Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Animal makes a caveman-psychopath its hero and becomes a (mostly) thrilling ode to our inner, animalistic nature

Ranbir Kapoor’s Animal has ‘several scenes of domestic abuse in which men strike, humiliate, coerce and manipulate women’: British censors
Ranbir Kapoor’s film Animal has been rated 18 (suitable for adults only) by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). Mild plot spoilers were also revealed.
Well, in four days time, we will come to know.

LikeLiked by 1 person

wow that link on the movie is nauseating to say the least !!! Vanga seems like a John Wick wannabe and wishes to impersonate Ranbir into a Keanu Reave with that violence and blood shed in black suit . This seems his reply to all the naysayers for showing toxicity on screen in Kabir Singh and going one up on that.

There is a cult following for John Wick and he may be cashing on it. Too much Hollywood inspiration in Hindi movies these days and it is off-putting. War 2, Pathan and Tiger 3 were such stylized version of Hindi movie that one loses interest halfway through the goings on. There is a limit to such baloney and subject matter is so removed from fact; top that with misuse of technological advancement which has entered our cinema with green screen et all, and it all becomes a tiring experience. This movie is 3.5 hrs and God save the audience. Now it’s more an issue of time than price of a cinema ticket. Even with free movie tickets I would not want to sit through such hard-core violence since there is so much of it on TV these days.

We were all so happy southern cinema and the directors have finally showed a template for Hindi movies and we can all get back to watching a Hindi movie but alas all that is lost in even in yrf and dharma world and we have our desi tom cruises and matt Damon juggling through continents unaware to where they actually belong. These over-the-top outlandish spy universe actually take us out of the film and basic functionality of the plot is lost and there is nothing practical or interactive.

LikeLike

Most people are excited for the film post KS, and while I’ve voiced my criticisms multiple times on “heroifying” Arjun Reddy, I like Vanga’s filmmaking personally and IMO I could really buy into Arjun and his actions as a toxic entitled brat.

Animal looks even more disturbing, and more than the physical violence etc, what looks even more terrifyinng is the emotional violence and psychotic/submissive tones in Ranbir’s character. Feels interesting if it’s a genuine exploration of that, I hope Vanga doesn’t feel like the need to justify this as some “healthy” father-son relationship.

Oh and IDEK where he’s going with that Swastika (I know it’s not the Nazi one) and the almost Nazi salute bit. Is he just trying to be deliberately provocative?

LikeLiked by 2 people

BR Sir, Shall we expect an interview with the Director before release ??

LikeLike

I know this is unusual and unrelated to the thread. But really need the inputs of people of this blog. I have a senior work colleague who I really look up to, who’s a big fan of films. Indian films particularly, but I am not sure to what extent he watches English films. Kindly suggest gifts for this person for his birthday. Ebay US has stuff like original DVDs and signed merchandise, etc but I’m not sure to what extent such things are available in India. Couldn’t think of a better place to ask than here. Thanks a lot in advance. (BR, feel free to delete the comment if you feel it’s unrelated)

LikeLike

KK – “Your stupid arguments are making head hurt.”
Can you back this up with actual evidence or STFU. Why should we take your word that your head is hurting?

LikeLike

Really the review & your writing but yeah I’m not going to watch another movie from the Arjun Reddy director. If I wanted masala misogyny, I’d rather pick up a Rajini classic like Mannan.

LikeLiked by 1 person

“Rahul: When have I ever prohibited any discussion or exchange of ideas in this space?”
And I never said you did. I am just expressing that the intention is not to tell you how to do your job but to discuss the merits or demerits of the philosophy of placing the film in isolation from other elements, such as society, for the purpose of criticism.

LikeLike

“BTW, I hope that — one day — the ‘smaller’ films inspire the same amount of passion and discussion that these bigger films do. The comments have practically vanished from the CHITHTHA types of films 😦 I wonder where those commenters have gone.’

why are comment threads here opened 2 weeks in advance of release(like advance bookings) just for a Ranbir or SRK or Rajni or Vijay film? But are’nt done so for even a Viduthalai or a Sarpatta Parambarai which are fairly mainstream films by big directors(leave alone a Pebbles or a Writer or Kadaisi vivasaayi which are’nt as mainstream). Maybe you can set the tone in terms of slightly reversing this trend.

LikeLiked by 3 people

How boring movie watching has become. All the cutting and slashing and violence in films have become as comical as the dishoom dishoom sound effects of stunt scenes of the 80s.

LikeLike

Shobhaa De gets trolled for outraging over Ranbir Kapoor starrer
..
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/shobhaa-de-gets-trolled-for-outraging-over-ranbir-kapoor-starrer-animal-without-watching-it-netizens-say-aunty-ji-pls-film-ko-film-jaise-hi-dekho-watch/articleshow/105683640.cms?from=mdr

LikeLike

Animal was so absurd it was hilarious! I was cackling at almost every scene. The whole troop singing Arjan Vailey during the intermission shootout, the weird song that made the climax fight seem like some romantic bout between a couple, it was bizarre. Kudos to Sandeep for going all out as he said he would after the criticisms for Arjun Reddy. This is the hardest I’ve laughed at the movies this year.

LikeLike

It is baffling with all those so-called reviewers/critics hating on the same things Sandeep VR has been saying since he started making the movie. He has been constantly mentioning about violence, triggering sensitive folks etc and even asking people to not watch his film if one is triggered or sensitive. They all still went ahead and saw the movie and complaining about the same issues. And I think some just reviewed even without watching movie as there is analysis except for calling it lazy, immature, shit etc

And now those people on piling on BR for sharing his opinion on the film lol.

