Thoughts on ANIMAL: A Misunderstood Film
Sandeep Reddy Vanga's latest film is absurd, irreverent and delightfully bloody but it is never misogynistic
TL;DR - The film is neither misogynistic nor sexist nor <insert any other toxic trait>. It is a film about a misogynistic, sexist, <insert those toxic traits> man-child with daddy issues. And it is one terrific film at that.
The film is really long; 3 hours and 21 minutes long, to be precise. It had its lows but there were enough excessive, eccentric things during the low periods that kept me engaged. When it was not exploring the twisted father-son dynamic and RanVijay rampaging his way through masked men, it was him buying Tripti Dimri’s character a hickey-colored Rolls Royce.
From the title to the underwear, the film never stops reminding you of the theme: Animals. The workers of Swastik passionately cheer on as RanVijay, the king of the jungle, talks about murdering his way through getting revenge. You even see old uncles filled with rage, cheering in support of RanVijay. It makes you wonder “Are these people humans or animals?”. In the final fight scene, you get the feeling of two animals fighting it out to see who ends up becoming the pack leader. We see Gitanjali getting impressed by RanVijay’s monologue about how the only worthy males are the alpha males and she “chooses to mate” with him as if she is in an animal kingdom where a female only chooses the strongest male to produce offsprings with. The murder of RanVijay’s Brother-In-Law was both sexy and unsexy at the same time; sexy thanks to the rapturous dubstep score and unsexy thanks to how animalistic the act itself was - he instead chose to chokehold him to death like an animal instead of using a gun.
When the film isn’t busy reminding us of its theme, it is busy throwing weird, trashy scenes at us and they consistently made me laugh out loud. We get a scene where after having sex, Ranbir feeds Rashmika water through a kiss. In another scene, he asks a house helper if he shaves his pubic hair and lectures him about how pubic hair is natural and that we should let it grow.
Many viewers and critics point out the existence of misogynistic lines in the movie as if it is a valid criticism. It is only as valid a criticism as pointing out the existence of a broken father-son relationship. You cannot point to themes in the film and call it criticism. The story is about a wannabe-alpha male with daddy issues who thinks that poetry is for the weak and that real men are those who go fight wars. Vanga clearly establishes the kind of person RanVijay is early on in the film and also in the trailer. What did you expect? A feel-good drama?
While you cannot complain about the inappropriate dialogues, sexism, outdated gender norms, and toxic masculinity in a story about such a character, you can complain about the director’s treatment of these problematic elements. Does the screenplay glorify Ranbir’s toxic behavior? Does the music make him look cool as he comments about Rashmika’s pelvis? Does Rashmika stand there and take all of the toxicity without giving it back to him? Does the writing let him get away with his asshole-ery?
And the answer to all of that is a resounding no.
This is where the film differs from Vanga’s previous outings - Kabir Singh/Arjun Reddy - where he glamorized the toxic behavior of Kabir/Arjun. After watching the film, guys in the audience went home thinking it was cool to be an asshole to their partner (and women went home thinking it was okay to be treated that way).
But Animal is far from such glamorization. In fact, it does quite the opposite. The film shows the consequences of being an asshole. His wife wants to leave him. His children are growing up fatherless. He loses his ability to hear. Hell, Vijay can only pee through a tube and must always carry a pouch of urine with him. That's as unglamorous as it can get.
At one point, he even had to change sanitary pads multiple times a day. Yes, he compares that to women’s periods and cribs “Why do women complain so much about changing pads once a month? I have to do it 4 times a day and I do it just fine”, reducing the entirety of menstruation to a mere pad change. But it made me chuckle because it shows how petty RanVijay is and how his arrogance makes him dumb. If any viewer is taking home the message that period struggles are trivial or that men can deal with it much better than women, it is more telling of the viewer than of Vanga.
The film doesn't let him get away with his toxic masculinity, it makes him pay the price for it. Not just him, even Rashmika pays the price for finding someone who believes in the idea of “alpha males” attractive and choosing to marry him. Balbir Singh too pays the price for being an absentee, abusive father.
If you think about it, RanVijay might have won the battles but he lost the war. He lost the one thing that wanted to save (and was using as an excuse to justify his toxicity): his father. But that too is taken away from him. The film is not packaged in a way that makes people think "I want to be like the lead character, he is cool" like Kabir Singh did.
The film is a neutral portrayal of a broken, toxic character and of course, a character like that says vile, parochial garbage. It is part of the fun of watching such a character in a movie.
RanVijay is also called out for his problematic and petty behavior. Gitanjali confronts him in a sensational scene where Rashmika delivers one of her best performances ever - portraying a complex mix of anger, helplessness, disappointment, and sadness so convincingly. Take the scene where she tries to rekindle romance in their relationship by wearing lingerie - when RanVijay says all this fancy lingerie isn’t needed, she puts him in his place by asking him when was the last time they had sex. She never failed to pop his “I am a tough alpha male and I know everything and I am always right” bubble by dropping truth bombs.
This is not a film that glorifies toxicity, it is a film that studies the effects and origins of such toxicity. And it is one stylish, absurd, bloodbath of a study aided by some of the finest pieces of acting I have seen in a while. Ranbir delivers lines that can easily come across as cringe-worthy if not delivered properly. But he does it with such conviction that you are completely sold. Bobby Deol is menacing as Abrar, perfectly capturing the madness of a mute monster. I wish the film spent more time on Abrar and his story because I would have loved to see more of him on the screen.
Speaking of Abrar, the villain intro scene couldn’t more explicitly say that Abrar Haque (played by Bobby Deol) was RanVijay’s equivalent in the animal kingdom indicating that Ranbir is not a hero or “good guy” in this film; he is just as twisted (and broken) as Abrar is.
The setup for the next film with Aziz was insane. One of the best this year. It reminded me of Rolex from Vikram and dare I say, this one was better than Rolex.
The film is irreverent, indulgent, absurd, bloody, whacky, and pulpy. It isn't as controversial or toxic as people are leading you to believe. Having said that, the film is coming from a director who has problematic views about love, consent, and women. If you cannot forget that and see the film for what it is, and if you cannot stomach a neutral portrayal of a toxic character, it is better to stay away. But if you can, go in there and have fun watching an insanely sexist yet insanely good-looking idiot go berserk as you listen to the thundering score of Harshvardhan Rameshwar that is sure to put you in a state of trance.
Until the next review!