Nearly a year has passed since its release, but Animal still sits heavy on the conscience of people in the moviedom. The discussion around it has not stopped. Everyone seems to have a view on its content, portrayal of characters and the director Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s ‘excess equates success’ approach. Toxic masculinity, misogyny and mindless violence are the obvious points of contention. Also, is the limits of creative freedom.
What’s troubling all exactly – the unfettered worship of crudity, the open support for it in certain filmmakers or the massive commercial success? Or is it all? Arjun Reddy, Vanga Reddy’s earlier movie remade in Hindi as Kabir Singh, had drawn similar criticism. Let’s look at some reactions first.
“A film that seems to be made by an animal for animals is already giving animals a bad name because animals don’t behave like that,” novelist and columnist Shobhaa De remarked in a post on X back then.
Lyricist Javed Akhtar, in an interview, called the makers perverts but expressed dismay that the movie was lapped up with such enthusiasm by the audience. “If 15 people have made a film with the wrong values, if 10–12 people make obscene songs, that’s not the problem. If 15 people are perverts among the 140 crore population, it doesn’t matter. When that thing goes on the market and becomes a superhit, that’s the problem,” he said in an interview with Mojo Story.
Actor Manoj Bajpayee, while saying in an interview that what a film represents depends entirely on the director’s gaze, said he won’t ever play a role that did not match his conditioning as a human being.
In an interview in the Slow Interview series, Vikas Divyakirti, author, educator and actor, recently told a film like Animal glorifies toxic masculinity and takes the society by 10 years. “A film like this should not be made. You earned money. You showed that your hero behaves like an animal. There should be some social value…”
By all reckoning, it was a bad movie that hit the jackpot. The debate would have not existed had it been a commercial failure. But the audience gave it a huge thumbs-up. Javed Akhtar’s remark implies that it’s their poor taste or inherent trait of misogyny or adoration of hyper muscularity which allows such movies to be made. Vikas Divyakirti finds no social value or no messaging in it, as if every movie must be bearer of social value.
In deeper analysis, their complaint is about the impact of such cinema on society. But isn’t that an unnecessary debate? Whoever said cinema has transformative power? If that were the case, after so many movies where heroes thrash corrupt officers and politicians, there would be no corruption in our society today. We have a large number of movies which highlight social harassment of women and advocate freedom and respect for them. Some of them have gone on to be commercial successes but nothing has changed in the general attitude towards women. Of course, crime would be absent after the Bajirao Singhams and Chulbul Pandeys of the world did their bit on the screen.
Possibly the impact of cinema on society is being over-hyped. Society never became better or worse because of cinema. Audience views it solely as entertainment. Actually, a bigger accusation on the filmmakers could be the way they show protagonists taking the law into their hand in film after film. It undermines the importance of the institution of the judiciary and the police as well; and the process of law essential for any civilised society.
Sandeep Reddy Vanga can be accused of making a terrible, creatively barren movie aimed at the lowest common denominator, not much else. The debate should stop.
(By arrangements with Perspective Bytes)