BR, Deep Focus with sandeep pls. 😀

LikeLike

KK, did you like the Kabir Singh review of Sucharita Tyagi? I am guessing not. Why the hell did you read her Animal review when it is something that you are clearly not going to like? Did someone force you to go read it? I don’t understand this phenomena at all. I may not have talked about this before.

LikeLiked by 7 people

@yajiv , I’m not referring to any specific comment – there were many stalking discussions on the blog over the years. I was referring to his attitude to women’s issues.

Anyway, I want to add that I’m disappointed in Ranbir (who’s a fine actor) for providing a lot of legitimacy and A list cred to this film. This is a crass, B list film of a man who a lot of growing up to do despite being a full adult. I’m sad that Bollywood is going the South way for money and will resemble South films (all made by toxic South film makers) in their treatment of women.

LikeLiked by 1 person

KK, Was there a gun to your head forcing you to watch the review? Have you considered the fact that Sucharita reviews movies as part of her job? Instead of pussyfooting around with lame excuses like this, you should confront the reality that you are a blithering idiot. The ‘Save Sandeep Reddy Vanga’ movement would be better served without the involvement of a pontificating nincompoop like yourself.

LikeLiked by 5 people

Alright, KK, my friend, now you’re delving into topics that seem to exceed the capacity of your pea-sized brain, but I’ll entertain the discussion. I’m assuming you’ve abandoned defending your earlier idiotic statement about why Sucharita watched this movie, as you haven’t mentioned it.

Moving forward, scientific evidence isn’t always required when common sense is sufficient. Let me pose a question: Did you demand DNA evidence from your father to verify his paternity, or did you accept it based on trust and instinct?

LikeLike

KK, read slowly a few more times because I don’t think you understood what I meant by the paternity example. Don’t be so angry, It is just an analogy.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Have all these Vanga warriors questioned why “cigarette smoking is injurious to health” is there for 50% of all films and fought vigorously for its removal (the warning) since of course, movies don’t influence shit? Do they outrage everyday that this has been a reality in our films for decades?

LikeLiked by 2 people

Well, if Vanga did something like TZP, Swades, A Wednesday and the like after AR, Sucharita would have heaped praises on him. She is clearly not targetting the director but his films. Anyways Animal may overshadow Salaar, Dunki in some way. The tiger(the audience) has tasted human flesh and turned into a maneater. It may not like other meat much.

LikeLike

You can focus on either human nobility or human depravity. In day to day life, we are seeing both. The choice depends. Do you want to focus on various facets of depravity and if so to what extent? Will that include something more depraved like having it with animals, with minors, with dead bodies? Obviously no big Indian star will agree to do such films. It will be limited to abusing fellow citizens, women, the old etc. or some usual killing, some normal decapitating, some giving acid deaths and the like. I am reading about people being force to eat their own muck and burning people alive. What about inhuman ragging which is forcing some students take their own lives? Art imitates life and life imitates art.

LikeLike

KK, since you are representing the scientific method here, be very careful about what you post, bro. If you say something like, ‘If you have already decided that the movie will be like this and so on, even before the first frame of the movie,’ someone might ask, ‘What evidence do you have for this?’

I, myself, am not going to say anything, though. But it would be better if you state that this part of your argument is not scientific and is just something you made up out of thin air. Otherwise, I know people will try to malign the scientific method because of you, and that’s not cool, bro

LikeLike

KK, my friend, it seems like you’re expressing frustration that she does not agree with you. You’re circling back to the same point repeatedly without grasping the simple fact that she’s just doing her job. Take a moment, have a glass of water, and approach it with a calm, logical electronic mindset. It’ll start making sense.

If you’d like to discuss the bias of reviewers, there are numerous articles that we can refer to, especially considering the influx of young, electronically-minded individuals like yourself lately joining this blog. We can all collaborate and find some older articles explaining the concept that every critic or writer inherently possesses a bias. However, it’s crucial to understand that having a bias doesn’t necessarily invalidate their opinions.

LikeLiked by 2 people

//was 17-18 when kabir singh came out. boys in my class talked about how they wanted to “pick” a girl “up” right in front of her family— it wasn’t fun to go the traditional route. when i argued, they told me women like me needed to be r/ped to set their minds straight.//

@Srinivas, what did KS have to do with this? And if you do this, where do you draw the line? Multiple people got ideas from Drishyam to cover up the crime, supposedly – would you say that this is the root cause of these crimes? These things should be part of education/upbringing or else it’s just simply noise, they’re going to get “influenced” by one thing or the other, with the kind of access teens/YA have, these movies are NOTHING.

I used to be on “that” side of the fence before, but I feel we’re just directing our rage at the wrong place tbh.

PS: I have a problem with Vanga’s views, he’s a messed up guy and his stuff off screen, let it get the harshest criticism as anybody’s would, but I’m not keen on judging these films in that context. And I could still see the point with Kabir Singh (I used to have similar views) but Animal, I’d have to disagree.

LikeLike

Spoilers Ahead..

