Actor Taapsee Pannu, who was recently seen in Assi, has addressed the controversy surrounding her earlier remarks about how female actors are visually portrayed in Indian cinema. Speaking in a recent interview with Galatta Plus, the actress clarified that her comments were widely misinterpreted and reduced to a simplistic comparison between industries, when her intention was to highlight a deeper issue — the persistent male gaze shaping how women are presented on screen.
Taapsee explained that during a previous podcast appearance, she was asked about the long-standing perception that South Indian cinema tends to focus on the midriff while Hindi films highlight cleavage. Her response, she said, was never meant to create a division between industries or body parts. Instead, she intended to point out that there exists a broader, cross-industry fixation on showcasing women in ways designed to appeal visually, often dictated by commercial expectations rather than storytelling needs.
According to the actress, the real conversation should not revolve around whether one industry focuses on a particular physical feature over another. “Which part of yours is highlighted is not the point,” she noted, emphasizing that the larger issue is the underlying obsession itself. In her view, this fixation transcends regional cinema and reflects a systemic pattern in mainstream filmmaking where women’s bodies are frequently framed to cater to visual appeal.
She also spoke candidly about the discomfort that sometimes accompanies such portrayals on film sets. Taapsee described how these situations can become awkward, especially when discussions about costumes or visual presentation are handled in environments where there are few women present. Directors, she observed, are often required to communicate such creative choices indirectly, leading to an unspoken but evident pressure to conform to aesthetic expectations.
Reflecting on her early years in the industry, Taapsee acknowledged that she participated in such roles because she was new and believed it was part of the process of becoming a mainstream actress. She pointed out that in commercial cinema, certain roles or visual presentations are often seen as stepping stones toward wider acceptance and visibility. At the time, she felt that since many leading actresses were doing similar roles, it was expected of her too.
Importantly, Taapsee made it clear that she does not look back on those choices with regret. She explained that declining such opportunities might have left her wondering about missed possibilities. In an industry where mainstream success is frequently associated with specific kinds of roles, she noted that opting out entirely can make it difficult for an actor to gain that label.
Ultimately, Taapsee’s clarification shifts the focus from a regional debate to a more universal conversation about representation and agency. Rather than isolating one industry over another, she underscores the need to acknowledge how deeply ingrained visual expectations shape female characters across Indian cinema. Her remarks invite a broader reflection on evolving narratives and the gradual shift toward more nuanced portrayals of women on screen.
