Bengaluru: Once celebrated in cinema for its gardens, heritage, and cosmopolitan character, the city is increasingly finding itself portrayed in darker tones. Recent films, particularly the Malayalam release Lokah Chapter 1: Chandra, which has grossed over ₹202 crore at the box office, have stirred debate by depicting Bengaluru as a hub of drugs, crime, and moral decline.

The controversy deepened after a specific dialogue in the film, in which a police officer shamed a female character out at night, was called derogatory towards Bengaluru women. The backlash has reignited conversations about how cinema shapes perceptions of urban spaces and their communities.

From gardens to crime capital

For decades, Bengaluru was represented in cinema as a city of greenery, technology, and opportunity. However, recent titles such as Bheema, Officer on Duty, and Aavesham have added to a growing trend of associating the city with narcotics and crime.

National Award-winning Kannada filmmaker Mansore voiced concern on X, noting:

“According to movies like Kannada Bhima, Malayalam films Officer on Duty, Aavesham, and now Lokah, Bengaluru is being portrayed as the capital of drugs and crime. Once upon a time, it was represented in movies as a beautiful town. It has come to such a state due to uncontrolled migration (sic).”

His remarks triggered a wider discussion on whether filmmakers are reflecting social realities or relying on stereotypes to heighten drama.

Fallout and apology

The criticism escalated after Kannada activist Rupesh Rajanna demanded both a public apology and cuts to the film. Bengaluru police commissioner Seemant Kumar Singh confirmed that the Central Crime Branch’s social media monitoring cell would examine the matter for violations.

Following this, Dulquer Salman’s Wayfarer Films, which produced Lokah, issued an apology and promised to edit or remove the controversial dialogue.

Diverse public reactions

Reactions to the controversy reveal the layered nature of the debate.

  • Anand Mahadevan, developer: He argued that while art often mirrors society, the impact of dialogues cannot be underestimated. “We could logically argue that it’s just a movie, but in an age of reels and viral content, narratives flip quickly. The apology was noble.”
  • Anjali R Pillai, film content creator: She insisted that flawed characters should not be mistaken as endorsements of their views. “The cop’s dialogue exposes his mindset. The film doesn’t glorify prejudice but reflects how judgmental attitudes sound.”
  • Samarth Shivapur, sales head: He defended the film under creative liberty. “There are stereotypes everywhere. If people overreact to one line, they need to relax.”
  • R Sivasudar, student: He criticised the reductive portrayal. “Cinema must not disregard the diversity of Bengaluru. Negative depictions of women strengthen harmful stereotypes.”
  • Sreejith Palliyil, travel designer: He highlighted the city’s spirit. “Bengaluru is youthful, diverse, and welcoming. It’s unfair when films reduce it to drugs or demean women.”
  • RJ Anoopa, actor: She raised concerns over authenticity and representation. “Casting a Tamil actor as Nachiyappa Gowda was odd. The negative dialogue paints cops and women in poor light, affecting how outsiders view Bengaluru.”

Beyond stereotypes

While some defend filmmakers’ right to creative freedom, others stress that cinema holds immense power in shaping perceptions, especially for audiences unfamiliar with Bengaluru. Critics caution that repeated portrayals of crime and misogyny risk overshadowing the city’s cosmopolitan culture and inclusivity.

Conclusion

The debate over Lokah Chapter 1: Chandra underscores a larger tension in Indian cinema: balancing artistic expression with responsibility. Bengaluru continues to be a city of technology, diversity, and youthful energy, but its cinematic image risks being reduced to stereotypes. The controversy reflects the ongoing struggle between storytelling, sensitivity, and accountability in a rapidly evolving media landscape.