Never have I been so conflicted internally when watching a movie on the bigger screen. The biggest problem I had with the movie was I wasn’t sure of what tone the movie was trying to settle into. The first 20 minutes I thought this was going to be a Family Drama, but instead it turns into a Godfather type mafia saga – with an Indian Flavoring, except here the mafia is not inherited but created by the titular Animal aka Vijay. Instead of focussing on Micheal Corleone = the brother-in-law who competes with Micheal in this Universe, Sandeep chooses to focus on Sonny – Ranbir’s Vijay is all testosterone, instead of the calmer Al Pacino counterpart of The Godfather. There’s a lot of talk about Business, but Sandeep chooses to paint the outside world medieval. There’s nowhere the audience is reminded about The Government, The Police, The Judiciary or any of that crap. The Formation of his ganster clan – is given a classic Indian flavoring. He has ten cousins that he can rely on, to protect him and his family. He’s basically a prince in exile – taking over the throne – where his Dad use to call the shots previously, with Mishra Ji the Minister and the 10 body guards which is his army. He has a loyal queen in Geetanjali who’s easily manipulated and controlled by Ranbir – using Sex as a weapon – while this isn’t much clear till later on we see him commit infidelity and gets around it by coercing Geethanjali to accept it – The most daring part of the movie tonally to me. Else where the movie seems to be a Soapy family melodrama with traditional Indian cliches. The Muslim cousins are painted to look like the other Mafia Family, while the Hindi clan that Ranbir belongs to painted by the Swastika. Ranbir even swears in-front of his clan-members aka the factory workers that he will avenge the enemy who tried to kill his father by slashing his throat. There are certain scenes – like Ranbir talking about the Alpha, Beta, Sigma crap, where we’re not sure if the scene is meant to be a Joke on the character in the tradition of a Comedy or if it’s a sincere pandering by Sandeep to the online incel community.

There are parts of the film where Sandeep’s technique and Writing is exquisite. He and Ranbir ace the first suspenseful set-piece in the movie, where Vijay kills his brother-in-law, by strangling him and then shooting him in close range with a shot-gun. The way in which Vijay learns of the Brother-in-law’s betrayal is narrated later, but the action while very little is so gripping and authentic. But, in the very next action-set piece Sandeep loses his way. There is no proper continuity in the action scene with the possibly Korean insipired action sequence lacking continuity. Some of the moves with the axes land but the hand to hand combat moves fail to land in sync. It was the perfect opportunity for one kick-ass long continuous (not in a single shot just continuity) bone/flesh slashing action stretch. The subsequent gun fight focuses all on Ranbir, but not on how the bullets land on the enemies. This leads to the action sequences feeling uneven in tone and not having the desired impact I expected them to have.

Sandeep paints women in general to be powerless, easily susceptible to manipulation, and sterile. It’s designed to be a pandering to the male-psyche where the men get to have powers to get away with Murder and manipulation using Sex, Guns and Violence as weapons. For such a good writer of male characters one wonders why doesn’t he do the same for women? He could bring out the genuinely negative shades of women too instead of making them meek. The biggest want of Ranbir’s character seems to be love and acceptance from his father which he never gets till the end. Even after the reconciliation between him and his Dad, he seems to be crying in the hands of the Mishra Ji. Sandeep’s writing oscillates between genuine brilliance and head-scratching, frustrating subversions. Why should Ranbir sleep with the enemy to get the mole to spill her beans? He could have instead just resorted to physical violence but that would have made the film genuinely dark, the tone that Vanga seems to be going for in other places. There are also parallels between Al Pacino’s Micheal in the main character’s infedility ends up a footnote in the overall arch of their character. Geetanjali’s outrage scene isn’t enough justification – she needed to essentially destroy Vijay with words but the interaction ends up too much of a cutesy truce in a caveman thriller. But, to counterbalance that he’s gives it a great Indian twist where Vijay gets another heart and that leads us inta the infidelity stretch. Even by the end of the film I wasn’t sure what the whole film was adding up to, but I think this is the most fun I’ve had in theaters for a long time. Every scene is infused with so much dopamine kicks that Vijay talks about with his grandfather. Sandeep is a great actor’s director and Ranbir owns the movie almost effortlessly. He’s always had it in him to try major risks – Bombay Velvet comes to mind, and here he get’s a great collaborator in Sandeep who matches Ranbir’s audaciousness in selecting such a dark subject.

LikeLiked by 2 people

“And what about context?..”
BR, the true Kamal fan!!
(Watch the below video till the end)

LikeLike

It is a very simplistic assumption equating slap for slap in terms of mathematical equation. Man is physically stronger even if he looks frail than women and a woman thinks twice before even raising her voice in front of her partner or husband forget slapping him. I have seen this reality many times. Thats why women resort to manipulations. That way she can get her way sometimes. Women feel that men are grownup spoilt children and they need to be treated carefully. A woman slapping a man invites big trouble.
Men are generally less smart than women and they easily fall for manipulations just like some dumb women do so. Though they know they are being manipulated, men feel it is better than their women slapping them or raising voice. I am here talking about ordinary or average women and not police or army officers or dacoits or some superwomen. It seems that Vanga and his naive backers seem to think that he equally distributes slaps as if they are laddoos and thus he is not a misogynist and in fact he is women friendly.

LikeLiked by 2 people

I think everyone’s perception of the film is colored by the entitled man-child that Vanga is. I was absolutely certain this was going to polarize the audience, no matter what. And he just gave everyone more ammo for that than the bullets in Ranbir’s gattling gun.

I get why people feel Vanga somehow created this world so that he can dump his “toxicity” on the film. But we can just go by the film’s rules. Had Vanga said all the right things as we’d expect any other person to, I honestly feel the outrage would be far less for this film. Like people have the right to find the treatment of Belfort in WOWS unacceptable, IMO people have full right to have their cultural criticism towards this film as well. The root of arguments precisely this IMO when there’s a dissoance between critics who purely focus on the filmmaking aspects vs the cultural critics of the film focusing on those aspects.

Personally, even in that sense, I felt nobody with some sanity would think Ranbir is some sane person worth emulating by the end of the film by ANY yardstick. Beyond that, people can get influenced by anything (Rathnavel Gounder fan clubs, anyone?) and that’s more of a grassroots problem as I’d mentioned earlier. But again, people can fully disagree with this as well.

Also, the film has enough flaws on a screenplay level (although the film worked for me to an extent) to be criticized and I’m surprised that amidst all this only a few reviewers managed to even go beyond the surface to discuss this.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Even if you point out the flaws in the film and why it didn’t work for you and not the misogyny, ppl will only say you’re a triggered feminist.

