Won’t do misogynistic movie like Animal says Rasika Dugal — X users recall she did Mirzapur
The Indian actress Rasika Dugal is back in the spotlight — this time not for a performance, but for a statement she made about the kind of films she refuses to do. Her comments have triggered a heated debate on social media, with many calling out what they perceive as hypocrisy given her past roles. Let’s dive into what she said, what’s being said about her, and why it matters.
What Rasika Dugal said: a firm rejection of misogyny in films
At the recent “We The Women” event in Mumbai, during a conversation with journalist Barkha Dutt, Rasika Dugal made it clear that she draws a line when it comes to her acting choices. She said she would not take up any project that “celebrates misogyny or is a propaganda film.” When asked specifically whether she would have accepted a film like Animal, she replied with a definitive “No.”
Rasika further elaborated that for her, the deciding factor isn’t merely whether the character is unlikable or flawed. She stated that she is open to playing characters whose values differ from hers. However, the overall ideology of the project—the broader message conveyed by the film—must align with her principles. She said: “I’m not Beena Tripathi in real life … I don’t go around killing people or violating men.”
This reveals that her objection is less about playing “dark” characters and more about not legitimizing or glorifying misogyny through films. For Rasika Dugal, integrity and social responsibility appear to guide her career choices.
Social media backlash and the “Mirzapur” twist
Despite her principled stand, responses from many on social media were harsh. Almost immediately, her remarks triggered reminders of her role in Mirzapur — a show often criticized for its brutal depiction of crime, power dynamics, and morally fraught relationships. In “Mirzapur,” Rasika played the character Beena Tripathi, which involved scenes that some considered provocative and morally questionable.
One of the prominent voices calling out the perceived inconsistency was folk singer Malini Awasthi. She reposted Rasika’s remarks and wrote: “Coming from someone who played Mrs Tripathi in Mirzapur! Height of double standards!”
Many other users echoed similar sentiments, suggesting that if Rasika is now rejecting films for their misogynistic undertones, why did she choose to act in “Mirzapur,” which many believe to glorify or at least depict misogynistic elements.
Critics argue: Doesn’t participating in such a show send a message too? Is renouncing such representation now any less valid?
Rasika’s defense: acting ≠ endorsement
In response to the blowback, Rasika Dugal has emphasized a distinction many actors draw: portrayal does not equal endorsement. Her position is that she is willing to portray characters with values very different from her own — as she did before — but only if the film or series does not glorify or normalize problematic ideologies.
According to her, the problem lies not in depicting difficult or controversial characters, but in giving legitimacy to misogyny by presenting it as “normal” or aspirational. She seems to critique not every dark story, but stories whose underlying message endorses or glamorizes misogyny.
Rasika’s stance raises a meaningful question: can an actor’s participation in a controversial role be separated from responsibility for what a film ultimately promotes?
The broader debate: Art, responsibility, and societal impact
This controversy around Rasika Dugal’s remarks brings up a larger conversation that has been ongoing in film circles — especially in India — about the responsibility of creators (actors, directors, producers) when it comes to depicting sensitive social issues.
Art vs. Glorification
Many defend creative freedom, arguing that films and series should be able to depict harsh realities — even toxic ones — without being censured. After all, art imitates life, and sometimes art needs to reflect society’s darker aspects.
But critics counter that when violent or misogynistic behavior is portrayed without consequence — or worse, as desirable — that’s not reflection, it’s normalization. And normalization can influence public attitudes, especially among impressionable audiences.
In the case of “Animal,” which Rasika explicitly rejected, critics have accused the film of glorifying toxic masculinity and using sex and violence in a way that celebrates power imbalance and aggression.
Actor’s moral responsibility
Actors often get stuck in the middle. On one hand, they argue that their job is to perform — to inhabit characters as varied and complex as possible. On the other, some feel a responsibility for how their choices might influence societal perceptions, especially on issues like gender, consent, power, and violence.
Rasika’s remarks — and the backlash — underscore this tension. Is it fair to demand that an actor morally vet every script for ideological implications? Or should there be room for portraying flawed, morally dubious characters, as long as the narrative treats them with nuance?
There are no easy answers. Each project must be judged on its own merits: the writing, direction, context, audience reach, and how themes are handled.
Why this matters now
This debate is especially relevant in 2025 — a time when more people are conscious of representation, gender equality, and the social impact of media. Stories on OTT platforms or in cinemas don’t just entertain; they shape dialogues, perceptions, and sometimes even behaviour.
When a prominent actor like Rasika Dugal draws a line and publicly refuses projects that glorify misogyny, it pushes the conversation beyond just “art” or “performance.” It forces audiences, filmmakers, and storytellers to ask: What kind of cinema do we want to consume and produce?
On the flip side, the backlash shows how easily arguments can get muddled in accusations of hypocrisy. It also highlights a challenge for actors — their past roles will always be part of public memory. Choosing a morally consistent path is harder than it sounds.
What this moment could lead to — for actors and audiences
- Greater scrutiny of content: With actors speaking up, audiences may become more aware of not just characters — but the underlying messages films carry. People may begin to question whether a film is entertainment or endorsement.
- More responsible filmmaking: Filmmakers might feel pressure to avoid glorifying misogyny or toxic behavior — or at least to present it in a context that does not normalize or romanticize it.
- Challenging yet complex roles: Actors like Rasika may still take on dark, complex characters — but will choose projects where the narrative treats the character’s actions as morally serious, not glamorous.
- Conversations around nuance: Audiences and critics may push for more nuanced portrayals — where consequences, victim perspectives, redemption, or moral reckoning exist — rather than glamorizing criminality or toxic power.
Final Thoughts
Rasika Dugal’s recent statement rejecting roles in films that “celebrate misogyny” has stirred a complex — and necessary — debate. While criticism of her for having taken part in a series like “Mirzapur” carries weight, her point about the importance of a project’s overall ideology cannot be dismissed outright.
This moment is reflective of a changing sensibility in film and society. It asks us: should entertainment just be escapism, or should it carry responsibility? Can actors separate the craft from endorsement? And perhaps most importantly — do audiences care enough to demand better storytelling?
In the end, what matters is not just who stands up to protect values, but who listens. And if this conversation leads more people — viewers, creators, actors — to think deeply about what cinema represents, maybe that in itself is a step forward.
