'Animal,' The Positive Review

After going through several negative reviews which in my view miss the point in their criticism, I intended to present my own positive view about the movie, ‘Animal.’

The new age filmmaker Sandeep Reddy Vanga who has a panache for unabashedly presenting extreme ideas of toxic masculinity on the screen has been a target for criticism from his earlier movie Arjun Reddy, and its Hindi remake Kabir Singh. 

I presume, because of such criticism, Vanga went on to make a return attack with his next film, by boldly naming it ‘Animal.’ And, this time, he might have thought the title itself would answer all the critics, as he would have free reign to portray the alpha male toxic masculinity without holding any bars, as he pleased.

But, the critics once again were not impressed. And I think the devil is in the marketing. Whether it was Sandeep’s idea from the beginning, or the producer’s or marketing team’s idea, the film was presented as a ‘toxic’ love story between father and son. While the screenplay tries very hard to show the same, it doesn’t make wholesome sense in the end.

And, the critics once again had a field day morally correcting the lead character at every point. Why should he say those lines? Why should he have an extra-marital affair? Why should he justify it like that? Etc. But, why shouldn’t he? Why can’t he be a morally degraded alpha male when he has all the might he has? Who said that he is an ‘ideal’ character to be followed? Once again, the title itself says ‘Animal.’ He is not to be followed if you want to be human, as simple as that. Why can’t you see the movie as a wake-up call to such people who do exist in society, but maybe not to that extravagant extent (but probably to a more conniving and dangerous extent) Don’t you know the story of a powerful politician’s son mowing down farmers with his vehicle in a barbarous manner only some time ago? Where do you think he is now? He is out there doing whatever else he can. There are such stories of powerful ‘animalistic’ sons doing whatever they can under the insane powers of their fathers. Why can’t you see the movie from that angle?

I guess, the answer would be that he was presented in such a nice ‘heroic’ manner in most of the things, and that people would get influenced by him. But, that’s how people are in the real world. They look nice with a mask doing all the good things in the face, keeping their animalistic nature for the right occasions and people they want to show it to. It’s just portrayal of such a deranged powerful person. You can say that without anger, or without questioning the director.

While I do agree that the protagonist’s actions always influence the ‘illiterate audience,’ I don’t think you can question the filmmaker’s right to do what he wants to show. While I am not sure whether what I said in the earlier paragraph was his intention, that's how I looked at it. And, I believe, the critics could have chosen a similar path to review it as a story of a corrupt ‘Animal’ of a person, instead of questioning the filmmaker for every ‘unfair’ or ‘unpleasant’ detail. Look outside. The world is becoming more ‘unfair’ every day. If you want to question, question the powers behind it in the real world. Don’t waste your anger on a ‘fantasy.’