@BR, we all how you’ve “developed” a caste consciousness when you needed to and when there is a need to be more sensitive or human to women, I’m sure you’ll get there as well. There will come a time.

LikeLiked by 2 people

My two cents.

After watching the film, I have to admit that SRV has made a Godfather-esque film with the rules of an animal kingdom in the jungle, but the whole affair looks more like him getting back at Kabir Singh (and Arjun Reddy’s) critics. The final shot couldn’t be more clear on this otherwise.

Vijay and Arjun, even if stemming from the same subconscious, are men of vastly different circumstances. Arjun is a man surrounded by love, literally, and his biggest offense is self-destruction – when he realises he may harm someone outside his grand self-pity party, he withdraws from his professional self too which kept him relatively sane until then. For all the horrible things he did, Arjun still feels like a real person with a clear conscience even at his rock bottom. Vijay, though, outside the “neglected son” subplot, feels like a character solely written to provoke the audience at every turn. A calamity pushed to the extremes, if you will (He even remarks once that he isn’t a ticking bomb, and you should use the word detonate instead to suggest his rage being off the charts). Every aspect, even the look, feels manufactured and not lived-in. And what more can be very representative than the customised gattling gun he uses in the interval sequence, which comes across as a mutilated giant phallus, spraying bullets all over the place? It is like a giant “Fuck You” to all those who chose to criticise Kabir Singh for being misogynistic.

Is that a bad thing? Shouldn’t a director choose to express his / her frustrations and spiteness using cinema as a medium? They can. It is just that, when such films are made, it is important to look at the cinematic aspects as well which roundoff such sentiments. Take the love track between the leads: It was a nice touch by SRV to use the Roja songs by ARR when Vijay first dances at the marriage and then losing it when he finds out Geethanjali is the bride. SRV used a goddess’ hymn when Arjun saw Preethi in the corridor for the first time, which kind of goes nowhere (maybe we are asked to see her an individual as pure as the white she wears and as special as the goddess the singers were referring to). Here, the song is more direct – she isn’t mine anymore, and I am butthurt. It is ironic that with a slight change in tone, many of Vijay and Geethanjali’s scenes together may sound more like erotica for masses than being in a romantic relationship. Is it because of the film’s tendency to turn everything about Vijay as animalistic, or is it the workings of SRV’s mind to make everything extremely provocative and have a damn good time. I will never know.

It is only when SRV keeps coming back to the core thread, that Animal seems to behave like a film. Even then, the lack of perception hurts. Except for the father, nobody in the family outside Geethanjali seems to have any actual opinion or observation regarding Vijay’s deteriorating mental health. It is another thing that kids don’t notice how their dad is behaving now – they are the more perceptive people. More so, because the final scene between Vijay and Balbir (the role play scene I the trailer) is exactly based on this. Kids do notice if something is wrong with their parents, and their love when not reciprocated can challenge their self-esteem. When SRV had every chance to explore it as a character study alone, he chose to take this route. Going by the BO reception, he has won. I only wish he wins next time with a film that feels like a film, even if my mind says in effect that I am the minister before the baboon in the story Vijay narrates in the beginning.

LikeLiked by 2 people

I agree with Vishnu. Arjan Vally makes total sense when you consider the cousins are just henchmen (although he says they’re not and they’re family, they are essentially that, Vijay is full of empty words and the film makes this amply clear) – and they just fully cheer him throughout this unhingedness although some of them felt really uncomfortable at some points like holding that pregnant woman at gunpoint. These are all insane people, they even do glorified “velakku pudikkura velai” for Vijay with Zoya.

Balbir, Sisters, Gitanjali (after a point) see him for what he is. Most of them clearly show their disapproval in one way or the other at some point (esp Gitanjali, despite being floored by the Alpha BS, increasingly gets back to the sobering reality of what this man is, and her final straw was the infidelity). His mother is just a poorly fleshed out character so IDK – but I felt that she genuinely felt AK was responsible for him being what he is and is unable to say anything to him knowing the trauma he was subjected – but ofc this is my 2c, Sandeep should have focused on the screenplay instead of just being so self indulgent despite taking so much of our time.

LikeLike

@BR: Well fair enough, I might have forgotten a thing or two from the end of the monologue by Preethy. I see why you interpreted the film this way. I guess the overall servileness of this girl in general generally gave me the other impression, like Preethy doesn’t have a proper arc at all, it’s all Arjun his tantrums and self pity. We’ve discussed this at length ig.

//No, no. This is his “I really fucked up” moment. The film makes it amply clear that he COULD have gotten away on a technicality but he chose to punish himself for all he’d done (Hippocratic oath etc.)

You may not buy this writing here, but this is clearly when he sees/judges himself for who he is/has been.//
Again, I’m not talking about whether or not Arjun buys it as a turning point and him repenting for his “sins”, but how he gives a monologue about how he NEVER fucks up although every time he’s performed a surgery he’s drunk etc. I get why he choses to not lie, he’s a person who actively seeks way to punish himself and wallow in self pity, plus he’s often shown as a guy who’s brutually honest or whatever, it’d have been inconsistent for him to just lie under oath. He has a code etc. And even the stretch about him not sleeping around etc. – the film struggles hard to establish that he’s a “good guy” but just broken merely because of his love for Preethy. Even the explanation and the climax felt like the film needed us to root for these characters. Again, talking about the film’s gaze here.

Animal worked for me because there were no such rationalizations to make us root for the guy to some extent, and the film constantly exposes Vijay’s hypocrisy (not just peripherally people urging him to stop doing whatever he’s doing) and unhinged nature. Again, IDK what Vanga intended but I’m judging from what I saw on screen. It made me even wonder if he literally has Neo Nazi inclinations (although he says something to counter this) with his obsession with alpha male/genes etc. + the symbol and his Nazi salute-ish gesture, etc.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Also, KK, be very careful. In a country like India only a leftist liberal like you will use a monkey as an insult. You are getting exposed pretty quickly, you India hating traitor.

