Review of the Hindi movie “Animal” (2023) – Eurasia Review
I was more interested than anything. I wanted to know why the movie “Animal” was controversial and popular at the same time. There is absolutely no disputing the fact that Sandeep Reddy Vanga is a very talented director. The 42-year-old can boast that he has only ever made blockbusters. His talent is reflected in his ability to transcend regional boundaries and create products that appeal to specific types of audiences, particularly those from South Asia. He has a transnational audience in mind, which is made clear in Animal by the characters’ frequent use of English, complementing the use of Hindi.
The film is primarily based on the assumptions of men, masculinity, and masculinity. The entire movie is hypothetical, except for some realistic parts here and there. There are no people walking on the streets of ordinary India. It’s pan-Indian, with no stray dogs. Interestingly, there is no semblance of a law and order mechanism to control the male characters’ pathological desire for violence. This is also pointed out in the comments for the movie. But it makes sense when you see that the entire family politics of this movie is framed by a feudal worldview. The film’s success reflects the deep feudalism of unequal societies like South Asia. This transcends class, caste, and sometimes even gender barriers. The film tells the story of a feudal lord with his own security in a capitalist environment. Owners of wealth also happen to possess social and political power. Politicians, judges, police, and military exist primarily to maintain the status quo on behalf of private property owners. Therefore, they are conspicuous by their absence. This is not a comment on the stylistic aspects of violence, including the misogynistic and abusive behavior that the film explores. You see this sometimes in Quentin Tarantino movies.
In the South Asian context, this is a feudal system that celebrates manhood as an end in itself. That’s basically anti-democratic, but so what? Only an emasculated nation, with its colonial inferiority complex and men not feeling fully male, would rejoice in such celebrations. The emotional dynamics surrounding the father-son duo form the film’s central theme. The psychotic obsession that the protagonist has with his father is no different than what his villain counterpart suffers with his brother. Where is the mother who will protect the boy’s wounded ego? What is the role of sisters, wives, and children in humanizing the male characters and breaking them out of their narcissism? Virtually non-existent. At the root of this display of masculinity is homophobia, manifested in male-on-male violence (a perverted form of sexual attraction). Homosexuality is a major characteristic of all male-dominated societies.
Accusations that the film is “misogynistic” need to be placed in context. You can’t blame the movie director for the characters’ motivations. By that logic, most Indian films are misogynistic, except those with explicitly feminist aims. This movie depicts a feudal order. In such an order, women are not commodities to be consumed. They are not important to men. Therefore, this movie is not an anti-women movie. Because women aren’t even in the equation to begin with. It’s an anti-feminist movie. That is not a response to women fighting for their rights as women and as human beings. That’s a progressive demand. Rather, it is a reaction to women’s claims to equality with men, and it is rudimentary to say the least.
A particular scene in the film shows the lead female character promising to marry Arvind, a man she met “two days ago” (a classic Indian arranged marriage scenario). The lead male character confronts her and comes up with the most laughably bizarre arguments to support his hypothesis of being an alpha male, as opposed to the “Alvins” who are pedestrians of the world. he says:
“Do you know how girls used to choose their husbands? Back in the past? Let’s go back in time. Centuries ago, there were two types of humans: alphas and others. Alphas were tough guys who went hunting in the jungle and divided the food they hunted among themselves. They were responsible for nourishing their children and the community as a whole. That’s how communities operated. But , their influence extended beyond the kitchen. They also had the power to choose which hunters would become partners in parentage. They were able to distinguish themselves from rival hunters and wildlife. women had the power to appoint guardians to protect them and their descendants. Women held the reins of these important decisions. At that time, it was based on father, mother, caste, region, religion, and prestige. It wasn’t a university job or anything. If you were there, who would you choose? I mean, the Arvinds or the Alpha group?”
To that question, the female character answers “Alpha.” “That’s right,” he said triumphantly. I understand the argument that women in hunter-gatherer stages, or at least in early societies, must have relied on the men of other groups for some kind of security to protect them from rape and violence by men of other groups. I am. However, hunting is an activity that does not rely on toughness. Most animals are stronger than humans. Hunting depends on skill. Sharpness, speed and the ability to coordinate the group are important. No doubt more than one man (or woman) was involved in the act of hunting and gathering food. Fighting wild beasts in the jungle could not be tough for one or two people. It’s a myth. Collective thinking and effort are required to keep the group alive. It’s entirely possible that a “many Arvind” could do the job better than a terribly self-centered “Alpha.” A woman with even the slightest survival instinct would prefer to be around the “Alvins” rather than the “Alpha” who could ultimately endanger the group, but that’s because in some mysterious way he’s more likely than others. It just proves that you are better than us. .
