Bharadwaj, who had watched the film’s trailer and declared that it would win an Academy Award, posted a multi-part statement on Instagram on Tuesday night saying he was “deeply upset and disappointed” with the final film. By Wednesday morning the post had been picked up across the entertainment press and was circulating widely among the film’s supporters and detractors alike.
Confirmed The Instagram post exists on Bharadwaj’s verified account and the quotes below are reproduced verbatim from it. Opinion The characterisation of the film, its Ravana and its politics are his interpretation and are presented here as such — not as settled fact about the film.
The statement, in his own words
Bharadwaj structured the post as a series of capitalised arguments rather than a conventional review, beginning with the claim that the epic is inseparable from India’s self-understanding.
“RAMAYAN IS IN THE DNA OF BHARAT. The Ramayan is not just a story. It is deeply rooted in the civilisational and spiritual consciousness of Sanatan Bharat. Its heroes, heroine and antagonist are integral to the values and message of this Mahakavya. Their character and significance cannot be casually redefined.”
His central objection is to the film’s reading of Ravana — played by Yash — whom he describes as having been recast as a ruler of unusual enlightenment rather than the epic’s antagonist.
“By presenting Ravan as an exceptionally liberal, socially just and fair figure, the film, in my view, alters the moral framework of the Ramayan and undermines the very purpose of avataar.” br/>
He went on to argue that the incarnation of Vishnu exists to uphold dharma, parampara and maryada, and that shifting the antagonist’s moral position breaks the logic that gives the story its meaning. He then withdrew the praise he had offered before release.
“I WITHDRAW MY INITIAL APPRECIATION. I am deeply upset and disappointed with this film. I withdraw my earlier post about it. I cannot find a single good word to say about it. A spectacle of VFX can never substitute for the core values, philosophical depth and spiritual essence of this Mahakavya.”
The statement closes with an argument about representation — one that lands at an awkward moment, with the film reportedly under consideration in the international awards cycle.
“OUR CULTURAL LEGACY DESERVES RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATION. This film, in my opinion, does not deserve to represent Indian cinema internationally when its narrative misrepresents Bharat’s history, heritage and core spiritual values.”
What he had said three weeks earlier
The reversal is striking because of how unreserved the original praise was. After the trailer dropped, Bharadwaj — who is also reported to have played Rama on television, in B.R. Chopra’s 2001 Ramayan Reported — posted a buoyant endorsement that name-checked Satyajit Ray and Shekhar Kapur.
“100% Oscar for Best Foreign Film. Nitesh Tiwari is Bharat’s next gift to world cinema after Satyajit Ray and Shekhar Kapoor. Tens of awards for Production Design and DOP. Wonderful period creation using VFX and AI… Yash — welcome to global cinema.”
He had added that he intended to watch the film at least five times out of respect for Tiwari’s effort. None of the craft admiration has survived contact with the finished cut; in the new post the VFX is precisely what he holds against the film.
Why the timing matters
Ramayana: Rise of a Legend opened worldwide on 5 November 2026 and has been in theatres for six days. Trade estimates collated by Sacnilk put its worldwide gross at about ₹823.5 crore, including roughly ₹297 crore from overseas markets and ₹526.5 crore gross in India, with a Hindi net of about ₹440 crore. The film also set a first-Monday record in North America. Reported These are trade-tracker estimates, not audited studio figures.
Separately, the film has reportedly been submitted for consideration at the 99th Academy Awards. Reported A submission is not a nomination, and is not the same as being chosen as India’s official entry in the International Feature Film category — a distinction that has been blurred in much of the coverage around Bharadwaj’s post, which is being read as a direct attack on the film’s awards campaign.
Bharadwaj is not the only veteran of television’s mythological canon to raise objections. Mukesh Khanna has questioned the film’s creative liberties, specifically around a reported fight sequence involving Sita, while clarifying that his comments were based on promotional material rather than a viewing of the film. Reported On the other side, actor Indira Krishna has publicly defended Sai Pallavi’s sword-wielding Sita, arguing that the image is consistent with the epic’s own description of her.
The larger argument
Strip out the box-office noise and Bharadwaj’s post is a claim about custodianship: that a text held as civilisational inheritance cannot be re-read by a filmmaker, and that reinterpretation of its antagonist is not artistic licence but an act of erasure. It is a position with obvious force for a generation that grew up watching these epics serialised on Doordarshan, where the characterisation was scripture-adjacent by design.
The counter-position is equally familiar. Ramayana is one of the most retold stories in the world, with radically different tellings across regions, languages and centuries — from Valmiki to Tulsidas to Kamban to the folk traditions that gave Ravana scholars, devotees and moral complexity long before any film did. Arguing that a screen adaptation has invented a “liberal” Ravana assumes a single authorised reading that the tradition itself has never enforced.
What is not in dispute is that a large audience has responded to this version. Nor is it in dispute that Bharadwaj is entitled to his view of it. What remains open is whether the filmmakers will engage with the criticism at all — Tiwari, Kapoor and Prime Focus Studios have not responded publicly to the post at the time of publication. Confirmed No statement had been issued as of Wednesday morning.
What happens next
The film’s theatrical run is unlikely to be disturbed by a single Instagram post; the weekday hold and the overseas numbers will decide that. More consequential is the awards conversation, where a public objection from a beloved Krishna — delivered in the vocabulary of heritage and representation — is exactly the kind of intervention that travels further than a review. The second instalment’s release date has not yet been announced.