LikeLike

There’s been a lot of back and forth here regarding movies affecting society. I came across two books that capture this directly or indirectly. One is ‘The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of’ by Thomas Disch. I have been reading and its wonderful! Second is ‘You Are What You Watch’ by Walt Hickey. In the author’s own words…

“You Are What You Watch is all about the science of how pop culture impacts the world as a whole—whether that’s our society, our minds, our identities. Whether seeing somebody have a gay relationship in Heartstopper sparks something in you, whether I Kill Giants allows you to cope with grief or stress, these things leave us fundamentally changed in a way that, historically, we haven’t given them enough credit for.

In the book, I try to explore all the different ways in which our society—our science, our military, our minds, our bodies, our psychology, how we see the world and the people within it—is affected by things like this. Time and time again, we have seen movies act as mechanisms for empathy. Various studies have been conducted in individual capacities showing that. For instance, people who had a very strong relationship with Harry Potter books while they were growing up tended to have a more favorable attitude towards immigrants, refugees and people who were potentially in a state of difficulty in their lives.

One of the things that I mention in You Are What You Watch is tourism. I think that people’s worlds really are broadened by reading because they will oftentimes embark to the very places that they see. The Lord of the Rings movies were a gigantic motivation for a ton of people to start traveling to New Zealand. For a decade now, Japan has seen a surge in tourism, based on the Pokémon films and the Miyazaki movies. Americans want to visit the country that produced so many of these interesting and beautiful objects that we’ve come to love.”

LikeLike

Of course, manoj bajpayee will not admit that movies do influence the society, . How else will manoj be able to sell the evil characters he plays onscreen.

He wants to make money for his next family vacation by doing whatever charachters he gets. He doesn’t care if someone in bihar is learning different ways to torture and kill his fellow beings or be nasty to his wife by watching his movies

LikeLike

For all the talk of “triggered snowflakes” Vanga seems to be the MOST triggered of the lot himself lmao. The dude can’t take a single criticism, this was painfully obvious even in the interviews – whenever the subject goes there, the guy gets massively triggered and refuses to “move on” and gets fixated on the same question bashing the critics left and right.

Vanga, man, lemme speak your own language and say stop being a “triggered snowflake keyboard warrior”. It’d be hilarious if he himself goes down the path of his leads with such man-child tantrums.

LikeLiked by 3 people

Adding to what Raghu Narayanan has said: while we criticize movies for various reasons such as vulgarity, violence, and sex, the majority of activism is focused on combating toxic masculinity. Some might perceive this as hypocrisy from the so-called ‘woke brigade,’ but there’s a simpler reason.

Consider trying to find a single woman who hasn’t experienced at least eve-teasing or, at worst, sexual harassment or violence. Though it’s challenging to find a perfect analogy, let’s think about the example of air quality in Delhi. Many argue that Diwali firecrackers don’t have a significant impact when considering other factors. They also point out that people in other countries enjoy firecrackers without issues. Now, think about the existing air quality and how the firecrackers contribute to it.

This is why I sense frustration creeping into the tone of many female interlocutors. It would be difficult for me to argue against the idea that separating art and life is a luxury they cannot afford.

LikeLiked by 5 people

I agree with the points about movies influencing society. Criticism of movies like Animal are also fine. What I have a problem with is the moral policing (can’t think of a better word) going on around it. You are well within your rights to bash a movie for having a troubling lead character. However, demanding that a movie with such a character shouldn’t be made is an infringement on the filmmaker’s freedom of speech.

But let’s say I agree that movies like Animal should not be made. Where does it stop?

I can make an argument that movies like Pudhupettai reinforces negative stereotypes about North Chennai and that movies like that shouldn’t be made. Live-in relationships are even now frowned upon in many parts of Chennai, should Mani Rathnam not make OK Kanmani? What if someone wants to make a movie where the lead character undergoes an abortion? I can imagine it being a debate among women themselves.

Like Madan said, the loudest voices are always the ones with the extreme opinions and it’s very easy to start an outrage on social media. We can’t have a public trial every week whether the movie releasing that weekend is acceptable or not.

LikeLike

“However, demanding that a movie with such a character shouldn’t be made is an infringement on the filmmaker’s freedom of speech.”
You might want to word this differently. Demanding anything does not infrige on anybody’s freedom of speech. I am demanding that you stop posting on this blog.

LikeLike

“I can make an argument that movies like Pudhupettai reinforces negative stereotypes about North Chennai and that movies like that shouldn’t be made.
Live-in relationships are even now frowned upon in many parts of Chennai, should Mani Rathnam not make OK Kanmani? What if someone wants to make a movie where the lead character undergoes an abortion? I can imagine it being a debate among women themselves.”

I’m at a loss for words in response to this kind of reasoning. Individuals like this should reconsider why they make such weak arguments.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Rahul: Fair enough, perhaps I worded that poorly. But I hope my point still comes across.

Bala: Freedom of speech is what allows Mari Selvaraj and Ranjith to make their movies which I love to watch. If that means that Mohan G is also allowed to make movies, I’ll just have to live with it.

LikeLike

“Wow, I clearly said these types of arguments will be made by the loudest voices on social media. Not that I am making these arguments”
Yes, and my comment was directed at your assertion that we should be concerned about somebody making those arguments.
If any Tom, Dick, or MSR makes an argument that doesn’t even pass the test of logic, it will fail to build consensus and convince anyone, let alone the filmmakers. So, what is the point of bringing that up?
It’s akin to saying that today, homosexuals are seeking legitimacy, and tomorrow, those engaging in bestiality will demand it. Therefore, let’s not grant legitimacy to homosexuals.
If this issue doesn’t resonate with you, feel free to sit this one out. However, please take a moment to introspect on why you are attempting to derail this conversation.

