ANIMAL | The Worst Movie of 2023? | Dhruv Rathee
Hello, friends! A child deprived of his father’s love either due to his father’s absence or excessively strict upbringing. It leads to the child developing psychological issues evolving into severe problems as the child reaches adulthood. This isn’t a fictional narrative; numerous research papers have proved these claims. Studies consistently indicate that a father’s absence diminishes a child’s self-confidence. Other studies show that harsh parenting, excessive strictness while growing up, is linked to the development of aggressive behaviour in children. You’d think that harsh parenting is very common, how can it be so bad? I’d say, look around you. Low
self-confidence and aggression are common traits in people, not only this, several research papers show that the absence of a caring father can be a contributing factor in someone becoming a criminal. Imagine if someone were to make a film on such a sensitive topic, well, you don’t need to imagine it, a cinematic masterpiece already exists no, I’m not talking about the one you’re thinking. I meant ‘The White Ribbon.’ The White Ribbon film was honoured with the Best Film Award at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, as well as the International Critics Prize, Best Film at the European
Film Awards, over 10 German Film Awards, and the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Film. India, too, boasts remarkable films on this sensitive topic, such as Govind Nihalani’s ‘Ardh
anyone ask your opinion?” There are some beautifully written famous songs on this issue, such as this. The lyrics emphasise that though people know how to have children but they struggle with becoming a father. Now, consider the scenario, this sensitive concept is picked up by an insensitive director, with a track record of regressive and misogynistic films, such as Kabir Singh, what will happen then? Unfortunately, we don’t need to merely speculate, be it would result in this film, Animal. While Bollywood has produced its fair share of subpar films, this particular one stands out. To me, this seems
like a cringe-fest which will prove to be c@ncerous for our society. Some may instantly dismiss this critique as an exaggeration, arguing that it’s just a film and there’s no need to be overly ‘woke’. Additionally, comparisons are drawn to other violent films like Gangs of Wasseypur, Kill Bill, and Pulp Fiction, that are not criticised as much. And that watching violence in films doesn’t drive one to violent behaviour. The director of a film brings their individual morality and subjective opinions into the narrative. Labelling a film as a ‘cringefest c@ncer’ may seem too harsh. I merely ask you
to hear me out. I promise to delve into a detailed explanation in this video. Not only about the problematic elements in the film, but also the broader societal issues, touching on topics such as alpha males and feminism. Friends, I am sure you remember the Nirbhaya case from 2012. That had shocked the entire nation. During that time, Madhumita Pandey, a Clinical Psychology Master’s student, embarked on a quest to understand the motivations behind such heinous acts. To look for the answers to this, she decided to talk to the individuals who committed such acts. She wanted to survey
the prisoners of Tihar jail. Eventually, she interviewed 122 convicted r*pists and 65 convicted m*rd3rers in Tihar jail. A stark difference emerged in their responses, most m*rd3rers expressed some level of regret for their actions, they regretted destroying multiple lives. Some regretted their actions more than others, but most of the m*rd3rers felt some degree of regret. But when she talked to the convicted r*pists, many exhibited a lack of regret, they felt no remorse. This was consistent with the documentary, ‘India’s Daughter,’ which focused on the Nirbhaya case. When interviewing the r*pists, the assailant justified his actions by questioning
why the victim was out late at night with her boyfriend, expressing a desire to ‘teach her a lesson.’ Notably, it was clear throughout the interview that he felt no ounce of regret for his actions. Observing this pattern, Madhumita sought to understand the underlying reasons behind the lack of regret among r*pists. Why do they show no signs of remorse? She gave them two questionnaires: the MMIS Multicultural Masculinity Ideology Scale and an Attitude Towards Women Test. The results indicated that these individuals held highly regressive views about women, reflecting backward thinking. Madhumita wasn’t the only one to research
this. Many such research have been conducted outside India too, such as Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book ‘Against Our Will, Men, Women, and R*pe.’ emphasized the same points. In her book, she wrote that r*pe is a form of intimidation, often driven by a desire to assert power and dominance over women. Other researchers, including Richard Johnson, Danielle Cusmano, and Rebecca Whisnant, came to the same conclusion. R*pe is not driven by a an unrestrained desire to fornicate. Rather, there are three main motives driving r*pists: a need to display their power, an outlet for anger, and sadistic cruelty. However, a
common thread among these motives is the perpetrators’ belief in the inferiority of women. This prompts the question: where does this regressive thinking originate? The answer is: Everywhere. There’s a saying that holds true here. ‘A man is the product of his environment’ It means that a person’s behaviour, personality, and identity are moulded by their surroundings. These factors include everything, the way their parents care for them, their interactions with relatives, experiences in school with teachers and friends, and exposure to their surrounding environment. Additionally, mass media plays a major role in this. Things that are in the news,
books, radio, TV ads, social media content, songs, and movies, significantly influences the formation of a person’s identity and behaviour. Some aspects of your life are within your conscious control, such as what you choose to read or watch. However, everything has a subconscious effect on your mind, that you may not immediately recognize. Some may argue against this by pointing out that they watch gangster movies without becoming gangsters themselves. Sandeep Vanga Reddy, the director of this film, made a similar argument in an interview when Anupama Chopra asked him about the societal impact of films like Kabir Singh.
