth

Unlike traditional propaganda, the film includes internal conflict and layered characters.

It doesn’t feel completely one-sided.

---

2. It’s still commercial cinema

The film uses drama, action, and storytelling techniques to entertain.

Its primary goal isn’t instruction—it’s engagement.

---

3. It blends fiction with reality

It takes creative liberties.

That puts it closer to biased storytelling than strict propaganda.

---

The Real Answer: It Lives in the Grey Zone

Calling Dhurandhar pure propaganda would be oversimplifying it.

But calling it completely neutral would be ignoring its influence.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

It fits into what we now call:

“Soft Propaganda”

A form of storytelling that:

• • Feels like entertainment

• • But carries clear ideological leanings

---

Why This Matters More Than You Think

Films like Dhurandhar don’t just stay on screen.

They shape:

• • How we see our country

• • How we see others

• • How we react to real-world events

And because they entertain us so well…

We rarely question their deeper impact.

---

Final Verdict: Cinema That Shapes Perception

Dhurandhar is not propaganda in the traditional sense.

But it’s also not free from influence.

It exists in a powerful space where:

Cinema stops just telling stories…
And quietly starts shaping perception.

---

One Question to Leave You With

When you walked out of the film, ask yourself:

Did it make you think?
Or did it make you feel something—without questioning why?

Because your answer to that…
is the real verdict…

---