LikeLike

I remember BR crying on this blog about being cyber staked by some woman or man posing as woman. He took his problem v seriously then but now has the nerve to laugh at the very real consequences women face daily due to insane levels of misogyny in films. I see men SO outraged when a transgender person gropes them when they don’t give money or something. Women face this from a large majority of men EVERYDAY in life. Utterly insensitive and sadistic is the only way I can see these men who cannot see the harm being caused. Even foreign reaction channels that generally only please their audience to not rock the gravy boat cannot stomach the level of baseline misogyny in Animal.

Vanga is probably sexist in real life but it is so accepted that its not worth calling out cos he’s a “raw, interesting” filmmaker or whatever. Everything he makes is now suspect because of his problemtic statements IRL, for me. And I wasn’t this way before Animal – I was actually looking forward to watching it.

LikeLiked by 4 people

//Not that there aren’t other creeps in Holly or any other film industry in the world, but at least the ones who hide it seem to acknowledge that this is not a side of theirs that they should publicly air unlike SRV’s very public and unapologetic misogyny.//

IMO does this matter? Like would it be wrong to revisit Chinatown now as it’s by a literal child rapist? If Vanga hires a PR and gets to say all the “right things”, would he be given a pass to make these exact same films?

I get that this is your personal preference and you don’t have to justify it any further etc. God knows I have my personal biases/gripes and avoid watching the films by certain stars etc.

I just thought Animal’s internal world doesn’t justify the actions of the lead – in fact I ended up being more disturbed at Wolf of Wall Street than Animal as it’s a comedy made on literally hours and hours of treating women like literal objects/degradation/sexual assault etc. Scorcese responded to his critics saying something like “Don’t you think I know it’s wrong?” (paraphrasing). So IMO had Sandeep made a frame-to-frame remake of WOWS here, would people have accepted that or would they have felt it’s the way it is because Sandeep harbours toxic views? Because whenever I have this discussion with someone about Animal and explain my POV re: why I felt the lead was not justified within the world of that film, it ends in them quoting the infamous interviews by Sandeep.

PS: As I’ve stated gazillion times, Sandeep is a man child and needs to just stop being a shithead, I fully get why people/women are pissed off at him and the film. While “separate the art from the artist” might be hard (and Sandeep himself has made quite sure to inject his man child tantrums into this film to supposedly “trigger” is critics which is some of the dumbest shit I’ve seen) – there’s quite a big grey area here IMO – we should at least be able to have this discussion, is what I feel.

LikeLiked by 1 person

I may not like the content of Animal but I am surprised at its tremendous success. Maybe because of Ranbir. I think its success and Ranbir in such a role made it such a target for annoyed responses. If the role was done by a new comer or someone like Ayushmann or Kartik Aryan and if this film failed miserably, then the responses would have been much more limited. And the trigger was also pressed by one blogger. The face of the film is usually the lead actor while the director becomes secondary to receive applause or criticism.

LikeLike

@Madan – //In the first case, the movie does not push a toxic agenda. So it does not set up the kind of talking points that SRV’s films have done. In the second case, now, I really don’t know where Animal lands but Arjun Reddy did have problematic normalization of his behaviour so he would have willy nilly had to address them.//
What, Chinatown?As BR said, J slapping her could be viewed in a different light, potentially. I get Arjun Reddy, it bothered me (within that film’s world – I’ve explained this here) but Animal is IMO not like that (regardless of what Vanga intended). The one thing was the lazy-Muslim stereotype that’s independent of Ranbir’s antics – but that aside everything was justified within that world IMO – the character behaves in an absolutely unhinged manner and the “sane” people (relatively) around him points this out constantly. If you decide to watch it, then we can discuss this. Only some scenes that were added as a “fuck you” stuck out and didn’t belong in this film, that sticks out, as I’d mentioned earlier.

//Let’s say in an alternative universe, he did address them maturely and turned the page. Then, I don’t see what the problem would be if suppose Animal was just violent but not necessarily pro-toxic masculinity. So how he has chosen to pitch his movies is definitely a part of the problem (for me). I addressed this above along the lines of art and artist separation only applies when the artist himself at least endeavours to separate himself from his creation and let the audience judge it as they may.//
IMO here I differ – because honestly, since the concern seems to be about how audiences take the film, director’s intention matters very little. I’m sure Mari didn’t create Maamannan for people to celebrate Rathnavel Gounder. I’m sure Shyam Pushkaran didn’t write Shammi (clearly intended as a symbol of toxic masculinity) for him to be treated as a symbol of a “caring family man”. Thevar Magan was actually asserting/glorifying caste pride within that world, but I doubt if Kamal intended for it to be as such. This is why after a lot of deliberation, I personally only judge characters within the world without carrying external burdens. But I absolutely get why people disagree.

// a clear cut scene where Belfort mocks the policeman saying something along the lines of America doesn’t value honest policemen, firefighters and teachers but people like me.//
Again, a person could take this as just him, the lead/narrator, pussyfooting around trying to offer a bribe without getting implicated (I presume this is what you’re referring to) – like in the most peripheral way. The gaze could be interpreted as making light of what they do and people could ask why was the need for showing so much objectification/assault etc – like 70-80% of the film is about them waving their dicks around, taking drugs, prostitutes, and treating women like objects – all this narrated comically. I’m already sold on the film because I saw it more or less the way you did. But while Scorcese faced criticism only from a small faction because as MS himself felt, people know he’s liberal and an auteur, and no matter what he does, his films will be viewed through that lens.