He compared it to watching gangster movies without becoming a gangster consequently. “I grew up watching Gyang Leader Parinda, Ram Lakhan, Tezaab, me and my brother never became gangsters after watching Parinda.” This is the same argument that some people use when justifying eating deep-fried food, that are known to increase the risk of a heart attack, and increasing cholesterol levels, using the argument that they are still alive and haven’t suffered a heart attack. The point is, having one unhealthy meal may not cause a heart attack, but if you keep having deep-fried food for days and weeks and
years, you may suffer a heart attack someday. And you will always be at an increased risk of getting a heart attack. Similarly, if someone says that they worked out in the gym for an hour but haven’t lost weight yet, we need to remember that changes are made in small increments. Each droplet adds up to create the ocean. The same can be said about films. Watching one gangster film doesn’t make a person a gangster. Nor does watching one good film make a person a great person. But the small incremental changes that they have on the psyche
of the viewers, adds up throughout their lives. Whether it is positive or negative. In the weight loss video, I discussed the multiple factors including diet, exercise, sleep, and stress management. I pointed out that effective weight loss is a combination of all these factors. Similarly, if everything goes well in a child’s life, he has parents who care for him, teachers who treat him well, good friends, he reads good books, he is educated, thinks logically, and uses his intellect in every aspect of his life, watching one problematic film wouldn’t affect him. However, consider the opposite scenario: a
boy named Munnu growing up in a household with his father beating his mother, restrictive rules for his sister that aren’t applicable on him, on YouTube, Munnu follows those YouTubers who objectify women. Saying that women aren’t capable of thought. And that their only role is to do household chores. On Instagram, Munnu follows creators like Andrew Tate, the symbol of toxic masculinity and misogyny. He sees him saying the same stuff. Moreover, when Munnu listens to songs, he encounters the same objectification of women in the lyrics. ‘I am a tandoori chicken, eat me with alcohol.’ Honey Singh’s songs.
Have you ever paid attention to their lyrics? ‘I am a womanizer.’ ‘Don’t meet me alone.’ ‘I don’t hold a girl with silicone.’ ‘I don’t fall in love with a brown girl.’ ‘I am a lion.’ ‘I don’t graze.’ ‘You know I am a hunter.’ ‘I will eat you whole.’ Even repeating these lyrics feels unsettling. UNICEF has highlighted a report by American Psychological Association, on how such objectification in mass media contributes to violence against women. At home, Munnu is exposed to news channels, he hears politicians expressing views that boys are bound to make mistakes, girls shouldn’t wear
‘revealing’ clothes, girls shouldn’t be out at night, Television ads also contribute to this narrative of women’s objectification. For instance, a perfume ad may depict a girl hearing four boys taking a ‘shot’ each, she gets scared by this, only to reveal they were talking about perfume. To make matters worse, when Munnu goes to watch a film in theatres, he watches films like ‘Animal.’ In this movie, the protagonist twisted his wife’s arm violently. grabs her neck, and pointing a gun at her. Some argue that such actions are justified because the wife slapped him. This is the key
issue! Why should violence, regardless of the gender involved, be glorified? According to Sandeep Vanga, love is not genuine unless you can hit your partner. I’m not kidding. Sandeep Vanga had said this without any sarcasm in an interview. “When you are deeply in love, if you don’t have the liberty of slapping each other, then I don’t see anything there.” In the film, the protagonist, Rannvijay, commits numerous mass m*rd3rs, yet his wife, Geetanjali, never even thinks to leave him. However, when he has an extramarital affair, she encourages him to k*ll the other woman. *Are you crazy?* *You
need treatment.* Despite being portrayed as a father of a daughter, he mocks the discomfort of menstruation. He tells his wife that this is a man’s world. He tells his lover to lick his shoe to prove that she loves him. The film portrays this character as someone with daddy issues, lacking his father’s love. However, Ranvijay exhibits the same neglect towards his own children. Such behaviours might have been somewhat justified, had the film depicted him as mentally ill and later undergoing a positive transformation. But that was not to be. There was no redemption at the end of
