Animal, directed by Sandeep Reddy Vanga, has to be the most polarizing film of 2023. Ever since its release, the film has been embroiled in widespread controversy. In this article, we shall analyze the public discourse surrounding the film and try to understand the chatter around it and its controversies.
Page Contents
Story of Animal Movie
Ranvijay Singh Balbir returns after eight years to protect his father, Balbir Singh, following an attempt on his life. This leads him to discover his family’s darkest secrets. The film is a love story between Ranvijay Singh Balbir, played by Ranbir Kapoor, and his father, Balbir Singh, played by Anil Kapoor.
What is the chatter all about?
The film was heavily criticized for its portrayal of toxic masculinity and statements that objectify women. In one of the initial scenes, the protagonist, Ranvijay talks about alpha males. He begins by saying, “Let’s go back in time,” and then proceeds to talk about how women chose their respective halves based on strength of protection while the “weaker” ones became poets. He then proceeds to tell her that she has “a big pelvis” and that she can “accommodate healthy babies “.
Vanga defends these dialogues in an interview, saying that the protagonist does not know how to talk to women and is awkward around them, which is why he said those lines. Furthermore, he believes that an alpha male is the “protector” of the family who protects the honor and valor of his loved ones.
On the other hand film critics have found these dialogues extremely distasteful while the pelvis dialogue has been criticized for objectifying women. A few critics have also criticized the film for its “backward approach”, and how it tries to bring back old, patriarchal values.
What does the audience think?
The audience too has been divided in their opinion regarding this. While some have defended the filmmaker, others have reacted strongly calling these dialogues and statements misogynistic.
Portrayal of women
The film has also been heavily criticized for its portrayal of women. This is not the first time that Vanga has been criticized for his portrayal of women. His earlier films, Arjun Reddy and Kabir Singh, had also received a lot of backlash regarding the same. However, the opinions of this film are quite mixed.
In one instance, while being under steroids, Ranvijay announces that “It’s a man’s world” and while his wife has to change pads for “merely 5 days” in a month, he has to do the same 50 times in a day because of his injuries. In another instance, he cheats on Gitanjali (Rashmika Mandanna), his wife, to allegedly extract information from a honey trap named Zoya (Tripti Dimri).
Following this, there’s an altercation between the couple which ends with Ranvijay going to Scotland to kill Abrar (Bobby Deol) before leaving he asks Gitanjali to “not remarry” if he doesn’t come back. In another instance, Ranvijay asks Zoya to “lick his shoe” if she truly loves him.
Vanga defends these instances by citing that one must look at these with context to the narrative and it sounds wrong if heard without context. About the shoe-licking scene, Vanga laments “Wo ladki uske baap ko maarne aayi thi, usko lick my shoe nahi bolega toh kya bolega?” (She had come to kill his father, if he shouldn’t ask her to lick his shoe, what should he ask her to do?). He further states that he didn’t let her lick her shoe and also arranged for her departure.
However, this scene has not gone down well with critics and a major part of the audiences alike as they believe the scene to be highly problematic and misogynistic. Some have defended the filmmaker.
Another segment of the audience has defended the portrayal of women in the film, calling Gitanjali the strongest character of the film, who does not comply with Ranvijay and gives it back to him whenever he attempts to tame her.
Communal Hatred
Vanga also mentions that the true misogynistic character of the film is the character of Abrar Haque. Vanga was also accused of spreading “communal hatred” because of this reason, as he made the villain a Muslim character. Vanga defends his choice by stating it’s only done for “creative purposes” as it would help build more confusion within the family tree and would also allow him to explore newer dynamics with cousins. He further asks, “Why without I give Aziz, the face of my hero if I considered them like that?”.
Conclusion
It must be noted that in a country like India, films are celebrated and they always tend to evoke a strong response from the audience, but the response with Animal has been a little stronger than the usual films of the year. What we, as an audience must acknowledge is the fact that filmmaking is a creative endeavor and a filmmaker has the right to make whatever they want. But, the filmmaker should also understand that the audience is entitled to their own opinions and they too have the right to criticize the film, and that does not make them any less superior to the filmmaker.
For more engaging entertainment pieces, follow us on Instagram and Facebook.