LikeLike

Honest question for anyone who watched the film: Is a reason for Ranbir’s abysmal 80s era mullet hairstyle explained at all in this movie?

LikeLike

“The art is pure, no matter how impure the artist”.
Just my two cents: I don’t think art is desi ghee that can be categorized as pure or impure.. Individuals engaging with art bring their unique set of values, biases, assumptions, presuppositions, likes, and dislikes to the experience. For instance, if I don’t appreciate Akshay Kumar’s acting style or his choice of movies, I may choose not to watch them. However, does this necessarily mean that I view his films as impure?

I contend that the notions of separating art from the artist are often promoted to counter a ‘woke’ agenda. Otherwise, the intermingling of them is perfectly kosher.

LikeLiked by 2 people

Let’s reframe the question by considering a different perspective: who or what plays a pivotal role in influencing young men’s choices in how they interact with the opposite sex, particularly in romantic endeavors? Can we attempt to rank the influencers listed below?

Parents.
Books.
Bhavadgita\Quran\Bible
Pope.
Modi.
Nehru.
Consumption of various forms of media.
Friends.
None.

In the immortal words of Hercule Poirot, ‘It is the approach classique. You see, the technique of elimination. We eliminate the suspects one by one.'”

LikeLiked by 1 person

Even I feel that Vanga is a bit harsh on males. He even calls them animals. He showed males as the worst possible species and females as more civilized. Making gentle souls like Shahid, Ranbir as ruffians or rowdies or overtly aggressive. Is alpha male a terrible choice for girls who rather want gentle souls like Amol Palekar as their soulmates? Will parents force their girls to tie the knot and settle? Settling into the most unsettling life with some alpha male! Vanga, you have ruined the dreams of many girls and their parents.

LikeLike

A man getting slapped on screen may be fairly common. But what if a man gets slapped for not responding in the local language? What if his response is not due to any arrogant unwillingness but due to him feeling intimidated by a person of authority and hence replying in a language most comfortable to him. Some people may get highly offended by the latter scene and not by the former. Hence, comparing movie scenes after stripping them of context may lead to false equivalence.

LikeLike

@KK, My Korean friend took a DNA test and found out he was 13% Japanese. When he told his family, a hush fell over & he was told never to speak of this again. The Japanese did some horrific shit in East Asia. War brings out the worst in men unfortunately.

LikeLike

Well, I am speaking about present times where some films definitely leave an impact. Directors have vivid imagination after watching phoren films. Add desi tadka and we get a wild animal. Let us agree to disagree. I will stick to my opinion that films definitely have some sort of influence on society. It cannot be brushed aside saying that there are bigger issues, why to pick on films? It is like saying catch the big thieves who cheat the nation of crores and dont focus on robbers who snatch mobiles. An individual is more affected personally if his mobile is snatched than big ones swallowing crores. Banning is no use. But using social media to express disgust is to be welcomed. It is not liberals, even non liberals are not comfortable with certain scenes. While some liberals maybe ok with gore and blood. It is not about liberals versus non liberals as some are trying to say so, so that all the blame will be placed on liberals. What we see on social media does not represent the whole picture. There are many who just dont care for films or filmstars in my circle.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Manoj Bajpayee made the comment about the hairstyle as a jest, seemingly without much contemplation. Consequently, everyone is echoing it without further consideration. Reflect on the personal significance of one’s hairstyle. Attempt to persuade someone close to you—be it a brother, sister, father, son or spouse —to alter their hairstyle for your sake, even if only temporarily. Observe the reactions you elicit. This also speaks to how much of thought y’all are giving to this topic.
But this influence is tangible, leaving you guys with little room to deny it on one hand and pushing you to belittle it on the other. In contrast, intangible influence is easier to dismiss.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Once again saying that political films are more dangerous and Animal is not? For you @Madan, political films maybe more dangerous for you but for me sociopath or psychopath film is much more dangerous. Adult certification does not wash away something as disgusting as Animal. Just because it got A certification, does not make it okay. In this highly indisciplined country anyone can watch anything with some little bribe or little nudge. There are street children with no parents and there are regular children whose parents dont mind. There are children who work for criminal gangs due to poverty. These children also watch. some of them may want to experiment this kind of behaviour. Any female may become their target. This fact is known to directors like RGV, Vanga etc. Only naive or supporters advance this argument that the film has adult certification and so stop whining or criticising the film. To hell with art and artistic freedom just to relish violence against women for satisfying inner animals in us. The term honest does not go well with someone dishonest in trying to cover up showing A certificate. This film will have spinoffs. and more gore in the name of honest film making. And wife, mother , sister, brother giving big shoutouts just because the hero, the villain, the heroine, the side actor are related to them and success and bias make them to justify the film, the director, the actors.

LikeLiked by 1 person

https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/bollywood/exclusive-was-the-cbfc-ceo-removed-for-animal-article-106067745

LikeLike

@KK, Yes, the Japanese watched Animal before doing this act. In fact, Vanga invented a time machine & traveled back in time himself to give them the film. I hear Rajamouli will be doing his next movie on this incredible story. Hope you get your FDFS tickets when it comes out.

LikeLike

“Have people never seen anonymous hordes being butchered in other films?”

Not everyone is a film critic (who watches a lot of films and) who is either normalized or desensitized to violent and explicit sexual scenes in film . And not everyone is watching obscure violent serbian/ foreign films during their spare time , to get a kick out of all the violence and sex onscreen.
It is completely understandable that people who are not used to a lot of rutting and brutality onscreen could be disgusted and repulsed by it.

LikeLiked by 3 people

Saw Animal. Its a bloody brilliant raw cinema. Possibly one of the best among the modern day hyped movies.