the film. Ranbir Kapoor’s acting fails to convey any sense of mental illness, causing the misogyny and toxic masculinity to be glorified. The protagonist of the film does all of this with the utmost confidence. Almost like an alpha male. Munnu’s entire environment is steeped in regressive views, pervasive objectification of women, and mistreatment of women. Despite this, people say; how much damage can one film cause? Though one film doesn’t turn people bad, it’s part of the toxic environment that we are living in. Such films ensure that the environment remains toxic. That’s why I say that movies like
‘Animal’ are c@ncerous to our society. This was evident on the film’s poster. Featuring the hero promoting cancer by smoking, what else could one expect? On the same day ‘Animal’ was released, another film hit the cinemas, ‘Sam Bahadur,’ centred around Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, look at the stark contrast between the heroes of the two films. Sam Bahadur, a real-life hero who fought for the country and humanity. He played a pivotal role in preventing a horrific genocide in Bangladesh. Should people like Sam Bahadur be the symbols of masculinity? Or characters like Kabir Singh and Rannvijay? For those
interested in learning more about his life, there’s an excellent audiobook with 12 episodes on KUKU FM. Field Marshall Sam Manekshaw in Hindi. KUKU FM is a brilliant platform for audio learning, offering a wide range of audiobooks on various topics, including history, geopolitics, fiction, and mythology. If you haven’t joined KUKU FM yet, check out the description below to use a coupon code to get 50% off. Now, let’s get back to the topic at hand. Let’s delve into the narrative of this film. Years ago, Mario Puzo authored a novel titled ‘The Godfather.’ Famous director Francis Ford Coppola
adapted this novel into a highly successful trilogy of films. Since then, numerous Indian films have copied it, such as Dharmatma, Nayakan, Dayawan, Aatank Hi Aatank, Sarkar, Malik, and now Animal, The extent of originality or imitation in this film is something you can discern for yourself. In ‘The Godfather,’ the plot revolves around a gangster named Vito, who oversees a vast business empire. His younger son, Michael, resides abroad in America. However, when an assassination attempt is made on Vito’s life, Michael returns and joins the gang. He discovers that the traitor was his sister’s husband, Carlo, so he
gets Carlo k*lled. And then he starts getting into conflicts with rival gangs. ‘The Godfather’ belongs to the gangster genre, but Sandeep Vanga Reddy opted to make a film that would make millions at the box office. So he copied the concept of his earlier film, Kabir Singh. To have a protagonist who would be the anti-hero. a short-tempered, quick-to-anger alpha male who smokes excessively, projecting an image of ‘coolness.’ And since he knows that showing violence in the film would draw in more crowds, he decided to heighten the violence, emphasizing bloodshed. During an interview with Anupama Chopra, Sandeep
expressed his intent to make his next film even more violent than Kabir Singh, aiming to push the boundaries of violence in cinema. “It will be more, because these guys are calling this a violent film, I want to tell them, I’ll show them what a violent film will be.” Once Animal was released, his fans enthusiastically share this clip as a testament to Sandeep’s knack for making violent films. Interestingly, fans of such films often exhibit a unique characteristic you would have noticed that such films draw in the most number of toxic fans. While Bollywood has seen its
fair share of mediocre releases, recent films like Tejas, Shehzada, or Ranbir Kapoor’s last film, Shamshera, These films were negatively reviewed, audience criticised them extensively, but was anyone offended by this criticism? No one was triggered. However, when films like Kabir Singh and Animal are criticised, some people find it hard to control their outrage. Film critic Sucharita Tyagi, for instance, remarked that the film is not entertaining. And the fans of this film resorted to abusing her on Twitter. Why does this happen? Because some individuals find validation in toxic films, When these films receive criticism, their fans feel
that their own personality is being criticised, and their validation is being taken away. However, the underlying reason for the excessive bloodshed in such films to be completely honest, is that violence sells. As Aamir Khan aptly noted, as you can see in this clip, “Directors who are not very talented creatively, in creating a story, in showing emotions, in creating situations, they depend heavily on violence and s*x to make their films work.” This isn’t limited to Bollywood, it is equally applicable to Hollywood. This is a new genre of films known as Slasher films or Gore films. Imagine