In the film, the team chosen by the main character for himself is built on the same principles as the feudal concept of the Brotherhood of Man. They do their best to serve the protagonist and say lines like: And we brothers are true to our bond and write with water on water. ” Consumerist society, the product of capitalist ideology, relies heavily on individualism. In principle, consumerism and feudalism are mutually exclusive. To his credit, the director was able to create work from the feudal world for the consumption of an audience that shared his admiration for it. Nostalgia for feudal society is nostalgia for a social group with an unconditional sense of unity, a father figure at its peak. The film is about nostalgia for a time when men were men, defending each other, and not allowing women to come between men. They loved and killed, but they did it with “honor” as humans. Strangely enough, this golden world of “honorable” people did not exist. Women, children, men who are not fully men, women who are not fully women, people who are neither men nor women, they have always existed since the beginning of history. They were in the early stages of human evolution, similar to what we see today. The “alpha” male is a myth created by men with wealth and power to convince themselves that they deserve privileges that seem natural to them.
The film gives the impression that the main character’s family is financially well-off, but just observing that no one in the family goes to work gives the impression that they are more concerned with settling scores than looking after the company. It’s obvious that you’re busy. In his Notes on Italian History, Gramsci writes: Instead of classes, they become “castes” with certain cultural and psychological characteristics, but no longer have a primary economic function. ”prison notebook 115). This is a “caste” of men “with certain cultural and psychological characteristics” who have time for unproductive competition. By attributing the “dominant economic function” to this “caste,” the film straddles the feudal and neoliberal orders.
This movie reflects the mindset of feudal people. They function as a caste and by definition their sentiments are casteist. They see the world as superior and inferior, never equal. The movie Animal is an average Indian’s daydream. Belonging to a “caste” that guarantees superiority within one’s social group. The guiding passion of such castes is to decimate members who do not belong to their group or who do not share their values. Eliminating all opposition is ensuring our own safety as a group. The plot is simple. Destroy or be destroyed, kill or be killed. The pseudoscientific idea behind the argument that we must exclude others in order to survive is that it is a guiding principle of human evolution. If we simply consider the great difficulty early humans had in confronting and coping with the vagaries of nature, it is undoubtedly intelligence and infinite compassion that made evolution possible. Otherwise, the species would have disappeared long ago thanks to the Alpha people who didn’t think twice. The end of yourself. In other words, we owe the progress of humanity to those seemingly ordinary “Alvins” who, in the process of preserving themselves, paid attention to the existence of others.
On the bright side, the movie doesn’t feature couples running around trees and singing their vows of eternal love to each other. The movie-going public has had enough of that stuff, which is why vulgar scenes with sexual innuendo appealed to the anti-romantic tendencies of the largely male audience, who don’t want to empathize with their partners. It is. A rendition of the song “Jamal Kudu”. Apart from the more dramatic entrance of Gabbar Singh (played by Amjad Khan), Abrar Haq (played by Bobby Deol) has the coolest screen appearance ever as a villain in a Hindi film.in Sholai (1975), it’s the first work I’ve seen in a while. One scene that I found heartbreaking was when the main character is held at gunpoint and demands that his wives (one of whom is pregnant) and his mother reveal the whereabouts of the villain. It seems to me that a person who expects a wife or mother to reveal the whereabouts of her husband or son, even in a fictitious representation, knowing full well that the intention is to kill her, is indescribable to me. It seemed indescribably cruel.
Despite the mundane setting, the scenes depicting the couple are quite realistic, especially the part where the main character confesses to his wife that he had an affair with another woman. At that time, her wife has an emotional breakdown and blames her husband for her persistent obsession with her father, who she wanted dead. In a way, she has a point. As long as the “patriarch” of the family is alive, the patriarchal system means that honest conversations between husband and wife are impossible. Emotionally emasculated, the son finds himself in the conundrum of having to prove to himself that his sexual prowess is superior to that of his father and that he is far more qualified to be the head of the family. . Because of this, the protagonist as her husband has to rely on other men to keep his fragile ego intact. That means she can never tell him the truth about herself that her wife needs him to know. The biggest thing that keeps women out of the equation is that most men don’t want to face the truth about themselves, that deep down they are vulnerable, need help, and will destroy them. This is because they believe that there is no need for external enemies. The amazing irony is that people are always our biggest enemies. To know this, you have to have an honest relationship. Because it’s the only place you can know the truth about yourself.
References:
Quintin Hoare and Jeffrey Nowell Smith. Edited. Excerpt from Antonio Gramsci’s prison notebooks. International Publishers, 1992.