And don’t think the protagonist can be considered an evil man or caveman (think the caption of the article needn’t have been given like that) or anything anymore than the protagonists seen in so many movies before, across the world, from Godfather or John Wick or Wolf of Wallstreet or Breaking Bad to KGF or Mankatha or Badlapur.(Yeah, may be the character is a bit more explosive/arrogant/angry, but that is his established character trait). Maybe one can consider, even the hero of the acclaimed Breaking Bad series, Walter White, to be much more evil (than ‘Animal’ hero) considering he didn’t have any qualms in killing an innocent co-chemist who didn’t directly pose any threat to him (though indirectly that man’s existence meant his death) even if we ignore his many other killings & grave crimes.

And that Vineeth Srinivasan character in Mukundanunni Associates(though a black comedy) have to be a million times more evil than Ranvijay Singh as he had no qualms in killing a professional competitor (someone who didn’t even pose any threat to his or his families’ life, peace or property even indirectly) or any person including children, and was ultimately very successful. Now the protagonist played by Joaquin Phoenix in the bloody brilliant ‘Joker’ movie of 2019 was another level pshyco/evil though given a superb contextualisation.

Compared to all that Ranvijay Singh in Animal is just a regular courageous gangster/masala hero (just like the heros in a Godfather, Pulp Fiction, John Wick, KGF or Pudupettai or countless other films) who can be ruthless and may have killed hordes of people but all of them are just enemies or gangs who have come/plotted to kill him or his family. He isn’t shown to kill or seriously injure any person for any petty rivalries or money but only when posing a direct threat to his family or him. Though angry/desperate, he even asked his gang-members to not harm Tripti’s character who was a part of the plot to kill him and his family, after her reveal, as he knew she had a change of heart.

The only portion shown in the movie where he could’ve turned real evil like a predatory beast killing/hunting an innocent prey (but again, didn’t), was him threatening to shoot that innocent pregnant lady (wife of Bobby’s), but that one could simply assume he was just bluffing to get the truth out and certainly wouldn’t have actually shot even if he wasn’t able to get the truth out (although anyway it doesn’t matter being just an imaginary fictional character).

LikeLike

• soundtrack of the year for me

LikeLike

Atlast watched Animal. It is a powerful movie but it dragged during action scenes. All looked similar on both the sides. Knowing the results beforehand or guessing it, the fights were boring with all those bloodied faces. Who is who apart from the main characters? Others looked generic and indistinguishable. Like money heist, they could have gone for masks for both the sides. It would have been fun watching red masks versus blue masks.

Good that bobby deol was made mute, otherwise his dialogues would have been Dharmendra’s chun chun ke maaroonga which would have taken the gravitas factor down under. On the otherhand Ranbir talked too much about papa and papa like a non- stop machine gun spilling bullets or a talking toy. Prem Chopra in his 6 minutes looked more menacing than Ranbir. I was just watching his hair, his style than his emotions.

Rashmika looked like a psycho herself in some scenes. Both Ranbir and Rashmika played psycho psycho well. Anil Kapoor looked like the only level headed man who was invested in his business more than in his children. A couple of real life fathers do the same without much repercussions. And as the typical telugu man, the director is obsessed with Princeton, Harvard, John Hopkins and US. There are more like Yale, Stanford, MIT, Boston, Pen, Columbia, Wharton, Cornell, Brown. It is called Ivy league and top colleges name dropping by many bright and ambitious Indians with the american dream. Unlike some other Indians who are more content with becoming drivers and motel owners or blue collared workers.

And how can Gitanjali expect her husband to be monogamous? Why was she acting like empty vessel making more noise? What did she achieve? This is what can happen to good educated telugu girls who do not listen to their parents and do not marry regular educated telugu guys. The director is a confused man, trying unintentionally to confuse his critics as well as his audience. He wanted to shock with upside down Nazi symbol which ordinary souls cant distinguish as harmless from the real Nazi symbol.

Bachchan also played angry young man, cynical Sharabi but he never became a psychotic hero murdering hundreds of human beings without much ado. And we were never shown as to how did the animalised hero spend his time with his kids and the bond he developed with them? Tripti’s role of a mole. Rhymes well. This film is a mishmash of Sharabi, Dharmatma, Godfather, telugu gongura pachchadi, punjabi tadka dal and also innumerable extras like side dishes. Except a proper police force and a functioning government which believes in some law and order in our beloved country.

LikeLike

@Raghu Narayanan: Haha,not too seriously.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Well, I did not know about Inquilaab. Incidentally it was also directed by a telugu director. What a coincidence!

I think Bachchan was not psychotic but angry at the corrupt ministers. He did it for the country and not for personal reasons like Ranbir’s actions in Animal. And that fact redeems Bachchan’s character. And he also surrenders to the police. Vanga’s heroes are different.

LikeLiked by 1 person

I felt like SRV asked himself what’s the list of things that caters big time to the male ego (most men often like to think themselves as alpha) and made a solid film around those highlights. The film is like a testosterone wet dream. He then went on to embellish the film with a big fuck you to the critics. You got to give it to him, he has made a blockbuster with a nod to hitler, raking up menstruation in a provocative manner and umpteen other triggers including the gaumutra.

I liked the rawness and honesty in the film and enjoyed watching it. In this world of the super alpha apex male predator even the villain has to be a bhai. No one else will do as they don’t have the genes I suppose. As entertaining as the film was, I disliked the ranvijay character. It’s the same experience I had with Arjun Reddy, enjoyed the film despite finding Arjun a big irritating cry baby. At one point, when RV discharges his gun in his bedroom, I really wanted gitanjali to plunge a knife into his heart. Now, that would have been a far more satisfying watch.

LikeLiked by 1 person