a conversation between two friends, talking about a new Gore film. Filled with violence and bloodshed, and they plan to watch it because it will be fun! It will be fun to watch some broken skulls, someone getting stabbed, it would enliven their evening. Friends, there is a psychological reason why some people love watching extreme violence and bloodshed on screen. Typically, in their lives, these individuals feel powerless and repressed. Oppressed by someone else. Those suppressed by authority figures, whether it’s a boss, a policeman, or even parents at home, people like these are drawn to such gory and
violent films. In the theatre, they can envision themselves as the protagonist, finding satisfaction in the violent that is directed towards someone else. In ‘Animal,’ this violence and bloodlust is taken to an extreme level. The protagonist doesn’t just sh**t the enemy; he goes on to str*ngle someone with his bare hands or slice another person’s throat with a knife. Such characters, if encountered in real life, would be labelled as psychopaths. The directors glamorize these scenes, presenting them in a stylish manner, resulting in a 15-minute-long continuous sequence showcasing bloodshed. Someone aptly tweeted about this film. This film is
‘for the animals, of the animals, and by the animals.’ Ordinarily, a person would look at such characters and understand that they are psychologically troubled or mentally ill. However, when this character seeks help from a psychotherapist in the film, this point is dismissed. No need to waste the audience’s time with such seriousness, there needs to be continuous scenes depicting bloodshed. As Aamir Khan pointed out, cheap directors have nothing else to show, so they keep showing these scenes to make as much money as possible. Because the truth is, films can portray violence without glamorizing it, instead of
showing it in a stylish way, presenting a realistic depiction that highlights the negative impact on society. However, such realistic films often struggle at the box office. Some great examples are Anurag Kashyap’s works, like Ugly, That Girl in Yellow Boots, and Almost Pyaar with DJ Mohabbat, these films offer a social commentary but people don’t want to watch violence being inflicted by the villain. They find it disturbing and repulsive. There are so many problems in the world already, so why should they watch more violence in cinema halls? Because the villain inflicting violence fills you with disgust. You
are repelled by that violence, you hate watching every moment of such scenes. While this aversion to violence is commendable, no one should be drawn to violence, but the audience’s repressed self seeks entertainment, craving violence from the hero’s standpoint. You want to imagine yourself as James Bond, or Kill Bill, or this character from Animal. Directors and producers understand this, they capitalize on this demand, flooding the market with violent action films. Consequently, almost all of the recent big-budget films heavily feature action and violence. In a review of the film ‘Animal,’ a critic remarked. we have moved passed
family-oriented films like ‘Hum Sath Sath Hai’, the audience now craves ‘Animal’. This is disheartening because ‘Hum Sath Sath Hai’ is a heartwarming family drama inspired by the Ramayana. It is a film suitable for the entire family, delivering positive messages to society and reaching the heart in a way that fosters unity. In the Ramayana video, I discussed the virtues of Lord Ram, highlighting qualities like humility, compassion, despite being fit and strong. Such a man should be the ideal model of masculinity for our society. However, some individuals reject such models because they lack compassion and empathy themselves.
A human with no companssion, is an animal, not a human. Literally, an animal. Characters like Kabir Singh and Rannvijay in Sandeep Vanga’s film exemplify a lack of self-control, Kabir Singh indulges in drinking and consuming drugs, while Rannvijay resorts to shouting, beating, and even threatening his wife with a gun when angered. Can such characters truly serve as role models? Those who appreciate such regressive characters used to call themselves ‘Macho Man’ until recently. However, in the past few years, a new term has popped up on social media for such people. ‘Alpha Male’ They call themselves Alpha Male.
If you are sensible, you will stay away from such a destructive way of thinking. Stop watching such films. Our minds are not dustbins; we should respect our minds. If you have friends who enjoy such films, consider sharing this video with them to illustrate how these films are like a c@ncer to our society. If you found this video insightful, you can click here to watch the Ramayan video, you’d like that too. Thank you very much!
