What is the story about?
For more than ten years, Ranbir Kapoor has been known for portraying 'manchild' characters in Hindi films. From Wake Up Sid to Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani
and Tamasha, a significant number of his movies have focused on aimless young men struggling with their identity, responsibilities, or romantic relationships. Both critics and viewers have frequently categorized him in this way, as if it encapsulates not only his roles but also his public image. However, does Ranbir Kapoor genuinely remain limited to this stereotype, or has he, in fact, transcended it in ways that warrant further examination?
Why categorizing his roles under one label is superficial
The label 'manchild' in film usually describes male characters who find it difficult to mature—often depicted as irresponsible, emotionally conflicted, or dependent on others for purpose. It is accurate that Ranbir has skillfully embodied such roles. Sid in Wake Up Sid was a wealthy young man thrust into maturity by circumstances, while Bunny in Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani pursued his aspirations with reckless enthusiasm before coming to appreciate the importance of relationships. These characters resonated because they vividly reflected the anxieties of their generation.
However, to reduce Ranbir Kapoor’s body of work to the manchild label is unjust. If you look beyond these well-known films, you will discover an actor who has intentionally ventured into intricate and nuanced roles. In Rockstar, his character Jordan was not a childish youth but a profoundly troubled artist driven by passion and heartbreak. In Sanju, he morphed into Sanjay Dutt with remarkable physicality and emotional richness, delving into themes of fame, addiction, and redemption. In Barfi!, he depicted a hearing- and speech-impaired individual with grace, creating a character characterized not by immaturity but by resilience and joy.
Furthermore, his recent performances continue to challenge the stereotype. In Animal, Ranbir delved into themes of aggression, trauma, and family dysfunction, portraying a volatile son whose journey revolved around control and destruction rather than delayed maturity. In Brahmastra, while some critics suggested that the innocent demeanor of Shiva mirrored earlier “boyish” roles, there was also a palpable sense of seriousness in how he navigated love, fate, and responsibility within a high-stakes fantasy context.
Ranbir Kapoor has matured, and so have his characters
What distinguishes Ranbir is his capacity to portray flawed men in a relatable manner without resorting to clichés. The sensitivity he brings to his roles is often misinterpreted as immaturity. When his characters express vulnerability, hesitate, or reveal their doubts, audiences may see echoes of the manchild stereotype. Yet, those same traits also render them relatable and complex, resisting the traditional macho, unyielding male protagonists that once dominated Bollywood.
Even off-screen, Ranbir does not conform to the stereotype. He has embraced fatherhood with Raha, taken bold steps with unconventional projects, and led a low-key personal life that starkly contrasts the recklessness typically associated with manchild behavior. His decisions reflect maturity, stability, and a quiet confidence that stands in contrast to his on-screen persona. All set the play Prabhu Shree Ram, the quintessential Maryada Purushottam, Ranbir is no longer merely embodying urban, disconnected characters.
So why does the “manchild” label continue to exist? Perhaps it’s because Ranbir Kapoor’s performances resonate with youthful vulnerability more effectively than many of his contemporaries. However, when viewed as a whole, his career illustrates an actor unafraid to push beyond stereotypes—whether portraying a disabled individual, a conflicted artist, a biopic subject, or a ruthless anti-hero.
Ranbir may have begun with narratives about growing up, but he has long since moved beyond them. It’s time for the label to evolve as well.
Do you find this article useful?
